Enhancing Building Rating Systems Based on Carbon Footprinting

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Enhancing Building Rating Systems Based on Carbon Footprinting
Physical Description:
1 online resource (389 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Russell,Mark D
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Design, Construction, and Planning Doctorate, Design, Construction and Planning
Committee Chair:
Kibert, Charles J
Committee Members:
Ries, Robert J.
Obonyo, Esther
Jones, Pierce H

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
building -- carbon -- evaluation -- lca -- sustainability
Design, Construction and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Design, Construction, and Planning Doctorate thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
As sustainability becomes more of a focus for the built environment, various rating systems have been developed in order to attempt at quantifying which buildings would be considered more sustainable than others. Despite the popularity and government endorsement of the LEED rating system, it has received wide spread criticism for giving certification to facilities that may not prove to be beneficial to the environment. One of the current indicators of sustainability can be measured through the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the materials and their cumulative carbon footprint. By comparing the LCA?s of similar buildings that were designed and constructed with and without the LEED rating system in mind, a great deal of information can be acquired regarding the effectiveness of using the rating system. Additional comparisons can be made to other world wide rating systems in order to develop more comprehensive methods for evaluating the sustainability of facilities.
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 Mark D Russell.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local:
Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID:
UFE0043311:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ENHANCING BUILDING R ATING SYSTEMS BASED ON CARBON FOOTPRINTI NG By MARK DANIEL RUSSELL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Mark Daniel Russell

PAGE 3

3 To my Mom for inspiring me to undertake this challenge

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document would not be possible without the support of my committee, friends, and f amily. Their contributions have provided me with the guidance and assistance in order to focus on the research and writing From the academic community I would like to credit Dr. Charles Kibert and Dr. Robert Ries for being patient with my inquiries and delays in performing research. Dr. Jones and Dr. Obonyo were an incredible source of information and assistance. Dr. James Sullivan and Dr. Nye Grant deserve special mention for sharing their wisdom and guidance on the path to completion. Additionally, I would like to call out Rick Forbair for listening to my concerns and just being available for motivation and to serve as a sounding board. My mother deserves significant accolades for having the fortitude to inspire me with her positive attitude despite t he challenges of being the primary care giver for my father. Hearing her tell me that to finish the dissertation was the most important thing right now, truly showed me her ability to put other s before hersel f and demonstrated her altruistic nature. Her optimism was one of the primary driving factors for completing this project. My father also gets special mention for his ability to cheer me up just by seeing him in a good mood. He has always been an inspiration to me by his faith in my abilities. Las tly and yet most important, I would like to thank my wife, Sylvia. Her telling me the significance of my research always gave me a sense of encouragement. Most important, she afforded me the time and space to dedicate to the writing of this dissertation. Her loving patience and helpfulness gave me the added influence to see the project through to completion.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 15 Hypothesis ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 16 Objective and Contribution ................................ ................................ ...................... 16 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 17 2 LITERATURE RE VIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 The Natural Step ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 20 Building Assessments ................................ ................................ ............................. 22 Building Res earch Establishment Environmental Assessment Method ............ 23 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ................................ ............. 24 Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency .... 25 Green Globes ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 27 Green Star ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 28 Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen ................................ ............... 29 Life Cycle Assessment ................................ ................................ ............................ 30 History ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 32 Carbon Footprinting ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 Life Cycle Impact Assessment ................................ ................................ ......... 38 Tool for Reduction and Assessment of C hemical Impacts ............................... 39 Life Cycle Assessment for Buildings ................................ ................................ 40 Model Complexity ................................ ................................ ............................. 42 Building Life Cycle Stages ................................ ................................ ...................... 46 Construction Phase ................................ ................................ .......................... 48 Operation Phase ................................ ................................ .............................. 51 Demolition Phase ................................ ................................ ............................. 56 Building Rating Systems and Life Cycle Assessment ................................ ............. 58 Individual Product Evaluation ................................ ................................ ........... 59 Comparison of Several Tools ................................ ................................ ........... 60

PAGE 6

6 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 63 Rating System Com parison ................................ ................................ .................... 63 Building Rating Systems Application ................................ ................................ 63 Carbon Emissions Comparison ................................ ................................ ........ 65 Life Cycle Assessment Tool Development ................................ .............................. 65 Software Selection ................................ ................................ ........................... 65 Model Development ................................ ................................ ......................... 66 Building Life Cycle Phases ................................ ................................ ............... 68 Construction Phase ................................ ................................ .......................... 69 Operation Phase ................................ ................................ .............................. 73 Deconstruction Phase ................................ ................................ ...................... 76 Model Capabilities ................................ ................................ ............................ 78 Method for Using the Life Cycle Asses sment for Building Rating Systems Model to Reduce Carbon ................................ ................................ ............................... 78 Perform Life Cycle Assessment ................................ ................................ ....... 79 Evaluate Phases ................................ ................................ .............................. 80 Primary Factors ................................ ................................ ................................ 80 Adjust Parameters ................................ ................................ ............................ 81 Recalculation and Analysis ................................ ................................ ............... 81 Repeat ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 81 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 87 Facility Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 87 Boundary Conditions ................................ ................................ ........................ 88 Material Take offs ................................ ................................ ............................. 89 Utilities ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 91 Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 92 Recycling ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 92 Landscape ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 93 Rating Systems Comparison of Facilities ................................ ................................ 94 Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method ............ 94 Leadershi p in Energy and Environmental Design ................................ ............. 95 Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency .... 95 Green Star ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 96 Green Globes ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 97 Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen ................................ ............... 97 L ife Cycle Assessment Tool Application ................................ ................................ 98 Building Life Cycle Phases ................................ ................................ ............... 98 Construction Phase ................................ ................................ .......................... 99 Operation Phase ................................ ................................ .............................. 99 Deconstruction Phase ................................ ................................ .................... 100 Life Cycle Assessment Tool Validation ................................ ................................ 100 Case Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 103 Pre construction Phase ................................ ................................ .................. 103 Post construction Phase ................................ ................................ ................. 106

PAGE 7

7 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, THE FUTURE ................................ ..................... 127 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 127 Carbon Emission s from Other Rating Systems ................................ .............. 127 Limitations of the L ife C ycle A ssessment for B uilding R ating S ystem Program ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 128 Differences betw een Planned Results and Constructed Results .................... 129 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 130 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 132 APPENDIX A MATERIAL TAKE OFF ................................ ................................ ......................... 136 B BUILDING RESEARCH ES TABLISMENT ENVIRONME NTAL ASSESSMENT METHOD SCORECARD ................................ ................................ ...................... 142 C LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DE SIGN V2.0 SCORECARD ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 157 D COMPREHENSIVE ASSESS MENT SYSTEM FOR BUIL DING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICI ENCY SCORECARD ................................ ................. 161 E GREEN STAR RATING SYSTEM SCORECARD ................................ ................ 277 F GREEN GLOBES RATING SYSTEM SCORECARD ................................ ........... 357 G DEUTSCHE GESE LLSCHAFT FUR NACHHAL TIGES BAUEN RATING SYSTEM SCORECARD ................................ ................................ ....................... 370 H LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMEN T FOR BUILDING RATIN G SYSTEM MODEL ELEMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 373 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 381 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 389

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemical Impacts (TRACI) Life Cycle Assessment data ................................ ................................ ................................ 39 3 1 Building rating system certification levels ................................ ........................... 64 3 2 Life cycle stages considered in carbon calculation ................................ ............. 65 3 3 General reference values for building life lycle ................................ ................... 69 3 4 Weight factors used for building construction ................................ ..................... 71 3 5 Reference values used for building operation ................................ .................... 76 4 1 Building specifics ................................ ................................ ................................ 88 4 2 Building material summary ................................ ................................ ................. 90 4 3 General reference values for building life cycle ................................ .................. 98 4 4 Values input specifically for the buildings being analyzed. ................................ 99 4 5 Specific values used for building operation analysis ................................ ........... 99 4 6 Specific values used for building deconstruction analysis ................................ 100 4 7 Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemical Impacts (TRACI) global warming from Life Cycle Assess ment for Building Rating System (LCABRS) analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 107

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Categories based on percentage of total points per rating sys tem ..................... 82 3 2 Building life cycle carbon emissions process ................................ ...................... 83 3 3 Building life cycle flow for Life Cycle Assessment for Building R ating System (LCABRS) model ................................ ................................ ................................ 83 3 4 Construction flow from LCABRS model ................................ .............................. 84 3 5 Concrete flow ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 84 3 6 Operation flow from LCABRS model ................................ ................................ .. 85 3 7 Utilities process ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 85 3 8 Transportation process ................................ ................................ ....................... 86 3 9 Deconstruction flow from LCABRS model ................................ .......................... 86 4 1 2008 electricity use in MWh/month ................................ ................................ ... 110 4 2 2008 steam use in klbs/month ................................ ................................ .......... 111 4 3 2008 chilled water use in kton hrs/month ................................ ......................... 111 4 4 2010 potable wate r use in kgal/month ................................ .............................. 112 4 5 2008 energy use in MWh/month ................................ ................................ ....... 112 4 6 Comparison of rating systems levels and how they evaluated the research buildings ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 113 4 7 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) average electricity usage in educational facilities ................................ ........................... 113 4 8 Comparison of energy levels in kWh per sm/yr ................................ ................ 114 4 9 Building rating tools carbon analysis of construction phase kg CO 2 equiv. per m 2 /yr ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 114 4 10 Building rating tools carbon analysis of operation phase kg CO 2 equiv. per m 2 /yr ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 115 4 11 Comparison of calculated life cycle phases carbon in kg CO 2 equiv./m 2 /y r ...... 116

PAGE 10

10 4 12 Variation in material quantities between Gerson and Rinker in which positive indicates Rinker is larger and negative is Gerson is larger ............................... 116 4 13 Percentage of total carbon emissions in construction phase by Construction Specification Institute (CSI) divisions ................................ ................................ 117 4 14 Percentage of total carbon emissions in construction phase from recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ........ 117 4 15 Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemical Impacts (TRACI), global warming air [kg CO 2 Equiv./m2/yr] from G erson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ 118 4 16 TRACI, human health cancer air [kg Benzene Equiv./m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker w ith recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 18 4 17 TRACI, human health cancer ground surface soil [kg Benzene Equiv.] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change o f 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ........................ 119 4 18 TRACI, human health cancer water [kg Benzene Equiv./m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 119 4 19 TRACI, human health criteria air point source [kg PM2,5 Equiv/m2/yr.] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ........................ 120 4 20 TRACI, human health non cancer air [kg Toluene Equiv./m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 120 4 21 TRACI, human health non cancer ground surface soil [kg Toluene Equiv./m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ............................... 121 4 22 TRACI, human health non cancer water [kg Toluene Equiv/m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ........................ 121 4 23 TRACI, ozone depletion ai r [kg CFC 11 Equiv.] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete .............. 122 4 24 TRACI, smog air [kg NOx Equiv.] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ 122

PAGE 11

11 4 25 TRACI, acidification air [mol H+ Equiv./m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete .............. 123 4 26 TRACI, ecotoxcity Air [kg 2,4 Dichlorophenoxyace/m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 123 4 27 TRACI, ecotoxcity ground surface soil [kg Benzene Equiv.] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 124 4 28 TRACI, ecotoxcity water [kg 2,4 Dichlorophenoxyace/m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 124 4 29 TRACI, eutrophicat ion [kg N Equiv.] from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ 125 4 30 Comparison of measured life cycle phases carbon in CO 2 equiv./m2/yr from Gerson, Rinker actual, and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete ................................ ................................ ........................ 125 4 31 Rinker actual operation phase distribution by percentage ................................ 126 5 1 Rating systems calculated carbon footprint for Rinker in kg CO 2 equiv./m 2 /yr .. 134 5 2 Rating systems reported carbon factor for energy ................................ ............ 135 5 3 Percentage of rating systems points earned ................................ .................... 135

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ANSI American National Standards Institute ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air condit ioning Engineers BEE Building Environmental Efficiency BRE Building Research Establishment BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method CASBEE Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environment Efficiency CBECS Commercial Bu ilding Energy Consumption Survey CMU Construction Masonry Unit CSI Construction Specification Institute DGNB Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen DOE U.S. Department of Energy DQI Data Quality Indicators EDIP Environmental Development of Industrial Products EIA Energy Information Administration EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FER Fossil Energy Ratio FFCA Full Fuel Cycle Assessments FTE Full Time Employees GBCA Green Building Council of Australia GBI Green Building Initiative GWP Global Warm ing Potential IBEC Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservations

PAGE 13

13 IPCC International Panel on climate Change ISO International Organization for Standardization JaGBC Japan Green Build Council JSBC Japan Sustainable Building Consortium LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCABRS Life Cycle Assessment for Building Rating Systems model LCC Life Cycle Costing LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment LCID Life Cycle Inventory Database LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design MLIT Ministry of Land, Infrastru cture, Transport, and Tourism NAHB National Association of Home Builders NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology OSB Oriented Strand Board PPD Physical Property Division REC Renewable Energy Credits REPA Resource and Environmental Profile Analy sis SETAC Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry STARS Sustainable Tracking Assessment and Rating System TNS The Natural Step TOPP Tropospheric Ozone Precursor Potential TRACI Tools for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environ mental Impacts UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme USGBC U.S. Green Building Council World GBC World Green Building Council

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillme nt of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ENHANCING BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS BASED ON CARBON FOOTPRINTING By Mark Daniel Russell August 2011 Chair: Charles Kibert Major: Design, Construction, and Planning As sustainability becomes m ore of a focus for the built environment, various rating systems have been developed in order to attempt at quantifying which buildings would be considered more sustainable than others. Despite the popularity and gove rnment endorsement of the LEED rating system, it has received wide spread criticism for giving certification to facilities that may not prove to be beneficial to the environment. One of the current indicators of sustainability can be measured through the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the mat erials and their cumulative carbon footprint. By comparing LEED rating system in mind, a great deal of information can be acquired regarding the effectiveness of using the rating system. Additional comparisons can be made to other world wide rating systems in order to develop more comprehensive methods for evaluating the sustainability of facilities.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 I NTRODUCTION (Gifford 2009) points out many of the problems associated with the current LEED system. One of his chief arguments is that actual energy usage of LEED rated buildings in some cases actually use more energy than their non LEED counterparts. His recommendation is that buildings should not claim to be sustainable until they have actually demonstrated some form of energy savings instead of simply using predictive models Essentially, this empha sizes the importance of establishing a criterion for rating buildings that is based on empirical results and recognizes that the single largest contributor to buildings environmental impact is due to energy usage But taking this one step further, not all energy sources are the same. For example, as Gagnon et.al Life cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The (Gagnon, Blanger & Uchiyama 2002) fos sil fuel sources are shown to have poor pay back periods and significant contributions to global warming potential. By using Gagnon et al one of the optimum measures of performance is carbon emissions. However when considering carbon emissions, it is important to also look at the life cycle of the building since impacts can be realized through manufacturing, construction and demolition processes in addition to the routine operations. Thereby, it would be bet ter to consider the building with the least overall carbon emissions to be considered more sustainable Statement of the Problem Despite the popularity and U.S. government endorsement of the LEED rating system, it has received wide spread criticism for g iving certification to facilities that may

PAGE 16

16 not prove to be beneficial to the environment. One of the currently used indicators of sustainability, carbon footprinting, can be measured through the life cycle assessment (LCA) of a building By performing a comparative analysis based on carbon footprinting of a LEED certified building versus a non LEED building, information can be gained regarding the effectiveness of the LEED rating system in categorizing facilities as compared to another approach. Addition ally, from analyzing the same buildings through other intern ational rating systems, the gaps in analysis techniques can be discovered, and an effective methodology can be developed to resolve th e discrepancies and improve future building rating systems. A s a detailed LCA can provide much more information beyo nd the carbon footprint it is worthwhile to also examine the other parameters of the data to determine if there are factors that may be more environmentally sensitive or have a greater impact that hav e not been researched. Hypothesis According to a recent study on carbon footprint calculation methods conducted by Pandey et.al in 2010 (Pandey, Agrawal & Pandey 2010) the curre nt methods for calculating the carbon f oot print of a facility can require extensive amounts of data and be very time consuming. In order to simplify the process so that it can be used by laypersons, shortcuts are often incorporated th at result in an erroneous carbon footprint. It is hypothes ized that a method can be developed in which a correlation can be established between building rating systems and carbon footprinting to determine sustainability of a facility based on the full building life cycle Objective and Contribution This researc h intends to streamline the process by developing an efficient methodology to facilitate the carbon calculations and includes relevant impacts for the

PAGE 17

17 life cycle of the building. Advantages of a more comprehensive application of a metric to the life cycle of a building include the ability to analyze each aspect of the design and operation phase to quickly locate areas with the greatest impact and thereby facilitate the process of finding improvements. From examining a variety of rating systems, a better understanding can be developed of what they are measuring and how the systems compare with each other. Similarly, gaps in rating systems can be identified that should focus future research into developing remedies. Overall, by improving the rating system s, it can make them more verifiable and reduce some of the differences between actual and predicted results. Additionally, by integrating a more rigorous methodology into building rating systems, it is intended that future generations of facilities will b e actually more sustainable. Limitations It is the goal of this research to develop a methodology and model that can be used in a specific situation. The model will have the ability to be expanded and altered to comply with a full range of requirements; b ut that will be incumbent upon future research. This project is intended to develop the framework with the understanding that it is not an all inclusive system. Due to limitations in data availability relative to the life cycle of various processes, the model has been fit as best as possible with the current technology. As new data is developed, it can be augmented into the program and further enhance the results.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Continuing research attest s to the damage that is being done to the planet by surfa ce temperatures have risen 0.74 o C when estimated by a linear trend over the last and scale atmospheric circulation are (Trenberth et al. 2007) Campbell & Laherr re (Campbell, Laherrere 1998) re And (Vitousek et al. 19 97) has shown that human alterations are responsible for increasing nitrogen input into the terrestrial nitrogen cycle, increased concentrations of potent greenhouse gases, caused loss of soil nutrients, contributed to the acidification of soils, streams, and lakes, increased the quantity of organic carbon stored within ecosystems, and contributed to long term decline in coastal marine Amidst all the cries of global warming, oil crisis, loss of potable water, and ecological destruction; a commo n reply is that we need to live more sustaina bly. The challenge is further aggravated in that we have a difficult time even being able to define what we mean by sustainable. The common agreement is that sustainability needs to Economy. Most professionals recognize that all three are significant factors in the sustained quality of life. However, there is much debate on how these factors should be measured and weighted again st each other. Since they involve varying metrics, it is

PAGE 19

19 difficult to establish a consistent tool for measuring the impacts and ensuring an equitable balance. (Kibert 1999) Although sustainable actions should b e a factor in the process of daily life, in order to demonstrate the ability to make significant changes this evaluation will focus on one of the largest industrial sectors. It has been reported by the US Department of Energy (Kelso 2011) that the built environment uses 40% of the U.S. energy and that the U.S. is nergy consumer. Thus implying that the US construction industry is one of the largest sectors for worldwide energy consumption In othe r nati ons the trend is similar with regards to energy and resource consumption due to building construction, operation, and demolition. sustainable and attempt to market their produ cts or services by adding a quick label that tends to lack any true significance. Terra Choice Marketing Inc. (TerraChoice Environmental Marketing 2007) performed a survey of leading big box stores in 2006 to products, there were 1,753 claims of the environmental benefits. Of those products, all risk misleading As would be expected, this further dilutes the issue and does little to truly help the global issues. This also raises the question on who should be considered the competent authority for establishing what is conside red sustainable. Zimmerman & Kibert (Zimmerman, Kibert 2007) point out the importance of aligning rating systems to established sustainability principles. Based on their research on the topic, it has been proposed that perhaps the best definition that can be applied to

PAGE 20

20 is possible to continue with sustainable growth while still monitoring the impacts on the environment, soc iety, and the economy. Having been sanctioned by several governments in addition to numerous environmental regulatory authorities, this definition may provide the best starting point for understanding sustainability. The Natural Step The idea for The Natu ral Step (TNS) originated from a Swedish doctor and cancer scientist, Dr. Karl Henrik Rob rt. patients, he noticed how the disease had a far reaching impact beyond just the individual suffering from the condition. Entire communities would pull together to provide care and resources to help the individual along with the families work through the challenges of the disease. It struck Dr. Rob rt that this was in direct contrast to how society was dealing w ith the discussions concerning global warming or other perceptions on the well being of the planet. (Price Thomas 2011) Dr. Rob rt formulated his idea while examinin microscope. His theory was to consider what would happen if we were to apply the basic understanding of cells to the Earth. In essence, this would imply treating human beings and our environment as single cell organisms with respect to how they dwell in their surroundings. From this standpoint, we could also depart from a political nature and just focus on what are the cause and symptoms of the problem and then as a knowledgeable community we could work togethe r to find solutions to safeguard the precious entity of life.

PAGE 21

21 Essentially, the Natural Step relies on a principle that the earth is sustainable systems that can self regulate its environment as long as there is no external interference. A network of inter national scientists has concluded that, for several that are outside of the normal remedial methods. There are essentially three ways that the earth is being impacted directly by human activity. When the social impacts of man are included with the discussion, the framework provides four areas in which we must regulate our activities in order to maintain sustainability. The following table summarizes those actions: Tab le 2 1 The Natural Step System Conditions The Four System Conditions Reworded as The Four Principles of Sustainability In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically i ncreasing: Concentrations o f substances Eliminate our contribution to the progressive buildup of substances extracted from the fossil fuels) Concentrations of substances produced by society Eliminate our contribution to the progressive buildup of chemicals and compounds produced by society (for example, dioxins, PCBs and DDT) Degradation by physical means Eliminate our contribution to the progressive physical degradation and destruction of nature and na tural processes (for example, over harvesting forests and paving over critical wildlife habitat); and A nd in that society, people are not subject to conditions that systemically undermine their capacity to meet their needs Eliminate our contribution to conditions that human needs (for example, unsafe working conditions and not enough pay to live on). To properly apply The Natural Step, it is critical to understand the principle of t enough to simply look at our current activities; we must also consider all future actions that would result due to our actions. This can be a difficult

PAGE 22

22 process to estimate accurately since there can be so many unknown factors affecting the future. For the most part, previous scenarios can be examined for their history and the lessons learned can be applied to potential new situations. This type of analysis is the basic structure of performing a life cycle analysis on an event. Thus through backcasting we are able to obtain a vision of what the impacts will be on the Earth and society enabling us to evaluate if there is any impact on the four Natural Step principles affecting sustainability. As will be discussed later, one of the better methods for con ducting backcasting is by performing life cycle analysis. Despite arguments by various individuals such as Zimmerman &Kibert on the value of including tools such as The Natural Step in the assessment of buildings, there remain a wide variety of rating syst ems and the aspects they use to determine sustainability are very diverse. It is worthwhile to look at some of the building analysis techniques to determine how they evaluate sustainability and attempt to draw a consensus on a more universal parameter suc h as carbon dioxide. Building Assessments As sustainability has become a more demanded aspect for building construction, various rating systems have been developed in order to quantify how sustainable one building is compared to either a baseline or anothe r building. Recognizing the value of being able to set parameters for construction and likewise encourage more forward thinking regarding energy and material conservation has prompted numerous nations and environmental organizations to develop their own r ating systems. Since many of the rating systems are merely country specific adoptions of other successful rating tools, the remaining section will focus more on original techniques that involve parameters

PAGE 23

23 related to measuring the carbon emissions or exami ne aspects of the building life cycle assessment. B uilding R esearch E stablishment E nvironmental A ssessment M ethod The Building Research Establishment (BRE) (BRE Trust 2011) traces its roots back to 1917 with the founda tion of the Building Research Station under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The initial charter of this British organization was to investigate sustainable housing techniques to be used following the First World War. Since that time, BRE has focused on many aspects of building material research to include fire protection, safety, and environmentally consciousness. In 1990, they launched the building rating system BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (BRE Global Ltd. 2008) to measure the sustainable performance of facilities. The BREEAM certification is based on the results from a licensed third party company in which the accessor has received specialized training in BREEAM rating s ystems. The categories reviewed for certification include aspects related to energy and water use, the internal environment (health and well being), pollution, transport, materials, waste, ecology, and management processes. The final assessment of the bu ilding is awarded a percentage ranking based upon the performance relative to a benchmark established for similar facilities. BRE claims that BREEAM is flexible enough to be used anywhere in the world for a full range of new and existing buildings. The s chemes available for allocating buildings are very broad and include: new construction, refurbishment, and communities. Under the new construction scheme they include numerous specific buildings such as: courts, data centers, education, healthcare, indust rial, offices, prisons, retail, and other. To measure the carbon emissions of the building BREEAM

PAGE 24

24 uses a formula designed by the BRE Carbon Trust Initiative. The results of the carbon emissions are applied directly to the BREEAM rating system to become p art of the overall rating. L eadership in E nergy and E nvironmental D esign In the United States, the first group to develop a building rating system was the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC 2011) The USGBC was founded i n 1993 as a non profit coalition committed to expanding sustainable building practices. In November 1999, a national conference met in California to review global activities and share information. This led to the development of the World Green Building C ouncil by 2002, with a goal of formalizing international communications, help industry leaders access emerging markets, and provide an international voice for green building initiatives. The USGBC is a member of the World GBC in addition to 20 other natio ns. Overall, including prospective members and emerging GBCs, the World GBC impacts over 80 countries (WGBC 2010) In 1998, the USGBC released a pilot version of their building rating tool: Leadership in Energy and Env ironmental Design (LEED). By March of 2000, the first public version of LEED was available. The rating system is designed to be regularly updated and the latest revision was performed in 2009. The entire program is web based in which all data and docume ntation is uploaded and partially reviewed by members of the Green Building Certification Institute. The LEED rating system (USGBC 2009) acts a quasi standard in that it uses the standards of many different other organizat ions; but does not have any standards in itself other than the rating tool. To evaluate the buildings, the LEED program uses a scorecard to identify how many points apply to a particular project. Based on the

PAGE 25

25 number of earned points in addition to meetin g the requirements of several pre requisites, the project may be able to qualify for a building certification of either: Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum. Although starting as a program primarily for New Construction, the LEED program has developed se parate scoring systems for: Residential, Schools, Core and Shell, Commercial Interiors, Retail, Healthcare, Neighborhood Development, and Existing Buildings The primary LEED scorecard for New Construction is divided into 6 various categories: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation in Design. Within each of these categories a variety of requirements establish the minimal level of accomplishment in order for the build ing to earn points in either the design or construction phase. There is currently no program for third party verification of the actual building. Although a pilot program has been started to look at LCA of the materials selected in the design phase, ther e is no credit provided based on carbon emissions calculations. C omprehensive A ssessment S ystem for B uilding E nvironmental E fficiency In Japan, a joint industrial/government/academic project was initiated in April 2001 with the support of the Housing Bu reau and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT). This group led to the establishment of a new combined organization under the administrative control of the Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC): the Japan Green Build Council (JaGBC) / Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC). The JaGBC/ JSBC were tasked with developing the necessary subcommittees to establish a building rating system for

PAGE 26

26 Japan, the Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Env ironmental Efficiency (CASBEE) (JSBC 2006) One of the major differences with CASBEE (Institute for Building environment and energ y conservation 2008) is the method in which it evaluates the building according to the life cycle. Essentially, it looks at two different aspects of the facility: the environmental load and the building performance. The environmental load can be conside red as the negative impact that the building will have on the surrounding environment. The building performance would be identified as the improvement of the environmental quality within the building perimeter. By taking a ratio of these two values, it p rovides the user with a Building Environmental Efficiency (BEE). The resulting quantity is plotted to determine how the facility compares with similar buildings to determine the final ranking. The CASBEE report has a specific section that reflects the a nticipated CO 2 equivalent emissions for the building from construction, operation, and demolition. The embodied CO 2 emissions due to the manufacturing of the materials are included with the construction phase of the calculations. However, as a simplified model, the carbon due to construction is primarily only concerned with predominant items such as concrete and steel. CASBEE tools are available for a wide variety of facilities such as: Pre Design, New Construction, Urban Development, Urban Area and Buil dings, Existing Buildings, Heat Island, Renovation, Temporary Construction, and Homes. Although the programs are designed for individual use, when reliable detailed results are required, a third party

PAGE 27

27 certification is necessary to be completed by an accred ited CASBEE accessor that has specialized engineering experience with sustainable buildings. Green Globes The Green Building Initiative (GBI) (GBI 2011) was founded as a not for profit organization with an aim to bring into the mainstream building practices that result in energy efficient, healthier, and environmentally sustainable facilities. They initially worked with local Home Builders Associations to promote programs based on the National Home Building Guidelines. In 2 004, the GBI recognized the value of utilizing a Canadian based learning tool, Green Globes, and adopted the program as a rating system in the U.S. Green Globes (GBI 2010) has been working with the American National Standard s Institute (ANSI) to develop a nationally recognized standard specifically that addresses the unique characteristics that make a building sustainable. Currently, the Green Globes program is only geared to New Construction and Existing Buildings; but dist inguishes between Residential and Commercial type of facilities. As part of the evaluation process, Green Globes looks at: Project Management, Site, Energy, Water, Resources, Emissions, and Indoor Environment. By using a third party verification program, the design is reviewed and then an onsite inspection is conducted after the building has been constructed. Final certification is based on a percentage of the 1000 points that would be available. One of the potential areas for points in the Green Globe s evaluation is for choosing materials based on the results of a life cycle assessment. Although most valid LCA programs would be accepted, Green Globes recommends using the Athena EcoCalculator (Athena Institute 2011) to evaluate the construction of the facilities. This

PAGE 28

28 is a program that was developed by the Athena Institute and takes advantage of the US Life Cycle Inventory Database developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The EcoCalculator has i ndividual sections to predict the environmental d footings, columns and beams, i ntermediate floors, exterior walls, interior walls, windows, and roofs. The program also considers a wide range of LCA parameters beyond global warming potential and carbon foot prints such as: fossil fuel consumption, weighted resource use, acidification potential, human health respiratory effects potential, eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential, and smog potential. Green Sta r The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) was established in 2002 as a not for profit organization with a mission to developing a sustainable property industry for Australia by supporting green building practices (GBC A 2011) They developed the Green Star rating system in 2003 to respond to the local needs with a rating system that is designed to help reduce the impact of the built environment, improve occupant health and productivity, demonstrate cost savings, and s howcase some of the innovative technology for sustainability. The Green Star rating system (GBCA 2009) is currently available to access the following types of facilities: Education, Industrial, Multi Unit Residential, Offic es, Retail, and Healthcare. There are also pilot programs being developed for accessing Convention Centers, Custom buildings, and Public Buildings. The categories accessed by the rating systems include: Management, Indoor Environmental Quality, Energy, T ransport, Water, Materials, Land Use & Ecology, Emissions, and Innovation. One of the factors that makes Green Star unique from the other rating systems is the way in

PAGE 29

29 which they apply a weighting system to the categories. Working with the individual Aust ralian regions, the GBCA has established which criteria are most important for a geographic area and thus applied a correction factor to the category scores based on their critical environmental issues. The final score used to determine the building ratin g is calculated by adding together the weighted category scores plus any innovation points (which are not weighted). The maximum possible score for the weighted categories is 100 with an additional 5 points available for innovation Although the Green Sta r rating system is voluntary, the GBCA requires that buildings that anticipate earning a rating of 4 or more Green Stars must obtain third party verification. The Green Star rating system has developed their own tools for calculating the carbon emission s from the building. Although there are factors included in the building rating system for transportation and building materials, these are not included in the carbon calculations. The carbon calculation tool is based strictly on the planned energy use f or the building and compares the equivalent CO 2 emissions to a reference building of similar properties within the same region. D eutsche G esellschaft fur N achhaltiges B auen As the newest of the building rating systems, the German Sustainable Building Cou nc il (DGNB 2011) was founded in the summer of 2007. The intent of this group is to examine the holistic effects of the ecological, economical, and socio cultural aspe cts through the life cycle of a building. Recognizing the unique emphasis of their group, they developed a new rating system in 2009 that focuses on the environmental impact of the construction materials, the operation, and the health of the occupants. S ince the DGNB initially planned to have their rating tool as an international instrument for measuring

PAGE 30

30 sustainability, they included members of the World GBC, the Sustainable Building Alliance, EU research teams from Open House and Green Conserve, as well as an international board of partner firms. The DGNB certificate is awarded based upon documented achievement of points as verified by a third person auditor, architect, or planner. Similar to the other building rating systems, the DGNB certificate looks at: new/existing offices and administrative buildings, new retail buildings, new industrial buildings, new educational facilities, new residential buildings, and new hotels. A building can be certified to a level of bronze, silver, or gold based on the to tal performance and acquiring a certain minimum percentage of points in various fields. The rating system has specific categories for ecological quality, economic quality, site quality, process quality, technical quality, and socio cultural and functional quality. Each of these fields are examined for the entire life cycle of the building. Additionally, each field has individual elements that can be weighted according to the individual region and requirements. A major portion of the rating system is bas ed on the results of the life cycle analysis. The DGNB uses a program developed by GaBi to perform the carbon and environmental emissions calculations based on a partial life cycle assessment Life Cycle Assessment As a method for evaluating the primary el ements of a process, there have arisen numerous definitions with regard to what should be included in a life cycle assessment. The International Stands Organization ISO 14040 (Inter national Organization for Standardization 2006a) defines a life cycle assessment as: a technique for compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a product system; evaluating the potential environmental impact associated

PAGE 31

31 with those inputs and output; and interpreting the results of the inventory and impact phases in relation to the objective of the study The United States has a slightly different perspective, the EPA considers a life to industrial system (Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 2006) This process begins with the extraction of raw materials from the earth and continues u ntil all the materials are returned to the earth. As we will later see, the extent of the definition will make a difference in how much information is processed. For example, using the EPA definition, all materials would be considered, whereas the ISO de finition would only involve relevant elements. In performing an LCA, all processes that have any impact on the product are considered, such as transportation, energy, repairs, and replacement parts. This method provides a full comprehensive look at everyt hing that is impacted from the time the product is being created, through its usage, and finally what happens for disposal. What makes life cycle assessments more unique than a traditional energy or material balance is that it encompasses all the environme ntal impacts and releases or consumption of bi products. With this vast amount of information concerning the full impact of a process, decision makers can more accurately evaluate the consequences and select less adverse options. Cole and Sterner in their research on Life Cycle Costing (Cole, Sterner 2000) start by looking at the significance of performing a life cycle analysis. The following is their statement concerning the applicability of this method: Environmental responsibility requires taking a long term view, understanding that the initial design decisions have profound impacts over Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies have emerged as a means to profile the environmental performance of mat erials,

PAGE 32

32 components and buildings through time and have been generally accepted within the environmental research community as the only legitimate basis to compare competing alternatives. They have successfully entrenched the notion of an extended time cont ext for examining the environmental characteristics of buildings beyond the short horizons that dominate current design and construction. History Life cycle assessments were initially used as a tool to optimize energy consumption. Perhaps the first docume nted cumulative energy requirement report was provided by Harold Smith at the World Energy Conference. In the EPA document on (Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 2006) they explain how the early assessments were called Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis (REPA) performed in the late 1960 and early 1970s to look at what materials were used and h ow much energy was needed in manufacturing processes. The Coca Cola Corporation and Mobil Corporation were some of the forerunners of this program. In 1969, Coca Cola may have been the first company to perform a traditional LCA when they conducted a mult i criteria study that looked at the raw material extraction, manufacturing, and even disposal processes for further focused on the energy consumption for the prod uction of fuels and labeled as Full Fuel Cycle Assessments (FFCA). In many cases this technique was successful in demonstrating that some of the bio fuel technology of the time was actually using more energy than what would be produced. as the oil crisis lessened the need to perform detailed energy analysis began to fade. However, in 1985 an Environmental Directive was issued in the European Union to address the pollutants used in the food industry. In particular, they

PAGE 33

33 were required to report on the energy, raw materials, and waste generation due to liquid food containers. Later, in 1988, as the environmental movement was starting to take hold, the need to understand the waste generation streams caused a resurgence of the LCA process (Kotaji et al. 2003) At the time, the developments of LCAs were being done without regulation and more popular and recognizing the n eed to provide some guidance on the approach and (Fava 1994) was published in 199 4 by the Society for Environme ntal T oxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). This document provided guidance for LCA practitioners that included inventory assessment, impact assessment, and improvement analysis. In order to perform an accurate LCA, the user needed to know some details on th e material and the applicable manufacturing process. By March of 1992, as a result of the UN summit in Rio, the first legislation on Eco labels was passed in the European Union to ensure that valid assessments had been performed and accurately portrayed t he environmental characteristics of the particular products. Cole (Cole 1999, Cole 1999) talks about some of the problems in Eco labels as: f result consumer confidence suffered. Many governments or third party organizations responded by assuming responsibility for eco label certification processes in order to ensure validity of labels From 1997 through 2002, the Internationa l Organization for Standardization (ISO) began releasing the ISO 14040 series of documents as part of the ISO 14000 Environmental Management Standards. The ISO 14040 series expands on the SETAC

PAGE 34

34 format and provides clarification for LCA methodologies, asse ssments, and interpretation. By 2002, the United Nations joined with SETAC to develop the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Life Cycle Initiative in order to promote an international pa rtnership in LCA initiatives. Currently SETAC maintains an advisory role with regards to LCA and the ISO standards have been accepted as the definitive guidance in the international arena. The ISO 14000 series is responsible for Environmental Management and specifically designates sections 14040 14044 to the g uidance on Life Cycle Assessment. ISO 14040 (International Organization for Standardization 2006a) provides the details on the principles and framework for a LCA. ISO 14041 (International Organization for Standardization 2006b) deals with goal and scope definition along with conducting an inventory analysis. ISO 14042 (International Organization for Standardization 1997) covers the details of a life cycle impact assessment. And ISO 14043 (International Organizat ion for Standardization 2000) provides information about life cycle interpretation. In the inventory stage, LCA will provide an inventory of emissions of substances and the consumption of resources due to the process being studied; it is useful to combine these chemicals into categories that can provide more information relative to the environmental impact. This type of grouping the resources is referred to as Life Cycle Impact Analysis (LCIA). By applying established LCIA techniques, it is possible to e stimate what impacts a process will have without having to perform individual detailed impact analysis for each process. Since different environmental regulatory

PAGE 35

35 bodies have established their own parameters for grouping impacts, there are a variety of met hods for LCIA. In order to maintain the validity of the research, a particular standard should be followed for the LCA. Currently the ISO 14040 series have been accepted as the standard. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency references the applic able ISO standards in their regulations regarding LCA development (EPA 2008) As of today, LCAs have become more standardized and rigid requirements exist for documenting the sources of data and information. The main crite ria are to select a particular framework for performing the LCA and then collecting data and analyzing the information in accordance with the specific protocol. One of the great variables in conducting LCAs is due to the amount of information that is avai lable relative to the impacts of a particular process. In some instances, a full range of constituents ranging from chemical to social consequences have been modeled. However, other situations may only have limited data available and be constrained to on ly one particular ecological impact category such as global warming potential (GWP). Carbon Footprinting William Rees has been accredited with first developing the idea for ecological footprinting. In an article he prepared with Wack ernagel (Rees, Wackernagel 1996) in 1996 they state: Since most forms of natural income (resource and service flows) are produced by terrestrial ecosystems and associated aquatic ones, it should be possible to estimate the area of land/wat er required to produce sustainably the quantity of any resource or ecological service used by a defined population or economy at a given level of technology. The sum of such calculations for all significant categories of consumption would provide a conser vative area based estimate of the natural capital requirements for that population or economy. We call t

PAGE 36

36 Although ecological footprint is typically associated with the wide spectrum of impacts resultin g from human activity, recently a newer concept has arisen in which carbon is isolated as the primary chemical for consideration and the term carbon fo otprint has been developed. In an article prepared by A.J. East, (Ea st 2008) he points out that the primary differences between ecological footprint and carbon footprint are that carbon footprint focuses on the processes related to the emission of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases. Additionally, although ecological footprin t could be considered a measure of the regenerative capacity of the environment measured in area of productive land; most of the definitions dealing with carbon footprint are quantified in a physical quantity relative to the equivalent amount of carbon dio xide. Several researchers have examined the wide dispersion between some of the definitions that exist with carbon footprinting and subsequently how to measure its quantities. Wiedemann and Minx, in their 2008 report (Wiedmann, Minx 2008) point out that over a dozen various definitions exist concerning carbon footprint. Some of the variations can be attributed to: do es it include other greenhouse gases, does it include carbon that is not a greenhouse gas such as C O, what are the boundaries for measuring the system, is it only direct emissions, or due to full life cycle process. As would be expected, these uncertainties can have a dramatic impact in the results of carbon calculation tools. Kenny and Gray (Kenny, Gray 2008) looked at 6 various carbon calculation tools and concluded that: The information provided by these widely used carbon footprint models are inconsistent and often contradictory. There are no standards availab le in relation to where the emission factors are sourced or for what fuels and activities each model should cover resulting in anomalies. To enable individuals to calculate their carbon dioxide emissions accurately information should come from a credible a nd regularly updated source, be

PAGE 37

37 transparent and country speci fi c. All transportation, energy and fuel types need to be available as options within models, and these vary signi fi cantly between countries. Internet models do not include data on other greenhou se gases such as CH4 and N2O that leads to a small, but potentially signi fi cant, underestimation of emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e). Currently available models provide estimates rather than accurate measures of CO 2 emissions. There is an urgent need for comprehensive and reliable models that can accurately determine individual and household primary carbon footprints. Pandey et.al (Pandey, Agrawal & Pandey 2010) echoed these sentiments in a simil ar paper concerning the discrepancies between carbon footprinting techniques in intended to be a tool to guide the relevant emission cuts and verifications, its standardiza One of the primary groups for developing guidance on carbon footprinting is the UK based Carbon Trust. The Carbon Trust organization is self described for profit company providing specialist support to help business and the public sector boost business returns by cutting carbon emissions, saving energy and commercialising low to inform businesses and policy maker s on how to address climate change and harness (The Carbon Trust Ltd. 2011) Despite the attempts to make the carbon footprinting methods consistent, there still remains a great deal of variations based on the needs of the particular activity performing the carbon research. As a result of this dispersion, different nations and regulatory bodies are developing their own standards relative to dimensions that should be includ ed to substantiate any claims about the level of accuracy of the LCA (Bare 2002) But ultimately the decision on the level or method of evaluation is responsibility of the organization conducting the research in accorda nce with their particular scope

PAGE 38

38 and goal. The primary consideration is that an appropriate tool is used and the methodology is in accordance with accepted practices. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Shah et al. (Shah, Debell a & Ries 2008) studied the differences between four of the most popular LCIA methods (CML2001, Eco Indicator 99, TRACI, and EDIP2003). Their research highlighted the fact that differences in the procedures and properties that were being analyzed by the v arious LCIA methods could result in significant variations in the outcomes. This idea was also seen in a research document by Dryer et.al, (Dreyer, Niemann & Hauschild 2003) in which three LCIA methods (CML2001, Eco Indicator 99, and EDIP97) were used to analyze a lacquer plant. Their research demonstrated that CML and EDIP had similar results; but Eco Indicator had dramatic differences based on its diverse fram ework and model inclusions. Both of these studies deter mined that each of these methods had some form of deficiency that could result in misleading results. In essence, LCAs must be continually evolving as research improves the understanding of the interactions of chemical properties in order to provide a resu lt that is more precise and valuable for decision making. Despite the standardization provided by the ISO 14040 series, there is still a great deal of latitude permitted in developing life cycle assessments. In particular, this becomes clear while reviewi ng the methods and results from a variety of research projects that attempt to document the life cycle impact of products and processes. Even though the projects may start by using the ISO standards as their initial criteria, the variability in the data c ollection and research objectives will often result in very diverse findings.

PAGE 39

39 T ool for R eduction and A ssessment of C hemical I mpacts The EPA, while conducting numerous LCA studies in 1995 (Bare 2002) determined that th ey needed to develop a better tool for evaluating the results of the assessments that specialized on pollution prevention and sustainability. They performed a literature review of the current technologies to determine the applicability, sophistication, an d comprehensiveness of the existing techniques. Since there were no systems available that met the criteria for the particular situations that apply in the U.S. for all categories of consideration, the EPA decided to create their own tool. The Tool for R eduction an d Assessment of C h emical and other environmental I mpacts (TRACI) was released with the intent of being simplified for individual users to operate on their home computers. The following table provides a list of monitored parameters from the TRAC I program: (Bare et al. 2003) Table 2 1 T ool for R eduction and A ssessment of C hemical I mpacts (TRACI) Life Cycle Assessment d ata Categories Elements Depletion Abiotic resources Biotic resources Land use Water use Abiotic resources Pollution Ozone depletion Global Warming Human toxicology Eco toxicology Smog formation Acidification Eutrophication Odor Noise Radiation Waste heat

PAGE 40

40 L ife C ycle A ssessment for Buildings A significant amount of research has been conducted based on using LCAs to evaluate buildings. As early as 1997, Kaltschmitt et al. (Kaltschmitt, Reinhardt & Stelzer 1997) were looking at LCA as a tool for measuring the impacts due to alternative energy sources such as bio fuel. Suzuki & Oka (Suzuki, Oka 1998) developed a methodology in 1998 based upon CO 2 emissions from office buildings in Japan. In 2002, David Shipworth l ooked at the various met hods being employed to examine life cycle a nalysis in order to meet the Kyoto Protocol. He identifies that a major problem encountered in mater (Shipworth 2002) he recommends using random sampling of the inputs to the material supply chain in order to expand the d atabase and provide more accurate results for determining the optimum choice for materials and processes. Some of the earliest assessments of buildings were predominantly treated as a study of the materials similar to the method used for other short term i ndustrial processes. In 1981, Stein et.al. (Stein et al. 1981) performed a study for the US Department of Energy in which they specifically looked at building construction materials relative to embodied energy. The A merican Institute of Architects has been credited with one of the first attempts at documenting the building materials from a life cycle assessment perspective in their 1996 publication of th e Environmental Resource Guide (Dempkin 1996). Although, in orde r to simplify the process and avoid the difficult issues of disparate variables, the guide only considered the relative comparison of materials and failed to give a detailed analysis of environmental impacts to permit a final life cycle inventory for the s tructure.

PAGE 41

41 With the encouragement of the Kyoto Protocol (Gugele et al. 2002) to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, many industrial nations became more active in documenting their material processes and LCA data was more readily available. As the data became available for individual processes more research was conducted relative to the heightened interest in the environmental impacts of the material production processes. In particular, some building owners start ed looking for construction alternatives that selected materials with less detrimental ecological significance. This philosophy of looking at the construction materials is expanded on by Scheuer et al. (Scheuer, Keo leian & Reppe 2003) in their paper on evaluating the embodied energy of building materials: In particular, this research recommends evaluation of particular construction items with regards to replacement time in order to plan for the most optimum compone nts. Clearly high replacement rates of materials with high embodied energy will have a greater impact on life cycle performance. The influence of renovation material choices and schedules on the embodied energy of a building are not typically considered in the design stage of a building, but as these results indicate designing with renovation burdens in mind could diminish long term embodied energy burdens. In a 2008 article, Dimoudi and Tompa (Dimoudi, Tompa 2008) l ook at two buildings relative to embodied carbon in the construction materials to determine the effect of the components other than concrete and steel. Their study indicated the importance of going beyond just material selection; but also looking at the i nteraction of various component s that make up systems as seen in the following: As far as construction practices are concerned, additional criteria should be considered like the lifetime of building materials, the compatibility of the lifetime among the l different materials and of the different layers, their maintenance needs over the building life cycle.

PAGE 42

42 Due to the format following other predominant LCA methodology and the expansive research available on this type of study, there have been numerous reports of buildings that follow a similar method but with an emphasis on energy usage as the monitored resource. For the most part, these research projects have considered time to be relatively static in orde r to preclude more complex calculations dealing with temporal variations. The primary recognition they provide for variations in impact over time is to factor a service life of 50 or 60 years and then extrapolate the results over this period. Examples of this type of research involving these type of temporal constraints can be seen by: Adalberth (1997) (Adalberth 1997) Chen et al.(2001) (Chen, Burnett & Chau 2001) Lollini et al. (2006) (Lollini et al. 2006) and Sartori & Hestnes (2007) (Sartori, Hestnes 2007) Model Complexity As the need for more accurate results in environmental impacts becomes nece ssary, the research has expanded to include some of the more challenging issues dealing with temporal variations in conjunction with material processes in performing life cycle assessments. Because of the unique complexity of the built environment, it len ds itself ideally to the more advanced methods of life cycle assessments. Luetzkendorf & Lorenz (Luetzkendorf, Lorenz 2006) have the following comment on the impact of these developments on LCAs: for building assessment results no longer stems from a predominantly scientific interest, nor is it focused solely on environmental aspects. The shift from green to sustainable building approaches and the linkage of assessment results with far reaching fi nancial aspects (e.g. taxation, lending and insurance, valuation and reporting) will impose stricter requirements in terms of the traceability, liability, comparability, certainty and extent of building assessments. By demonstrating how energy and mass flo ws or carbon dioxide emissions are caused through individual based tools will potentially increase

PAGE 43

43 responsibility. Furthermore, assessment results of LCA based tools can be used for aggregation purposes at the community or building stock level However, this has prompted intensive discussions within the academic community concerning the definition of a functional unit for a building and what factors should be included or excluded from life cycle assessment methodologies. In the Verbeeck & Hens (Verbeeck, Hens 2010) research on life cycle i they mention that: probably because of the complexity of the course of life of a building, researchers in the past often opted for building materials, building products isolated LCA for materials or components might lead to unexpected secondary effects when the materials or components are applied in buildings without taking into account their impact on the performance of the building as a whole. In addition, Borg et al. (Borg, Paulsen & Trinius 2001) have descr ibed in detail Applying and developing the LCA methodology to the context of the building sector makes several building specific considerations necessary. These considerations orig inate in the fact that some characteristics of products in the building sector different considerably from those of other industrial sectors. The largest difference is that the service life of a building can stretch over centuries rather than decades or ye ars, as for other industrial that it is difficult to obtain accurate data and to make relevant assumptions about future conditions regarding recycling. These problems have implic ations on the issue of allocation in the building sector in the way that several allocation procedures ascribe environmental loads to users of recycled or reused products and materials in the future, which are unknown today. Erlandsson and Levin (Erlandsson, Borg 2003, Erlandsson, Levin 2005) use backcasting as a method to evaluate building impacts and determine that treating buildings as functional units that vary over time as opposed to products can provide more information on the overall environmental impact. Beyond heating/cooling, water

PAGE 44

44 and wastewater are also significant factors that need to be considered in overall life cycle of the facility. (Salazar, Sowlati 2008) of window systems proved an important relation between the embodied energy and service life. In summary, they determined that both factors must be considered in order to accurately reflect the most environmental friendly product. By examining window frame materials they were able to demonstrate that despite the wood frame windows having less embodied energy, over the life of the building they would need to be replaced more often than frames of PVC o r aluminum. The aggregate effect for the building was that the PVC or aluminum windows would actually demonstrate less environmental impacts and be a wiser choice. In essence, buildings are very complex systems with a large number of variables to be con sidered in performing an accurate life cycle assessment beyond just treating them as a product stream. This idea has seen to the growth in LCA tools that are designed specifically to look at individual materials or systems and compare them with other optio ns to determine which product will have the least impact due to a variety of environmental factors. In the development of these analysis tools, Trusty (Trusty 2000) classi fied the models into two types: Level 1 tools and Level 2 tools. A Level 1 tool is one that looks at an individual product such as gypsum wall board or plaster and compares them based on their life cycle impact assessment properties. BEES is a common tool in the Level 1 category (Lippiatt 2007) A Level 2 tool is one that looks a building system, such as an interior wall, and has all the individual components such as studs, insulation, and sheathing

PAGE 45

45 built into the calculation automatically These tools are designed for analyzing a whole building and cannot be used for individual components. Athena is a typical Level 2 tool. Another method of distinguishing between different LCA tools is by the level of experience required for the operators. As many of the tools only permit the user to input parameters relative to their facility, they could be considered applicable for lay individuals that do not require extensive understanding of the life cycle assessment process. However, there are also LCA tools in whic h the user has the ability to alter the configuration and input specific constituents. The simplified models only permit analysis of the loaded data fields while the more complex LCA tools allow the operator to use preloaded data and also input their own data from other sources. Currently there are a number of tools available on the market that claim to be able (Erlandsson, Borg 2003) performed a re view of the some of the most popular tools which included: Athena by the Establishment, Eco Quantum 3 by IVAM, BEAT 2000 by SBI, and BEES from the NIST. As many of these LCA tool s are from various international regions, they may have different evaluation processes for their data and thus varying levels of results. It is important to understand the source of data from each of these tools in order to ensure that the information wil l be accurate. In summary they determined that each of the tools was designed for particular circumstances and specific attention relative to the goals of the life cycle assessment are critical in ensuring that the appropriate tool is chosen. Failing to research the tool and understand its applicability and limits is likely to result in

PAGE 46

46 erroneous calculations and not provide an accurate representation of the building being modeled. (Mirza 2006) on durability and sustainability of infrastructure takes a bit more detailed look at the building life cycle and encourages that the assessment should examine each phase of the building life cycle individually. By performing backcasting, the designers are e xpected to plan for the various impacts that could be expected as the building is designed, built, operated, and finally demolished. Their report states: Proper design, operation, and management of infrastructure must deal with every facet of its service life, ranging from conception, feasibility studies, design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and finally decommissioning and disposal of the system after it has outlived its useful life. Every step of these considerations m ust be guided by overall socioeconomic and environmental concerns; in summary, they must be guided by the principles of sustainable development, which embrace the issue of embodied energy in the materials, construction, and both initial and recurring maint enance. Echoing this perspective, Erlandssen & Borg (Erlandsson, Borg 2003) also support the idea of whole building analysis based on separately computing the impacts at the different phases in the life cycle. Th ey describe research that has been conducted in Sweden, Germany, USA, France, and New Zealand that indicates the value of this framework for the development of individual models. Each phase of the building life cycle would have their own specific model an d parameters allowing them to respond more precisely to the particular situations relative to the phase dynamics Building Life Cycle Stages Based on the premise of finding the most comprehensive method for calculating the buildings total ecological impac t, the individual life cycles should be evaluated to determine their respective contributions. One of the parameters that carries across the

PAGE 47

47 various phases of a building life is the energy usage, as there is energy required in the material production, the actual construction of the facility, the standard operations, and finally in the demolition process. Reddy & Jagadish (Reddy, Jagadish 2003) describes this idea in: Energy in buildings can be categorised into two ty pes: (1) energy for the maintenance/servicing of a building during its useful life, and (2) energy capital that goes into production of a building (embodied energy) using various building materials. Study of both the types of energy consumption is required for complete understanding of building energy needs (2003). Research on the operational energy demands of a building have been perf ormed by a number of scholars and include: Cole & Kernan (Cole, Kernan 1996) and Fay e t.al. (Fay, Treloar & Iyer Raniga 2000) One of the common results of these studies has indicated that the majority of energy is actually consumed during the operational phase of the building. The challenge that arises out of this fact is that the operating life time of the facility is one of the most speculative factors, as previously discussed. The Athena institute (Athena Institute 2006) alludes to this difficulty in thei r statement: Defining or judging service life has been problematic for the developers of green building rating or assessment systems, and few tackle the subject from a holistic perspective. Indeed, while much information exists worldwide on building and ma terial service life, building construction, and green building systems, there is little discussion of all three subjects as an interrelated whole In an attempt to work within this challenge, each of the construction phases will be evaluated and thereby in creasing the confidence in individual phases can improve the overall accuracy of results. As ISO standards require (International Organization for Standardization 2006a) documenta tion of areas with speculative results will be provided and affect the level of sensitivity of analysis.

PAGE 48

48 Construction Phase In the worldwide construction industry there are two popular methods for categorizing construction materials (Management computer controls 2010) In the United States, the specifications are organized according to the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) Masterformat (Management Computer C ontrols 2010) The Masterformat is comprised of 48 Divisions of which the first 10 are the most common for all construction projects. The divisions are based on the typical construction materials such as: concrete, maso nry, metals, wood, plastics, etc. Essentially, all construction materials of a particular category would be included within a particular division. For example, all concrete in the building including footers, slabs, decking, cast in place, etc; would all be part of CSI division 03. The other predominant method of organizing construction materials is via the Uniformat divisions (Management computer controls 2010) The Uniformat system defines t he standard classifications based on eight building levels and related sitework. The major levels include elements such as Substructure, Shell, Interiors, Services, Equipment and Furnishings, Special Construction and Demolition, Sitework, and General. Su bsets for the major group elements include individual group elements that provide more detai l on the levels. For example, the s ubstructure element will include sub elements for foundations and basement construction. These sub elements are divided further into the particular construction elements such as standard foundation, special foundation, and slab on grade. Each of these elements will include all of the materials needed to construct the appropriate item, such as the steel, concrete, and thermal prot ection will all be included with a particular element. However, these items would have been in their own separate divisions in the Masterformat system.

PAGE 49

49 Each of these methods has their own advantages and disadvantages. The Masterformat is ideal for cate gorizing the quantity of specific material needed on a job site. On the other hand, the Uniformat method is best for quantifying what is involved in a particular phase of the construction. If the project manager is looking for the quantity of a specific material, the Masterformat can readily provide the information; but it is more difficult to determine what items are included in a particular system. In summary, the Materformat will provide information on what the construction item is and Uniformat will provide information on where the construction item is. Construction materials are commonly standardized depending on ANSI standards in order to permit integration of varying products. Due to their standard criteria, weights of routine construction materia ls are available from the Construction Specification Institute (Carson 1989) With this standardization of materials, it facilitates the data collection or basic elements relative to their life cycle impact assessmen t. There have been numerous studies into the advantages of various construction materials relative to their life cycle carbon emissions and efficiency in heat transfer. An example of this kind of study can be seen in an analysis of timber used in building construction, performed by Andy Buchanan (Buchanan 2008) He summarized that although the embodied energy within the wood frame buildings is less than embodied energy for steel or concrete, this advantage was off set by the poor insulating qualities of the structure and subsequent increase in energy required for conditioning the spaces. However, a significant difference was noted when using wood as a renewable energy source as opposed to fossil fuels due to the ra pidly renewable properties and the reduction in CO 2 emissions. The analysis summarized that more research needs to be

PAGE 50

50 conducted to improve the efficiency of the wood frame structures and increase the insulating factors. A similar report by Peterson et al (Petersen, Solberg 2002) demonstrated that the use of steel beams resulted in three to four times more energy than the manufacture of glulam beams. Additionally, the waste handling of the glulam could also help offset fuel costs if it were burned for energy or heat. Naturally, the parameters such as travel distance and availability of raw materials used in the manufacturing of the materials play a significant role in the determining of the environmental im pact. Overall, an accurate LCA is critical to understand the full impact and assist in the decision process. Unlike smaller manufacturing processes in which the final product is essentially disposable, a building is comprised of a variety of materials tha t can be recycled or reused in numerous subsequent structures or processes. In their 2007 research, Schultman and Sunke (Schultman, Sunke 2007) explain some principles behind determining which materials should be considered for reuse or recycling and the positive eco balance is supported by not in One of the challenges in dealing with materials and energy flows in construction is allocating percentages of resources to their appropriate impact area. For example, when recycled steel is used in the production of steel for a construction project, what percentage of the impacts can be attributed to the recycled material and what is due to raw material? This allocation of resources becomes further exasperated when you consider that often materials flows need to be considered for decades into the future.

PAGE 51

51 Borg et al. (Borg, Paulsen & Trinius 2001) provide the following recommendation to address this issue: The long service life for buildings, building materials and building compone nts, is associated with the introduced concept of a virtual parallel time perspective proposed here, which basically substitutes historical and future processes and values with current data. Further, the production and refining of raw material as a parall el to upgrading of recycled material, normally contains several intermediate products. A suggestion is given for how to determine the comparability of intermediate materials. The suggested method for allocation presented is based on three basic assumptio ns: (1) If environmental loads are to be allocated to a succeeding product life cycle, the studied actual life cycle has to take responsibility for upgrading of the residual material into secondary resources. (2) Material characteristics and design of prod ucts are important factors to estimate the recyclable amount of the material. Therefore, a design factor is suggested using information for inherent material properties combined with information of the product context at the building level. (3) The qualit y reduction between the materials in two following product life cycles is indicated as the ratio between the market value for the material in the products. Operation Phase With typically 80 90% of the overall carbon emissions being attributed to the oper ation phase, it is critical to fully understand what are the components that contribute to this factor. The Common Carbon Metrics (Sustainable Buildings and Climate I nitiative 2006) f rom the Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative establish the primary factors to be considered when evaluating the carbon emissions from a building. The documentation considers three scopes of emissions for evaluating the processes and calculating th e environmental impact: Scope I Direct Direct on site emissions result from sources within the boundaries of the building or building stocks under study that can be quantified by the reporting entity, including stationary combustion emissions, process em issions and fugitive emissions. Direct emissions are typically produced from the following types of activities: Stationary combustion emission from generation of on site electricity, cooling, heat or steam, Fugitive emissions from intentional or unintenti onal releases, Fugitive emissions are not

PAGE 52

52 physically controlled by the reporting entity, but result from the intentional or unintentional releases of GHGs. They commonly arise from the production, processing, transmission, storage and use of fuels and othe r chemicals, often through joints, seals, packing, gaskets and so on. Scope 2: Indirect on building site Indirect emissions are a consequence of the activities that occur outside the building site, for example activities at a community power plant for pro viding the energy consumed on building site. Scope 2 emissions included in the Common Carbon Metric are all GHG emissions associated with the overall generation of purchased energy such as electricity or steam, for ventilation or heating or the provision o f any kind of fuels for heating. Scope 3: Other Indirect Scope 3 addresses indirect emissions not covered in Scope 2 activities that are relevant to building performance that are not included in the Common Carbon Metric. Examples of these emissions includ e: Upstream and downstream emissions related to the before use phase of the buildings, e.g. related to all stages of the building life cycle After Use phase activities such as : Re use, Recycling. Thermal recycling, Waste disposal processes. Similar to the construction phase, the operation phase must also deal with the issue of resource allocation. The same principles will apply for determining what percentage of resources to distribute among the factors; but additionally, the utilities and other routine procedures need to include these same measures. Utilities The U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a subgroup under the U.S. Department of Energy that is responsible for independent statistics and analysis. As part of their responsibility, the EIA conducts surveys of the commercial building stock at scheduled quadrennial intervals and releases a report entitled the Commercial Building Energy Consumptio n Survey (CBECS). The last assessment conducted in 2007 proved statistically inaccurate data and thus the 2003 version of the database is the most recent to be released. As part of the survey, the EIA collects data from commercial buildings regarding ene rgy consumption, costs, and

PAGE 53

53 energy related building characteristics. Since the survey can be sort based on a variety of categories, this provides a very useful tool for determining the average of various parameters in particu lar regions or even nationwide (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2011) Although the CBECS can provide a general range of typical buildings within a region and classification of facilities, it does not give the de tails necessary to assist in most common method of analyzing the utilities in th e building industry is through life cycle energy a ssessments. Due to direct correlation b etween energy use and costs, owners and facility managers see a direct impact on higher energy usage that results in an added motivation to reduce consumption. Although this may be the most studied aspect of the construction process, a research paper by B all (Ball 2002) points out the interesting fact: The holy grail of low energy has mesmerized many assessments of ecological design to the virtual exclusion of other environmental impacts. Energy is probably the most ea sily measured and addressed in the construction industry but it is by no means the only factor of sustainability. Indeed, it is probably the very fact that energy is an easily quantified commodity that it is such a popular measure of the environmental cred entials of a material or building Potable w ater Perhaps the next most recognized quantity in normal building operations has to deal with potable water usage. Although often overlooked in carbon emissions calculations, it is important to consider the en ergy and resources required to treat and distribute clean water. Additionally, a significant more amount of energy and resources are required afterwards to handle the wastewater processing. John Dryden (Dryden 2006) performed specific life cycle analysis on the water/ wastewater processes in order to quantify the impacts and look at the alternatives that may be

PAGE 54

54 available for using localized processing facilities as opposed to centralized distribution systems. Mainte nance One of the more complex aspects to quantify for a buildings operation phase is the routine and specialized maintenance. A significant amount of research has been conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers with the Whitestone Research Group (Whitestone Research 1995; 2009) to attempt at planning the amount of resources required to maintain a facility. The primary focus of this docum ent is to help in planning for life cycle c osting and thereby ass ist in the decision process for the purchase of new equipment. By using this type of reference guide it is possible to correlate the material and energy usage in routine maintenance and replacement of products to a life cycle impact assessment. Although it is difficult to be precise with anticipations of future maintenance requirements other than scheduled preventive maintenance, there is significant historical record to indicate results with a relatively high level of confidence. Transportation The U.S Environmental Protection Agency developed a series of guidance documents (EPA 2005) to address the carbon emissions that are associated with vehicle usage. They are intended to assist anyone in estimating the impacts of p etroleum based fuels on air pollution. The primary chemical that is monitored is carbon dioxide (CO 2 to calculate the CO 2 emissions from a gallon of fuel, the carbon em issions are multiplied by the ratio of the molecular weight of CO 2 (m.w. 44) to the molecular weight of carbon (m.w.12): 44/12 CO 2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon

PAGE 55

55 During the operation phase there are several things an owner or building manager can do to help reduce the emissions and environmental impact. In order to provide an accurate indicator of the full impact on the ecology these offsets should be included. Tracking these factors also provide a valuable resource for helping to make decisions on effective means to reduce the carbon footprint. Renewable e nergy Renewable energy can be attributed to either on site production or to centralized power plants. Additionally it is possible to purchase renewable energy credits to offset the carbon emissions due to fossil fuel power generation. Since renewable energy is normally significantly cleaner than conventional fossil fuels and does not deplete limited resources, it i s understandable why there would be encouragement to use these techniques. Although on site renewable energ y (Hostetler, Escobedo 2010) production is not always economically feasible, the current electric grid sys tem has effectively made renewable energy accessible to the general public. Thus when ever renewable energy credits can be purchased to offset power generation in one location, it effectively has a ripple effect to reduce the amount of power generation fro m another utility plant and create an overall reduction in fossil fuel usage (Scheuer, Keoleian 2002) Due to the variability in alternative energy generation techniques, not all methods have the same life cycle im pact. NIST reports the following concerning renewable power sources: The environmental impacts of renewable power sources are not all equivalent. For example, in the manufacture of each system there are different burdens associated with resource extractio n and material will have different environmental impacts. An important measure of energy system environmental performance is the Fossil Energy Ratio (FER), which is the energy (general ly electrical) output divided by the primary fossil

PAGE 56

56 energy system is an FER greater than 1 because at that point energy production exceed depletable energy resource consumption. Landscap e One of the most environmentally friendly methods for sequestering carbon is through the planting of vegetation. Research ( (Newell, Stavins 1999) (Hostetler, M. 2010) and (Hall 2001) ) has been conducted that can predict the amount of carbon uptake based on the size and types of trees, plants, or shrubs. However, for lawns, consideration must be given to fuel and energy usage to maintain the grounds and keep them mowed. Additionally, factors such as fertilizing and insect treatment can contribute significant detrimental factors due to eutrophication and air/water pollution. Another impact to be considered is the irrigation system and the source of water. If captured ra inwater or grey water is used, there may be a beneficial factor due to reducing the sewage/storm water. However, when potable water is used for irrigation, there will be an associated increase in the energy demands in conjunction with the water to account for the process and distribution of the water. Overall, careful consideration needs to be provided for the collateral effects due to landscaping and a thorough life cycle assessment should be conducted to estimate the impacts. Demolition Phase Although many research projects ( (Sustainable buildings and climate initiative 2006) (You et al. 2011) (Papadopoulo u et al. ) ) have indicated that the demolition phase has the least impact on the carbon emissions of the building, it is still significant with regards to life cycle impact assessment in that it can have a dramatic impact on air/water pollution, land emiss ions, and eutrophication. The primary energy consumption during the demolition phase occurs due to the equipment used to

PAGE 57

57 deconstruct the building and the transportation of the material to either landfill or reclaim facility. Landfill The material in th e landfill can have variable impacts on emissions depending on the chemical composition (You et al. 2011) Some material is biodegradable and can release fugitive emissions. Other wastes are inert and occupy landfill space for decades and longer resulting in landfill footprint emissions. The landfill footprint emissions are essentially a loss of ecological conditions due to space occupied by the landfill. Due to leachate and air born contaminants, a landfill can have significant environmental impacts on the ground water, soil conditions, and air quality for a wide surrounding region. Recycling and r euse The Deconstruction Institute (Guy, Gibeau 2003) estimates that: In order to su stain human society into the next century, resource efficiency will have to increase by a factor of 10. The materials salvaged through deconstruction help replenish the construction materials market, rather than add to the amount of waste in landfills. In fact, studies indicate that deconstruction can reduce construction site waste by 50 to 70 percent. Obviously this provides a significant incentive for reusing or recycling construction waste. As life cycle assessments conducted by Brown & Buranakarn (Brown, Buranakarn 2003) have indicated, there is also a significant advantage for the environment in recycling certain products that require more energy to extract and less energy to reuse. They state that: of materials suggested that recycle of wood may not be advantages on a large scale, but metals, plastic, and glass have very processing of the reused items, it is normally o ffset by the significant reduction in the embodied energy of the new product.

PAGE 58

58 The EPA in their Lifecycle Construction Resource Guide emphasizes the importance of planning for material reuse or recycling during the design phase. This applies both to new buildings and requiring them use reuse or recycled products as well as designing a building for the end of life and specifying that the construction has been designed with recycling the material as it is disassembled. Incineration The State of Oregon De partment of Environmental Quality (Quantis, Earth Advantage, and Oregon home builders association 2009) performed a very detailed life cycle analysis of building dec onstruction that included emphasis on the incineration process. From their report it was determined that incineration is assumed to occur with partial energy recovery. Estimates were shown that up to 10% of the heat content of the materials is recaptured as electrical energy and 20% of the heat content is captured as heat energy. Thus, when calculating the overall impacts of the incineration process, despite the air and waste factors, the energy and heat factors should be calculated to determine the amou nt of offsets in power production. For the air and waste factors, the quantities to be considered are similar to other power generation facilities in that the age and sophistication of the equipment has a significant impact on the emissions produced. Build ing Rating Systems and Life Cycle Assessment To bring these elements all together, there have been several research projects that have addressed looking at building rating systems relative to how they measure their environmental impact. It is interesting to see the differences in some of their assessments and how they compare the various tools. Essentially, the research can be grouped into the following categories: Individual Product Evaluation and Comparison of Several Tools.

PAGE 59

59 Individual Product Evaluati on David Hoff performed an analysis for the roofing industry in 2003 (Hoff 2003) in which LEED and LCA were compared to determine their benefits and limitations. One of the main disadvantages at that time was the limite d LCA information available for construction materials. Durability is one of the most important items in roof construction and yet it was not given enough significance in the LEED rating system. Hoff felt that as more data became available to demonstrate the true environmental impact of material usage, it may dramatically change the way in which LEED evaluates facilities. An evaluation of LEED was conducted using life cycle assessment Methods by Chris W. Scheuer & Gregory A. Keoleian in Sept 2002 (Scheuer, Keoleian 2002) The project was sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to research the applicability of LEED to evaluate building sustainability. The research was primarily concern ed with going through the LEED scorecard and seeing the impact as the building characteristics were changed in order to earn more LEED points and how that would impact the environmental outcome. Ideally, as the LEED points increased, the environmental imp act would be reduced by an equivocal amount. Unfortunately, it was demonstrated that there was not always a direct correlation between the LEED score and an improvement in the key environmental parameters. The USGBC has developed a research committee focu sing on how LCA can become a more responsive part of LEED certification. To date, their results are limited and primarily encourage the use of LCA modeling during material selection (USGBC 2006)

PAGE 60

60 Comparison of Several Too ls Several federal agencies have adopted these principles and conducted research on the effectiveness of the methods for evaluating the life cycle a nalysis. The global realization of the significance of this issue can be seen in the variety of countries t hat are participating in this research. 1n 1998, the Centre for Building Performance Research in New Zealand contracted the Victoria University of Wellington to establish an energy coefficient database for local buildings (Alcorn, Wood 1998) The Canadian Government conducted research (Department of the Environment and Heritage 2001) in 2001 analyzing the LCA for their energy production to establish the most optimum resource American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air conditioning Engineers ( ASHRAE ) developed workshops in 2007 and is currently soliciting research that specializes in quantifying the carbon footprint of the built environment (ASHRAE 2007) Department of the Environment and Heritage of Environment Australia conducted a literature review of the predominant LCA rating tools and compared them with building the Building Life Cycle, Life Cycle Assessment (Department of the Environment and Heritage 2001) This document serves more as a shopping list of av ailable technology and does not provide any comparative analysis between the various programs. The emphasis is more that each program has its value in a specific area and does not offer any preference to tools. Kimberly Bunz et.al. (Bunz, Henze & Tiller 2006) performed a detailed analysis of some of the most prominent building rating systems in which programs in North America, Asia, and Europe were compared relative to what areas they evaluated for sustainability Expanding from that perspective, this research examined how various

PAGE 61

61 building rating systems evaluated information through the life cycle of the building. It was noted the lack of rating tools that examined the deconstruction phase although there were s ignificant similarities in the design and operation phases. Overall, this research provides an excellent resource in looking at the categories within rating tools At the 2005 World Sustaina ble Building Conference in Tokyo, Nigel Howard (Howard 2005) presented his research on the predominant means of international building assessment. He examined the similarities between 19 various rating systems and then provided more detailed analysis on BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, and PromisE. Although highlighting some of the variations in the techniques applied by the assessment tools, it concluded that improved conformity with better LCA tools would be necessary. Add itionally, at the same conference, Kawazu et al. (Kawazu et al. 2005) performed a detailed comparison of 4 high performance buildings in Japan that had earned CASBEE ratings to see how they would qualify under the BREE AM, LEED and GBTool rating systems. Despite not looking at the carbon emissions of the buildings, ating systems four of the rating systems had different results. By using LCA models, Osman et al (Osman, Norman & Ries 2008) were able to demonstrate the differences due to energy equipment selection that resulted in converse environmental outcomes due to Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Tropospheric Ozone Precursor Potential (TOPP) in commercial buildings. The LCA

PAGE 62

62 optimization mo del was found to be particularly useful for developing the data that was needed to select the best combination of ecological and economic criteria. By graphically plotting the results in various scenarios, the model was able to prove where tradeoffs could be taken over the entire life of the building. In summary, despite there being numerous research projects associated with building rating systems and life cycle assessments, none appear to compare actual facilities based on their carbon emissions and simu late the results for the most popular rating systems.

PAGE 63

63 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY In order to develop a model that uses LCA methods to evaluate building rating systems based on carbon footprinting the first step is to evaluate what techniques are being applie d by other international rating systems. The evaluation will look at how the various rating systems consider carbon as part of their evaluation and determine if there are methods that may be applied universally. Based on the lessons learned from the vari ous rating systems, a LCA tool will be developed that can evaluate the full life cycle of a building for carbon emissions. Finally, a methodology will be developed that explains how the LCA tool can be used to evaluate a facility in addition to assisting in the decision process to reduce carbon emissions. Rating System Comparison All of the rating systems used for comparison in this report have numerous areas of specialization such as commercial, residential, health care, and educational facilities. Addit ionally, most of the studied rating systems have different methods for dealing with geographic regions that must be considered in evaluating the building. Since this research project is focused on educational facilities in the Southeast United States, the comparison of rating systems will be ba sed on these same criteria. Building Rating Systems Application The first phase of the research involved looking at different rating systems and how they consider LCA in their criteria. Since many of the building r ating systems are adopted from other nations, the selection of rating systems for this research was directed to programs that were unique with regards to how much information they required and what det ail of results were provided. With the exception of LE ED, these

PAGE 64

64 rating systems all include some aspect of a carbon emission in the determination of the environmental impact of the facility. Review of the building rating systems to determine best practices can establish the groundwork of what methods are bein g employed and provide indication of what improvements can be made. This research provides the basis for the development of the computer based model that can readily identify the carbon foot print for a new facility in addition to highlighting other poten tial ecological impacts. Using the rating scorecards for the BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, Green Star, Green Globes, and DGNB systems, a comparison was conducted to determine the similarities and differences in elements being evaluated. Samples of the scorecards are provided in Appendixes B through G. Figure 3 1 provides a summary of this information For F igure 3 1, t he bars reflect the percentage of points that the applicable rating system attributes to the specified category. T able 3 1 provides information on the differences in how the rating systems evaluate the buildings. The chart includes information on the labelling of the certification in addition to percentage of points necessary in order to acquire that rating. Table 3 1 Building rating system certif ication l evels BREEAM LEED CASBEE Green Globes Green Star DGNB Pass 30 Certified 36 C < .5 One Globe 35 1 3 Star Not certif. Bronze 50 Good 45 Silver 45 B .5 Two Globes 55 4 Star 45 Silver 65 Very Good 55 Gold 54 B+ 1 Three Globes 79 5 Star 60 Gold 80 Excellent 70 Platinum 73 A 1.5 Four Globes 85 6 Star 75 Outstanding 85 S 3 LEED percentage based on LEED 2009 version 3.0 CASBEE score is based on a ratio and thus a percentage does not apply Green Star scores below 45% are not certified

PAGE 65

65 Carbon Emissions Comparison Although a comprehensive LCA can provide a wide variety of data relative to environmental impacts most of the building rating systems researched just focused on the carbon emissions Table 3 2 represents the various stages of a building life cycle that are covered by the researched rating systems in calculating the building carbon footprint. In look ing at the variations in what information is requested in order to determine how this can be normalized to apply to a wider audie nce, i t becomes apparen t that a more comprehensive system that includes all the stages of the building life cycle is necessary. This combination of all applicable data should result in the best overall approximation of the carbon emissions for a facility. Without this kind of Table 3 2 Life cycle s tages considered in carbon c alc ulation Phase BREEAM LEED CASBEE Green Globes Green Star DGNB Construction No No Concrete and Steel Yes No Yes Operation Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Transportation Yes No No No No No Demolition No No No Yes No Yes L ife C ycle A ssessment Tool Development Sof tware Selection One of the primary goals of an appropriate LCA model is that the data is easily viewable to determine the documentation that provided the inputs for the database. Another criteria is that the individual processes are easy to manipulate and add or delete functions without disrupting the remainder of the model. Lastly, it was desired to have a program that could accept user supplied data in an international format.

PAGE 66

66 As there are hundreds of types of models available, the selection was refined based on the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (Kotaji et al. 2003) recommendations on applicable programs. Rice et al (Rice, Clift & Burns 1997) perfor med one of the first analyses of the various computational tools available for LCA analysis. They examined 12 of the predominant programs and determined that the basic function was similar; but there were significant differences with regards to method, sp eed, flexibility, and available information. The GaBi software, developed by the University of Stuttgart, was considered to be one of the new programs available with much to offer for the user. As mentioned earlier, the optimum sources for information wil l come from the EPA, and their recommendations for software include GaBi. The sources for data can come from GaBi but also from other available resources in which either a process is missing or more accurate data is available. Additional locations for ca rbon data can come from sites such as BRE and the Carbon Trust. Due to the amount of research and variability in data regarding carbon footprinting, an important element in using different data sources is to make sure that it is concurrent with the primar y data source methodology. A quick validation check could involve finding similar elements from both data sources and ensuring they have equivalent values in addition to ensuring the methods for calculating data are based on like parameters. Model Develo pment The GaBi model is based on a system of processes. The processes contain the particular data relative to a specific operation such as environmental, social, or economic impacts. Thus by linking the construction process with flows of material or dat a, a simulation of the actual procedures can be created. Then by performing a

PAGE 67

67 balance of the data, the GaBi model will provide results that depict the aggregate of the applicable processes and their associated impacts on resources and pollutants. Most of the predominant reporting standards are preloaded into the GaBi database and thus the user can select between such protocols as CML, EDIP,EI99, and TRACI. This facilitates the analysis process by allowing the user to provide results consistent with the a ppropriate protocol and change between systems as may be necessary for reporting requirements. One of the primary deficiencies for most LCA programs is the lack of detailed information for particular processes. In many cases it was noted that GaBi data w ould not be available for U.S. systems although there would be information for a European equivalent of the program. Since the primary processes are essentially equivalent, it was determined to be acceptable to use the European system and updates of the m odel could easily be performed by substituting U.S. processes as they become available. After all, the differences between using a product line in Europe instead of US are relatively insignificant compared to the option of not using the product line at al l. One of the advantages of the GaBi program is the inclusion of Data Quality Indicators (DQIs). For each source of data concerning a life cycle process, the data is labeled as either Calculated, Estimated, Measured, or Literature. In cases where data is available from a range of values, the user is able to specify the maximum and minimum values and a level of confidence can be established based on the results. These factors thus establish the level of reliability for the results of the life cycle anal ysis. If for example the majority of the data is from estimated sources instead of

PAGE 68

68 calculated and measured, it would indicate that the results are not as reliable and depict where the weakness exist in the input values. The GaBi program was designed in St uttgart, Germany and thus the majority of the data is reported in the International System (SI) of units. Since most of the construction measurements in the United States are done in the Imperial System or American Customary Units, conversion of the data between these systems is required. In order to facilitate the use of the model, the conversion of units is done within the model so that normal U.S. units are expected as inputs. The remainder of this paper will distinguish between the generic GaBi progr am and the model developed to enhance the rating system. As the model developed for this research is intended to be use d for the life cycle assessment process to determine carbon footprinting for building rating systems, it will be abbreviated as the LCA B RS (Life Cycle Assessment for Building Rating System) model. Building Life Cycle Phases The GaBi tool was used to develop plans for each of the primary phases of the life cycle process within the LCABRS model This allows the user of the model to analyz e the entire life cycle or just focus on solely the manufacturing, construction, operation, or demolition phase. The results of each of these phases can be reported separately or combined for an overall performance of the building. Figure 3 2 depicts the basic life cycle process and the realization of how information will be captured to measu re carbon emissions. Figure 3 3 is the primary module used in the LCABRS module. The manufacturing process has been combined within the construction phase to provid e a more streamlined model. Since the information in the operation phase is independent of the construction phase, they were modeled in parallel processes. This permits the

PAGE 69

69 phases to be analyzed separately and thus makes the model very useful for situati ons in which only the operation phase of a building needs to be evaluated; thereby precluding performing a material take off for every model simulation. Based o n the overall model, formula (3 1) was developed to calculate the life cycle carbon emissions fr om the building. LC c = CP c + OP c +DP c (3 1) Where: LC c is the Building Life Cycle Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. CP c is the construction phase Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. OP c is the operation phase Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. DP c is the decons truction phase Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. The model has been designed to allow easy entry of values in the field called the values used for multipliers, reference values, and project specific quantities. Based on the CSI Masterformat divisions, the global parameters are set up in files with similar headings to permit easy location of where applicable data can be modified. T able 3 3 depicts the information from th e general criteria of the model. Prior to running the model, the user will be required to input values for each of these parameters. Table 3 3 General reference values for building l ife l ycle Parameter Comment FTE Full Time Employees FTE_days_work FTE works per year Students Average number of students Student_days_school student school days per year Sq_m_bldg_area Building area in square meters Years_of_use Life expectancy of building in years Construction Phase In the construction phase, the prim ary materials from each of the CSI Master format divisions are used. This allows the user to directly input data from the building

PAGE 70

70 material take off or by using material lists from Building Information Modeling (BIM) software. A full life cycle normally begins with the manufacturing of the materials. The GaBi database has previously performed the analysis on the materials from the time of extraction through to purchase for building construction. The data files include documentation that went into the d evelopment of the constituents that are attributed to each manufacturing process. In most cases, the materials in the GaBi database are normally estimated based on the assumption that 1 kg of the item will be required. For example, in concrete the standa rd unit of processing is 1 kg and the data file will include all the quantities of chemicals that are produced or consumed in order to make the 1 kg of concrete. The GaBi model has been set up such that user will specify the total quantity of a particular product and then the model will automatically apply thi s factor to all of the constituents wi thin the individual processes. Tabl e 3 4 represents the weight factors that were used to co nvert from Imperial units that are standard for construction materials to metric kilograms The International Code Council (Carson 1989) ) provided data regarding the typical mass of building materials. In instances where a range of values was available, an average weight would be sele cted to compensate for the fact that construction normally has a wide range of material sizes. This method can dramatically simplify the calculation process without significantly degrading the overall quality of the data. If however, the building does no t have the wide range of sizes, then value and the calculations will reflect the new information.

PAGE 71

71 Table 3 4 Weight factors used for building construction Parameter Value Comment mass_concrete 1404 kg per cubic meter of concrete mass_steel 823 kg per ton ne of steel mass_block 22.08 k g per CMU block mass_brick 1.225 kg per brick mass_copper_sheet 0.053 k g per square meter of copper sheet mass_steeldeck 0.074 kg per sq uare meter of steel deck mass_bf_wood 0.93 kg per board meter of lumber mass_osb 0.074 kg per square meter of OSB sheathing mass_sheathing 0.074 kg per square meter of plywood weight_al_sheets 0. 0 13 kg per square meter of aluminum sheets weight_copper sheets 0.053 kg per square meter of copper sheets weight_fiberglass 0.002 kg per square meter of fiberglass insul. weight_roofinsul 0.232 kg per square meter of roofings insul. Weight_framing 0.691 k g per linear meter of al window frame Weight_glass 0. 136 k g per square meter of window glass Weight_carpet 0.063 k g per square meter of carpet Weight_paint 0 .0 00 1 k g per square meter of paint Figure 3 4 depicts the processes contained within the construction p rocess of the LCABRS model. The individual C SI divisions are also flow process used to replicate the manufacturing process. A sample of one of the manufacturing processes is shown for concrete in figure 3 5 All of the remaining process diagrams are contained within Appendix H Based on the constr u ction process model, formula (3 2) was developed to calculate the carbon emissions.

PAGE 72

72 CP c = [ CC q q )+CT] + [ MC q q )+MT] +[ SC q q )+ST] + (3 2) [ WC q q )+WT] + [ TC q q )+TT] + [ OC q q )+OT] + [ FC q q )+FT] Where: CPc is the construction phase Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. CCq is the CSI div.3 process material quantity CMq is the CSI div.3 multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. CT is the CO 2 equiv. from transporting the CSI div.3 materials to site MCq is the CSI div.4 process material quantity MMq is the CSI div.4 multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. MT is the CO 2 equiv. from transport ing the CSI div.4 materials to site SCq is the CSI div.5 process material quantity SMq is the CSI div.5 multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. ST is the CO 2 equiv. from transporting the CSI div.5 materials to site WCq is the CSI div.6 process materi al quantity WMq is the CSI div.6 multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO2 equiv. WT is the CO 2 equiv. from transporting the CSI div.6 materials to site TCq is the CSI div.7 process material quantity TMq is the CSI div.7 multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. TT is the CO 2 equiv. from transporting the CSI div.7 materials to site OCq is the CSI div.8 process material quantity OMq is the CSI div.8 multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. OT is the CO 2 equiv. from transporting the CSI div.8 materials to site FCq is the CSI div.9 process material quantity FMq is the CSI div.9 multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. FT is the CO 2 equiv. from transporting the CSI div.9 materials to site m is the number of materials in a CSI division At present ther e is very limited information available on the energy and pollutant emissions during the actual building construction process. Thus, the c onstruction process of this LCABRS model ends up being primarily a combination of the manufacturing processes based o n the required quantities for construction. However, the LCABRS model has been designed to account for the transportation requirements to get the material from the resale facility to the construction site. The model user has the option of inputting speci fic distances relative to material transportation in order to have more accurate analysis.

PAGE 73

73 Operation Phase The operation phase contains factors for annual usage of routine utilities and maintenance. From the BREEAM rating system, factors were included to account for transportation and potable water usage. From the Green Globes rating system, factors were added to account for material durability and maintenance requirements. Additionally, factors were included from the rating scorecards that assist in determining the effects of actions that sequester carbon such as vegetation and the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). With the inclusion of both carbon emission and carbon sequestering factors, the model should be able to facilitate calculatio ns to help determine if a facility is carbon neutral. After all, if a building claims to have a net zero affect, the rating tool should be able to demonstrate that capacity. For the estimated life time emissions calculations, the annual operation resource s are multiplied by the life expectancy of the building. Performing the calculations in this manner allows individual analysis of the impact on a particular year for changes in any of the operation processes. After performing a full life cycle analysis i t is useful to divide the final number by the life expectancy in order to determine an estimated annual emissions rate. However, if there are significant changes in operation resources during the life of the facility, they can be accommodated by exporting the results to an Excel type of spreadsheet to permit summation of individual annual results. Figure 3 6 represents the major processes that are contained within the Operation phase of the LCABRS model. More detailed models for the individual processes o f utilities, and transportation are shown if figures 3 7 and 3 8 respectively Appendix H contains all of the process diagra ms from the LCABRS model.

PAGE 74

74 Formula (3 3) was developed to estimate the lifetime carbon emissions from the Operation phase. OP c = UO c ) + MO c ) + TO c ) VO c ) RO c )) (3 3) Where: OPc is the operation phase Carbon Emissions in CO2 equiv. i is the number of years l is the number of subcategories n is the life expectancy of the building p is the quantity of subcategories UOc is the Utilities Process Carbon Emissions in CO2 equiv. MOc is the Maintenance Process Carbon Emissions in CO2 equiv. TOc is the Transpor tation Process Carbon Emissions in CO2 equiv. VOc is the Vegetation Process Carbon Emissions in CO2 equiv. ROc is the Renewable Credits Carbon Emissions in CO2 equiv Utilities All of the r ating tools included points on their scorecards based upon energy reductions. With the exception of the Athena program, all other carbon calculation tools from the rating systems also included energy as a primary factor in determining the carbon footprint. Although the current LCABRS mo del was designed specifically wi th the Rinker and Gerson buildings in mind and thus only includes factors relevant to these building; the model has the capability to expand and allow a wide range of utility processes to be included in the analysis. For simplified calculations, the stand ard e missions were used from the LCABRS model for the United States. If more detailed results would be needed, the values within the specific processes could be adjusted to the reported emissions levels to accommodate the exact location. Renewable Most o f the building rating systems provide points on their scorecards the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). The LCABRS model has been designed to permit the user to input values relative to the amount of renewable energy being produced or RECs that have been purchased. Since there is a tremendous

PAGE 75

75 amount of diversity relative to the carbon emissions that are being offset by these sources, it is up to the user of the model to get the information concerning the quantity of CO 2 equiv. that have been div erted and input that value directly into the model. If required, the model can be adjusted to account for pollutants and resources other than carbon provided the user adjust the process para meter for this item in the LCABRS model. Transportation In utili zing the carbon techniques of the BREEAM program, the LCABRS model has been designed to include the impacts of vehicle traffic associated with the building. The transportation is based on average sized unleaded fuel type vehicles. These factors can be ch anged within the model processes if a different country or transportation scenario is specified. The factors that were used to determine percentage of occupants that drive and distance traveled are derived from a University of Florida transportation repor t for avera ge quantities around the campus. Maintenance Rating tools such as Green Globes included points for the durability of materials and planning for future maintenance. Additionally, the BREEAM rating system included routine maintenance as part of the transportation calculations for carb on emissions. Thereby, the LCABRS model was designed to include a maintenance factor that is primarily concerned with vehicle transportation of maintenance staff plus a factor to account for materials that could be used in normal maintenance operations. The model can be readily adjusted for specific situations in order to assist in determining the environmental impact and for detailed analysis that will assist in calculating the durability of specific products.

PAGE 76

76 Vege tation Derived from the site category of the various rating systems, the vegetation factor has been added to include the sequestering factor from plants. An important factor in calculating the carbon reductions is to reduce the value by the appropriate a mount of carbon emissions and soil contaminants that may result from mowing and fertilizing. The reference value for lawns used by this model does not include any lawn care or maintenance; but this can be adjusted based on the users requirements. Additio nally, the tree sequestering factor was based on average values and should be adjusted based on different tree types and sizes. Table 3 5 provides a list of the reference values that were used in the operation phase. These values are considered relatively constant for the buildings located in similar conditions as the researched facilities. Table 3 5 Reference values used for building operation Parameter Value Comment CO 2 _per_lawn 0.048 kg CO 2 sequestered per square m eter CO 2 _per_tree 112.6 kg CO 2 seque stered per year per tree FTE_km s 8 Average kilometers to work for FTE each way per day Student_km s 6 Average kilometers to school for student each way per day Service_call_distance 6 Kilometers driven for maintenance c all each way Deconstruction P has e In the deconstruction phase of the model, factors are included to account for material reuse or recycling. Additionally a space is provided to calculate the carbon emissions due to waste water handling. Unless otherwise specified, the waste is assume d to end at the landfill and the environmental impact is determined based on the inputs from the construction and operation stages. Therefore, the weight of material

PAGE 77

77 going to landfill is based on the weight of the construction materials minus the weights of materials going to incinerator or recycle/reuse. Since there is a wide variety of carbon impacts from the various reuse/recycling options, it is up to the model user to input the specific carbon savings in CO 2 equiv. due to the technique being used. I f the user desires to model the impact from pollutants other than carbon, then t he process flows within the LCABRS model will also need to be adjusted accordingly. In order to facilitate the calculation of the waste emissions that are being diverted, the user has the option of taking the values from the construction process LCA and inputting the values into the parameters for the waste. Figure 3 9 depicts the processes that are part of the deconstruction phase. As the individual process are simply calcula tions relative to the quantities specified, there are no subsequent figures for the individual processes. Formula (3 4) was developed to calculate the carbon emissions from the Deconstruction process. DP c = ((CC q + MC q + SC q + WC q + TC q + OC q + FC q IW q (3 4) RW q c + IW c q RW c q ) Where: DPc is the deconstruction phase Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. CCq is the concrete process material quantity MCq is the masonry process material quantity SCq is the steel process material quantity WCq is th e wood process material quantity TCq is the thermal process material quantity OCq is the opening process material quantity FCq is the finishes process material quantity CWc is the construction waste multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. RWc is the recycled waste multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. RWq is the recycle waste quantity IWc is the incinerator waste multiplier for Carbon Emissions in CO 2 equiv. IWq is the incinerator waste quantity

PAGE 78

78 Model Capabilities The LCABRS model includes n umerous functions that perform detailed analysis of the data. The user has the option to analyze individual process or the entire LCA to evaluate the impact of changing single or multiple parameters. A sensitivity analysis can be performed to determine w hat inputs have the greatest effect and likewise which has the least impact. Additionally, the scenario that was used for this analysis was based on the TRACI Global Warming standards as defined by the EPA. A user has the option of selecting a full range of ecological triggers to determine the overall environmental impact of the construction. Some of the benefits of the GaBi tool include the ability to categorize the processes and emissions. A model user has the ability to specify a parameter such as ma terial location, specific pollutants, or other user developed parameters. This lets the analysis be very specialized and the results can be honed into the exact needs of the researcher. Other tools in the GaBi program permit the user to perform Monte Carl o distribution analysis of the materials. Additionally, due to the ability to adjust parameters over a range of values, the model is able to perform detailed scenario analysis to determine the ideal scenario of components. With the variety of diagrams av ailable to choose from, the user can find graphic tools to meet most research needs. Method for Using the L ife C ycle A ssessment for B uilding R ating S ystems Model to Reduce Carbon Unfortunately, the LCABRS model in itself is not sufficient to automatically inform the user what factors need to be adjusted and by how much these factors need to be altered in order to improve the sustainable performance. By implementing the following

PAGE 79

79 methodology, the user would be capable of taking advantage of a life cycle ass essment p rocess implemented with the LCABRS model to determine a building environmental impact and then make decisions concerning alternatives for material and process choices. Perform L ife C ycle A ssessment The first step is to establish the boundaries f or the life cycle assessment. As part of the procedure, it is necessary to develop a flow diagram of the process. In building construction, this can be broken into four primary phases: manufacturing, construction, operation, and demolition. From this fl ow diagram, all the inputs and outputs from the system can be captured and used to establish the parameters to be analyzed. For a typical building the boundaries can be set based on the building site and what utility lines are connected to the main feeder s. Since the building owner will have little influence on the utility distribution components, these materials would not be included in the analysis. The next step is to develop a data collection plan. During this phase, the various materials that are used during the building construction and operation are identified. This requires a detailed analysis of everything that is required for that specific project plus an approximation of all the materials that are used during the life cycle of the building a ssuming normal wear and tear on the materials. The last part of this plan is to look at the disposal options available and anticipate how the material will be treated after the building has been demolished. To accomplish this task, a data collection work sheet and checklist should be developed. Critical to this step is to stay within the boundaries identified in the previous step and within a particular timeline. By using the

PAGE 80

80 worksheet, it is possible to identify the appropriate components and the source of their data. Step three of the process is to actually collect the data for each of the materials in their particular phases. The International Standards Organization (ISO) has established procedures to address the wide variety of methods available for collecting LCA data. By following the protocols of ISO 14041 (International Organization for Standardization 2006a) many of the problems of conflicting data should be avoided. T he final step is to analy ze the data provided by the LCABRS model. This can be done by putting the data into a tabular format and looking for any discrepancies and statistical significance. The data should reflect the information gathered from within the boundaries established in the first step and demonstrate the variances between the four phases of the building life cycle. Evaluate Phases In this step the data can be normalized based on life expectancy and building area in order to make assumptions conc erning the values that are significantly greater than other process and make comparison to other buildings. At this phase, other LCIA information provided by the LCABRS model can be examined to determine if there are significant elements other than carbon Based on the life cycle analysis, one of the phases is selected for additional analysis to determine what can be done to improve the performance of the life cycle. Primary Factors At this point, the phase that was selected for evaluation is examined in greater detail to determine which process can afford variation and have a significant impact on the environmental quality. Ideally a process should be selected where changes can be

PAGE 81

81 made in accordance with a variation of parameters. A realistic understand ing of the limitations of the construction process is critical to save time and preclude examining processes that cannot be altered to meet the desired effect. Adjust Parameters Using the scenari o variation function of the LCABRS model, the process that w as selected for analysis is established as the variable in which the parameters are permitted to change from a maximum to a minimum value. The b alance program in the GaBi tool allows the program to run from the minimum parameter value to the maximum value and plots the variation of the carbon emissions. In some cases, as one parameter changes, it may have a direct impact on a different parameter. In those scenarios, it may require that more than one parameter is adjusted at a time in order to gain an in dication of the realistic results from adjusting the values. Based on the parameters range, a balance is performed on the particular phase to determine what parameter values have the most optimum result. The parameters are then chosen for incorporation ba ck into the full life cycle model. Recalculation and Analysis The full model is analyzed with the new values to confirm that a better performance has been realized. At this time it is a good idea to look at the other environmental indicators to see if th e improvement in carbon emissions may have resulted in a deficiency in another ecological sector. Repeat If there are still indicators that the overall performance has not been optimized, then the process is repeated again by looking at a different phase and/or processes.

PAGE 82

82 The evolution is continually repeated until the building performance has obtained the desired results. Figure 3 1 Categories based on percentage of total points per rating system

PAGE 83

83 Figure 3 2 Buildi ng l ife cycle carbon emissions p rocess Figure 3 3 B uilding life cycle f low for L ife C ycle A ssessment for B uilding R ating S ystem (LCABRS) model

PAGE 84

84 Figure 3 4 Construction f low from LCABRS model Figure 3 5 Concrete f low

PAGE 85

85 Figure 3 6 Operation f low from LCABRS m odel Figure 3 7 Utilities p rocess

PAGE 86

8 6 Figure 3 8 Transportation p rocess Figure 3 9 Deconstruction flow from LCABRS model

PAGE 87

87 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In order to determine if a method can be developed that demonstrates a correlation between buildin g rating systems and carbon footprint calculations to assess sustainability it is first necessary to examine how a set of buildings compare when rated by the other rating systems. By comparing two buildings, one that has a sustainable rating and the othe it can be demonstrated the differences in how the rating systems evaluate the buildings and essentially establish a benchmark for a non sustainable building LCA. The LCABRS model will then be used to evaluate the two buildings and calculat e the carbon emissions. The results of this analysis will be compared with the carbon calculations from the other rating systems and a validation of the data will be conducted. Next the results will be compared with the actual performance data for the su stainable rated building to examine any variations in how the facility classification could have changed. Finally, a case study will then be used to demonstrate the new tool and how it can assist in the reduction of a buildings footprint in either the des ign or operational phases. Facility Selection In the comparison of a sustainable rated and a non sustainable rated building, it is best to select facilities that are in a similar climate, have the same function, are based on the same regulatory authority, and were constructed at the same time. In 2003, the University of Florida did not require that all new construction facilities would be built to a LEED standard. It was up to the individual building occupants to determine if funding would be authorized in order to construct a facility to a sustainable standard. Thus selecting two facilities constructed on the campus at that time would be able to meet the

PAGE 88

88 criteria established for an unbiased comparison as long as the facilities had similar functions. For a sustainable building, the M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction was chosen. This was the first building in the state of Florida to be certified to a Gold level through the LEED rating system version 2.0. The facility is a 4,322 square meter, three story structure that is primarily used for cla ssrooms and faculty offices. Primary construction is steel frame with glazing and aluminum panel curtain wall. Approximately 450 students use the facility on a daily basis during the school year. Final occu pancy occurred in January 2004. The Gerson Hall Accounting building was selected as the facility that had not been designed or constructed with the consideration of a sustainable rating system This 3,683 square meter, three story building serves as the c lassroom facility for 350 students and offices for 25 faculty. Primary construction is CMU block with a brick faade. The facility was completed in 2004. Table 4 1 provides a quick summary of the differences between the two buildings that were used for the development of the carbon rating methodology. Table 4 1 Building s pecifics Rinker Hall Gerson Hall LEED Gold N/A Year 2003 2003 Square meters 4, 322 3,6 83 Purpose Education Education Boundary C onditions One of the first steps in collecting data for a LCA is to establish the boundaries of the system being measured. Being that the facilities are located on a university campus, there is not a direct relation between the property boundaries and the project

PAGE 89

89 boundaries. However, the drawings for the construction work included landscape improvements to a limited distance from the new building and likewise this same area was chosen for the boundaries of the LCA. Since the utilities are provided by a central distribution system, the allocation of utilit ies was taken directly from the metered facility connections. For operational considerations, any relevant items or individuals that crossed the property boundaries were included in the building inventory. Finally, in keeping with the university policy t o assume a life expectancy of 60 years for new facilities, the same time was used in the life cycle assessment. Material Take offs As part of this proc ess, a material take off was performed on the buildings to determine the inventory list of construction m aterials. The material take offs of the two buildings originated from the construction drawings and specifications. These documents provided all the data relative to the site boundary and the construction materials. Although contractor estimates were av ailable for the Rinker building, they were only used as a validation of the material take offs. This was determined to be the most effective means to keep the collection of information consistent for the two buildings, since there was no data available fr om the contractors of the Gerson building. Normally contractor estimates include a factor for waste material due to excess required to compensate for discrepancies, unknown conditions, and installation variations. Since the waste factor applied is not c onsistent between contractors and across all trades consistently, it was determined to not includ e this factor for the inventory (Dagostino, Peterson 2011) Since the normal procedure for conducting material t ake offs in the United States is to request that subcontractors provide quantities based on the Construction

PAGE 90

90 Specification Institute (CSI) Masterformat, the data was organized in a similar manner. For projects in the United States or sponsored by US gover nment entities, the Masterformat is also the preferred manner of organizing construction materials. Therefore, the data for the research buildings was also organized into accordance with the CSI Masterformat divisions. Appendix A provides the results of the material take offs for Rinker and Gerson. Although complete material take off estimates were developed for the two buildings and is included in Appendix A it was determined to use only the most prominent items as part of the analysis. In addition to dramatically simplifying the data entry process, this is also in compliance with ISO 14041 (International Organization for Standardization 2006b) recommendations to only analyze dat a that can be considered relevant based on a percentage of the overall mass, energy, or environmental relevance. For this research a threshold value of 5% was established to preclude inclusion of materials that had no significant impact on the final resul t s. Table 4 2 provides a comparison of the most predominant materials for both Rinker and Gerson in accordance with the applicable CSI divisions. Since there is no significant LCA information on CSI divisions 10 through 16, they have been omitted at this time. Table 4 2 Building material s ummary CSI Divisions Description Units Rinker Gerson Division 3 Concrete Concrete Reinforcement Cy Tons 1407 56 1089 9.3 Division 4 Masonry CMU Block Brick Ea Ea 4709 56544 27688 153087 Division 5 Metal Steel memb ers Decks Tons Sf 265 48000 150 45000

PAGE 91

91 Table 4 2 continued CSI Divisions Description Units Rinker Gerson Division 6 Wood Blocking Sheathing Bf Sf 4614 14029 6915 15061 Division 7 Thermal Membrane Roof Al panels Sf Sf 17300 16300 4844 504 Division 8 Doors & Windows Doors Glazing Sf Sf 2187 10929 3373 5054 Division 9 Finishes GWB Carpet Sf Sf 140967 1667 68142 22616 Utilities The University of Florida Physical Property Division (PPD) maintains records of energy, water, and maintenance requirement s for all campus facilities. The most accurate and recent year of reports was from 2008 and thus this was chosen as the benchmark for considering the utilities usage. An evaluation on the utility usage of the sis by Catherine Simeon (Siemon 2009) and served as validation for the collected data. Additionally, an analysis of the potable water system was conducted by John Dryden as part of his Doctoral Dissertation (Dryden 2006) and demonstrated that at the University of Florida, potable water production requires 3.1 kWh of electricity for every 1000 gallons. Also, the processing of wastewater at UF requires 15.2 kWh of power. F igures 4 1 through 4 4 depict the recorded utility usage based on electricity, steam, chilled water, and potable wat er. Additionally, figure 4 5 demonstrates the total energy usage based on the combination of kWh for the electricity, steam, and chilled water.

PAGE 92

92 Transportation Personal interviews were conducted with building managers to determine the normal operating times and occupancy for the buildings. Based on the number of full time employees and students, the campus transportation report (STAR) (Sims 2011) was used to determine the estimated kilometer s that are driven by occupants. The report estimated that about 70% of the faculty drive cars and about 17% of the students drive. It is also estimated that the avera ge fa culty distance per day is 30 kilometer s, while the student distance is 6 kilometer s. For Rinker Hall, there are an estimated 27 staff and 450 students. Gerson has an estimated 25 faculty and 3 50 faculty. The faculty drive to school approximately 250 d ays per year and students drive 225 days. Based on these assumptions, Rinker would have a total of 262,864.6 kilometers driven per year and G erson would have 226,968.1 kilometers With an avera ge vehicle gas consumption of 8.5 km per liter this would conver t to 30,870.6 litres of gas for Rinker and 26,654 litres for Gerson. Additionally, based on the maintenance service calls record provided by PPD, it can be estimated that Rinker had 275 service calls and Gerson had 309 service calls per year. If each ser vice ca ll resulted in a round trip of 13 kilometer s from the PPD building to the respective research facility, this would account for an additional 278 litres of gas for Rinker and 313 litres for Gerson on an annual basis. Recycling At the time of construc tion, the planned end of life for the materials when the building is being deconstructed is to end in the landfill. However, the Rinker build ing received innovation points on its LEED scorecard for incorporating elements to permit it to be deconstructed i n such a manner to facilitate reclaiming all of the steel for

PAGE 93

93 recycling. Therefore, the total mass of material for Rinker that was being landfilled was reduced by the mass of the steel and a respective amount of recycled material was added to the LCA calc ulation. For the Gerson building, since no actions were taken during the design phase to allow for improved recycling capabilities, it is assumed that all material would end in the landfill. Landscape The construction drawings were used to determine what plants, shrubs, and sod were used on the construction sites. A very detailed list of plants was provided for the Rinker building and is included as part of their material take off in Appendix A. The Gerson building did not include landscape elements and t herefore, no calculations were performed for the building. For the trees and shrubs, a spreadsheet was developed based on Department of (Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases 1998) The spreadsheet medium, or slow growing. Additionally, the trees are specifi ed by the type as being either hardwood or conifer. Factors such as the age of the tree and the life expectancy of the plant were included in the calculations to provide a more specific indication of the anticipated annual carbon sequestration. Based on the calculations, the trees at Rinker would sequester approximately 2.85 tons CO 2 eq. per year. For the lawn, a direct multiplier was used based on the University of Florida research (Hostetler, Escobedo 2010) on c arbon sequestering from lawns in Florida. The table provided by the UF research was very specific based on regions, performance of maintenance, and whether the area had trees in addition to the lawn

PAGE 94

94 coverage. Based on the calculations, the lawn could seq uester 1.25 tons CO 2 eq. per year. Combining the effect of the trees and lawn would account to a sequestering of 4.115 tons CO 2 eq. per year. Rating Systems Comparison of Facilities Since the Rinker building received its LEED certification based on design criteria, in order to provide an equitable comparison of the building rating systems, the Rinker building properties were based on the design phase energy model and construction drawings. Since there was no energy modeling conducted on the Gerson buildin g, the actual conditions were used for the analysis of the rating systems. The following sections provide a summary of the results noticed when evaluating these buildings based on the applicable method. B uilding R esearch E stablishment E nvironmental A ssess ment M ethod Appendix B contains the simulated results of the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method ( BREEAM ) score card for both the Rinker and Gerson Buildings. A required part of the rating system is a calculation of the carbon emissions. Carbon calculations are based on utilities including water, business transportation, staff commuting travel, and greenhouse gas emissions. As this method adds the impact of transportation, an obvious increase in operational carbon emissions is noticed. For the Rinker building, by using the Carbon Calculation tools, it was estimated that the annual carbon emissions from the building would be 376.88 tonnes CO 2 per year or an equivalent of 87.2 kg CO 2 eq /m 2 yr. The simulated analysis of the BREE AM program indicated a rating 67.51% and a score of Very Good. The Gerson building had an estimated Carbon emission of 446.7 tonnes CO 2 per year or normalized

PAGE 95

95 to 121.3 kg CO 2 eq /m 2 yr. The simulated BREEAM score was 27.35% and not considered to pass the minimum requirements for certification L eadership in E nergy and E nvironmental D esign Appendix C contains the score card for Rinker and a simulated score card for the Gerson buildings. The Rinker building earned a Gold level of certification from version 2 .0 of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LEED ) rating system for New Construction. Significant highlights for the project included modeled energy and water savings of 50% each. The facility earned 39 out of a possible 69 points. Using th e LEED v2.0 scorecard, Gerson Hall was analyzed to determine the possible number of points it could have earned. Based upon university construction regulations at the time, the building would have earned 3 points with a possible 14 other points depending on construction practices. The maximum points possible would have been17, which is 9 points short of the required 26 points for LEED certification. Although there is currently a pilot program for conducting LCAs that can earn one point for Innovation, th ere is no requirement that any formal LCA or Carbon calculation must be followed to earn LEED certification. C omprehensive A ssessment S ystem for B uilding E nvironmental E fficiency App endix D contains the simulated data from the Comprehensive Assessment Syst em for Building Environmental Efficiency ( CASBEE ) scorecards for both Rinker and Gerson. Carbon calculation is a required factor to complete the rating system. Information from either energy usage or from an energy model is needed to determine the carbon footprint. The carbon footprint calculation also includes a small section in which the amount of concrete, steel, and timber used in the structure is factored into the overall carbon equation. Using the computer based energy model for Rinker building

PAGE 96

96 wo Based on the l ife c ycle CO 2 the building would save 44% from a standard building. The results indicated an annual carbon emission per square meter in kg CO 2 eq of 10.24 for construction, 16.68 for repair/demolition, and 26.55 for operation. This provided an annual emission of 53.47 kg CO 2 eq per square meter. A simulation of Gerson Hall estima ted to be 17% higher than the standard required for similar Japanese buildings. The results indicated an annual carbon emission per square meter in kg CO 2 eq of 10.24 for construction, 16.68 for repair/demolition, and 84.45 for operation. This provided an annual emission of 111.37 kg CO 2 eq per square meter. Green Star Appendix E has the simulated Green Star score card for the Rinker and Gerson buildings. A portion of the rating system requires the calculation of the carbon emissions based on the predicted operation phase by means of energy modeling as compared to anticipated demands of the facility. A simulated analysis of the Rinker building indicated that the facility would earn 53 of a possible 141 points for a potential score of 4 Green Stars. Based on the energy modeling, the program estimated the facility would have an annual carbon emission of 211,734 kg CO 2 eq or 49 kg CO 2 eq /m 2 yr. Using the actual energy demands and construction practices for the Gerson building estimated that the facility could possible earn 2 Green Stars due to scoring 26 out of a possible 141 points. The energy demands estimated an annual carbon emission of 421,932 kg CO 2 eq or 114.5 kg CO 2 eq /m 2 yr.

PAGE 97

97 Green Globes Appendix F has the simulated Green Globes score card for the Rin ker and Gerson buildings. Green Globes has a specific category relative to LCA in which up to 35 program is based on the Uniformat division of construction materials and us es the square feet of building systems to calculate the ecological impacts. The results are based on manufacturing, construction, and demolition; but do not include factors for operational and energy demands. During the simulated analysis the Rinker buil ding could earn 567 of 931 possible points for 61% of the total. This would qualify the building for a certification of 2 out of a possible 4 Green Globes. By using the Athena EcoCalculator program the carbon footprint for the building was estimated as 1 824 tonnes CO 2 eq. Gerson Hall may qualify for 213 of 931 possible points for 23% of the total. Since a minimum of 35% of the points must be earned in order to receive certification, the building would not receive Green Globes certification. Using the bu ilding data in the Athena EcoCalculator demonstrated that the building would have a carbon footprint of 1422 tonnes CO 2 eq. D eutsche G esellschaft fur N achhaltiges B auen Appendix G has the simulated Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen ( DGNB ) score card for the Rinker and Gerson buildings. The system is based on a questionnaire that includes a very detailed analysis of the building systems in accordance with the Uniformat system and the energy demands. The LCA components are calculated using a new It program, the carbon emissions from the Rinker building were estimated to be 55 kg CO 2 eq /m 2 yr per

PAGE 98

98 year based on actual energy usage. For the Gerson building, the estimated carbon emissions were 74.7 kg CO 2 eq /m 2 yr. F igure 4 6 provides a summary of the results from the various rating systems applied to the buildings and demonstrates the similarities of the results L ife C ycle A ssessment Tool Application After establishing that the Rinker building and Gerso n building are evaluated in similar manners by the various rating systems, the information from these facilities can be used in the developed LCABRS model. The following information provides the details used in establishing the LCA tool and subsequent car bon calculations. This information is provided in conjunction with the LCA Tool Development section from the Methodology section of this report. Build ing Life Cycle Phases The information from the personal interviews and review of building drawings and sp ecifications was used to establish these parameters. T able 4 3 depicts the information from the ge neral criteria of the model. Table 4 3 General reference values for b uildin g life c ycle Parameter Rinker Gerson Comment FTE 27 25 Full Time Employees FTE_ days_work 250 250 FTE works per year Students 450 350 Average number of students Student_days_school 200 200 student school days per year Sq_m_bldg_area 4322 3683 Building area in square meters Years_of_use 60 60 Life expectancy of building in years

PAGE 99

99 Construction Phase The material take off information was condensed to provide the inputs for the construction phase of the LCABRS model. Table 4 4 represents the quantities of materials used during construction that are specific to the building being desi gned. Table 4 4 Values input specifically for the buildings being analyzed. Parameter Rinker Gerson Comment cm _co ncrete 1076 833 Quantity of concrete in building Ton ne s_rebar 12 8 Quantity of rebar in metric ton ne s Block_quantity 56544 27688 Number of CMU blocks Brick_quantity 4709 153087 Number of bricks Sm _steeldeck 4459 4181 Square meters of steel decking Ton ne s_steel 250 136 Metric t on ne s of steel members Bf_wood 4614 6915 Board feet of dimensional lumber Sm _sheathing 1303 1399 Square meter s of plywood Sm _al_sheets 1514 230 Square meters of aluminum sheets Table 4 4 continued Parameter Rinker Gerson Comment Sm _roofinsul 1607 450 Square meters of roof insulation Window_area 1 1 Square meters area of window Window perimeter 9 9 Linear m eters of window perimeter Qty_Al_window 236 256 Quantity of Aluminum windows Coats_of_paint 2 2 Coats of paint on wall surfaces Sm _carpet 155 2101 Square meters of carpeting Sm _GWB 13096 6331 Square meters of GWB Sm _to_paint 13096 6331 Square meters t o be painted Operation Phase Table 4 5 provides specific data items pertinent to the particular conditions of each of the researched facilities. The values used for the Rinker building utilities are based on the energy model that was developed prior to construction. The values used for the Gerson building utilities are based on actual conditions. Table 4 5 Specific values used for building operation analysis Parameter Rinker Gerson Comment Lawn_coverage 3728 2408 Square meters of lawn

PAGE 100

100 Tree_quantity 23 0 Number of hardwood trees Maint_calls 275 309 Service calls per year Chilled _water 76000 351951 kWh chilled water per year Electricity 235000 455180 kWh of electricity per year Potable_water 219800 248800 Gallons of water per year Steam 112189 12 7328 kWh of steam per year 0 0 2 equiv. Percent_student_dri vers .17 .17 Percent of students that drive Percent_FTE_driver s .7 .7 Percent of FTE that drive own vehicle Deconstruction Phase Table 4 6 depicts the para meter variables that are available for alternatives to landfilling. The value for material going to the landfill was based on the inputs of material in the construction phase. If material needs to be considered above that specified during construction, i t should be added as a separate quantity into this field. Additionally, t he LCABRS model permits the inclusion of alternative techniques for waste diversion should the need arise. Table 4 6 Specific values used for building deconstruction analysis Paramet er Rinker Gerson Comment Reuse 1.5E5 0 k g of material that will be reused Recycle 0 0 k g of material that will be recycled Incinerated 0 0 k g of material that will go to incinerator L ife C ycle A ssessment Tool Validation Before using the LCABRS model it should be validated to demonstrate the results are in accordance with acceptable values. Since there are no other LCA models that have the rigor of the designed LCABRS model, a comparison needs to be made that starts by looking at the research buildi ngs energy levels to determine if they are within

PAGE 101

101 an expected range. By using the CBECS results for average buildings energy demands bases on particular regions, a benchmark can be set for a non sustainable building. Figure 4 7 represents the normal dist ribution of energy between services within an educational facility in the Southeast U.S. Therefore, the Gerson building should have an energy level that is similar to CBECS levels and establish that the Gerson building can be used as a benchmark for the L CA. Based on the 2003 results from the CBECS, an educational facility in the southeast of the United States within the 25,000 to 50,000 square foot area (2,322 to 4,645 square meters ) has an average combined energy use of 830 MWh. Based on the range of facility sizes this would provide an energy range per square meter of 0.36 kWh to 0.18 kWh and result in average value of 0.27 kWh per square meter The energy levels of Rinker were estimated to be 311 MWh and 3829 therms for a combined annual energy us a ge of 423 MWh or 0.098 kWh per sm The actual measured energy levels for Rin ker in 2008 were 986 MWh or 0.228 kWh per sm Gerson reported an energy use of 934 MWh which would result in 0.254 kWh per sm This information is depicted in figure 4 8. Altho ugh the energy levels of the planned Rinker building were significantly lower than the CBECS range, the readings for the actual buildings were well within the expected results of the CBECS Next, a comparison is made between the carbon emissions of the oth er rating systems to that of the research facilities. Since the different rating systems look at different building life cycle phases, it is not expected that the total values will be in complete agreement. However, the particular building life cycle sta ges from the

PAGE 102

102 LCABRS model should be similar to the calculated results from the respective rating systems life cycle phases. To perform this analysis, the building data outlined above is used as the inpu ts for the LCABRS model. For validation of the LCABR S results the energy model levels will be used in Rinker and the actual energy levels used in Gerson. Based on these parameters, the CO 2 equivalent calculations are 97.81 kg CO 2 per m 2 /yr for Rinker and 204.47 kg CO 2 per m 2 /yr for Gerson. To best determ ine if the results are similar to the other rating systems, a statistical analysis using the Chi Square goodness of fit test was used to establish the probability of significance for the series being independent The computer based program r the Chi (Preacher 2001) was used to calculate the applicable values. Due to the disparity of calculating methods f or the various rating systems, the data was grouped into two categories: constructio n phase and operation phase. In addition, all the data ranges were normalized based on the applicable size of the facility and anticipated time of building use. For the construction pha se, the chi s quare analysis was conducted on the values obtained from Green Globes, CASBEE, DGNB, and LCABRS programs. The construction phase received a chi square value of .773 with 3 degrees of f reedom and a probability value of .859 For the operation phase, the rating systems of BREEAM, CASBEE, Green Star, DGNB, and L CABRS were evaluated. The chi square value was calculated to be 3.311 w ith 4 degrees of freedom and a probability value of .5. Thereby it can be argued that the values are not independent and a correlation exists between the rating systems and the carbon calculations. Figures 4 9 and 4 10 graphically demonstrate the distribution of the

PAGE 103

103 calculated values for carbon emissions from the various rating systems in the construction and operation phases respectively As this data reveals, the range of variables from the LCABRS model are well within the range calculated from other prominent rating systems and carbon calculators. Thereby, it would be reasonable to expect the results of the LCABRS model to provide valuable and reliable information. Case Study In o rder to best demonstrate the functionality of the new method involving the LCABRS model for LCA evaluation and carbon footprint calculation, an an alysis will be performed based on actual building readings To demonstrate the flexibility of the model, the case study will be evaluated in two simulated situations: prio r to construction and then again using actual energy data from several years following building occupancy. This demonstration will show how the LCABRS program can be used to assist in decision making based on varying life cycle conditions. Pre construction P hase To demonstrate the actual performance of the buildings, the data from PPD is used relative to energy and resource consumption Perform LCA The same construction and operational data is used from the LCA Tool Application section of this report. Evaluate p hases The Gerson bu ilding is used as benchmark to establish goals of which phases of the life cycle shoul d be adjusted. Figure 4 11 indicates the life cycle phases o f the Rinker and Ger son buildings under actual conditions. From this chart it can be seen that the carbon emissions of the construction and deconstruction phase for the Rinker building are actually higher than the benchmark

PAGE 104

104 facility. Thus, it would be worthwhile to examine t hese parameters to determine if any revisions could be made that would improve their performance. Since the deconstruction value is tied directly to the mass of material used in the construction phase, any reduction in the construction phase should result in a similar reduction in the deconstruction phases. Naturally, the other alternative would be to plan for an increased amount of recycled and reused waste to offset the higher values. Based on this evaluation, the construction phase will be evaluated fo r possibilities of further improvements. Primary f actors Using the data from the material take offs it can be determine d which of the construction materials has the largest deviation from the benchmark facility. Fi gure 4 12 depicts the percentage diffe rence between the quantities of material in Rinker and Gerson. For a quick evaluation, only the most significant materials from each of the applicable CSI divisions was selected. Figure 4 12 shows that finishes and thermal have the largest variation with other significant differences coming from masonry, metal, and concrete. Although, it still needs to be determined which of these elements will have the greatest impact on the overall carbon footprint. The next analysis of the data can be conducted based o n the percentage of the overall carbon emissions that particular construction materials contribute to the building F igure 4 13 demonstrates the results from the LCABRS model in which it uses the carbon emissions data from the construction phase to determ ine percentage contribution of each process. As the figure shows, the largest percentage of the carbon

PAGE 105

105 emissions can be attributed to the Concrete manufacturing process. The next largest contributor is Metal with the third most significant material being Masonry. By analyzing the two charts together the overall impact can be estimated and thus make the decision of which materials to evaluate easier to interpret. For example, although the Thermal process from Rinker contributes 75% more carbon emissi ons figure 4 13 shows that the Thermal process is less than 3% of the overall carbon emissions. Thus changes in Thermal process are not going to be significant changes to the overall carbon emissions. Instead, the three main p rocess to be evaluated would b e Concrete, Metal, and Masonry. Adjust p arameters In construction, if one material is diminished often another material will need to be used as an alternative. In the analysis of c oncrete, metal and m asonry it needs to be realized that there will likely be a minimum value of these elements that are required for the facility to be structurally sound. Although the actual analysis of construction techniques will require evaluation from a structural engineer, this is intended as a demonstration of the capab ilities of the model to assist in the material selection. From the GaBi database it can be calculated that concrete has 2108 kg of CO 2 equiv. for every cubic yard of material produc ed. For metals, the GaBi database calculates that 1872 kg of CO 2 equiv ar e emitted for every ton of material produced. Since the concrete has a larger impact, for trial purposes, it will be determined what happens to the results by cutting the concrete quantity in half or using 703 cy of concrete. In addition, the rebar will be reduced from 13 tons to 6.5 tons. Figure 4 14

PAGE 106

106 depicts the new distribution of percentages in the construction processes due to these variations. Recalculation and a nalysis Having found a combination of parameters that provides a more efficient carbon emission, the next step is to verify the complete life cycle once again. This time, in addition to looking at the carbon emissions, the other ecological impacts of the TRACI system will be reviewed. Figures 4 15 through 4 29 show the changes in the TRACI metrics due to adjusting the Rinker actual values to the quantities calculated for improved carbon emissions. Repeat If it is determined that any of the TRACI values or perhaps another parameter should be adjusted, then the process would begin again with the analysis of the LCABRS results to determine the process that has the greatest impact. Po st construction P hase The final step of the research involves a case study of Rinker Hall based upon the conditions that apply after construction combined with t he actual measured energy requirements. The intent of the analysis is to show how the rating of the building has changed from planned levels, estimate the real carbon emissions, and then use the LCABRS model to recommend changes to improve performance Per form LCA The same project boundaries were used for this analysis as for the validation procedure for the LCABRS model. Additionally, there were no significant deviations from the construction documents that need to be factored into the updated model. Th e major variation between planned and actual conditions was in the energy use of the building. Using the PPD data from 2008, the chilled water was measured as 374,798 kWh, the steam 179,728 kWh, and the electricity 431,588 kWh.

PAGE 107

107 Evaluate p hases The Gerson building was again used as benchmark to establish goals of which phases of the life cycle should be adjusted. Figure 4 30 indicates the life cycle phases of the two buildings under actual conditions. The largest variation is naturally due to the operatio nal phase. The differences in the construction phase are still the same as during the design phase; but would also require extensive resources to alter the materials after the building has been occupied If any improvements in recycling options can be fo und after building occupancy, then they will only provide more of a benefit for the overall building carbon footprint. Prim ary f actors Using the LCABRS model, it can be determined which of the operation processes are the largest contributors to the carbon emissions by performing a weak point analysis. Table 4 7 reflects how the LCABRS analysi s depicts the factors and thus isolates recommended areas for further review: Table 4 7 T ool for R eduction and A ssessment of C hemical I mpacts (TRACI) global w armin g from L ife C ycle A ssessment for B uilding R ating S ystem (LCABRS) analysis Building LCA Building LCA Building LCA Building LCA Operation Phase Operation Phase Operation Phase Transportation Utilities Flows 41922078.08 34184296.74 5923652.936 384671 53.35 Resources 273573.646 59324.5076 3751.944055 75272 Emissions to air 42195651.73 34243621.25 5927404.88 38391881.35 The transportation contributions can be reduced by encouraging alternatives to a single person driving a single vehicle to the b uilding. Any reduction in the transportation category would have a direct reduction in the carbon emissions and improve the overall carbon footprint for the building.

PAGE 108

108 The utilities contribu tors are pic tured in F igure 4 31 It can be seen that the majorit y of energy demands are due to the electricity and chilled water. Most of this change can occur in the selection of the HVAC equipment; but a certain percentage of the contribution could be a ccredited to the insulation of the building envelope. Detailed energy modeling that examines the impact of the construction materials would need to be used in order to provide a better estimate for the results. Another option would be to install a renewable energy source. One of the original design plans for the Ri nker building included the installation of a 20kW photovoltaic array of panels For demonstration purposes, it will be demonstrated the impact of changing the electricity use in the building. Adjust p arameters As the installation of PV equipment would al so provide a significant additional material resource, it is interesting to determine the impact on the overall building carbon emissions due to this alteration. Current technology in PV arrays indicate a life cycle carbon emission of 35 to 58 g CO 2 equiv ./kWh (POST 2006) Unfortunately, there is inadequate information relating to actual life cycle assessments that include the full range of pollutants that are released due to PV production. None of the current LCIA data i nclude adequate data for input into the LCABRS model and thus the impact must be simulated as an offset of carbon compared due to the reduction in normal electricity purchased. Based on the NREL PV calculator (NREL 2011) the 20kW system would produce 25,711 kWh of power per year. This would result in a carbon emission from the PV panel of 899 to 1,491kg CO 2 equiv. per year. However, the use of natural gas for electricity production creates a carbon emission of approximat ely .55 kg CO 2 equiv. per kWh. Therefore the 25,711 kWh of electricity from

PAGE 109

109 a natural gas source would emit 14,141 kg CO 2 equiv. Thus it can be estimated that using the planed quantity of PV panels would reduce carbon emissions by an average of 12,946 k g CO 2 per year. Although, since the total annual carbon emissions due to electricity from natural gas contributes 227,000 kg CO 2 equiv per year, this will only account for a 5% reduction in carbon emissions from electricity production Recalculation and a nalysis T he next step is to examine the complete life cycle once again and determine if there has been a detrimental impact in another phase of the life cycle due to the modification. In the case of the PV panels there could be impacts in other environm ental properties; but at this time there is insufficient data to make a valid determination. A s more information becomes available on LCA processes, this will be a valuable step in determining the overall environmental impact due to applying high tech opt ions that have significant pollutant capabilities. Repeat Similar to the pre construction phase, if it is determined that the user desires to further reduce the selected property or another parameter creates a significant environmental impact, then the pr ocess is repeated until the desired outcome can be achieved. Since the LCABRS model has been designed to have individual models for the construction, operation, and deconstruction phases; the program can provide very specific analysis of every aspect of th e life cycle. The advantage to this type of open ended analysis is that it allows the user to update the model with improved data and continually update the ecological impacts. Since the LCABRS model does not include any energy modeling techniques, it wou ld be beneficial to rerun the energy model after any major change in the structural

PAGE 110

110 envelope. As there are some changes that could result in significant changes in the building energy demands, it would be beneficial to recognize those elements in the desi gn stage and compensate for them appropriately. Figure 4 1 2008 electricity u se in MWh /month

PAGE 111

111 Figure 4 2 2008 s team use in klbs /month Figure 4 3 2008 chilled water u se in kton hrs /month

PAGE 112

112 Figure 4 4 20 10 potable water u se in kgal /month Figure 4 5 2008 energy u se in MWh /month

PAGE 113

113 Figure 4 6 Comparison of rating systems levels and how they evaluated the research buildings Figure 4 7 C ommercial B uilding E nergy C onsumption S urvey (CBECS) a verage electricity usage in educational facilities

PAGE 114

114 Figure 4 8 Comparison of e nergy levels in kWh per s m/yr Figure 4 9 Building rating tools carbon analysis of construction p hase kg CO 2 equiv. per m 2 /yr

PAGE 115

115 Figure 4 1 0 Building rating tools carbon analysis of o per ation p hase kg CO 2 equiv. per m 2 /yr

PAGE 116

116 Figure 4 11 Comparison of calculated life cycle phases carbon in kg CO 2 equiv./m 2 /yr Figure 4 12 Variation in material quantities between Gerson and Rinker in which positive indicates Rinker is larger and negative is Gerson is larger

PAGE 117

117 Figure 4 13 Percentage of total carbon emissions in c onstruction phase by C onst ruction S pecification I nstitute (CSI) divisions Figure 4 14 Percentage of total c arbon emissions in construction phase from recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete

PAGE 118

118 Figure 4 1 5 T ool for R eduction and A ssessment of C hemical I mpacts (TRACI) global warming a ir [kg CO 2 Equiv./m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete Figure 4 1 6 TRACI, human health cancer a ir [kg Benzene Equiv./m2/y r] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete

PAGE 119

119 Figure 4 17 TRACI, h uma n health cancer ground surface s oil [kg Benzene Equiv.] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recomm ended change of 50% reduction in concrete Figure 4 18 TRACI, human health cancer w ater [kg Benzene Equiv./m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete

PAGE 120

120 Figure 4 19 TRACI, human health criteria air point s ource [kg PM2,5 Equiv/m2/yr.] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete Figure 4 20 TRACI, human health non c ancer a ir [kg Toluene Equiv./m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete

PAGE 121

121 Figure 4 21 TRACI, human health non cancer ground surface s oil [kg Toluene Equiv./m2/yr] from Ge rson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete Figure 4 22 TRACI, human health non cancer w ater [kg Toluene Equiv/m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete

PAGE 122

122 Figure 4 23 TRACI, ozone depletion a ir [kg CFC 11 Equiv.] fro m Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete Figure 4 24 TRAC I, smog a ir [kg NOx Equiv.] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete

PAGE 123

123 Figure 4 25 TRACI, acidification a ir [mol H+ Equiv./m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with r ecommended change of 50% reduction in concrete Figure 4 26 TRACI, e cotoxcity Air [kg 2,4 Dichlorophenoxyace/m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete

PAGE 124

124 Figure 4 27 TRACI, ecotoxcity ground surface s oil [kg Benzene Equiv.] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete Figure 4 28 TRACI, ecotoxcity w ater [kg 2,4 Dich lorophenoxyace/m2/yr] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete

PAGE 125

125 Figure 4 29 TRACI, e utrophication [kg N Equiv.] from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete Figure 4 30 Comparison of measured life cycle phases carbon in CO 2 equiv./m2/yr from Gerson, Rinker actual and Rinker with recommended change of 50% reduction in concrete

PAGE 126

126 Figure 4 31 Rinker a ctual o peration phase distribution by percentage

PAGE 127

127 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSI ON, THE FUTURE Discussion The overall intention of the carbon measuring is to find a method to evaluate materials and processes based upon a similar constraint. Ideally when a n organization establishes a requirement to have buildings constructed to a particular sustainable rating system level, it will be recognized as comparable to similar levels in other nations. Although the most important constraint is to provide an effecti ve system that can improve the environmental performance of facilities by establishing results that accurately reflect the actual building conditions. In recognizing that a number of pollutants are released in the extracting, processing, and manufacturing of products, th e decision to monitor ecological impacts should begin from the time the material is created and continue through the life of the product until it is finally disposed or recycled. Recognizing the importance of reducing the dependence on fos sil fuels, plus minimizing the effect of power generated from carbon based products, and also examining the contributions of greenhouse gases can all be analyzed through the atmospheric emissions Tracking the life cycle carbon is an important step towa rd improving the environmental performance of buildings. Carbon Emissions from Other Rating Systems As the research demonstrated the results from other r ating systems were relatively consistent yet underestimated the carbon foot printing. The differences in sources between v arious countries may have been a factor for some of the variations in quantities; but for the most part it was insignificant The major factor in the variations can be attributed to the data ranges that were being collected as part of the evaluation.

PAGE 128

128 For example, some calculations included individual vehicle traffic and others did not. There were no two rating systems that could be identified as being ex actly alike; and thus none that included the full range of processes in the buildi ng life cycle As an indicator of these differences, it is interesting to note how the various rating systems would be adjusted based on the actual measurements from the Rinker building as depicted in figure 5 1. In most cases, the carbon e missions incre ased doubled from their calculations in figure 4 6 One of the contributing factors to these changes could be seen in figure 5 2 as it depicts the various levels of carbon emissions from energy production based on the different rating systems. In genera l, the scoring of the sustainable facilities put them in a close percentage of the available points. However, some countries had more restrictive requirements that resulted in final rankin g that was at a lower percentage than others For the non LEED bui lding, it was interesting to note that some nations had a higher overall standard that resulted in the building b eing ranked at a lower level. As s ome of the research on building construction practices indicated several of the other nations have much mor e stringent emissions and energy requirements and t hereby have established a more sustainable baseline for their buildings. As a result of the updated readings for the Rinker building, all of the rating systems would have giv en the building a lower rating than planned and in the case of Green Star the building would no longer qualify as a sustainable facility. Figure 5 3 depicts the anticipated new percentage of points the rating systems could provide to the actual conditions for the Rinker building. Limi tations of the L ife C ycle A ssessment for B uilding R ating S ystem Program One of the primary limitations in LCA investigations is getting accurate data to reflect the exact material that is being used. Fortunately, there are significant

PAGE 129

129 similarities in para llel processes as long as they abide by a consistent procedure for documenting the processes such as the ISO 14040 standards (International Organization for Standardization 2006b) For the developed model, US systems were chosen when available; although Germany was often the default scenario. The model is designed to permit easy alteration of the databases as U S data (or other nations) becomes available. Another significant limitati on of the LCABRS program is that it is not free software. The basic program including database updates can be relatively expensive to purchase. Although, this is a problem with many of the improved rating tools it seems to be further exasperated with Ga Bi in that a dongle is required to be installed on the computer in order to permit access to the program and databases. Differences between Planned Results and Constructed Results In the post construction case study, a significant deviation was noted bet ween the planned energy usage and the actual recorded data for the LEED certified building. The direct energy measurements as compared to the energy modeling indicated that a 83 % variation had occurred in electricity, a 393 % variation in chilled water, an d a 60 % variation in steam The corresponding change in carbon emissions also indicates a difference of 87 kg CO 2 /m 2 /yr which would account in a 110% increase in the operational phase The reasons for this deviation can be attributed to a wide variety of factors ranging from inaccurate data during the design phase, construction not occurring as planned, and/or operation of the building deviating from the modeled process (Bordass, Cohen & Field 2004) With this typ e of variations in actual versus planned energy usage, it is understandable why building rating systems have received the criticism of individuals

PAGE 130

130 such as Henry Gifford (Gifford 2009) By using accurate carbon cal culating tools such as the LCABRS model, more realistic evaluations could be achieved. The rating systems could then be tied directly to a measured percentage reduction from a baseline facility in order to obtain certification. By proving a carbon reduct ion of 30, 40, or 50% could result in award levels of Silver, Gold or Platinum. Naturally, the percentage of emission savings necessary for building certification should be similar to an international level to permit consistency in reporting standards. Publicity of the LCABRS model is important in expanding the knowledge of the technique and encouraging further development and research. Through awareness of the importance of this type of tool in building evaluations, it is possible to make a significant difference in the selection of building materials and the operating principles of facilities. Distribution of the research results to building rating systems committees may inform them of the significance of full life cycle consideration and provide the impetus for improving the various systems. Conclusion In recapping the goals of this project, t he research was successful in demonstrating the differences in carbon footprinting calculations between a sustainable rated facility and a non sustainable rated facility. The LCABRS model was able to demonstrate that the major differences occur in the building operation cycle although to fully understand the buildings impact, the full life cycle should be considered. By looking at the predominant international r ating systems, it could be seen how other n ations would evaluate similar buildings and an enhanced method could be developed that provided a more detailed calculation of the carbon footprint.

PAGE 131

131 Additionally the research was effective in demonstrating tha t international rating systems may have very different goals for their building evaluation and that it is directly to another rating system. Despite the fact that severa l systems use carbon emissions as a factor for building evaluation, since they do not consider the same building processes, it would be erroneous to attempt to develop direct correlations between these systems based on their current methods of calculating carbon footprint The LCABRS model validation and Case Study have demonstrated that the null hypothesis has been supported and a method can be developed that correlates building rating systems with carbon footprint calculations for the full life cycle of the building. As Trusty states in his 2009 article about incorporating LCAs into building rating systems (Trusty 2009) : aspects when it com es to environmental performance. The task is to balance the pros and cons, understand the trade offs in terms of true environmental performance measures, and use materials to their best advantage, recognizing that all buildings typically incorporate a wid e range of materials. Although the planned energy demands can be helpful for establishing an energy goal, it should not be the final determinant in establishing the sustainability of the facility. An energy rating should be based on actual verifiable res ults for the facility. It is imperative of Construction Managers and Facility Managers to understand what can cause these variations and plan to take corrective action early to avoid greater deviations. An LCA for a facility to be comprehensive needs to i nclude the full range of impacts from construction through operation and finally consider the demolition at the

PAGE 132

132 end of life. The LCABRS model is able to provide a simplified analysis of the data based on the majority of factors affecting the full building process. An understanding of the interrelation of these factors is important for facility owners and operators to help in establishing objectives for reducing the carbon foot print of their building. The developed LCABRS model is not intended as a panac e a but rather a tool that can assist with the interpretation of the full life cycle process. As this technology grows, it can become a valuable portion of the building evaluation process to document the performanc e and environmental impacts from decisions made concerning the building design, operation, and disposal. Returning to the original intent of providing an analysis tool that looks at sustainability, the LCABRS model is well situated for considering the carbon footprint and in conjunction with the other LCIA criteria can look at other life cycle environmental impac ts. Additionally, t he LCABRS program has been de signed to permit analysis of other sustainable criteria such as ecological and social impacts. Although currently the amount of data avai lable for social impacts is very limited and an excellent area for future research. Future Research The level of data available for life cycle assessments on products is still very limited. Although routine products can be found, the more elaborate manufa cturing process, particularly in non EU countries, often lack the full environmental emissi on data or have not even been modeled. Naturally, the accuracy of the life cycle analysis depends on the available database. Thus, it cannot be overstated that, mo re research is needed on construction materials in order to improve the validity of the results and enhance the decision making process.

PAGE 133

133 There are still significant gaps in the modeling process relative to the energy and resources used in the actual buildi ng construction process. Despite numerous reviews of the construction process from a management perspective, there is limi ted data on the ecological factors Despite this being a relatively minor component of the overall building life, it would still be necessary to provide informed decisions that could impact the environmental impacts during on site building construction. Factors such as equipment usage, site layout, material storage, and utility usage, would be valuable to have analyzed. It would be wo rthwhile to develop a d atabase of buildings that can be used to establish a baseline for evaluating the sustainability of facilities. With the baseline and subsequent range of results from measured facilities, it can be determined relatively how sustainab le a building actually performs. The intent would be to require this kind of information as part of any rating system and publicize the results. Awareness of the importance of sustainable buildings is a key element in increasing the incorporation of thes e ideas and truly making a difference in the world. As the implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) becomes more prevalent it would be useful to establish a direct link between the results of the BIM program and the LCABRS model. As the LCABR S model is designed to accept inputs in the CSI Masterformat style and the BIM model can produce material take offs in the same style, there would be a useful link between these two tools. Ideally, the LCABRS model should be automated to a point where use rs would take advantage of the program through other design tools and provide a seamless interpretation of the

PAGE 134

134 sustainability of the building that can be evaluated virtually continuously through the design process It would be of interest for design profess ionals to have a single tool that could perform all the calculations instantaneously. As previously mentioned, the LCABRS model was not designed to perform any energy modeling. It could save on several steps and improve the accuracy of results if the ene rgy modeling could be built into the LCA tool. Figure 5 1 Rating sys tems calculated carbon footprint for Rinker in kg CO 2 equiv./m 2 /yr

PAGE 135

135 Figure 5 2 Rating systems reported carbon factor for energ y Figure 5 3 Percentage of rating systems points earned

PAGE 136

136 APPENDIX A M ATERIAL TAKE OFF Division item units Rinker Gerson Difference Division 2 Site Construction 25 10 Trees CrapeMyrtle ea 4 Elm 8' 2a 21 Live Oak 8' ea 2 European Palm ea 2 Saw palmetto ea 3 sago palm ea 5 sabal palm ea 4 2520 Shrubs Podocarpus ea 6 Blush ea 16 Azalea ea 74 Camelia ea 4 2530 Ground Cover Hawthorn ea 22 Jasmine ea 20 Evergreen Giants ea 10 Variegater ea 48 Parsonil ea 81 Creeping Fig ea 31 2540 Seed and Sod Bermuda sod sf 37287 Division 3 Concrete 3050 Basic Concrete Materials and

PAGE 137

137 Methods 3100 Concrete Forms and Accessories sfca 7107.44 7107.44 3200 Concrete Reinforcement wwf sf 74789.5 79659.2 9 4869.79 rebar lbs 113588.24 6 18711.7 4 94876.51 3300 Cast In Place Concrete cy 580.57 219.278 3 361.29 Finishing sf 72973.28 72973.28 Curing csf 793.60 793.60 3400 Precast Concrete 3500 Cementitious Decks and Underlayment cy 827.13 870.308 43.17 3600 Grouts 3700 Mass Concrete 3900 Concrete Restoration and Cleaning Division 4 Masonry 4000 Masonry 4050 Basic Masonry Materi als and Methods 4100 Joint Reinforcement wall ties ea 5198 5197.50 horiz. reinforcement lf 3524 3524.00 mortar cf 909.00 787.572 8 121.43 grout cf 1682.79 7 1682.80 4200 Masonry Units 6" CMU b lock s 4600.00 4600.00 8" CMU block s 109.62 27688.1 1 27578.49 Brick ea 56554.68 153087. 96533.13

PAGE 138

138 8 4400 Stone 4500 Refractories 4600 Corrosion Resistant Masonry 4700 Simulated Masonry 4800 Masonry Assemblies 4900 Masonry Restoration and Cleaning Division 5 Metals 5050 Basic Metal Materials and Methods 5100 Structural Metal Framing columns tons 63 15.7649 9 46.75 beams tons 133.5 1 35.352 4 1.85 tube steel tons 69 69.00 5200 Metal Joists 5300 Metal Deck 2" sf 29263.7 2 29263.72 3" sf 32800 12914.5 3 19885.47 1.5" sf 15025 2740.42 9 12284.57 5400 Cold Formed Metal Framing metal studs ea 3000 3000.00 5500 Metal Fabrications anchor bolts ea 180 72 108.00 base plates tons 2.50 0.43385 4 2.07 5600 Hydraulic Fabrications 5700 Ornamental Metal 5800 Expansion Control 5900 Metal Restoration and Cleaning

PAGE 139

139 Division 6 Wood and Plastics 6050 Basic Wood and Plastic Materials and Methods 6100 Rough Carpentry wood blocking bf 4614.1333 3 6915.30 1 2301.17 3/4" sheathing sf 1 4029.256 13061.5 7 967.69 5/8" sheathing sf 2006.4 2006.40 6200 Finish Carpentry 6400 Architectural Woodwork 6500 Structural Plastics 6600 Plastic Fabrications 6900 Wood and Plastic Restoration and Cleani ng Division 7 Thermal and Moisture Protection 7050 Basic Thermal and Moisture Protection Materials and Methods 7100 Damproofing and Waterproofing vapor barrier sf 1225 70494.9 5 69269.95 Bentonite s f 1947 1947.00 damproofing sf 524136. 3 524136.31 sealants lf 2492 2492.00 7200 Thermal Protection rigid 1.5" 524136. 3 524136.31 2.5" 17906.0 1 17906.01 batt 5910.4 5910.40 7300 Shingles, Roof Tile s, and Roof Coverings cla y roof tiles sf 13061.5 7 13061.57 7400 Roofing and Siding Panels

PAGE 140

140 aluminum panels sf 16300 504.012 8 15795.99 copper panels sf 1687.36 1687.36 7500 Membrane Roofing modified bi tuminous 4844.44 2 4844.44 EPDM sf 17300 17300.00 7600 Flashing and Sheet Metal flat seam copper 611.686 4 611.69 Flashing lf 700 2092.32 1392.32 7700 Roof Specialties and Accessories copper fascia 5 33.92 533.92 Gutters 436.32 436.32 downspounts 14 14.00 7800 Fire and Smoke Protection 7900 Joint Sealers Division 8 Doors and Windows 8050 Basic Door and Window Materials and Methods 8100 Metal Doors and Frames exterior sf 780.39 328.9 451.49 interior sf 679.691 7 679.69 8200 Wood and Plastic Doors sf 1487.41 2365.13 7 877.73 8300 Specialty Doors 8400 Entrances and Storefronts 8500 Windows sf 2583.03 6 2583.04 8600 Skylights sf 686 686.00 8700 Hardware 8800 Glazing

PAGE 141

141 8900 Glazed Curtain Wall sf 10243.84 2471.65 4 7772.19 Division 9 Finishes 9050 Basic Finish Materials and Methods 9100 Metal Support Assemblies 9200 Plaster and Gypsum Board sf 68142.6 68142.60 9300 Tile 9400 Terrazzo 9500 Ceilings Ult ima 1912 sy 90.5102 2 90.51 Cirrus 584 sy 2122.77 3 2122.77 Perforated metal sy 926.324 6 926.32 9600 Flooring Carpet sf 22616.8 7 22616.87 Tile sf 1506.91 8 1506.92 9700 Wall Finishes 9800 Acoustica l Treatment 9900 Paints and Coatings sf 79635.7 6 79635.76 0.00

PAGE 142

142 APPENDIX B B UILDING R ESEARCH E STABLISMENT E NVIRONMENTAL A SSESSMENT M ETHOD SCORECARD

PAGE 143

143

PAGE 144

144

PAGE 145

145

PAGE 146

146

PAGE 147

147

PAGE 148

148

PAGE 149

149

PAGE 150

150

PAGE 151

151

PAGE 152

152

PAGE 153

153

PAGE 154

154

PAGE 155

155

PAGE 156

156

PAGE 157

157 A PPENDIX C L EADERSHIP IN E NERGY AND E NVIRONMENTAL D ESIGN V2.0 SCORECARD LEED for New Construction v2.0 Registered Project Checklist Project Name: Project Address: Rinker Gerson Ye s ? N o Ye s ? N o 9 0 0 2 2 10 Sustainable Sites Y Y Prereq 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control 1 1 Credit 1 Site Selection 1 Credit 2 Urban Redevelopment 1 Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 1 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation Public Transportation Access 1 1 Credit 4.2 Alternative Trans portation Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations 1 1 Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation Parking Capacity 1 Credit 5.1 Reduced Site Disturbance Protect or Restore Open Space 1 1 Credit 5.2 Reduced Site Disturbance Development Footprint 1 1 Credit 6.1 Stormwater Management Rate and Quantity 1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Management Treatment 1 1 Credit 7.1 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands Non Roof 1 1 Credit 7.2 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands Roof 1 1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction Ye s ? N o Ye s ? N o 4 0 0 0 2 3 Water Efficiency

PAGE 158

158 1 1 Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping Reduce by 50% 1 1 Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1 Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 1 C redit 3.1 Water Use Reduction 20% Reduction 1 1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction 30% Reduction Ye s ? N o Ye s ? N o 9 0 0 1 0 16 Energy & Atmosphere Y Y Prereq 1 Fundamental Building Systems Commissioni ng Y Y Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Y Y Prereq 3 CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment 9 10 Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 20% New Buildings or 10% Existing Building Renovations 30% New Buildings or 20% Existing Building Renovations 40% New Buildings or 30% Existing Building Renovations 50% New Buildings or 40% Existing Building Renovations 60% New Buildings or 50% Existing Building Renovations 1 Credit 2.1 Renewable Energy 5% 1 Credit 2.2 Renewable Energy 10% 1 Credit 2.3 Renewable Energy 20% 1 Credit 3 Additional Commissioning 1 Credit 4 Ozone Depletion 1 Credit 5 Measurement & Verification 1 Credit 6 Gree n Power Ye s ? N o Ye s ? N o 6 0 0 0 6 7 Materials & Resources Y Y Prereq Storage & Collection of Recyclables

PAGE 159

159 1 1 Credit 1.1 Building Reuse Maintain 75% of Existing Shell 1 Credit 1.2 Bu ilding Reuse Maintain 100% of Shell 1 Credit 1.3 Building Reuse Maintain 100% Shell & 50% Non Shell 1 1 Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management Divert 50% 1 1 Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management Divert 75% 1 Credit 3.1 Resource Reuse Specify 5% 1 Credit 3.2 Resource Reuse Specify 10% 1 1 Credit 4.1 Recycled Content Specify 5% (post consumer + post industrial) 1 1 Credit 4.2 Recycled Content Specify 10% (post c onsumer + post industrial) 1 1 Credit 5.1 Local/Regional Materials 20% Manufactured Locally 1 Credit 5.2 Local/Regional Materials of 20% Above, 50% Harvested Locally 1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 1 Credit 7 Certified Wood Ye s ? N o Ye s ? N o 8 0 0 0 4 11 Indoor Environmental Quality Y Y Prere q 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Y Y Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control 1 Credit 1 Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Monitoring 1 Credit 2 Increase Ventilation Effectiveness 1 1 Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan During Construction 1 Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan Before Occupancy 1 1 Credit 4.1 Low Emitting Materials Adhesives & Sealants 1 1 Credit 4.2 Low Emitting Materials Paints 1 1 Credit 4.3 Low Emitting Materials Carpet 1 Credit 4.4 Low Emitting Materials Composite Wood 1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control

PAGE 160

160 1 1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems Perimeter 1 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems Non Perimeter 1 1 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort Comply with ASHRAE 55 19 92 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort Permanent Monitoring System 1 1 Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views Daylight 75% of Spaces 1 1 Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views Views for 90% of Spaces Ye s ? N o Ye s ? N o 3 0 0 0 0 5 Innovation & Design Process 1 1 Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1 1 Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design : Provide Specific Title 1 1 Credit 2 Ye s ? N o Ye s ? N o 39 0 0 3 14 52 Project Totals (pre certification estimates) Certified: 26 32 points, Silver: 33 38 points, Gold: 39 51 points, Platinum: 52 69 points

PAGE 161

161 APPENDIX D COMPREHENSIVE ASSESS MENT SYSTEM FOR BUIL DING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY SCORECARD

PAGE 162

162

PAGE 163

163 CASBEE for New Construction (2008 Edition) : CASBEE for New Construction (2008 Edition) Rinker enter figures and comments. : CASBEE NCe_200 8(v.2.0) Score Sheet Completion stage Entire Building and Common Properties Resident ial and Accomodation sections Concerned categories Score weighting coefficients Score weighting coefficients Total Q Environmental Quality of the building 3.1 Q1 Indoor Environme nt 0.40 3.1 1 Noise & Acoustics 3.0 0.15 3.0 1.1 Noise 3.0 0.40 1 Background noise level 3.0 0.50 3.0 2 Equipment noise 3.0 0.50 1.2 Sound Insulation 3.0 0.40 1 Sound Insulation of Openings 3.0 0.30 3.0 2 Sound Insulation of Partiti on Walls 3.0 0.30 3.0 3 Sound Insulation Performance of Floor Slabs (light weight impact source) 3.0 0.20 3.0 4 Sound Insulation Performance of Floor Slabs (heavy weight impact source) 3.0 0.20 3.0 1.3 Sound Absorption 3.0 0.20 3 .0 2 Thermal Comfort 3.0 0.35 3.0 2.1 Room Temperature Control 3.0 0.50

PAGE 164

164 1 Room Temperature Setting 3.0 0.30 3.0 2 Variable Loads and Following up Control 3.0 0.20 3 Perimeter Performance 3.0 0.20 3.0 4 Zoned Control 3.0 5 Temperature and Humidity Control 3.0 0.10 3.0 6 Individual Control 3.0 7 Allowance for After hours Air Conditioning 3.0 0.20 8 Monitoring Systems 3.0 2.2 Humidity Co ntrol 3.0 0.20 3.0 2.3 Type of Air Conditioning System 3.0 0.30 3.0 3 Lighting & Illumination 3.7 0.25 3.7 3.1 Daylighting 3.0 0.30 1 Daylight Factor 3.0 0.60 3.0 2 Openings by Orientation 3.0 3 Daylight Devices 3.0 0.40 3.0 3.2 Anti glare Measures 3.6 0.30 1 Glare from Light Fixtures 3.0 0.40 3.0 2 Daylight Control 4.0 0.60 3.0 3.3 Illuminance Level 3.6 0.15 1 Illuminanc e 3.0 0.70 3. 0 2 Uniformity of Illuminance 5.0 0.30 3.0 3.4 Lighting Controllability 5.0 0.25 3.0 4 Air Quality 2.9 0.25 2.9 4.1 Source Control 2.6 0.50 1 Chemical Pollutants 3.0 0.33 3.0

PAGE 165

165 2 Asbesto s 3 Mites, Mold etc 1.0 0.33 3.0 4 Legionell a 4.0 0.33 3.0 4.2 Ventilation 4.0 0.30 1 Ventilatio n Rate 4.0 0.25 3.0 2 Natural Ventilation Performance 4.0 0.25 3.0 3 Consideration for Outside Air Intake 5.0 0.25 3.0 4 Air Supply Planning 3.0 0.25 3.0 4.3 Operation Plan 2.0 0.20 1 CO2 Monitori ng 1.0 0.50 2 Control of Smoking 3.0 0.50 Q2 Quality of Service 0.30 3.3 1 Service Ability 3.6 0.40 3.6 1.1 Functionality & Usability 3.0 0.40 1 Provision of Space & Storage 3.0 3.0 2 Use of Advanced Information System 3.0 3.0 3 Barrier free Planning 3.0 1.00 1.2 Amenity 4.5 0.30 1 Perceived Spaciousness & Access to View 5.0 0.50 3.0 2 Space for Refreshment 5.0 3 Dcor Planning 4.0 0.50 1.3 Maintenance Management 3.5 0.30 1 Design Which Conside rs Maintenance Management 3.0 0.50 2 Securing Maintenance Management Functions 4.0 0.50 2 Durability & Reliability 2.6 0.31 2.6

PAGE 166

166 2.1 Earthquake Resistance 3.0 0.48 1 Earthquake resistance 3.0 0.80 2 Seismic Isolation & Vibration Damping Systems 3.0 0.20 2.2 Service Life of Components 3.0 0.33 1 Service Life of Structural Frame Materials 3.0 0.23 2 Necessary Refurbishment Interval for Exterior Finishes 3.0 0.23 3 Necessary Renewal Interval for Main Interior Finishes 3.0 0.09 4 Necessary Replacement Interval for Air Conditioning and Ventilation Ducts 3.0 0.08 5 Necessary Renewal Interval for HVAC and Water Supply and Drainage Pipes 9 9 3.0 0.15 6 Necessary Renewal Interval for Major Equipment and Services 3.0 0.23 2.3 Appropriate renewal 2.4 Reliability 1.4 0.19 1 HVAC System 1.0 0.20 2 Water Supply & Drainage 3.0 0.20 3 Electrical Equipment 1.0 0.20 4 Support Method of Machines & Ducts 1.0 0.20 5 Communications & IT Equipment 1.0 0.20 3 Flexibility & Adaptability 3.5 0.29 3.5 3.1 Spatial Margin 3.0 0.31 1 Allowance for Floor to floor Height 3.0 0.60 3.0 2 Adaptability of Floor Layout 3.0 0.40 3.0 3.2 Floor Load Margin 3.0 0.31 3.0 3.3 Adaptability of Facilities 4.5 0.38 1 Ease of Air Conditioning Duct Renewal 5.0 0 .17 2 Ease of Water Supply and Drain Pipe Renewal 5.0 0.17 3 Ease of Electrical Wiring Renewal 5.0 0.11

PAGE 167

167 4 Ease of Communications Cable Renewal 5.0 0.11 5 Ease of Equipment Renewal 5.0 0.22 6 Provi sion of Backup Space 3.0 0.22 Q3 Outdoor Environment on Site 0.30 3.0 1 Preservation & Creation of Biotope 3.0 0.30 3.0 2 Townscape & Landscape 3.0 0.40 3.0 3 Local Characteristics & Outdoor Amenity 3.0 0.30 3.0 3.1 At tention to Local Charcter & Improvement of Comfort 3.0 0.50 3.2 Improvement of the Thermal Environment on Site 3.0 0.50 LR Environmental Load Reduction of the building 3.9 LR1 Energy 0.40 3.9 1 Building Thermal Load 4.0 0.30 4.0 2 Natural Energy Utilization 3.0 0.20 3.0 2.1 Dirct Use of Natural Energy 2.2 Converted Use of Renewable Energy 3.0 3 Efficiency in Building Service System 5.0 0.30 5.0 4 Efficient Operation 3 .0 0.20 3.0 4.1 Monitoring 3.0 0.50 4.2 Operation & Management System 3.0 0.50 LR2 Resources & Materials 0.30 3.9 1 Water Resources 4.2 0.15 4.2 1.1 Water Saving 4.0 0.40 1.2 Rainwater & Gray Water 4.3 0.60 1 Rainwater Use System 5.0 0.67 2 Gray Water Reuse System 3.0 0.33 2 Reducing Usage of Non renewable Resources 3.8 0.63 3.8 2.1 Reducing Usage of Materials 3.0 0.07 2.2 Continuing Use of Existing Building Skeleton etc 3.0 0.24

PAGE 168

168 2.3 Use of Recycled Materials as Structural Frame Materials 4.0 0.20 2.4 Use of Re cycled Materials as Non structural Materials 4.0 0.20 2.5 Timber from Sustainable Forestry 3.0 0.05 2.6 Reusability of Components and Materials 5.0 0.24 3 Avoiding the Use of Materials with Pollutant Content 3.8 0.22 3.8 3.1 Use of Materials without Harmful Substances 5.0 0.32 3.2 Avoidance of CFCs and Halons 3.3 0.68 1 Fire Retarda nt 4.0 0.33 2 Insulation Materials 3.0 0.33 3 Refriger ants 3.0 0.33 LR3 Of f site Environment 0.30 4.0 1 Consideration of Global Warming 5.0 0.33 5.0 2 Consideration of Local Environment 4.3 0.33 4.3 2.1 Air Pollution 5.0 0.25 2.2 Heat Island Effect 5.0 0.50 2.3 Load on Local Infrastructure 2.5 0.25 1 Reduction of Rainwater Discharge Loads 3.0 0.25 2 Sewage Load Suppression 3.0 0.25 3 Traffic Load Control 2.0 0.25 4 Waste Treatment Loads 2.0 0.25 3 Consideration of Surrounding Environment 2. 8 0.33 2.8 3.1 Noise, Vibration & Odor 3.0 0.40

PAGE 169

169 1 Noise 3.0 1.00 2 Vibration 3 Odor 3.2 Wind Damage & Sunlight Obstruction 1.9 0.40 1 Restriction of Wind Damage 1.0 0 .70 2 Restriction of sunlight obstruction 4.0 0.30 3.3 Light Pollution 4.4 0.20 1 Outdoor Illumination and Light that Spills from Interiors 5.0 0.70 2 Measures for Reflected Solar Glare from Building Walls 3.0 0.30

PAGE 170

170 CASBEE for New Constru ction (2008 Edition) Manual : CASBEE for New Construction (2008 Edition) Rinker software : CASBE E NCe_2008(v.2.0) Life Cycle CO2 Calculation Sheet For Standard calculation Subj ect Reference 1. CO2 Emissions Related to Construction Ratio of Total floor area kg CO 2/ m 2 yr kg CO 2 / m 2 yr kg CO 2 / m 2 yr 1 1. Conversion of Assessment Results to CO2 emission Leve l 3 Leve l 4 Lev el 5 Scor e CO2 Emis sions Scor e CO2 Emis sions Q2/2.2.1 Service Life of Structural Frame Materials Offices 0.00 13.6 1 13.6 1 13.6 1 3.0 13.6 1 3.0 13.6 1 Schools 1.00 10.2 4 10.2 4 10.2 4 3.0 10.2 4 3.0 10.2 4 Retailers 0.00 16.1 3 16.1 3 16.1 3 3.0 16.1 3 3.0 16.1 3 Restaurant s 0.00 16.1 3 16.1 3 16.1 3 3.0 16.1 3 3.0 16.1 3 Halls 0.00 10.9 6 10.9 6 10.9 6 3.0 10.9 6 3.0 10.9 6 Factories 0.00 18.1 8 18.1 8 18.1 8 3.0 18.1 8 3.0 18.1 8 Hospitals 0.00 10. 3 9 10.3 9 10.3 9 3.0 10.3 9 3.0 10.3 9 Hotels 0.00 10.9 2 10.9 2 10.9 2 3.0 10.9 2 3.0 10.9 2 Apartments 0.00 15.9 3 8.06 5.47 3.0 15.9 3 3.0 15.9 3

PAGE 171

171 Structure S LR2/2.2 Continuing Use of Existing Building Skeleton etc. 0% 0% LR2/2.3 Use of Recycled Materials as Structural Frame Materials Blast furnace cement (concrete) 0% 0% 1 2. Subtot al 10.2 4 10.2 4 2. CO2 Emissions Related to Retated to Repair, Renewal and Demolition 2 1. Conversion of Assessment Results to CO2 emission kg CO 2 /m 2 yr kg CO 2 / m 2 yr kg CO 2 / m 2 yr Ratio of Total floor area Leve l 3 Leve l 4 Lev el 5 Scor e CO2 Emis sions Scor e CO2 Emis sions Q2/2.2.1 Service Life of Structural Frame Materials Offices 0.00 20.2 3 20.2 3 20.2 3 3.0 20.2 3 3.0 20.2 3 Schools 1.00 16.6 8 16.6 8 16.6 8 3.0 16.6 8 3.0 16.6 8 Retailers 0.00 12.2 0 12.2 0 12.2 0 3.0 12.2 0 3.0 12.2 0 Restaurants 0.00 12.2 0 12.2 0 12.2 0 3.0 12.2 0 3.0 12.2 0 Halls 0.00 17.3 9 17.3 9 17.3 9 3.0 17.3 9 3.0 17.3 9 Factories 0.00 13.6 2 13.6 2 13.6 2 3.0 13.6 2 3.0 13.6 2 Hospitals 0.00 20.2 4 20.2 4 20.2 4 3.0 20.2 4 3.0 20.2 4 Hotels 0.00 18.1 18.1 18.1 3.0 18.1 3.0 18.1

PAGE 172

172 1 1 1 1 1 Apartments 0.00 13.5 8 14.9 4 16.2 2 3.0 13.5 8 3.0 13.5 8 2 2. Subtotal 16.6 8 16.6 8 3. CO2 Emissions Related to Energy during O peration kg CO 2 / m 2 yr kg CO 2 / m 2 yr 26.5 5 68.5 3 4. Calculation of Life Cycle CO2 Standard calculation kg CO 2 / m 2 yr kg CO 2 / m 2 yr CO2 Emis sions CO2 Emis sions Construction 10.2 4 10.2 4 Repair, Renewal and Demolition 16.6 8 16.6 8 Operation 26.5 5 68.5 3 Total 53.4 7 95.4 5

PAGE 173

173 Q1 Indoor environment 1. Noise & Acoustics 1.1 Noise 1.1.1 Background noise level dB(A) Weighting coefficients (default)= 0 .50 dB( A) Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Hsp(Waiting Room), Htl, Apt, Fct Sch, Hsp(Examin ing Room) Rtl, Rst Hal Hsp Htl, Apt Le vel 1 50< [Background noise level] 45< [Backgroun d noise level] 55< [Background noise level] 40< [Backgroun d noise level] Level 1 50< [Background noise level] 45< [Background noise level] Level 2 47< [Background noise level] =<50 42< [Backgroun d noise level] =<45 52< [Background noise level] =<55 37< [Backgroun d noise level] =<40 Level 2 47< [Background noise level] =<50 42< [Background noise level] =<45 43< [Background noise level] =<47 38< [Backgroun d noise level] =<42 48< [Background noise level] =<52 33< [Backgroun d noise level] =<37 el 3 43< [Background noise level] =<47 38< [Background noise level] =<42 Level 4 40< [Background noise level] =<43 35< [Backgroun d noise level] =<38 45< [Background noise level] =<48 30< [Backgroun d noise level] =<33 Level 4 40< [Background noise level] =<43 35< [Background noise level] =<38 Level 5 [Background noise level] =<40 [Backgroun d noise level ] =<35 [Background noise level] =<45 [Backgroun d noise level] =<30 Level 5 [Background noise level] =<40 [Background noise level] =<35

PAGE 174

174 Background noise Allowable interior noise levels dB(A) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 NC NR 10~15 15~20 20 ~25 25~30 30~35 35~40 40~45 45~50 50~55 Intrusiveness significantly Perceived cannot be ignored Impact on conversation A whispering voice is audible from 5m away P ossible from 10m apart Possible from 3m apart Loud conversation (3m) Telephone use (normal) Telephone use (bearable) Telephone use (unbearable) Studios Silent room Studio for newsreading etc. Radio studio Television studios Mixing room General offices Venues and halls Music hall Theater (medium) Stage theaters Movie theater, planetarium Hotel lobbi es Hospitals Hearing test room Special sickrooms Sickrooms Examining room Laboratories Waiting rooms Ho tel and residential Reading rooms Bedrooms Banquet halls Lobbies General offices Large meeting rooms Reception rooms Meeting rooms General offices Typing and accounting rooms Public buildings Auditorium Museums Library Audit orium/ gymnasium Indoor sports facilities Schools and churches Music classroom Chapels Research rooms and classrooms Corridors Commercial buildings Music cafes Book shops General stores Jewelers and art shops Banks and restaurants Canteens

PAGE 175

175 1.1.2 Equipment noise Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.50 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 No noise countermeasures. (No countermeasures at all among the Efforts to be evaluated) Level 1 No noise countermeasures. (No countermeasures at all among the Efforts to be eva luated) No noise countermeasures. (No countermeasures at all among the Efforts to be evaluated) Level 2 Some measures taken. (Two or more noise countermeasures used from among the Efforts to be evaluated). Level 2 Some measures taken. (Two or more noi se countermeasures used from among the Efforts to be evaluated). Noise countermeasures used. (Four or more noise countermeasures used from among the Efforts to be evaluated). Level 3 Noise countermeasures used. (Four or more noise countermea sures used from among the Efforts to be evaluated). Noise countermeasures used. (Two or more noise countermeasures used from among the Efforts to be evaluated). Level 4 Countermeasures at a moderately high level. (Six or more noise countermeasures used from among the Efforts to be evaluated). Level 4 Countermeasures at a moderately high level. (Six or more noise countermeasures used from among the Efforts to be evaluated). Level 5 Countermeasures at an advanced level. (All noise countermeasures u sed from among the Efforts to be evaluated). Level 5 Countermeasures at an advanced level. (All noise countermeasures used from among the Efforts to be evaluated). Countermeasures at an advanced level. (All noise countermeasures used from among the Effort s to be evaluated).

PAGE 176

1 76 A1 Except Apartments, efforts to be evaluated (exp.) for Entire building and common properties B For Apartments, efforts to be evaluated (exp.) Level 3.0 < -Direct input Level 2.0 < -Direct input Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Floor area for Residential and Accommodation Sections (Apt) Types of equipment noise Examples of countermea sures Types of equipment noise Examples of countermeasures Vents and intakes Low noise vents, low noise intakes, positio ns, air speed and volume, etc. yes Water supply and drainage noises from toilets, bathrooms etc. Anti noise pipe cladding, anti vibration rubber support fittings, positioning, etc. Interior air conditioning equipment Noise prevention covers, positions etc. Water hammer Use of appropriate water pressure, selection of preventive fixtures, etc. Noise from the machine room (penetrating noise) Noise prevention covers, sound absorption and Sound insulation for the machine room, position etc. yes Noise from air conditioning room units Selection of low noise equipment etc. yes As above (noise transmitted through solids) Anti vibration platform, anti vibration rubber elements, etc. Noise from air conditioning external units Anti vibration rubber supp orts, anti vibration mats, selection of low noise equipment types, etc. yes Noise from ducts and pipes (penetrating noise) Sound absorber ducts, sound absorber elbows, sound absorber boxes, sound insulating pipe cladding, position etc. yes Ventilation S election of low noise equipment etc. yes As above (noise transmitted through solids) Anti vibration suspension or supports, flexible joints, anti vibration treatment of penetrating parts. yes (Exterior) Noise from cooling towers Baffles, anti vi bration supports, position etc. yes (Exterior) Noise from intakes and vents Position, appropriate air volume and speed, etc.

PAGE 177

177 1.2 Sound Insulation 1.2.1 Sound Insulation of Openings Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.30 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Preliminary Design Execution Design and Construction Completion Preliminary Design Execution Design and C onstruction Completion Off, Sch, Rst, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Off, Sch, Rst, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 Noise from ordinary traffic causes annoyance Less than T 1 Level 1 Noise from ordinary traffic causes annoyance. Less than T 1 Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Noise from ordinary traffic does not cause annoyance. T 1 el 3 Noise from ordinary traffic does not cause annoyance. T 1 Level 4 (No correspondi ng level) Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 Noise from loud means of transport, such as trunk roads and aircraft, does not cause annoyance. T 2 or more Level 5 Noise from loud means of transport, such as trunk roads and aircraft, does not ca use annoyance. T 2 or more 1.2.2 Sound Insulation of Partition Walls Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.30 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Se ctions Preliminary Design Preliminary Design Off, Sch, Rst, Fct Hsp(Examining Room) Hsp Htl Apt

PAGE 178

178 Level 1 People's ordinary voices cause annoyance. The content of conversation etc. can be understood. Level 1 The content of TV, radio and c onversation can be understood. Ordinary sounds such as TV, radio and conversation can be clearly heard. Activities in the next home can be clearly heard. Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 People's ordinary voices do not cause annoyance. The sounds of conversation and general sounds can be heard at low volume. Level 3 The sounds of TV, radio and conversation can be heard at low volume. Ordinary sounds such as TV, radio and conversation can barely be heard faintly. Activities in the next home can be heard but are not intrusive. Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 People's ordinary voices are almost inaudible. The sounds of conversation and general sounds can barely be heard. Level 5 The sounds of T V, radio and conversation can barely be heard. Ordinary sounds such as TV, radio and conversation cannot normally be heard. No sounds from the next home. Execution Design and Construction Completion Execution Design and Construction Completion Off, Sch, Rst, Fct Hsp(Examining Room) Hsp Htl, Apt Level 1 Less than Dr 30 Less than Dr 35 Level 1 Less than Dr 35 Less than Dr 40 Level 2 Dr 30 Dr 35 Level 2 Dr 35 Dr 40 Dr 35 Dr 40 el 3 Dr 40 Dr 45 Level 4 Dr 40 Dr 45 Level 4 Dr 45 Dr 50 Level 5 Dr 45 or more Dr 50 or better Level 5 Dr 50 or better Dr 55 or better

PAGE 179

179 1.2.3 Sound Insulation Performance of Floor Slabs (light weight impa ct source) Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Preliminary Design Execution Design and Construction C ompletion Preliminary Design Execution Design and Construction Completion Sch Sch Hsp, Htl, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 Noise of chair movement and falling objects is intrusive. Worse than Lr 65 Level 1 Noise of chair movement and fall ing objects casues considerable annoyanace. Worse than Lr 55 Level 2 Lr 65 Level 2 Lr 55 Noise of chair movement and falling objects causes annoyance. Lr 60 el 3 Noise of chair movement and falling objects is audible but quiet. Lr 50 Level 4 Lr 55 Level 4 Lr 45 Level 5 Noise of chair movement and falling objects is just audible. Lr 50 or better Level 5 Noise of chair movement and falling objects is almost inaudible. Lr 40 or better 1.2.4 Sound Insulation Performanc e of Floor Slabs (heavy weight impact source) Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Preliminary Design Execution Design and Construction Completion Preliminary Design Execution Design and Construction Completion Sch Sch Hsp, Htl, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 The noise of people jumping and running causes considerable annoyance. (Worse th an Lr 65) Worse than Lr 65 Level 1 The noise of people jumping and running causes annoyance. (Worse than Lr 60) Worse than Lr 60

PAGE 180

180 Level 2 (Lr 65) Lr 65 Level 2 (Lr 60) Lr 60 The noise of people jumping and running causes considerably audible (Lr 60) Lr 60 el 3 The noise of people jumping and running is audible.(Lr 55) Lr 55 Level 4 Lr 55 Level 4 Lr 50 Level 5 The noise of people jumping and running is audible but quiet. Lr 50 or better Level 5 The noise of people jumping and running is audible but rarely noticed. Lr 45 or better

PAGE 181

181 1.3 Sound Absorption Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Lev el 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Preliminary Design Execution Design and Construction Completion Preliminary Design Execution Design and Construction Completion Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 Sound absorbent materials are not used. Level 1 Sound absorbent materials are not used. Level 2 Level 2 Sound abso rbent materials are in either the walls, floor or ceiling. el 3 Sound absorbent materials are in either the walls, floor or ceiling. Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 Sound absorbent materials are in the walls, floor and ceiling. Level 5 Sound absorbent materials are in the walls, floor and ceiling. 2. Thermal Comfort 2.1 Room Temperature Control 2.1.1 Room Temperature Setting Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.30 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Preliminary Design Preliminary Design Off, Htl, Fct, Apt, Hsp(Waitin g Room) Hsp(Exami ning Room) Sch Rtl, Rst, Hal Hsp, Htl Apt

PAGE 182

182 Level 1 Tem peratu re settings of 20 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer, which require tolerance of some discomfort. Temperatu re settings of 21 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer, which require tolerance of some discomfort. Temperatu re settings of 10 o C or more in winter and 3 0 o C pr less in summer, which require tolerance of some discomfort Temperatu re settings of 18 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer, which require tolerance of some discomfort. Level 1 Temperature settings of 20 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer, which require toler ance of some discomfort. Setting to 18 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer are forced in each room. Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Ordinary setting of 22 o C in winter and 26oC in summer. Ordinary setting of 23 o C in winter and 26 o C in summer. Or dinary setting of 18 20 o C in winter and 25 28 o C in summer. Ordinary setting of 2 o C in winter and 26 o C in summer. Level 3 Ordinary setting of 22 o C in winter and 26 o C in summer. Ordinary setting of 22 o C in winter and 26 o C in summer in each room. Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 By referring the ASHRAE Comfortable Room Temperature Range and the POEM O, it is set ranges of 22~24 o C in winter and 24~26oC in summer. By referring the ASHRAE Comfortab le Room Temperatu re Range and the POEM O, it is set ranges of 20~22 o C in winter and 24~26 o C in summer. Level 5 By referring the ASHRAE Comfortable Room Temperature Range and the POEM O, it is set ranges of 22~24 o C in winter and 24~26 o C in summer. Setting ranges of 22 24 o C in winter and 24 26 o C in summer in each room.

PAGE 183

183 Execution Design and Construction Completion Executi on Design and Construction Completion Off, Htl, Fct, Apt, Hsp(Waitin g Room) Hsp(Exami ning Room) Sch Rtl, Rst, Hal Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 The minimum equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatur es of 20 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer, wh ich require tolerance of some discomfort. The minimum equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatur es of 21 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer, which requires tolerance of some discomfort. The minimum equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatur es of 10 o C or more in winter and 28 o C ore less in summer, which require tolerance of some discomfort The minimum equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatur es of 18 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer, which require tolerance of some discomfort Level 1 The minimum equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatures of 20 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer, which require tolerance of some discomfort. The minimum equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatures of 18 o C in winter and 28 o C in summer, which require tolerance of some discomfort. Level 2 Level 2 Equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatur es of 22 o C in winter and 26 o C in summer, which are ordinary settings. Equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatur es of 23 o C in winter and 26 o C in summer, which are ordinary settings. Equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatur es of 18~20 o C in winter and 25~28 o C in summer, which are ordinary settings. Equipment capacity is provided to achieve tempe ratur es of 20 o C in winter and 26 o C in summer, which are ordinary settings. el 3 Equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatures of 22 o C in winter and 26 o C in summer, which are ordinary settings. Equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatures of 22 o C in winter and 26 o C in summer, which are ordinary settings. Level 4 Level 4

PAGE 184

184 Level 5 Equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatures of 24 o C in winter and 24 o C in summer. Equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatur es of 24 o C in winter and 24 o C in summer. Level 5 Equipment capac ity is provided to achieve temperatures of 24 o C in winter and 24 o C in summer. Equipment capacity is provided to achieve temperatures of 24 o C in winter and 24 o C in summer. 2.1.2 Variable Loads and Following up Control Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal Level 1 No notable consideration has been given to sudden changes in loads. Level 2 General load variations are conside red, and the system affords some degree of control. Level 4 Level 5 The control system allows advanced following up control of load variations. 2.1.3 Perimeter Performance Weighting coefficients default) = 0.20 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Preliminary Design Preliminary Design Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl Apt

PAGE 185

185 Level 1 Insufficient attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat to the interior through windows, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and insulation blocking and insulation performance are poor. Level 1 Insu fficient attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat to the interior through windows, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and insulation blocking and insulation performance are poor. Grade one equivalent combinations of roof and exterior wall materials and opening specifications, as defined in the Japan Housing Performance Indication 1 Energy saving countermeasure Level 2 Level 2 Grade two equivalent combinations o f roof and exterior wall materials and opening specifications, as defined in the Japan Housing Performance Indication 1 Energy saving countermeasure Level 3 Attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat to the interior through windows, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and there is no practical problem with insulation blocking and insulation performance. Level 3 Attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat to the interi or through windows, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and there is no practical problem with insulation blocking and insulation performance. Grade three equivalent combinations of roof and exterior wall materials and openi ng specifications, as defined in the Japan Housing Performance Indication 1 Energy saving countermeasure Level 4 Level 4 (No corresponding level)

PAGE 186

186 Level 5 Close attention has been paid to the infiltr ation of heat to the interior through windows, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and the building has the highest level of insulation blocking and insulation performance. Level 5 Close attention has been paid to the infil tration of heat to the interior through windows, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and the building has the highest level of insulation blocking and insulation performance. Grade four equivalent combinations of roof and ex terior wall materials and opening specifications, as defined in the Japan Housing Performance Indication 1 Energy saving countermeasure Execution Design and Construction Completion Execution Design and Constructi on Completion Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 No attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat through window systems, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and insulation pe rformance is poor. (Window system SC: around 0.7, U=6.0(W /m2K), outer walls and others: U=3.0(W /m2K)) Level 1 No attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat through window systems, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are use d), and insulation performance is poor. (Window system SC: around 0.7, U=6.0(W /m2K), outer walls and others: U=3.0(W /m2K)) With annual heating and cooling load, With thermal transmission loss coefficient and summer insolation acquisition coefficient Level 2 Level 2 Attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat to the interior through windows, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and there is no practical problem with insolation blocking and insulation performance. (Window system SC: around 0.5, U=4.0(W /m2K), outer walls and others: U=2.0(W /m2K))1) el 3 Attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat to the interior through windows, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and there is n o practical problem with insolation blocking and

PAGE 187

187 insulation performance. (Window system SC: around 0.5, U=4.0(W /m2K), outer walls and thers: U=2.0(W /m2K)) Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 Close attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat to the interior through windows systems, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and the building has the highest level of insolation blocking and insulation performance. (Window system SC: around 0.2, U=3.0(W /m2K), outer walls and others: U=1.0(W /m2K)) Level 5 Close attention has been paid to the infiltration of heat to the interior through windows systems, outside walls, roof and floor (particularly where piloti are used), and the building has the highest level of insolation blocking and insulation performance. (Window system SC: around 0.2, U=3.0(W /m2K), outer walls and others: U=1.0(W /m2K)) Annual heating and cooling load H (units: MJ/m2 year) subje ct Bldg.; Area Category VI Zone* Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V Zone VI Level 1 840<[H] 980<[H] 980<[H] 980<[H] 980<[H] 980<[H] Level 2 470<[H]=< 840 610<[H]=< 940 640<[H]=< 980 660<[H]=< 980 510<[H]=< 980 420<[H]=< 980 Level 3 390<[H]=< 470 390<[H]=< 610 460<[H]=< 640 460<[H]=< 660 350<[H]=< 51 0 290<[H]=< 420 Level 4 ------

PAGE 188

188 Level 5 [H]=<390 [H]=<390 [H]=<460 [H]=<460 [H]=<350 [H]=<290 Thermal transmission loss coefficient Q (units W/m2 K) Zone* Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V Zone VI Level 1 2.8<[Q] 4.0<[Q] 4.4<[Q] 4.9<[Q] 7.1<[Q] 7.1<[Q] Level 2 1.8<[Q]=< 2.8 2.7<[Q]=< 4.0 3.1<[Q]=< 4.4 3.6<[Q]=< 4.9 3.9<[Q]=< 7.1 6.2<[Q]=< 7.1 Level 3 1.6<[Q]=< 1.8 1.9<[Q]=< 2.7 2.4<[Q]=< 3.1 2.7<[Q]=< 3.6 2.7<[Q]=< 3.9 3.7<[Q]=< 6.2 Level 4 -----Level 5 [Q]=<1.6 [Q]=<1.9 [Q]=<2.4 [Q]=<2.7 [Q]=<2.7 [Q]=<3.7 Summer insolation Zone* Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V Zone VI Level 1 ------Level 2 --Level 3 =<0.10 =<0.10 =<0.10 =<0.08 Level 4 ------Level 5 I ment by Owner Regarding the Rational Use of Energy Relating for Housing Operation." 2.1.4 Zoned Control Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties The following are examples of air co nditioning systems corresponding to each level Off, Hsp, Htl, Fct Rtl, Rst, Hal Level 1 No distinction is made between orientation directions, or between perimeter and interior, and only one air conditioning system is planned1), which must be sw itched between heating and cooling for each season There is no zoning of heating and cooling within a single floor, and a single circuit air conditioning system is planned.Switching between heating and cooling is required for the selection of air condition ing modes. Single duct system, two pipe FCU system (no zoning, switching between heating and cooling).

PAGE 189

189 Level 2 There are air conditioning zoning1) that differentiates between orientation directions, between perimeter and interior, and between internal load distributions. The air conditioning system can provide either heating or cooling separately to each z one. Each floor is divided into multiple zones according to their thermal loads, and the air conditioning system is planned to allow either heating or cooling in each zone. Single duct system, two pipe FCU system (zoning grade assessment, switching between heating and cooling). Level 4 There is air conditioning zoning at around the standard of Level 31), and the system also allows selection between cooling and heating for each zone. There is air conditioning zoning at around the standard of Level 3, an d the planned system also allows selection between cooling and heating for each zone. Double duct system (4 pipes for AHU), four pipe FCU system, task/ambient air conditioning system (evaluate both the zoning grade and simultaneous heating and cooling). Level 5 There are separate air conditioning systems for each orientation direction, and for perimeter and interior, allowing more detailed zoning (broadly, zones of 40m2 or less). The air conditioning system can provide either heating or cooling separat ely to each zone. Each floor is divided into many small zones for individual sales areas or tenants, and the air conditioning system is planned to allow either heating or cooling in zone units. Multi unit heat pump system (simultaneous heating and cooling) double duct system (4 pipes for AHU), four pipe FCU system level with more detailed zoning than levels 3 and 4 (zones of around 40m2) 2.1.5 Temperature and Humidity Control Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.10 Weighting coefficie nts (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl Level 1 On/Off control of temperature and humidity. Level 1 On/Off cont rol of temperature and humidity. Level 2 Proportional or multiposition control of temperature and humidity. Level 2 Proportional or multiposition control of temperature and humidity. PID control of temperature and humidity. el 3 PID control of temperature and humidity.

PAGE 190

190 Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 Comfort sensors etc. can be used to control temperature and humidity (temperature control within the comfor t range). Level 5 Comfort sensors etc. can be used to control temperature and humidity (temperature control within the comfort range). 2.1.6 Individual Control Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Se ctions Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 Occupants can manually switch air volume between low, middle and high Not adequate for level 3. Level 2 Occupants can manually change the direct temperature setting and adjust air volume between low, middle and high.However, the heat source is switched between heating and cooling on a seasonal basis. Temperature can be set for each individual room. Level 4 Level 5 Occupants can directly adjust temperature settings and airflow volumes with local controls.(Heat sources are for heating and cooling simultaneously) The temperature for the whole dwelling can be set, and further se ttings can be made for each individual room. 2.1.7 Allowance for After hours Air Conditioning Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 2.1.8 Monitoring Systems Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common prope rties Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Sch, Hsp, Htl, Fct Rtl, Rst

PAGE 191

191 Level 1 Air conditioning does not operate after hours, or on holidays. Level 1 There is no multiple zoning for separate loads on the same floor, but sensors or other monitoring systems are installed for monitoring a representative zone. Level 2 Level 2 The air conditioning system can operate for any whole floor that is occupied after hours and on holidays. 3 There is multiple zoning for separate loads on the same floor, and multiple monitoring and measurement sensors or other monitoring s ystems are installed in a monitoring system, apart from the control sensors for monitoring multiple zones. Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 The air conditioning system can operate for any zone that is occupied after hours and on holidays Level 5 Each floor is zoned in detail for sales areas and tenants, and multiple monitoring and measurement sensors or other monitoring systems are installed in a monitoring system, other than control sensors, for monitoring those zones in detail. 2.2 Humidity Contro l Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Preliminary Design Preliminary Design Off, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hs p, Htl, Fct, Apt Sch Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 The plan is for humidity to be free to vary within the 40~70% range set by the Building Environmental Health Law. Humidity is planned to be set in range set for a range of 30% or above and 80% or below.. Le vel 1 Humidity is planned to vary within the 40~70% range set by the Law for Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings Building Environmental Health Law. No consideration given. Level 2 Level 2 (No corresponding level)

PAGE 192

192 Level 3 The system is planned to have humidification functions which will be generally set for 40% in winter and 50% in summer. Humidification equipment is available, and planned to keep humidity to 50~65% in summer and 40~70% in winter. Level 3 Humidification equipment is available, and planned to keep humidity to 50% in summer and 40% in winter. Appropriate ventilation functions are provided, and anti condensation measures have been taken on elements that can act as heat bridges, such as insulation reinforcement, humidity barriers and permeable layers. Level 4 Level 4 Dehumidification functions are provided, and anti condensation measures have been taken on elements that can act as heat bridges, such as insulation reinforcement, humidity barriers and permea ble layers. Level 5 The system is planned to have humidification and dehumidification functions, and to be set for a range of 45~55% with reference to the ASHRAE comfort zone and POEM O. The system is planned to have humidification and dehumidification functions, and to be set for a range of 45~55% with reference to the ASHRAE comfort zone and POEM O. Level 5 Humidification and dehumidification functions equipment is available, and to be set for a range of 45~55% with reference to the ASHRAE comfort zo ne and POEM O. Dehumidification and humidification functions are provided and set to a comfort range of 45~55%, and anti condensation measures have been taken on elements that can act as heat bridges, such as insulation reinforcement, humidity barriers and permeable layers. Execution Design and Construction Completion Execution Design and Construction Completion Off, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Sch Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 Equipment capacity is sufficient to keep humidity to 70% in sum mer and 40% in winter. Equipment capacity is sufficient to keep humidity to 80% or below in summer and 30% or above in winter. Level 1 Equipment capacity is sufficient to keep humidity to70% in summer and 40% in winter. No consideration given. Level 2 Level 2 (No corresponding level)

PAGE 193

193 Humidification equipment is available, and equipment capacity is generally sufficient to keep humidity to 50% in summer and 40% in winter. Humidification equipment is also available, and equipment capacity is generally sufficient to keep humidity to 40~70% in winter and 50~65% in summer. el 3 Humidification equipment is also available, and equipment capacity is generally sufficient to keep humidity to 50% in summer and 40% in winter. Appropriate ventilation functions are provided, and anti cond ensation measures have been taken on elements that can act as heat bridges, such as insulation reinforcement, humidity barriers and permeable layers. Level 4 Level 4 Dehumidification functions are provided, and anti condensation measures h ave been taken on elements that can act as heat bridges, such as insulation reinforcement, humidity barriers and permeable layers. Level 5 Humidification and dehumidification equipment is available, and equipment capacity is sufficient to keep humidity to be set for a range of 45~55%. Humidification and dehumidification equipment is available, and equipment capacity is sufficient to keep humidity to be set for a range of 45~55% Level 5 Humidification and dehumidification equipment is availble, and equi pment capacity is sufficient to keep humidity in the range 45~55% Dehumidification and humidification functions are provided and set to a comfort range of 45~55%, and anti condensation measures have been taken on elements that can act as heat bridges, such as insulation reinforcement, humidity barriers and permeable layers. 2.3 Type of Air Conditioning System Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.30 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Preliminary Design Preliminary Design Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp(Waiting Room), Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp(Examining Room) Hsp, Htl Apt

PAGE 194

194 Level 1 The air conditioning system was planned with no particular cons ideration for the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. The air conditioning system was planned with no particular consideration for the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. Level 1 The ai r conditioning system was planned with no particular consideration for the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. The air conditioning system was chosen with no particular consideration for the vertical temperature distribut ion and airflow speed in air conditioned rooms, or for temperature distribution between air conditioned and non air conditioned rooms. Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 The air conditioning system is normal, but the air supply and extraction plan considered the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. The air conditioning system is normal, but the air supply and extraction plan considered the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone, and the partitions in the medeical examing rooms. Level 3 The air conditioning system is normal, but the air supply and extraction plan considered the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. The air conditioning system was p lanned with consideration for the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in air conditioned rooms, or for temperature distribution between air conditioned and non air conditioned rooms. Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 The air co nditioning system was chosen to mitigate the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. The air conditioning system was chosen to mitigate the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone, and to consi der the partitions of the medical examing rooms. Level 5 The air conditioning system was chosen to mitigate the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. The air conditioning system was chosen to mitigate the vertical temper ature distribution and airflow speed in air conditioned rooms, or for temperature distribution between air conditioned and non air conditioned rooms. Execution Design and Construction Completion Execution Design and Construction Completion Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp(Waiting Room), Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp(Examining Room) Hsp, Htl Apt

PAGE 195

195 Level 1 The air conditioning system was planned with no particular consideration for the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. T he air conditioning system was planned with no particular consideration for the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. Level 1 The air conditioning system was planned with no particular consideration for the vertical temper ature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone. The air conditioning system was chosen with no particular consideration for the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in air conditioned rooms, or for temperature distribution between ai r conditioned and non air conditioned rooms. Level 2 Level 2 The air conditioning system is normal, but the air supply and extraction plan considered the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in the room. Targ ets for vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed are set to within 5 o C and 0.35m/s, respectively. The air conditioning system is normal, but the air supply and extraction plan considered the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone, and the partitions in the medeical examing rooms. Targets for vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed are set to within 5 o C and 0.35m/s, respectively. el 3 The air conditioning system is normal, but the air supply and extraction plan considered the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in the room. Targets for vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed are set to within 5 o C and 0.35m/s, respectively. Targets for vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed within rooms are set to within 4 o C and 0.4m/s, respectively. Spot air conditioning is available even in non air conditioned areas such as toilets and bathrooms, mitigat ing temperature differences between rooms. Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 The air conditioning system was chosen to mitigate the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in the room. Targets for vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed are set to within 2 o C and 0.15m/s, respectively. The air conditioning system was chosen to mitiga te the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in occupancy zone, and to consider the partitions of the medical examing Lev el 5 The air conditioning system was chosen to mitigate the vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed in the room. Targets for vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed are set Targets for vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed within rooms are set to within 2 o C and 0.2m/s, respectively. Air conditioning is available in all rooms, including rooms such as toilets and bathrooms, making it possible to eliminate temperature differences between rooms.

PAGE 196

196 rooms. Targets for vertical temperature distribution and airflow speed are set to within 2 o C and 0.15m/s, respectively. to within 2 o C and 0.15m/s, respectively. This refers to for example, ceiling and floor radiant heating and cooling systems, or floor vented systems et c. 3. Lighting & Illumination 3.1 Daylighting 3.1.1 Daylight Factor Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.60 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 [Dayligt factor] <1.0 Level 1 [Dayligt factor] <0.5 [Dayligt factor] <0.5 Level 2 1.0% =< [Dayligt factor] <1.5 Level 2 0.5% =< [Dayligt factor] <0.75 0.5% =< [Dayligt factor] <1.0 1.5% =< [Dayligt factor] <2.0 el 3 0.75% =< [Dayligt factor] <1.0 1.0% =< [Dayligt factor] <1.5 Level 4 2.0% =< [Dayligt factor] <2.5 Level 4 1.0% =< [Dayligt factor] <1.25 1.5% =< [Dayligt factor] <2.0 Level 5 2.5% =< [Dayligt factor] Level 5 1.25% =< [Dayligt factor] 2.0% =< [Dayligt factor]

PAGE 197

197 3.1.2 Openings by Orientation Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Apt Level 1 No south facing windows. Level 2 (No corresponding level) South f acing windows. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 South and east facing windows. 3.1.3 Daylight Devices Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.40 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building an d common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Fct Rtl, Rst, Hsp, Htl, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding leve l) (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) There are no daylight devices. There are no daylight devices. el 3 There are no daylight devices. Level 4 There is one type of daylight device. (No corresponding level) Leve l 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 There are two or more types of daylight device, or they have advanced functions. There are some daylight devices. Level 5 There are some daylight devices. 3.2 Anti glare Measures 3.2.1 Glare from Li ght Fixtures Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.40 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Sch, Fct Hsp, Htl, Apt

PAGE 198

198 Leve l 1 The light source is exposed when viewed horizontally, and the light fixture does not restrict glare.G3 category fixtures. Level 1 The light source is exposed when viewed horizontally, and the light fixture does not restrict glare.G3 category fixtures. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) The light source is not exposed when viewed horizontally, and the light fixture restricts glare.G2 category fixtures. el 3 The light source is not exposed when viewed horizontally, and the light fixture restricts glare.G2 category fixtures. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 Use of reflective panel forms, louvers, transparent covers and other elements in light fixtures restrict glare.G1, G0 and V category fixtures. Level 5 Use of reflective panel forms, louvers, transparent covers and other elements in light fixtures restrict glare.G1, G0 and V category fixtures. 3.2.2 Daylight Control Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.60 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 4.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 Nothing. Level 1 Nothing. Level 2 Glare control using screens, awnings and eaves. Level 2 (No corres ponding level) Level 3 Glare is controlled with blinds, or by a combination of any two among screens, awnings and eaves. el 3 Glare control using curtains, screens, awnings and eaves. Glare is controlled with blinds, together with any of one among screens, awnings and eaves. Level 4 Glare is controlled with blinds, or a combination of any two among curtains, screens, awnings and eaves. Level 5 Glare is controlled by automatically controlled blinds. Level 5 Glare is controlled with blinds, together with any of one among curtains, screens, awnings and eaves. 3.3 Illuminance Level

PAGE 199

199 3.3.1 Illum inance Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.70 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Hsp(Examinin g Room), Fct Hsp(Waiting Room) Sch Htl Apt Hsp Htl, Apt Level 1 [Illuminance] <500lx [Illuminance] <150 lx [Illuminance] <400lx [Illuminance] <100 lx Level 1 [Illuminance] <150 lx [Illuminance] <100 lx Level 2 500lx =< [Illuminance] <600lx (No corresponding level) 400lx =< [Illumina nce] < 500lx (No correspondin g level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) 600lx =< [Illuminance] <750lx, or 1500lx =< [Illuminance] 150 lx =< [Illuminance] 500lx =< [Illuminance] <600lx, or 1000lx =< [Illuminance] 100 lx =< [Illuminance] 3 150 lx =< [Illuminance] 100 lx =< [Illuminance] Level 4 750lx =< [Illu minance] <1000lx (No corresponding level) 600lx =< [Illuminance] <750lx (No correspondin g level) Level 4 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 5 1000lx =< [Illuminance] <1500lx (No corresponding level) 750lx =< [Illuminance] <1000lx (No correspondin g level) Level 5 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) 3.3.2 Uniformity of Illuminance Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.30 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 5.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Hsp(Examining Room), Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp Level 1 Overall lighting may leave very dark areas in the interior which can feel uncomfortable. Level 1 Overall lighting may leave very dark area s in the interior which can feel uncomfortable. Level 2 Overall lighting may leave dark areas in the interior which can feel slightly uncomfortable. Level 2 Overall lighting may leave dark areas in the interior which can feel slightly uncomfortable. Level 3 Overall lighting may leave dark areas in the interior to an acceptable degree.With task/ambient lighting, the balance between work surface brightness and surrounding brightness is inadequate. el 3 Overall lighting may leave dark areas in the interior to an acceptable degree.With task/ambient lighting, the balance between work surface brightness and surrounding brightness is inadequate.

PAGE 200

200 Level 4 With overall lighting, there are almost no dark areas in the interior. Level 4 With overall lig hting, there are almost no dark areas in the interior. With overall lighting, there are no dark areas in the interior. With task/ambient lighting, the balance between work surface brightness and surrounding brightness is good. Level 5 With overall lighting, there are no dark areas in the interior. Wi th task/ambient lighting, the balance between work surface brightness and surrounding brightness is good. 3.4 Lighting Controllability Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.25 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 5.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Preliminary Design Preliminary Design Off, Sch, Rtl, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp Htl, Apt Level 1 No lighting control is possible Level 1 No lighting control is possible No ligh ting control is possible. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 3 Crude lighting control is possible in working rooms, sales areas etc. Level 3 Rough lighting control is possible for mult iple bed units. Rough lighting control is possible for interiors. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 4 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 5 Detailed lighting control is possible in individual working rooms, sales areas etc Level 5 Detailed lighting control is possible for individual bed units. Detailed lighting control is possible for multiple areas of the interior. Execution Design and Construction Completion Execution Design and Construction Completion Off, Sch, Rtl, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp Htl, Apt Level 1 Controll is not zoned and lighting cannot be adjusted from a control panel, from the fixtures or elsewhere. Level 1 No lighting control is possible. No lighting control is possible. Level 2 (No c orresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level)

PAGE 201

201 Level 3 Control is possible in units of 4 working areas. Lighting can be adjusted from a control panel, from the fixtures or elsewhere, and any of the conditions is met. v el 3 Controllable in units of several beds. Lighting can be adjusted from a control panel, from the fixtures or elsewhere. There is a lighting control panel, device etc. for broadly controlling overall lighting in the room. Level 4 (No corresponding l evel) Level 4 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Control is possible in units of 1 working area, and adjustment is possible from control terminals, remote controlor similar means. Level 5 Detailed lighting control is possible for individual bed units. There are terminals, remote control units o r other means for detailed control of lighting in several areas of the interior. 4 Air Quality 4.1 Source Control 4.1.1 Chemical Pollutants Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.33 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corre sponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Satisfies the Building Standards Law. el 3 Satisfies the Building Standards Law. Level 4 Satisfies the Building Standard Law and uses construction materials not subject to regulation und er the Building Standards Law (construction materials not covered by directives and having F JIS/JAS standard rating) throughout (at least 70% by area of floors, walls, ceilings and ceiling voids). Level 4 Satisfies the Building Standard Law and use s construction materials not subject to regulation under the Building Standards Law (construction materials not covered by directives and having F JIS/JAS standard rating) throughout (at least 70% by area of floors, walls, ceilings and ceiling voids)

PAGE 202

202 Level 5 Satisfies the Building Standard Law and uses construction materials not subject to regulation under the Building Standards Law (construction materials not covered by directives and having F JIS/JAS standard rating) throughout (at least 90% by area of floors, walls, ceilings and ceiling voids). The materials must also have low emission levels of VOCs other than formaldehyde. Level 5 Satisfies the Building Standard Law and uses construction materials not subject to regulation under the Bu ilding Standards Law (construction materials not covered by directives and having F JIS/JAS standard rating) throughout (at least 90% by area of floors, walls, ceilings and ceiling voids). The materials must also have low emission levels of VOCs other than formaldehyde. 4.1.2 Asbestos Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Excluded Entire building and common properties Exclu ded Residential and Accommodation Sections Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3 Level 4 Level 4 Level 5 Level 5 4.1.3 Mites, Mold etc. Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.33 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 1.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Not adequate for level 3. Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level)

PAGE 203

203 Level 3 The dcor on at least 50%, but less than 65% of the area of floors and external walls has been designed to restrict the growth of mites and mold, or to facilitate cleaning and maintenance. el 3 The dcor on at least 50%, but less than 65% of the area of floors and external walls has been designed to restrict the growth of mites and mold, or to facilitat e cleaning and maintenance. Level 4 The dcor on at least 65%, but less than 80% of the area of floors and external walls has been designed to restrict the growth of mites and mold, or to facilitate cleaning and maintenance. Level 4 The dcor on at le ast 65%, but less than 80% of the area of floors and external walls has been designed to restrict the growth of mites and mold, or to facilitate cleaning and maintenance. Level 5 The dcor on at least 80% of the area of floors and external walls has be en designed to restrict the growth of mites and mold, or to facilitate cleaning and maintenance. Level 5 The dcor on at least 80% of the area of floors and external walls has been designed to restrict the growth of mites and mold, or to facilitate cleani ng and maintenance. 4.1.4 Legionella Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.33 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 4.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Ha l, Fct, Hsp Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 There is a minimum level of water processing in water cooling towers, and measures against dispersion, and a minimum level of measures for water heaters. el 3 There is a minimum level of water processing in water cooling towers, and measures against dispersion, and a minimum level of measures for water heaters. There is no water cooling tower, or there is thorough water processing in water c ooling towers, thorough measures against dispersion, and a minimum level of measures for water heaters. Level 4 There is no water cooling tower, or there is thorough water processing in water cooling towers, thorough measures against dispersion, and a min imum level of measures for water heaters. Level 5 There is no water cooling tower, or water processing in water cooling towers, measures against dispersion, and measures for water heaters are all thorough. There is also a good design for the maintenanc e of this equipment. Level 5 There is no water cooling tower, or water processing in water cooling towers, measures against dispersion, and measures for water heaters are all thorough. There is also a good design for the maintenance of this equipment. 4.2 Ventilation 4.2.1 Ventilation Rate Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.25 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00

PAGE 204

204 Level 4.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, R tl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 The ventilation volume is barely adequate to satisfy t he requirements of the Building Standards Law (including sick house syndrome countermeasures) and the Law for Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings. el 3 The ventilation volume is barely adequate to satisfy the requirements of the Building Standards Law (including sick house syndrome countermeasures) and the Law for Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings. For occupied rooms equipped wit h centrally managed air mixing equipment, the SHASE S102 2003 ventilation standard and commentary are satisfied. If there is no central control, the ventilation volume is 1.2 times the level required to satisfy the requirements of the Building Standards La w (including sick house syndrome countermeasures) and theLaw for Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings. Level 4 For occupied rooms equipped with centrally managed air mixing equipment, the SHASE S102 2003 ventilation standard and commentary are satisfied If there is no central control, the ventilation volume is 1.2 times the level required to satisfy the requirements of the Building Standards Law (including sick house syndrome countermeasures) and theLaw for Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings. Le vel 5 For occupied rooms equipped with centrally managed air mixing equipment, the SHASE S102 2003 ventilation standard and commentary are satisfied with a margin of 1.2 times. If there is no central control, the ventilation volume is 1.4 times the level r equired to satisfy the requirements of the Building Standards Law (including sick house syndrome countermeasures) and the Law for Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings. Level 5 For occupied rooms equipped with centrally managed air mixing equipment, the SHASE S102 2003 ventilation standard and commentary are satisfied with a margin of 1.2 times. If there is no central control, the ventilation volume is 1.4 times the level required to satisfy the requirements of the Building Standards Law (including sick h ouse syndrome countermeasures) and the Law for Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings. 4.2.2 Natural Ventilation Performance Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.25 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 4.0 Entire building and common pr operties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Fct Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Not adequate for level 3.

PAGE 205

205 Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding lev el) (No corresponding level) Level 3 There is no effective opening for natural ventilation in occupied rooms with unopenable windows. Or, in rooms with openable windows, the area of effective opening for natural ventilation is at least 1/20 of the occu pied room floor area. el 3 There is no effective opening for natural ventilation in occupied rooms with unopenable windows. Or, in rooms with openable windows, the area of effective opening for natural ventilation is at least 1/20 of the occupied room floor area. Openable w indows are available for at least 1/10 of the floor area. In rooms with unopenable windows, the area of effective opening for natural ventilation is at least 50cm2/m2. Or, in rooms with openable windows, the area of effective opening for natura l ventilation is at least 1/15 of the occupied room floor area. Level 4 In rooms with unopenable windows, the area of effective opening for natural ventilation is at least 50cm2/m2. Or, in rooms with openable windows, the area of effective opening for nat ural ventilation is at least 1/15 of the occupied room floor area. Openable windows are available for at least 1/8 of the floor area. Level 5 In rooms with unopenable windows, the area of effective openings for natural ventilation is at least 100cm2/m2 of floor area. Or, in rooms with openable windows, the area of effective openings for natural ventilation is at least 1/10 the floor area of the room. Level 5 In rooms with unopenable windows, the area of effective openings for natural ventilation is at least 100cm2/m2 of floor area. Or, in rooms with openable windows, the area of effective openings for natural ventilation is at least 1/10 the floor area of the room. Openable windows are available for at least 1/6 of the floor area.

PAGE 206

206 4.2.3 Consideratio n for Outside Air Intake Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.25 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 5.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Ap t Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Not adequate for level 3. Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Not adequate for level 3. Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding l evel) Level 3 The air intakes are oriented away from pollution sources, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. They are also oriented away from extraction vents or positioned at least 3m away. The air intakes are oriented away from pollu tion sources, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. el 3 The air intakes are oriented away from pollution sources, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. They are also oriented away from extraction vents or positioned at least 3m away. The air intakes are oriented away from pollution sour ces, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. Level 4 The air intakes are oriented away from pollution sources, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. They are also positioned at least 6m away from extraction vents (No corre sponding level) Level 4 The air intakes are oriented away from pollution sources, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. They are also positioned at least 6m away from extraction vents (No corresponding level) The air intakes are oriented away from pollution sources, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. They are also oriented away from extraction vents and positioned at least 6m away. The air intakes are oriented away from pollution sou rces, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. They are also oriented away from extraction vents or positioned at least Level 5 The air intakes are oriented away from pollution sources, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. They are also oriented away from extraction vents and positioned at least The air intakes are oriented away from pollution sources, considering conditions in areas surrounding the site. They are also oriented away from extraction vents or p ositioned at least 3m away.

PAGE 207

207 3m away. 6m away. 4.2.4 Air Supply Planning Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.25 Weighting coefficients ( default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 Not adequate for level 3 Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Outside air is mixed with return air in the air conditioning equipment and supplied to each room in a volume determined by the thermal load in that room, so the system does not guarantee delivery of an adequate volume of outside air to all rooms i n all load conditions. 3 Outside air is mixed with return air in the air conditioning equipment and supplied to each room in a volume determined by the thermal load in that room, so the system does not guarantee delivery of an adequate volume of out side air to all rooms in all load conditions. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 Outside air is not mixed with return air, and is supplied directly to each room in the volume required for ventilation. Therefo re, the system guarantees the necessary outside air, delivered to the places where it is needed, regardless of the load conditions in each room. Level 5 Outside air is not mixed with return air, and is supplied directly to each room in the volume required for ventilation. Therefore, the system guarantees the necessary outside air, delivered to the places where it is needed, regardless of the load conditions in each room. 4.3 Operation Plan 4.3.1 CO2 Monitoring Weighting coefficients (def ault)= 0.50 4.3.2 Control of Smoking Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.50 Level 1.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Fct Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp(Waiting Room ), Htl, Fct Not adequate for level 3. Level 1 Not adequate for level 3.

PAGE 208

208 Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 The system is based on manual measurement, with the minimum necessary level of recording el 3 There is a minimum level of measures, such as smoking booths, to avoid exposing non smokers to smoke. Level 4 The system is based on manual measurement, a management manual etc. has been provided for properly maintaining air quality, and it f unctions effectively. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 The system has constant central monitoring of CO2. Also, a management manual etc. has been provided for properly maintaining air quality, and it functions effectively. Level 5 Smoking is confirmed to be prohibited in the entire building. Alternatively, there is an adequate level of measures, such as smoking booths, to avoid exposing non smokers to smoke. Q2 Quality of Service Service Ability 1.1 Functiona lity & Usability 1.1.1 Provision of Space & Storage Weighting coefficient s ( default)= 0.00 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Fct Hsp Htl Level 1 Not adequate for level 3 Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Not adequate for level 3 Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Working space per person is at least 6m2. Private rooms at least 8m2/bed, multi bed rooms at least 6m2/bed. Single room at least 15m2, twin room at least 22m2. Level 4 Working space per person is at least 9m2. Level 4 (No correspondi ng level) Single room at least 22m2, twin room at least 32m2.

PAGE 209

209 Level 5 Working space per person is at least 12m2. Level 5 Private rooms at least 10m2/bed, multi bed rooms at least 8m2/bed. Single room at least 30m2, twin room at least 40m2. 1.1.2 U se of Advanced Information System Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Fct Htl, Apt Level 1 Not ade quate for level 2. Level 1 Not adequate for level 2. Level 2 Measures such as OA floors etc. accommodate layout changes, and electrical sockets for OA equipment have at least 30VA/ m2 socket capacity. In addition, optical fiber is routed into the buil ding for communications. Level 2 Communications lines able to carry telephone and broadcasting are routed into each dwelling or guest room. Measures such as OA floors accommodate layout changes, and electrical sockets for OA equipment have at least 30VA/m2 socket capacity. Also, level 2 is satisfied for communications, and communications lines with capacity for one data communications device per 8m2 (one phone, one PC) is routed onto each floor. Level 2 is satisfied, and Internet services not adequate for level 4 are provided. Level 4 Measures such as OA floors accommodate layout changes, and electrical sockets for OA equi pment have at least 40VA/m2 socket capacity. Also, level 3 is satisfied for communications, lines for multiple communications carriers are routed into the building, and space is provided for each communications carrier to lay cables onto each floor. Level 4 Each dwelling or guest room is equipped with a communications environment able to use 100Mbit class broadband. Level 5 Measures such as OA floors accommodate layout changes, and electrical sockets for OA equipment have at least 50VA/m2 socket capaci ty. Also, level 4 is satisfied for communications, Gigabit communications lines are routed onto each floor, and tenant EPS is ensured for communications between floors Level 5 Each dwelling or guest room is equipped with a communications environment able to use Gbit class broadband. 1.1.3 Barrier free Planning Weighting coefficients (default)= 1.00 Level Entire building and common properties

PAGE 210

210 3.0 Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl Off, Sch, Fct, Apt Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Not adequate for level 3. Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) The building satisfies the standard for easing building use (the minimum level) under the New Barrier free Building Law. At least half of the buil ding satisfies the standard for easing building use (the minimum level) under the New Barrier free Building Law Level 4 The building satisfies the standard for easing building use (the preferred level) under the New Barrier free Building Law. The building satisfies the standard for easing building use (the minimum level) under the New Barrier free Building Law Level 5 The building exceeds the standard for easing and guiding building use (the preferred level) under the New Barrier free Buil ding Law, achieving the universal design level. The building satisfies the standard for easing building use (the desirable level) under the New Barrier free Building Law 1.2 Amenity 1.2.1 Perceived Spaciousness & Access to View Weighting coefficient s (default)= 0.50 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 5.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Fct Sch Rtl, Rst Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 Not adequate fo r level 3. Not adequate for level 3. Not adequate for level 3 Level 1 Not adequate for level 3.

PAGE 211

211 Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 The ceiling height is at l east 2.5m in offices, and the windows are arranged to give all workers an adequate awareness of the outside. Classroom ceiling height is at least 3m. Sales area ceiling height is at least 3m. el 3 Ceiling height at least 2.3m in Residential and Accommodation Sections. Level 4 The ceiling height is at least 2.7m in offices, and the windows are placed to give all workers an adequate awareness of the outside. Classroom ceiling height is at least 3.1m. Sales area ceiling height is at least 3.3m. Level 4 Ceiling height at least 2.5m in Residential and Accommodation Sections. The ceiling height is at least 2.9m in offices, and the windows are placed to give all workers an adequate awareness of the outside. Classroom ceiling height is at least 3.2m. Sales area ceiling height is at least 3.6m Level 5 Ceiling height at least 2.7m in Residential and Accommodation Sections. 1.2.2 Space for Refreshment Weighting coefficients (defaul t)= 0.00 Level 5.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Fct Rtl Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Not adequate for level 3. Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 3 Smokin g areas are provided. Rest space is at least 2% of the sales floor area. Level 4 Level 3 + refreshment areas. Rest space is at least 3% of the sales floor area. Level 4 + installation of vending machines etc. Rest space is at least 4% of the sales floor area. 1.2.3 Dcor Planning Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.50 Weighting C oefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 4.0 Entire building and common properties Level Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Rt l, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Hsp, Htl, Apt

PAGE 212

212 Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Level 1 Not adequate for level 3. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Applicable to two of the efforts to be evaluated. Le vel 3 Applicable to two of the efforts to be evaluated. Applicable to three of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 4 Applicable to three of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 5 Applicable to four of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 5 App licable to four of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 3.0 < -Direct input Level 3.0 < -Direct input Level 4.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Efforts to be evaluated Efforts to be evaluated yes The concept of the building as a whole is well defined, and specific efforts to reflect the concept are made at the dcor planning stage.(For example, shifting to natural and ecological materials in a building with an ecological theme). yes The concept of the building as a whole is well defined, and specific efforts to reflect the concept are made at the dcor planning stage.(For example, shifting to natural and ecological materials in a building with an ecological theme). yes The functions required of the building have been clarified, and specific measures to encourage those functions are indicated at the dcor planning stage.(For example, in hotels and similar facilities, the interior is perceived as living space, and natural materials such as wood and stone are introduced in deliberate efforts to produce a living room like atmosphere. yes The functions required of the building have been clarified, and specific measures to encourage those functions are indicated at the dcor p lanning stage.(For example, in hotels and similar facilities, the interior is perceived as living space, and natural materials such as wood and stone are introduced in deliberate efforts to produce a living room like atmosphere. yes The lighting plannin g and dcor planning are integrated with specific measures at the dcor planning stage. The lighting planning and dcor planning are integrated with specific measures at the dcor planning stage. Mockups and interior perspectives are used to verify the dcor planning in advance. Mockups and interior perspectives are used to verify the dcor planning in advance. 1.3 Maintenance Management

PAGE 213

213 1.3.1 Design Which Considers Maintenance Management Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.50 Lev el 3.0 Entire building and common properties Remarks Off, Sch, Rtl, Hal, Htl Level 1 (No corresponding level) Buildings to which the Law for Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings does not apply are excluded. This assessment covers effor ts on matters which should be considered in selecting structures and materials at the building design stage for the sake of maintenance management. Level 2 Efforts to consider maintenance management at the design stage were inadequate. (0~2 Efforts to be evaluated) Efforts to consider maintenance management at the design stage were standard. (3~5 Efforts to be evaluated) Level 4 Efforts to consider maintenance management at the design stage were above the standard level. (6~8 Efforts t o be evaluated) Level 5 Efforts to consider maintenance management at the design stage were comprehensive. (9~ Efforts to be evaluated) Efforts to be evaluated Judgment Evaluated content yes [1] Interior finishes: Interior walls use finish methods, materials, paints or coatings that are highly dirt resistant. yes [2] Interior finishes: Floors use finish methods, materials, paints or coatings that are highly dirt resistant. [3] Dcor planning: The design and st ructure of floors enables washing with water. [4] Dcor design: Design of interior walls and floors avoids creating dust traps and places to leave objects. [5] Dcor design: The first and second doors of windbreak lobbies are dist anced so that they are not open at the same time, or are otherwise designed to prevent the entry of dust etc. [6] Dcor design: Floor materials with very different maintenance management methods are not placed close together.

PAGE 214

214 [7] Exterior f inishes: Exterior walls and glass are designed with highly dirt resistant construction materials, or with finishes such as weather resistant paint and hydrophilic properties. [8] Facade design: Exterior walls are equipped with effective rain flashing and the flow of water down the walls has been considered, in order to avoid dirtying of the wall surfaces. [9] Facade design: Measures have been applied to prevent damage from the droppings of pest birds (pigeons, crows, starlings, etc.). yes [10] Facade design: Metal parts exposed on the exterior are plated or otherwise treated against corrosion. [11] Dcor and exterior space design: Movement routes, including outdoor spaces and management areas, are designed to eliminate steps as far as possible (steps not exceeding around 5mm). [12] Other: Efforts have been made in areas other than the above, with consideration for maintenance management. Total= 3 Point 1.3.2 Securing Maintenance Management Functions Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.5 0 Level 4.0 Entire building and common properties Remarks Off, Sch, Rtl, Hal, Htl Level 1 (No corresponding level) Buildings to which the Law for Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings does not a pply are excluded. In this assessment, assess efforts related to basic functional items needed to achieve a high quality level of maintenance management. Level 2 Efforts to ensure maintenance management functions are inadequate. (0~3 Efforts to b evalu ated) Level 3 Efforts to ensure maintenance management functions are standard (4~6 Efforts to b evaluated) Efforts to ensure maintenance management functions above the standard level.(7~9 Efforts to b evaluated) Level 5 E xtensive efforts are made to ensure maintenance management functions.(10 or more Efforts to b evaluated) Efforts to be evaluated Judgment Evaluated content [1] Adequate space has been used for cleaning staff rooms, relative to th e floor area.

PAGE 215

215 yes [2] Adequate space has been used for cleaning equipment rooms, relative to the floor area. yes [3] The cleaning equipment rooms have washing areas with drainage channels to safe drainage facilities. yes [4] Space is planned for washing and drying mops and rags, for the sake of hygiene. yes [5] Adequate space has been provided for sorting waste, materials for recycling, and bulky garbage items, relative to the floor area, and an easy way to move t hose materials outside has been planned. [6] Cleaning sinks are installed for each toilet, or for each floor. [7] Cleaning equipment for each type of floor material has been anticipated, and the layout of electrical receptacles (numbe rs and spacings) for use in cleaning work has been planned accordingly. [8] Design ensures that maintenance management work can be performed safely on exterior glass and walls, air supply and vent holes, light fixtures and other fixtures in high plac es. yes [9] Suitable levels of lighting for cleaning purposes can be set. yes [10] Valves and other devices requiring day to day adjustment are installed in positions which allow convenient operation. yes [11] Inspection access ho les for equipment concealed in ceiling voids are at least 600x600mm. yes [12] Equipments not serving for private areas can be accessed from common areas for maintenance management. [13] Other than the above, points related to securing m aintenance management functions have been identified and implemented. Total= 8 Point 2. Durability & Reliability 2.1 Earthquake Resistance 2.1.1 Earthquake resistance Weighting coefficients (default)= 0 .80 2.1.2 Seismic Isolation & Vibration Damping Systems Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Off Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level)

PAGE 216

216 The building's earthquake resistance meets the requirements of the Building Standards Law. No seismic isolation or vibration damping system is used. Level 4 The building's earthquake resistance exceeds the requirements of the Building Standards Law by a 20% margin. Level 4 A vibration damping system is installed. Improved comfort in strong wind is considered. Level 5 The building's earthquake resistance exceeds the requirements of the Building Standards Law by a 50% margin. Altern atively, damage control design has been used. Level 5 A seismic isolation system is used 2.2 Service Life of Components 2.2.1 Service Life of Structural Frame Materials Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.23 2.2.2 Necessary Refurbishment I nterval for Exterior Finishes Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.23 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 1 Less than 10 years Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 10 years or more, less than 20 years This is grade 1 of the assessment standard for steel frame and concrete buildings (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism directive 380, 2006) in the Housing Quality Assuarance Law (Japan Housing Performance Standards, 3. Matters for relieving deterioration). 20 years Level 4 This is grade 2 of the assessment standard for steel frame and concrete buildings (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism directive 380, 2006) in the Housing Quality Assuara nce Law (Japan Housing Performance Standards, 3. Matters for relieving deterioration). Level 4 21 years or more, less than 30 years Level 5 This is grade 3 of the assessment standard for steel frame and concrete buildings (Ministry of Land, Infras tructure, Transport and Tourism directive 380, 2006) in the Housing Quality Assuarance Law (Japan Housing Performance Standards, 3. Matters for relieving deterioration). Level 5 30 years or more 2.2.3 Necessary Renewal Interval for Main Interio r Finishes Weighting coefficient s(default)= 0.09 2.2.4 Necessary Replacement Interval for Air Conditioning and Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.08

PAGE 217

217 Ventilation Ducts Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Apt Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 Less than 5 years Less than 10 years Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 5 years or more, less than 10 years 10 years or more, less than 20 years Level 2 (No corresponding level) 10 years 15 years Zinc plated steel sheet used almost throughout. Level 4 11 years or more, less than 20 years 16 years or more, less than 25 years Level 4 Expos ed exterior ducts, kitchen venting ducts, high humidity venting ducts and similar applications that would have shorter service lives than other applications when made from zinc plated steel sheet are made from stainless steel or Galvalume to extend service life. Alternatively, appropriate provision has been made for drainage of internal condensation. Level 5 20 year or more 25 years or more Level 5 At least 90% of exposed exterior ducts, kitchen venting ducts, high humidity venting ducts and simila r applications that would have shorter service lives than other applications when made from zinc plated steel sheet are made from stainless steel or Galvalume to extend service life. 2.2.5 Necessary Renewal Interval for HVAC and Water Supply and Drain age Pipes Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.15 2.2.6 Necessary Renewal Interval for Major Equipment and Services Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.23 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 1 Less than 7 years Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 7 years or more, less than 15 years D or better used in almost all the top three main applications. 15 years Level 4 C or better used in at least two of the top three main applications. Level 4 16 years or more, less than 30

PAGE 218

218 years Level 5 B or better us ed in at least two of the top three main applications, and E is not used. Level 5 30 years or more 2.3 Appropriate renewal 2.4 Reliability 2.4.1 HVAC System Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 2.4.2 Water Supply & Drainage Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Level 1.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Sch, Rtl, Rst, Apt Off, Sch, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Rtl, Rst No efforts to be evaluated. No efforts to be evaluated. Level 1 No efforts to be evaluated. No efforts to be evaluated. Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 3 Applicable to one of the efforts to be evaluated. Alternatively, there is no centralized HVAC system. Applicable to one of the efforts to be evaluated. Alternatively, there is no centralized HVAC system. Applicabl e to one of the efforts to be evaluated. Applicable to one of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 4 Applicable to two of the efforts to be evaluated. (No corresponding level) Level 4 Applicable to tow of the efforts to be evaluated. (No corresponding l evel) Level 5 Applicable to three or more of the efforts to be evaluated. Applicable to two or more of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 5 Applicable to three or more of the efforts to be evaluated. Applicable to two or more of the efforts to be eval uated. Evaluate the efforts to improve the reliability of HVAC system. Evaluate the efforts to improve the reliability of water supply and drainage. Level 3.0 < -Direct input Level 1.0 < -Direct input Building Type Off, Hal, Hsp, Htl Fct Sch, Rtl, Rst, Apt Building Type Off, Sch, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Rtl, Rst Gross Floor Area 4,322 Gross Floor Area 4,322 Judgment Level 1.0 Level 1.0 Judgment Level 3.0 Level 3.0

PAGE 219

219 Yes Select from among the methods listed below, if the HVAC system has an operation control system for multiple occupied rooms. yes Water saving equi pment is used. This is lilimited to cases where it is used on a majority of the installed equipment. Water saving devices are those approved as Eco Mark products, or those equivalent to water saving equipment that is the approval standard for Eco Mark prod ucts. "Yes", please select from comments. Plumbing systems are separated as far as possible to reduce the portions that become unserviceable in the event of a disaster. Circuits are divided according to the importance of their ventilation equipment, and more important circuits are given priority in operation after a disaster. Also, ways of running the ventilation with reduced load capacity have been examined. The building has a pit for temporary waste water storage, in case mains sewerag e is unavailable after a disaster. Dispersion and duplication of heat source types (electricity, gas etc.), with backups. The building has two separate tanks, one for water reception and one elevated tank. Countermeasures (such as suspended pip es) have been taken to ensure that overall function can continue even when the building is partially damaged by an earthquake. Planning enables the use of well water, gray water and etc. Circuits are divided according to the importance of thei r air conditioning equipment, and more important circuits are given priority in operation after a disaster. Also, ways of running the air conditioning with reduced load capacity have been examined. The building is equipped with a simple filtration system allowing conversion of rainwater to potable water in the event 2.4.3 Electrical Equipment Weighting coefficient s(default)= 0.20 2.4.4 Support Method of Machines & Ducts Weighting coefficie nts (default)= 0.20 Level 1.0 Entire building and common properties Level 1.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Sch, Rtl, Rst, Apt Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt No efforts to be evaluated. No efforts to be evaluated. Not adequate for level 3 Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Applicable to one of the efforts to be evaluated. Applicable to one of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 3 Earthquake resistance class B (Human safety is assured and secondary damage prevented after a major earthquake.)

PAGE 220

220 Level 4 Applicable to tow of the efforts to be evaluated. (No corresponding lev el) Level 4 Earthquake resistance class A (In addition to Class B, important functions can be secured without major repairs) Level 5 Applicable to three or more of the efforts to be evaluated. Applicable to two or more of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 5 Earthquake resistance class S (In addition to Class A, all functions can be secured without major repairs) Evaluate the efforts to improve the reliability of electrical equipment Level 3.0 < -Direct input Building Type Off Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Sch, Rtl, Rst, Apt Gross Floor Area 4,322 Judgment Level 1.0 Level 1.0 The building is equipped with emergency generators. (Not applied The building is equipped with uninterruptible power source sy stems. Power input equipment for important equipment systems has Countermeasures (i) and (ii) have been taken or (iii) applies, in order to avoid power outages due to water percolation into power supply equipment or precision machinery, and to avoid damage to data networks. (i) Installation of power supply equipment and precision machinery below ground is avoided. (ii) Devices to prevent the ground water percolation (waterproof doors, waterproof panels, embankments, dry ditches) and drainage equipment (pumps etc.) are installed. (iii) No danger of water percolation. 2.4.5 Communications & IT Equipment Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Level 1.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Apt No efforts to be evaluated. No efforts to be evaluated.

PAGE 221

221 Level 2 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) Level 3 Applicable to one of the efforts to be evaluated. Applicable to one of the efforts to be evaluated. L evel 4 Applicable to tow of the efforts to be evaluated. Applicable to tow of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 5 Applicable to three of the efforts to be evaluated. Applicable to three of the efforts to be evaluated. Evaluate the efforts to improve the reliability of communications and IT equipment Level 3.0 < -Direct input Building Type Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Apt Gross Floor Area 4,322 Judgmen t Level 1.0 Level 1.0 Communications methods are diversified, using optical fiber cable, metal cable, cellular telephone network, PHS network and others. Connections are made from two telephone exchanges to secure two communications links. Countermeasures (i) and (ii) have been taken or (iii) applies, in order to avoid damage to data networks due to water percolation into precision machinery. (i) Installation of precision machinery below ground i s avoided.(ii) Devices to prevent the groundwater percolation (waterproof doors, waterproof panels, embankments, dry ditches) and drainage equipment (pumps etc.) are installed. (iii) No danger of water percolation. 3. Flexibility & Adaptability 3.1 Spatial Margin 3.1.1 Allowance for Floor to floor Height Weighting coefficient s (default)= 0.60 Weighting coefficient s (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections

PAGE 222

222 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hsp, Fct Hsp, Htl Apt Level 1 Less than 3.3 Level 1 Less than 3.3 Less than 2.7 Level 2 3.3m or more, less than 3.5 Level 2 3.3m or more, less than 3.5 2.7m or more, less than 2.8 3.5m or more, less than 3.7 3.5m or more, less than 3.7 2.8m or more less than 2.9 Level 4 3.7m or more, less than 3.9 Level 4 3.7m or more, less than 3.9 2.9m or more, less than 3.0 Level 5 3.9 or more Level 5 3.9 or more 3.0 or more 3.1.2 Adaptability of Floor Layout Weighting coefficie nts (default)= 0.40 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Fct, Hsp Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 0.7=< [Wall length/area ratio ] Level 1 0.7=< [Wall length/area ratio] Level 2 0.5=< [Wall length/area ratio] <0.7 Level 2 0.5=< [Wall length/area ratio] <0.7 0.3=< [Wall length/area ratio] <0.5 0.3=< [Wall length/area ratio] <0.5 Level 4 0.1=< [Wall length/area ratio] <0.3 Level 4 0.1=< [Wall length/area ratio] <0.3 Level 5 [Wall length/area ratio] <0.1 Level 5 [Wall len gth/area ratio] <0.1 Wall length/area ratio = Length of perimeter walls (m) + length of bearing walls (m) Exclusive area (m2) 3.2 Floor Load Margin Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.31 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Residential and Accommodation Sections Off, Rtl, Rst, Hal(fixed seatings), Fct, Hsp Hal(non fixed seatings) Sch Hsp, Htl, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) (No corresponding leve l) (No corresponding level) Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 Less than 2900N/m2 Less than 3500N/m2 Less than 2300N/m2 Level 2 Less than 1800N/m2 2900N/m2 or more 3500N/m2 2300N/m2 or 1800N/m2 or

PAGE 223

223 or more more el 3 more Level 4 3500N/m2 or more 4200N/m2 or more 2900N/m2 or more Level 4 2100N/m2 or more Level 5 4500N/m2 or more 5200N/m2 or more 3500N/m2 or more Level 5 2900N/m2 or more 3.3 Adaptability of Facilities 3.3.1 Ease of Air Conditioning Duct Renewal Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.17 3.3.2 Ease of Water Supply and Drain Pipe Renewal Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.17 Level 5.0 Entire building and common properties Level 5.0 Entire building and common properti es Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Fct, Htl, Apt Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 Air conditioning ducts cannot be replaced or repaired without damaging structural elements. Level 1 Repair and replacement are not possible withou t damaging structural elements and finishes. Level 2 In some cases the air conditioning ducts can be replaced or repaired without damaging structural elements, if spare sleeves are used, but that method cannot be applied to all ducts. Level 2 Repairs can be made without damaging structural elements, but replacements cannot. Level 3 Space and routes for future use (future replacement work) have been provided, so that nearly all air conditioning ducts can be replaced or repaired without damaging stru ctural elements. Alternatively, there is no central air conditioning equipment. Level 3 Repairs can be made without damaging structural elements and finishes, but replacements cannot. Level 4 Exterior air conditioning ducts are used or ceiling space p rovided so that ducts can be replaced or repaired without damaging either structural elements or surface finishes. Level 4 Repairs and replacements can be made without damaging structural elements. ISS, equipment floor installation or other me asures allow easy replacement or repair of air conditioning ducts without damaging surface finishes. Repair and replacement are possible without damaging structural elements or finishes. 3.3.3 Ease of Electrical Wiring Renewal Weighting coeff icients (default)= 0.11 3.3.4 Ease of Communications Cable Renewal Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.11 Level 5.0 Entire building and common properties Level 5.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 Wiring cannot be replaced or repaired without damaging structural elements. Level 1 Communications cables cannot be replaced or repaired without damaging structural elements.

PAGE 224

224 Level 2 (No correspo nding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Wiring can be replaced or repaired without damaging structural elements. Level 3 Communications cables can be replaced or repaired without damaging structural elements. Level 4 (No correspond ing level) Level 4 (No corresponding level) Wiring can be replaced or repaired without damaging structural elements or surface finishes. Communications cables can be replaced or repaired without damaging structural elements or surface finishes. 3.3.5 Ease of Equipment Renewal Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.22 3.3.6 Provision of Backup Space Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.22 Level 5.0 Entire building and common properties Level 3.0 Entire building and common properties Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Apt Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 No machine hatches or routes to accommodate replacement of major service equipment are provided, and building functions cannot be maintained through replacement and repair. Level 1 (No corresp onding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Machine hatches or routes to accommodate replacement of major service equipment are provided, but building functions cannot be maintained through replacement a nd repair. 3 There is no planned provision of space for backup equipment Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 4 There is planned provision of space for backup equipment. l 5 Machine hatches or routes to accommodate replacement of major service e quipment are provided, and building functions can be maintained through replacement and repair. Level 5 (No corresponding level) Transfer the necessary entries from the report of "Energy saving plan "&" the Housing

PAGE 225

225 Performance Assessment" Select from pull down menus or enter figures and comments. Building Type Entire buildin g Office Schoo l Retaile rs Resta urants Halls Factor ies Hospit als Hotels Floor area for each building type m2 4,3 22 4,322 Buildin g plan For each assessment standard type PAL value PAL value PAL value PAL value PAL value PAL value PAL value PAL value PAL value MJ/ m2 yr 300.0 259.0 380.0 550.0 550.0 340.0 42.0 The standard for judgme nt by owner MJ/ m2 yr 300 320 380 550 550 340 420 Point value, Insulation class Poi nt 100 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 The standard for judgment by owner Poi nt 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 LR1/1.Building Thermal Load Level 3.0 Level 4.0 Level 3.0 Level 3.0 Level 3.0 Level 3.0 Level 5.0 Entire buildin g LR1/1.Building Thermal Load Level 4.0 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HVAC system For e ach assessment standard type CEC/ AC value CEC/ AC value CEC/A C value CEC/ AC value CEC/A C value CEC/ AC value CEC/A C value CEC/A C value CEC/AC value ( ) 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 The standard for ( ) 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5

PAGE 226

226 judgment by owner Annual energy consumption MJ/ yr 1,968, 000 92,664 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Hypothetical Air Conditioning Load MJ/ yr 1,312, 000 280,80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Point value Poi nt 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 correction Point Poi nt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The standard for judgment by owner Poi nt 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 LR1/3.1 HVAC System Level 3.0 Level 5.0 Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value Level 0.0 Input CEC value Input CEC value weight 0.45 0.76 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.55 0.40 Ventila tion Syste m For each assessment standard type CEC/V value Exclu ded CEC/ V value CEC/ V value CEC/ V value CEC/ V value CEC/V value CEC/V value CEC/V value ( ) 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 The standard for judgment by owner ( ) 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 Annual energy consumption MJ/ yr 678,30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hypothetical energy consumption for ventilation per year MJ/ yr 678,30 0 115,20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Point val ue Poi nt 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The standard for judgment by owner Poi nt 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 LR1/3.2 Ventilation System Level 3.0 Level 0.0 Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value Level 0.0 Input CEC value Input CEC val ue weight 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 Lightin g Syste m For each assessment standard type CEC/L value CEC/L value CEC/ L value CEC/ L value CEC/ L value CEC/ L value CEC/L value CEC/L value

PAGE 227

227 CEC/L value ( ) 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 The standard for judgment by owner ( ) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Annual energy consumption MJ/ yr 4,048, 000 148,17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hypothetical energy consumption for lighting per year MJ/ yr 4,048, 000 302,40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Point value Poi nt 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The standard for judgment by owner Poi nt 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 LR1/3.3 Lighting System Level 3.0 Level 5.0 Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value weight 0.30 0.24 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.85 0.20 0.20 Hot Water Supply Syste m For each assessment standard type CEC/H W value Exclu ded CEC/ HW value CEC/ HW value CEC/ HW value CEC/ HW value CEC/H W value CEC/H W value C EC/HW value ( ) 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ix value 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 The standard for judgment by owner ( ) 1.6 Input Ix value Input Ix value Input Ix value Input Ix value Input Ix value Input Ix value Annual energy consumption MJ/ yr 312,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hypothetical hot water supply load per year MJ/ yr 195,00 0 195,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Point value Poi nt 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The standard for judgment by owner Poi nt 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 LR1/3.4 Hot Water Supply System Level 3.0 Level 0.0 Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value Input CEC value weight 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.20

PAGE 228

228 Elevat ors For each assessment standard type CEC/E V value CEC/E V value CEC/ EV value CEC/ EV value CEC/ EV value CEC/ EV value CEC/E V value CEC/E V value CEC/EV value ( ) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 The sta ndard for judgment by owner ( ) 1.0 1.0 Annual energy consumption MJ/ yr 134,90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hypothetical energy consumption for elevator per year MJ/ yr 134,90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Point value Poi nt 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The standard for judgment by owner Poi nt 100 100 LR1/3.5 Elevators Level 3.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Input CEC value weight 0.05 0.05 Equip ment of enhan ced energy usage efficie ncy (*) Energy saving by PV MJ/ yr 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Energy saving by others MJ/ yr 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Energy Saving Volume Using Efficient Equipment (A) MJ/ yr 43,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Energy Saving for the Entire Building (B) MJ/ yr 11,869 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Energy Saving rate K value A/B 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ERR Choice of method (single use) Assess ment by ERR Weighted score fr om scores of assessed systems Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 Level 0.0 ERR converted from the weighted score 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

PAGE 229

229 Primary energy consumption of Subject Bldg. MJ/ yr 0 337,17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Standard primary energy consumption MJ/ yr 0 819,93 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Such as solar energy generation system and cogeneration system ERR for Entire bldg. Primary energy consumption of Subject bldg. MJ/ y r 337,17 6 (exclu ding Apart ments) Standard primary energy consumption MJ/ yr 819,93 6 ERR (Reduction Rate of Primary energy consumption) 58.9% CO2 emission related to operational energy from Reference bldg. (Standard calculation) By Buildin g type Primary energy consumption MJ/y r 0 5,225,29 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perimeter area m2 0 3,388 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perimeter Annual Load MJ/y r 0 1,084,06 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O2 emission related to operational energy kg CO2/ yr 0 296,173 0 0 0 0 0 0 Entire buildin g Primary energy consumption MJ/y r 5,225,298 CO2 emission related to operational energy kg CO2/ yr 296,173

PAGE 230

230 CO2 emission related to operational energy from Subject bldg.(Standard calculation) By Building type Assessment by ERR 0% 59% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Perimeter Annual Load MJ/y r 0 877,417 0 0 0 0 0 0 Use of n atural energy (excluding PV) MJ/y r Level 3 (3,000 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saving by efficient operation Level 3 1.000 1.000 1.00 0 1.00 0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Primary energy consumption of Subject Bldg. MJ/y r 3,000 2,021,29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO2 emission related to operational energy kg CO2/ yr 169 114,568 0 0 0 0 0 0 Entire building Primary energy consumption MJ/y r 2,024,290 CO2 emission related to operational energy kg CO2/ yr 114,737 CO2 emission related to operational energy from Apartments(Standard calculation) Primary energy consu mption condition for each building type Primary energy consumption MJ/ m 2 yr 1,936 1,209 3,225 2,923 2,212 330 2,399 2,918 Conversion from qualitative assessment to quantitative assessment LR1/1.Buil ding Thermal Load MJ/ m 2 yr Level 1 330 352 418 605 605 0 374 462 150% Other than Apartments Conversion from Point value Level 2 315 336 399 578 578 0 357 441 125% to PAL value Level 3 300 320 380 550 550 0 340 420 100% Reduction of Heating Level 4 270 288 342 495 495 0 306 378

PAGE 231

231 Apartments Level 5 225 240 285 413 413 0 255 315 69% LR1/2.Natural Energy Utilization MJ/ m 2 yr Level 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other than Apartments Estimated reduction of Primary energy consumption Level 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110% LR1/2.1 Direct Use of Natural Energy Level 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% Apartments Reduction of energy for Cooling Level 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 90% Level 5 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 80% LR1/3.Efficiency in Building Service System Level 1 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 110% Other than Apartments Conversion from Point value Level 2 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 105% to PAL value Level 3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Apartments Reduction of energy for Common areas Level 4 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 90% (Ventilation System Lighting System Elevators) Level 5 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 75% LR1/3.4.Hot Water Su pply System Level 1 Apartments Reduction of Hot water supply Level 2 117% Individual supply system Level 3 100% Level 4 83% Level 5 71% LR1/4.Effic ient Operation Level 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 110% Other than Apartment s Correction coefficients for CO2 from operational energy Level 2 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 105% LR1/3.4.Hot Water Su pply System Level 3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 100% Apartments Reduction of Hot water supply Level 4 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975 90%

PAGE 232

232 Level 5 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.9 50 75% Q3 Outdoor Outside Environment on Site Select from pull down menus or enter figures and comments. 1 Preservation & Creation of Biotope Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.30 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 No consideration has been give to the conservation and creation of habitat, and effort is inadequate. (0~3 points) Level 2 Some consideration has been give to the conservation and creation of habitat, but effort is still somewhat inadequate. (4~6 points) 3 Consideration has been give to the conservation and creation of habitat, and a standard level of effort has been made. (7~9 points) Level 4 Consideration has been give to t he conservation and creation of habitat, and a relatively large number of efforts have been made. (10~12 points) Level 5 Thorough consideration has been give to the conservation and creation of habitat, and extensive efforts have been made. (13 or mo re points) Efforts to be evaluated Point Item Evaluated Content Evaluat ed Point 1 Point I. Identification of site characteristics and setting of planning policies 1) Site characteristics related to habitats including the site and its surroundings have been identified. 1 1 Point 2) Planning policies related to conservation and creation of habitat on the basis of site characteristics have been stated. 1 1 Point II. Conservation of biological resources 1) Biological resou rces such as flora and fauna, topsoil and waterside areas on the site have been conserved. 1 1 Point 2) Biological resources such as flora and fauna, topsoil and waterside areas previously existing on the site have been restored (regenerated). 1 1 Point III. Securing quantity of foliage 1) Greenery covers 10% or more, but less than 20% of exterior area, and medium and tall trees have been planted (1 point) 1~3

PAGE 233

233 Greenery covers 20% or more, but less than 50% of exterior area. (2 points) Greenery covers 50% or more of exterior area. (3 points) 1 Point 2) Building planting brings the building planting index to 0.05 or more, but less than 0.2. (1 point) 1~2 Building planting brings the building planting index to 0.2 o r more. (2 point) 1 Point IV. Securing quality of foliage 1) Foliage has been generated that is appropriate for the planting conditions of the plot and the building. 1 0 Point 2) Foliage has been generated that considers securing living habit at for small wild animals. 1 0 Point 3) Foliage has been generated that considers preservation of local species. 1 0 Point V. Management and use of habitat 1) Equipment necessary for the maintenance management of green areas at the building op eration stage have been installed, and management policies have been set. 1 0 Point 2) An environment and facilities have been provided in which building users and local people can encounter natural organisms and get closer to nature. 1 0 Poin t VI. Other Independent efforts other than the above evaluated items have been made to conserve and create habitat. 1 Total = 7 Point 2 Townscape & Landscape Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.40 Level 3.0 Off Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 The building impairs the scenery, blocks views, is too tall, or otherwise infringes scenic benefits* from scenery that is symbolic of the area, such as castles, mountains, sea or street scenery. Level 2 Efforts for the benefit of the surrounding streets and scenery are lacking. (+1 or less assessment points) 3 Efforts for the benefit of the surrounding streets and scenery are at a standard level. (+2~3 assessment points)

PAGE 234

234 Level 4 Efforts for the benefit of the surrounding streets and scenery are above the standard level. (+4 assessment points) Level 5 Efforts for the benefit of the surrounding streets and scenery are thorough and extensive. (+5 or more assessment points, or the building has been awarded prizes related to urban appearance and scenery). Level 3.0 input [1] Evaluate level three if the building is almost entirely unseen from public spaces, or if there is no way to give consideration to urban context and scenery. [2] If there are independent rules for the area (urban context guidelines etc.), and efforts have been made on that basis, evaluate the content of such efforts. [3] Evaluate level five if scenery is clearly stated as a reason for winning a local scenery prize, or any similar situation indicating the building has gained a certain level of positive assessment. Efforts to be evaluated Point Item Evaluated Content Evaluate d Point I. Infringing scenic benefits 1) The building inhibits the scenery, blocks views, is too tall, or otherwise infringes scenic benefits* from scenery that is symbolic of the area, such as castles, mountains, sea or street scenery. 0 Point 2) Lack of harmony with surrounding streets and scenery The building has an oppressive influence on part of the surrounding urban context, or has a lay out, height, visual volume, color, boundary walls or other elements that clash with the scenery. 2 1 Point II. Formation of favorable scenery 3) Formation of favorable scenery from the perspective of important viewpoints in the surroundings. Efforts have been made to form good scenery from important viewpoints where the general public gather nearby, such as parks and station plazas. 1 1 Point 4) The positioning and form etc. of the building is in harmony with nearby urban context. The adjustme nt, height, coloration and other aspects of the roof, exterior cladding, eaves, fences and walls reduce the sense of oppressiveness on the surroundings, achieving a well balanced harmony. 1 1 Point 5) Use of green space to form good scenery Green sp ace has been provided in order to form good scenery. 1 0 Point 6) Formation of good scenery with materials of local character Exterior cladding materials of local character are used to form good scenery. 1

PAGE 235

235 0 Point 7) Continuation of historic scenery Historic buildings and objects and existing plants, topography, springs etc. are conserved, restored or regenerated to carry on the historic character of local scenery. 1 0 Point 8) Formation of a new symbol in the urban scenery The building gives the urban scenery a new symbol, thereby helping to stimulate it. 1 0 Point 9) Other (State content) 1 Total = 3 Point ement of scenic benefits should be limited to cases in which disputes have arisen over scenery. In the appeal judgment (2006.3.30) on the legal action brought by local residents against a 14 story condominium (44m tall) on University Avenue, Kunitachi City residing in areas adjoining favorable scenery have the advantage of bene fiting from good scenery (scenic residents. 3 Local Characteristics & Outdoor Amenity 3.1 Attention to Local Charc ter & Improvement of Comfort Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.50 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 No efforts have been made for local characteristics and outdoor amenity (0 points) Level 2 Efforts based on local characteristics and outdoor amenity are inadequate. (+1 point) 3 Efforts based on local characteristics and outdoor amenity are at a standard level.(+2~3 points) Level 4 Efforts based on local characteristics and outdoor amenity are at a relatively high level.(+4 points) Level 5 Efforts based on local characteristics and outdoor amenity are thorough and extensive.(+5 or more points) Efforts to be evaluated Point Item Evaluated Content Evaluat ed Point

PAGE 236

236 1 Point I. Continuation of region specific scenery, history and culture 1) Conservation of historic built spaces etc. Historic interior and exterior spaces building remains preserved, restored or regenerated, contributing to local culture. (Do not evaluat e if measures here overlap with areas evaluated under urban context and scenery). 1 0 Point 2) Use of materials with regional character Materials of regional character are used for some of the es. 1 1 Point II. Local contribution through provision of functional spaces and facilities 3) Local contribution by provision of space 1 Structural measures such as provision of alcoves, piloti and eaves are used to provide amenity for peopl e using urban spaces, in the form of places to shelter from rain or wait for people. Or, Space is provided in plazas, paths and side streets to provide amenity for people using the local area, in the form of rest areas and similar spaces. 0 Point 4) Local contribution by provision of facilities and functions Part of the building is equipped to provide public facilities and functions, such as meeting rooms, community halls and exhibition spaces, community centers, and community use of schoo ls, contributing to greater activity in the community. 1 0 Point III. Formation of rich intermediate zones linking the building interior and exterior 5) Formation of rich intermediate zones linking the building interior and exterior 1 Open sp aces that allow the passage of wind and light, such as courtyards, terraces, balconies, sun rooms, roofed plazas, light and air voids, and atria are skillfully linked to interior spaces. Or, In areas where private and public spaces intersect, such as around entrances and balconies, light and air voids, flower beds, pergolas, deep balconies and similar elements have been built to form rich intermediate spaces which give a lived in atmosphere. 0 IV. Consideration for 6) Consideration for crime prevention 1

PAGE 237

237 Point crime prevention Crime prevention performance is considered, so that in spaces outside the building, such as plazas, trees are placed to avoid blocking lines of sight, nocturnal lighting and security cameras are installed, windo ws are placed where they will be useful for crime prevention, and other measures are used. Or, If there are no plazas or pedestrian walkways, consideration is given to crime prevention in the form of avoiding the creation of blind spots, such as b lind alleys and paths out of lines of sight, placing windows where they will be useful for crime prevention, and other measures. Or, If there are boundary barriers around the site, crime and disaster prevention are considered, in the form of fence s or low hedges which afford clear lines of sight, rather than continuous walls or similar barriers which block lines of sight. 0 Point V. Participation of building users etc. 7) Participation of building users etc. User satisfaction assessments (PO E) are used to involve building users in the design process for cooperative housing etc. 1 Or, Residents and occupants work directly on plant management and cleaning activities and formulate operation plans, and are otherwise participating in the maintenance management of the building. 0 Point VI. Other 8) Other (State content) 1 Total = 2 Point 3.2 Improvement of the Thermal Environment on Site Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.50 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Apt, Hsp, Htl, Fct Level 1 0 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 2 1~4 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated 5~9 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated

PAGE 238

238 3 Level 4 10~14 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 5 15 points or more in the table of the efforts to be evaluated. Efforts to be evaluated Po int Item Evaluated Content Evaluated Point 2 Point Reduction of thermal impact on people on site 1) Guide wind into the site to relieve the thermal environmen t [1] The planned form and layout of buildings guides wind onto the plot. 2 2 Point [2] Secure paths for air movement by providing green spaces of lawn, meadow and bushes etc., and suitable spaces and paths within the plot. 1~3 Open space ratio is 40% or more, less than 60% (1 point) 60% or more, less than 80% (2 points) 80% or more (3 points) 1 Point 2) Provide green space, water surfaces and other elements within the site to alleviate the thermal environmen t. [1] Create of shade by the use of green space with medium and tall trees, piloti, eaves, pergolas and s imilar measures. 1~3 Share of projected horizontal area used for green space, piloti, etc. 10% or more, less than 20% (1 point) 20% or more, less than 30% (2 points) 30% or more (3 points) 0 Point [2] Provide green areas of lawn, meadow or shrubbery etc., or open water, to limit the rise in ground temperature, and in air temperature near the ground. 1~3 Share of projected horizontal area used for green space, piloti, etc. 10% or more, less than 20% (1 point) 20% or mor e, less than 30% (2 points) 30% or more (3 points) 0 [3] Endeavor to reduce the area of paving on the plot. 1~3

PAGE 239

239 Point Percentage of paved area is 20% or more, less than 30% (1 point) 10% or more, less than 20% (2 points) Less th an 10% (3 points) 2 Point 3) Consider the positioning of air and heat venting from constructio n equipment to relieve the thermal environmen t. [1] Prevent waste air and heat from affecting areas people pass through and air intake areas. 2 2 Po int [2] Decide heat venting areas with consideration of air movement paths and heat dispersal on the site. 2 Total = 9 Point LR1 Energy Select from pull down menus or enter figures and comments. 1 Building Thermal Load Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.30 Level 4.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl Apt Assessment using the performance standards (PAL value) Assessment using the specification standards (Point value) (new buildings with total floor area under 5,000m2) For apartments, evaluate insulation performance and shading performance as before, according to the current Energy Saving Law and the Japan Housing Performance Standard under the Housing Quality Assurance Law which is based on it, and also the passive systems applied, such as outside air loads and direct gains, under the Building Thermal Load items. Level 1 Compared to the standard value, 5% < [PALvalue] [Point value] < 80pts Corresponding to grade 1 of the Japan Housing Performance Standard 1 Energy

PAGE 240

240 Level 2 Compared to the standard value, 0% < [PALvalue] =< 5% 80 pts =< [Point value] < 100 pts Corresponding to grade 2 of the Japan Housing Performance Stan dard 1 Energy Level 3 Compared to the standard value, 10% < [PALvalue] =< 0% 100 pts =< [Point value] < 130 pts Corresponding to grade 3 of the Japan Housing Performance Standard 1 Energy saving Countermeasure l 4 Compared to the standard value, 25% < [PALvalue] =< 10% 130 pts =< [Point value] < 160 pts (No corresponding level) Level 5 Compared to the standard value, [PALvalue] =< 25% 160 pts =< [Point value] Corresponding to grade 4 of the Japan Housing Performance Standard 1 Energy Direct input Level 3.0 Energy Saving Countermeasure Grade under the Japan Housing Performance Standard Annual heating and cooling load MJ/m2 yr Subject Bldg. Area Category VI Zone I II III IV V VI Grad e 1 (Buildings that fall short of grade 2) Grad e 2 840 or less 980 or less 980 or less 98 0 or les s 98 0 or les s 980 or less Grad e 3 470 or less 610 or less 640 or less 66 0 or les s 51 0 or les s 420 or less Grad e 4 390 or less 390 or less 460 or less 46 0 or les s 35 0 or les s 290 or less ) Other than the items above, the judgement standard contain corrected value standards for equivalent clearance area, summer solar gain coefficient and passive s olar housing. (Refer to the bibliography for details)

PAGE 241

241 2 Natural Energy Utilization Apply to all types of building at the Execution Design and Construction Completion Stages other than apartments. Weighting coefficients (default)= 1.00 Level 3.0 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct 4,322m2 Level 1 Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 Level 2 (No corresponding level) el 3 0MJ/m2 yr=< [Natural energy usage] <1MJ/m2 yr *Include use for monumental purposes, as well as no natural energy usage. Level 4 Level 4 1MJ/m2 yr=< [Natural energy usage] <20MJ/m2 yr Level 5 Level 5 20MJ/m 2 yr=< [Natural energy usage] 2.1 Direct Use of Natural Energy Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Apply to all types of building at the Preliminary Design other than apartments and to apartmets at all assessment stages. Level Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct 4,3 22 Level 3.0 Apt Level 1 Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 Light intake and natural ventilation are not possible at level 3. Level 3 l 3 Of the efforts to be evaluated, any of the methods is used, even if only partially. Nearly all dwellings (at least 80%) have exterior walls on at least two sides, ensuring effective light intake and natural ventilation. Level 4 Level 4 Of the efforts to be evaluated, any of the methods is used in a majority of the building. Level 4 In addition to the above, building measures, such as ventilation voids, have been used to enhance their efficacy. They influence a majority (50% or more) of residential blocks.

PAGE 242

242 Level 5 Level 5 Of the efforts to be evaluated, two or more of the methods are used in a majority of the building. Level 5 The building measures above cover at least 80% of residential blocks. Efforts to be evaluated Tota l 0 items Judgme nt NO. Evaluated Content 1 Use of natural light: Planning for natural light systems that use sunlight in place of lighting equipment. (E.g. Light shelves, top lights, high side lights, etc.) 2 Use of n atural ventilation: Planning for the use of natural ventilation and ventilation systems that are effective in replacing the use of air conditioning equipment and reducing cooling loads. (E.g. Automatic dampers, night purging, ventilation systems linked to atria, solar chimney ventilation towers etc.) 3 Use of geothermal energy: Planning for the use of geothermal heat usage systems that are effective in replacing the use of heat sources and air conditioning equipment and reducing heating and cooling l oads. (E.g. Cool and heat tubes and pits etc.) 4 Other : Planning for the effective use of nature in other systems. ) Award "yes" if they are applied to a majority of the building (50% or more of the total floor area) 2.2 Converted U se of Renewable Energy Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.00 Level 3.0 Preliminary Design Level 3.0 Execution Design and Construction Completion Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) l 3 Of the efforts to be evaluated, any of the methods is used, even if only partially. 0 MJ/m2, yr =<[Renewable en ergy usage]< 1MJ/m2, yr *Include planned use for monumental purposes, as well as use as energy. Level 4 Of the efforts to be evaluated, any of the methods is used in a majority of the building. Level 4 1MJ/m2, yr =<[Renewable energy usage]< 15 MJ/m 2, yr Level 5 Of the efforts to be evaluated, two or more of the methods are used in a majority of the building. Level 5 15 MJ/m2, yr =<[Renewable energy usage] Efforts to be evaluated Total 0 items

PAGE 243

243 Judg ment NO. Evaluated Content 1 Use of sunlight: Planning for solar generation systems used in place of electrical power equipment. (E.g. Solar panels etc.) 2 Use of solar heat: Planning for effective use of solar heat systems in heating equipment to reduce heating loads. (E.g. Solar panels, vacuum type water heaters.) 3 Use of unused heat: Planning for effective use of unused heat systems to improve heat source efficiency in heating equipment. (E.g. Heat pumps using well water or river water etc.) 4 Other : Planning for the effective use of nature in other systems ) Award "yes" if they are applied to a majority of the building (50% or more of the total floor area) 3 Efficiency in Building Service System Entire Building Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.30 3a Assessment by ERR 3b Asse ssment by means other than ERR Level 5.0 4,322 Level 5 Assessment by ERR Level Level Level 1 Level 1 [ERR Value] < 5 Point Weighting coefficients (default) Point Weighting coefficient s(default) Le vel 2 Level 2 5% =< [ERR Value] < 0 3. 1 5 Level 3 Level 3 0% =< [ERR Value] < 10 3. 2 Input CEC value Level 4 Level 4 10% =< [ERR Value] < 25 3. 3 5 Input CEC value l 5 25% =< [ERR Value] 3. 4 Input CEC value 3. Input CEC value

PAGE 244

244 5 The levels after correction by "K", energy saving rate. 3.1 HVAC System Weighting coefficients (default)= Weighting coefficients(default)= Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl Fct, Apt Level 5 Level Assessment by performance standard [CEC AC value] Assessment by specification standard [Point value] Level 1 Compared to standard value, 5% =< [CEC value] Below the corrected points (Excluded) Level 2 Compared to standard value, 0% < [CEC value] <5% Above the corrected point, and [Point value] < 100 pts Level 3 Compared to standard value, 10% < [CEC value] =< 0% 100 pts=< [Point value] < 130 pts L evel 4 Compared to standard value, 25% < [CEC value] =< 10% 130 pts =< [Point value] < 160 pts Compared to standard value, [CEC value] =< 25% 160 pts =< [Point value] 3.2 Ventilation System Weighting coefficients (default)= Weighting coefficients(default)= Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl Fct, Apt* Fct Level Input CEC value Assessment by performance standard [CEC V value] Assessment by specification standard [Point value] #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 5% =< [CEC value] [Point value] < 90 pts (Excluded)

PAGE 245

245 #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 0% < [CEC value] <5% 90 pts=< [Point value] < 100 pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 10% < [CEC value] =< 0% 100 pts=< [Point value] < 120 pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 25% < [CEC value] =< 10% 120 pts =< [Point value] < 140 pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, [CEC value] =< 25% 140 pts =< [Point value] 3.3 Lighting System Weighting coefficients (default)= Weighting coefficients( default)= Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt* Level 5 Input CEC value Assessment by performance standard [CEC L value] Assessment by specification standard [Point value] Level 1 #VALUE! Compared to standa rd value, 5% =< [CEC value] [Point value] < 90 pts Level 2 #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 0% < [CEC value] <5% 90 pts=< [Point value] < 100 pts Level 3 #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 10% < [CEC value] =< 0% 100 pts=< [Point v alue] < 120 pts Level 4 #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 25% < [CEC value] =< 10% 120 pts =< [Point value] < 140 pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, [CEC value] =< 25% 140 pts =< [Point value]

PAGE 246

246 3.4 Hot Water Supply System Weighting coefficients (default)= Weighting coefficients(default)= Leve l Input CEC value Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Apt* Level 3.0 Assessment by performance standard [CEC HW value] Assessment by specification standard [Point value] Individual supply system Central supply system (Assessment by specificati on standard [Point value]) #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 5% =< [CEC value] [Point value] < 90 pts (No corresponding level) [Point value] < 90 pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 0% < [CEC value] <5% 90 pts=< [Point value] < 100 p ts Other than those listed below 90 Pts=<[Point value]<100 Pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 10% < [CEC value] =< 0% 100 pts=< [Point value] < 130 pts Electric water heaters (electric control type) 100 Pts=<[Point value]<130 Pts # VALUE! Compared to standard value, 25% < [CEC value] =< 10% 130 pts =< [Point value] < 160 pts Fuel burning instant supply water heaters 130 Pts=<[Point value]<160 Pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, [CEC value] =< 25% 160 pts =< [Poi nt value] Fuel burning latent heat recovery instant supply water heaters, electric CO2 refrigerant water heater (late night electricity water storage heater) 160 Pts=<[Point value] Reference) The relationship between individual systems and equipment primary energy consumption Score Standard Compliant devices *) 2 Pts Primary energy consumption 3.0kJ or more Other than those listed below 3 Pts Primary energy consumption 2.0kJ or more, less than Electric water heaters (electr ic control type)

PAGE 247

247 3.0kJ 4 Pts Primary energy consumption 1.2kJ or more, less than 2.0kJ Fuel burning instant supply water heaters 5 Pts Primary energy consumption less than 1.2kJ Fuel burning latent heat recovery instant supply water heaters, electric CO2 refrigerant water heater (late night electricity water storage heater) )If the equipment used is not among the compliant devices listed in the table, it is sufficient to evaluate on the basis of p rimary energy consumption calculated from the rated performance of the equipment used. 3.5 Elevators Weighting coefficients (default)= Weighting coefficients(default)= Off, Htl, Apt* Level Input CEC value Assessment by performance standard [CEC EV value] Assessment by specification standard [Point value] #VALUE Compared to standard value, 5% =< [CEC value] [Point value]<90 Pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 0% < [CEC value] <5% 90 Pts=<[Point value]<100 Pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 10% < [CEC value] =< 0% 100 Pts=<[Poin t value]<120 Pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, 25% < [CEC value] =< 10% 120 Pts=<[Point value]<140 Pts #VALUE! Compared to standard value, [CEC value] =< 25% 140 Pts=<[Point value] 3.6 Equipments for Improving Energy Efficiency 0.0% 0.0 %

PAGE 248

248 4 Efficient Operation 4.1 Monitoring Weighting coefficients(default) = 0.50 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) l 3 It must be possible to identify the annual consumption of each kind of energy used in the building and use the base unit for energy consumption, or other means, for benchma rk comparison. Level 4 Beyond level 3, the breakdown of energy consumption 1) for each major building type must be identified, trends in consumption identified and analyzed, and their appropriateness confirmed. Level 5 Beyond level 4, the s ystem efficiency 2) of major equipment systems must be evaluated in order to evaluate the performance of the systems. 1) Broadly, monitoring must be planned which will be able to identify the breakdown, by application, of a majority of the total ene rgy consumption. 2) Broadly, efficiency assessment must be performed on at least three of the types listed in table 1. If there are many systems, such as air conditioning, lighting and ventilation, it is permissible to estimate the whole from the a ssessment of representative systems. Table 1 Efficiency Assessment Examples Equipment items Assessment Items Assessment Summary Remarks 1 Heat source equipment Heat source machine COP assessment Amount of heat generated / energy consumed by the heat source (based on primary energy) COP assessment of heat source systems Amount of heat generated / energy consumed by the heat source and related equipment (based on primary energy) Includes introduction of district heating a nd cooling Heating medium conveyance WTF Amount of heat carried/ energy consumed by pump (based on secondary energy) 2 Air conditioning equipment Air conditioner conveyance ATF Amount of heat carried/ energy consumed by fan (based on second ary energy) Total enthalpy heat exchange effect Amount of heat reduced, amount of energy Cooling effect by external air Amount of heat reduced, amount of energy

PAGE 249

249 3 Ventilation equipment Assessment of variable air volume con trol 4 Lighting equipment Assessment of various types of control Amount of energy saved by the use of daylight, occupant sensors, etc. 5 Hot water supply equipment Heat source machine COP assessment Amount of heat generated / ener gy consumed by the heat source (based on primary energy) COP assessment of heat source systems Amount of heat generated / energy consumed by the heat source and related equipment (based on primary energy) Heating medium transmission W TF Amount of heat carried/ energy consumed by pump (based on secondary energy) 6 Other CGS assessment Electricity generation efficiency, overall efficiency, energy saving rate Assessment of high efficiency transformers Energy saving r ate 4.2 Operation & Management System Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.50 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Preliminary Design Execution Design and Construction Completion Level 1 (No corre sponding level) No operation and management has been planned. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Organizations, systems or management policies have been planned for operation and management. l 3 No significant moves (proposals) have been made towards an operation and management system. In addition to level 2, there must be an organized operation and management system, designated manager. Level 4 Basic guidelines for operation, mai ntenance and preservation have been planned. In addition to level 3, target values for energy consumption in the whole buildings have been planned and presented to the building owner, based on calculation of annual energy consumption. Level 5 In ad dition to the above, target values have been planned for annual energy consumption. In addition to level 4, there must beregular verification of equipment performance during building operation, with specific actions planned for repair of malfunctions etc. (commissioning system)

PAGE 250

250 LR2 Resources & Materials 1 Water Resources 1. 1 Water Saving Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.40 Level 4.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 No systems for saving water. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Major faucets are equipped with water saving valve. 4 In addition to water saving valve, other water saving equipment (such as flush mimicking sound systems, water saving toilets) is used. Level 5 (No corresponding level) 1. 2 Rainwater & Gray Water 1.2.1 Rainwa ter Use System Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.67 1.2.2 Gray Water Reuse System Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.33 Level 5.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct Level 1 (No corre sponding level) Leve l 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Leve l 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 No systems for using rainwater. el 3 No systems for reusing gray water. Level 4 Rainwater is used. Leve l 4 Gray water is reused. 5 Rainwater usage brings the rainwater usage rate to at least 20%. Level 5 In addition to gray water reuse, there is equipment to reuse sewage. Rainwater usage rate = Predicted rainwater usage volume(m) Total predicted water usage (mains water + rainwater use)(m) 2 Reducing Usage of Non renewable Resources 2. Reducing Usage of Materials

PAGE 251

251 1 Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.07 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 Major structural elements are made of non wood materials (RC/ SRC/ S), and earned 0 point or more in the table of the efforts to be evaluated. 3 Major structural elements are made of non wood materials (RC/ SRC/ S), and earned 1 point or more in the table of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 4 Major str uctural elements are made of non wood materials (RC/ SRC/ S), and earned 3 points or more in the table of the efforts to be evaluated. Level 5 Major structural elements are made of non wood materials (RC/ SRC/ S), and earned 5 points or more in t he table of the efforts to be evaluated. Efforts to be evaluated Point Item Evaluated measures Point 0 Point Fc= 36 or more, but less than 60 N/mm2, and SD390 N/mm2 1 Fc= 60 or more, but less than 100 N/mm2, and SD490 N/mm2 2 Fc= 100 or more, and SD590 N/mm2 or more 3 1 Point 490 (N/mm2) 1 520, 550(N/mm2) 2 590 (N/mm2) or more 3 0 Point Use of pre stressed concrete (which reduces material cross section, thereby reducing materials used. 1 Equivalent measures. 1 Total= 1 Point

PAGE 252

252 2.2 Continuing Use of Existing Building Skeleton etc. Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.24 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) 3 The existing building skeleton is not reused, or there is no existing building on the site to use. Level 4 The existing building skeleton is partially reused. Level 5 The existing building skeleton is completely reu sed. 2.3 Use of Recycled Materials as Structural Frame Materials Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Level 4.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Remarks Level 1 (No corresponding leve l) Record the recycled materials if Level 4 or avove Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Major structural elements are made of non wood materials (RC/ SRC/ S), and no recycled materials are used in major structural ele ments. 4 Major structural elements are made of non wood materials (RC/ SRC/ S), and one type of recycled materials is used in major structural elements. Level 5 Major structural elements are made of non wood materials (RC/ SRC/ S), and two or more types of recycled materials are used in major structural elements. If the product is recognized as both an Eco Mark Product and a Specified Procurement Item, count it as one type. Record the recycled materials and the parts where tyey are used in about 10 wards XXXX Examples of recycled materials Material name Green procurement items (public works) Blast furnace slag aggregate Blast furnace cement (concrete )

PAGE 253

253 Ferronickel slag aggregate FA cement (concrete) Copper slag aggregate Eco cement (concrete) Electric furnace oxidized slag aggregate Construction products using recycled materials that have been awarded the E co Mark (Eco Mark product type 123) Cement The list of recognized recycled materials is constantly updated, so check the site below before assessing Law on Promoting Green Purchasing designated procurement item inform ation system (http://www.env.go.jp/policy/hozen/green/g law/gpl db/material.html) General information site for Eco Mark products (the Japan Environment Association) (http://www.greenstation.net/) 2.4 Use of Recycled Materials as Non structural Materials Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.20 Level 4.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Remarks Level 1 No recycled materials are used. Record the recyc led materials if Level 3 or ab ove Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 One type of recycled material used. 4 Two types of recycled material used. Level 5 Three or more types of recycled material used. If the product is recognized as both an Eco Mark Product and a Specified Procurement Item, count it as one type. Record the recycled materials and the parts where tyey are used in about 10 wards Examples of recycled materials Material name Green procurement items Recycled soil processed from construction sludge Thinned lumber Granulated blast furnace slag for earthworks Blast furnace cement (soil cement)

PAGE 254

254 Ca isson filler using copper slag FA cement (soil cement) Caisson filler using ferronickel Eco cement (soil cement) Steelmaking slag for ground improvement Sprayed concrete using FA Recycled heated asphalt mixtures (recycl ed by the user) Paving blocks (fired) using recycled materials Recycled heated asphalt mixtures (other) Paving blocks (precast, non reinforced concrete) using recycled materials Asphalt mixtures with added ferrous slag (recycled by t he user) Dust shield sheets using recycled materials Asphalt mixtures with added ferrous slag (other) Ceramic tile Use of recycled structural members as roadbed material Lumber Use of recycled structural members as embankme nt material Laminated wood Roadbed material with added ferrous slag Particle board Wooden type cement panels Tiles and blocks that have been awarded the Eco Mark (Eco Mark product type 109) Tile Bric k Block Boards using wood materials that have been awarded the Eco Mark (Eco Mark product type 111) Fiber board Particle board Products using thinned lumber, reused and unused materials, et c. that have been awarded the Eco Mark (Eco Mark product type 115) Outdoor materials (Civil engineering and construction materials: Small logs) Interior materials (Doors) Exterior materials (Civil engineering and construction materials: L aminated wood) Outdoor materials (Columns) Exterior materials (Civil engineering and construction materials: Plywood) Outdoor materials (Beams) Exterior materials (Exterior) Outdoor materials (Foundations) Interior materials ( Floor materials) Activated carbon (for moisture regulation) Interior materials (Wall materials) Activated carbon (for water purification)

PAGE 255

255 Interior materials (Sliding door frames) Soil improvement materials Construction products (for interior decorating finishes) that have been awarded the Eco Mark (Eco Mark product type 123) Wood flooring Thermal insulation Paper screens and sliding partitions Acoustic absorption materials and anti vibration m ats Paper to cover paper screens and sliding partitions Vinyl floor covers Board Staircase anti slip treatment Tatami matting Braille nails Wallpaper Accordion doors Construction products (clad ding and exterior parts and materials) that have been awarded the Eco Mark (Eco Mark product type 137) Roofing Plastic decking materials Roof materials Composite materials of recycled wood and plastic Cladding materia ls Rainwater storage tanks Construction products (material type parts and materials) that have been awarded the Eco Mark (Eco Mark product type 138) Construction stone Sumps for residential land Hard PVC pipes for dra inage and ventilation Construction products (equipment) that have been awarded the Eco Mark (Eco Mark product type 139) Residential bathroom units Waterproof pans The list of recognized recycled materials is const antly updated, so check the site below before assessing. Law on Promoting Green Purchasing designated procurement item information system (http://www.env.go.jp/policy/hozen/green/g law/gpl db/material.html) General information site for Eco Mark products (the Japan Environment Association) (http://www.greenstation.net/) 2.5 Timber from Sustainable Forestry Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.05

PAGE 256

256 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt R emarks Level 1 (No corresponding level) Exclude if no timber is used. Level 2 Timber from sustainably managed forests is not used. 3 Timber from sustainably managed forests supplied less than 10% of timber usage, or no timber is used, even in the structural skeleton. Level 4 Timber from sustainably managed forests supplies 10~50% of timber usage. Level 5 Tim ber from sustainably managed forests supplies 50% or more of timber usage. 2.6 Efforts to Enhance Reusability of Components and Materials Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.24 Level 5.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 No measures, as the efforts to be evaluated, to encourage recycling of materials on demolition has been used. Level 4 One point or more of measures, as the efforts to be evaluated, to encourage recycling of materials on demolition has been used. 5 Two point or more of measures, as the efforts to be evaluated, to encourage recycling of materi als on demolition have been used. Efforts to be evaluated Tot al 3 item s Point Efforts yes The structure of finishing materials can be separated easily. yes Interior finishes and equipment are not entangled, a nd each can easily be removed separately for demolition, refurbishment and remodeling yes Reusable unit materials are used. 3 Avoiding the Use of Materials with Pollutant Content 3. 1 Use of Materials without H armful Substances Weighting 0.32

PAGE 257

257 coefficients (default)= Level 5.0 Off Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 There is no building material category (indicated in Reference 1) without substances specified in the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register Law. Or the inspection has not been carried out. Level 4 There is are 1~3 building material category (ind icated in Reference 1) without substances specified in the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register Law. 5 There is are 4 or more building material category (indicated in Reference 1) without substances specified in the Pollutant Release and Tra nsfer Register Law. Building materials to be evaluated Total 1 0 items Use of substances specified in the PRTR Category Building materials Non Adhesives For vinyl tile floors and seating Non For tile For wallpaper Non For floor board Sealants For sash Non For glass Non For tile joint Non For wall joint Waterproofing materials Primer for waterp roofing For paint (surface coating) Non Paints For fittings (wooden and metal) Non For wooden parts (frames for floor and ceiling) Non For structural materials Non For walls Anti corrosion treatment For skeleton For materials other than skeleton

PAGE 258

258 Undercoats For materials for coated floors Floor coverings For finishing wax Preservatives For wooden parts 3. 2 Avoidance of CFCs and Halons 3.2.1 Fire Retardant Weighting coefficients (default)= 0. 33 3.2.2 Insulation Materials Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.33 Level 4.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Remarks Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Level 1 Halon fire retardant is used. Exclude from assessment if there is absolutely no fire extinguishin g equipment, or only sprinklers. Level 1 Insulation foaming materials with OPD= 0.2 or above are used. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 2 Insulation foaming materials with OPD= 0.01~0.2 are used. Level 3 3 Insulation foaming materials with OPD= 0.0~0.01 are used. l 4 No halon fire retardant is used. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 (No corresponding level) Level 5 Insulation foaming materials with ODP=0 and low GWP (less than 50), or natural materials are used. Or, no expanded insulation mater ials are used. 3.2.3 Refrigerants Weighting coefficients (default)= 0.3 3 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Fct, Apt Remarks Level 1 (No corresponding level) Exclude

PAGE 259

259 Level 2 HCFC is used as the refrigerant. from assessme nt if no refrigeran t ga ses are used. 3 Refrigerant of ODP=0 is used as the refrigerant. Level 4 Natural refrigerants and new chilling systems (ODP=0) with GWP less than 50 are used. Level 5 (No corresponding level) Reference) Critical uses for which halon fire retardants may be used. (Prevention Notification No.155, Hazard Notification No.61, 16th May 2001) Types of facility Examples of facility Commun ications e quipme nt etc. Communications equipment rooms etc. Communications equipment rooms, wireless equipment rooms, telephone exchange rooms, magnetic disk rooms, computer rooms, telex rooms, telephone exchange switching rooms, communications equipment control roo ms, data print rooms Broadcasting studios etc. TV relay rooms, remote centers, studios, lighting control rooms, musical equipment rooms, adjustment rooms, monitor rooms, broadcasting equipment rooms Control rooms etc. Electrical power contr ol rooms, operation rooms, control rooms, management rooms, disaster prevention centers, dynamometer rooms Film storages etc Film storage rooms, lighting control rooms, relay desks, VTR rooms, tape rooms, projector rooms, tape storerooms Me asurement equipment rooms in hazardous material handling facilities Measurement equipment rooms in hazardous material handling facilities Historical assets Exhibition rooms etc. Important cultural assets, artwork repositories, exhibition rooms, show rooms Other Workshops etc. Print rooms containing rotary presses Reference1 ) Foaming agents used in expanded plastic insulating materials Types of expanded insulation materials Period of use Foaming agent name ODP GWP (100 year value) Urethane foam Before 1995 CFC 11 1 400 0 Start of 2000s HCF C 141b 0.11 630 Urethane modified isocyanurate foam Next generati on HFC 134a 0 130 0

PAGE 260

260 HFC 245f a 0 560 Cyclope ntane C5H10 0 3 Styrene Olefin foam Before 1995 CFC 12 1 850 0 Start of 2000s HCF C 142b 0.06 5 200 0 Next generati on HFC 134a 0 130 0 Phenol foam Before 1995 CFC 113 0.8 500 0 Since 2000 Dichloro methane CH2Cl2 0 Reference 2) ODP and GWP values of foaming gases Substance Persistence in atmosphere ODP GWP(CO2 standard) (CFC standar d) 20yrs. 100y rs. 500yr s. CFC 11 50 1 5000 4000 1400 CFC 12 120 1 7900 8500 4200 CFC 113 85 0.8 5000 5000 2300 CFC 114 300 1 6900 9300 8300 CFC 115 1700 0.6 6200 9300 13000 HCFC 22 13.3 0.055 4300 1700 520 HCFC 123 1.4 0.02 300 93 29 HCFC 124 5.9 0.022 1500 480 150 HCFC 141b 9.4 0.11 1800 630 200 HCFC 142b 19.5 0.065 4200 2000 630 HCFC 225ca 2.5 0.25 550 170 52 HCFC 225cb 2.6 0.033 1700 530 170 HFC 23 264 0 9100 1170 0 9800

PAGE 261

26 1 HFC 32 5.6 2100 650 200 HFC 125 32.6 4600 2800 920 HFC 134a 14.6 3400 1300 420 HFC 143a 48.3 5000 3800 1400 HFC 152a 1.5 460 140 42 HFC 227ea 36.5 4300 2900 950 HFC 236fa 209 5100 6300 4700 HFC 245ca 6.6 1800 560 170 FC 14 50000 0 4400 6500 10000 FC 116 10000 6200 9200 14000 FC 218 2600 4800 7000 10000 F C C318 3200 6000 8700 12000 LR3 Off site Environment 1 Consideration of Global Warming Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.3 3 Level 5.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt Fct Level 1 Lifecycle CO2 emission rate is 125% or more of the reference value. Level 2 Level 3 Lifecycle CO2 emission rate is 100% of the reference value. Level 4 Lifecycle CO2 emission rate is 75% or less of the reference value. Lifecycle CO2 emission rate kg CO2/ m2 yr Construction Repair, Renewal and Demolition Operation Total Converted score from Lifecycle CO2 emission rate Reference 10.24 16.68 68.53 95.45 100 % Converte d score = 5.0 Subject 10.24 16.68 26.55 53.47 56%

PAGE 262

262 2 Consideration of Local Environment 2.1 Air Pollution Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.2 5 Level 5.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 Gas and dust concentrations at sources of NOx, SOx and dust exceeds the emission standards set by the Air Pollution Control Law, the NOx emission guidelines for small combustion equipment (Ministry of the Environment) or local ordinances. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Gas and dust concentrations at sources of NOx, SOx and dust are reduced to below the emission standards set by the Air Pollution Control Law, the NOx emission guidelines for small combustion equipment (Ministry of the Environment) or local ordinances. Level 4 Gas and dust concentrations at sources of NOx, SOx and dust are considerably reduced to below the emission standards set by the Air Pollution Control Law, the NOx emission guidelines for small combustion equipment (Ministry of the Environment) or local ordinances. No incineration equipment is used, and absolutely no atmospheric pollutants leave the hypothetical closed sp ace of the building to the outside. 2.2 Heat Island Effect Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.5 0 Level 5.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 0 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 2 1~5 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 3 6~10 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 4 11~17 points in the table of the efforts t o be evaluated 18 points or more in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Efforts to be evaluated Points Item Evaluated Content Evaluated Point 0 Point I. Preliminary investigat ion of heat environment 1) Preliminary investigation of the local heat environment [1] Existing data such as data from nearby meteorological stations and regional meteorological observation data (AMEDAS data) was used to identify the wind environment, inc luding directions, speeds and prevailing direction. 1~2

PAGE 263

263 [2] In addition to [1] above, on site measurements were taken, or a supplementary detailed investigation was performed using a wide area environmental forecasting system based on wide area me teorological data and topographical data. (2 points) 2 Point II Countermeasure s to reduce thermal impact beyond the site 2) Consider wind movement to downwind areas, and reduce thermal impact beyond the site [1] Reduce the elevation area of the bui lding facing the prevailing summer wind direction (the most common wind direction) 1~3 If the elevation area is 50% or more, but less than 70% (1 point) 30% or more, less than 50% (2 points) Less than 30% (3 points) 3 Point [2] Secure bu ilding setback distance and spacing from adjacent buildings prevailing summer wind direction (the most common wind direction) 1~3 The setback ratio from the site boundary, relative to the building height (or the ratio between building height and s pacing between blocks if there are multiple blocks is 0.2 or more, but less than 0.3% (1 point) 0.3 or more, but less than 0.4% (2 points) 0.4 or more (3 points) 2 Point 3) Create shade to reduce thermal impact beyond the site [1] Create shade by the use of green space with medium and tall trees, piloti, eaves, pergolas and similar measures. 1~3 horizontal projected area ratio of medium and tall trees, piloti etc. is 10% or more, but less than 20% (1 point)

PAGE 264

264 20% or more, but less than 30% ( 2 points) 30% or more (3 points) 3 Point 4) Consider ground surface coverage to reduce thermal impact beyond the site [1] Use surface covering materials of high water retention or permeability, or of high solar reflectance, on the ground surface (g round surface covering materials: water retentive or water permeable paving, or highly solar reflective) 1~3 Area ratio of water retentive or water permeable paving is 5% or more, but less than 10% (1 point) 10% or more, but less than 15% (2 point s) 15% or more (3 points) 3 Point 5) Consider the building cladding materials to reduce thermal impact beyond the site [1] Try rooftop planting. Alternatively, select roofing materials of high solar reflectance or high emittance of long wavelengths (roofing materials) 1~3 Area ratio of roof planting etc. is Partially used, but less than 20% (1 point) 20% or more, less than 40% (2 points) 40% or more (3 points) 3 Point [2] Try wall planting. Alternatively, select exterior wall mate rials of high solar reflectance or high emittance of long wavelength (wall materials) Area ratio of wall planting etc. is 1~3 Partially used, but less than 20% (1 point) 20% or more, but less than 40% (2 points) 40% or more (3 points)

PAGE 265

265 2 Poi nt 6) Reduce atmospheric emission of heat from building equipment [1] Devise suitable countermeasures, such as limiting building thermal loads, using energy efficiently, and making use of natural and unused energy (restriction of thermal loads, energy use ) 2 If building thermal loads are restricted, energy is used efficiently, and natural and unused energy are used, etc. (2 points) 0 Point [2] Try to reduce air temperature rise through measures such as keeping the temperature of waste hea t from building equipment low (reduction of waste heat temperature) 2 Effective measures have been used to restrict air temperature rise. (2 points) 1 Point III. Confirmation of effects 7) Use simulations or other means to confirm effects in mitigating deterioration of the heat environment [1] Building form and positioning, relative to wind direction, were considered at the desk plan stage (desktop prediction). (1 point) 1~2 [2] Numerical simulation of fluid flow, or other methods, were used on the current situation and the planned building, considering topography of the site area, the building and surrounding green space, to predict impact. (2 points) Total= 19 Point 2.3 Load on Local In frastructure 2.3.1 Reduction of Rainwater Discharge Loads Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.2 5 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct If there are administrative guidelines If there are no administrati ve guidelines

PAGE 266

266 Level 1 (No corresponding level) Exclude Level 2 (No corresponding level) Rain water flow suppression measures are implemented at the instructed scale. Level 4 The instructed scale is satisfied, and other rai n water treatment measures have been implemented. Level 5 (No corresponding level) 2.3.2 Sewage Load Suppression Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.2 5 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) The Water Pollution Control Law, the Sewerage Law or the discharge standards set by local authorities etc., whichever is the most stringent, is satisfied. Level 4 Discharge standards are satisfied, and further special m easures have been used for better control of sewage loads. Level 5 (No corresponding level) 2.3.3 Traffic Load Control Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.2 5 Level 2.0 Of f, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 0 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated 1 point in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 3 2 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 4 3 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 5 4 points or more in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Efforts to be evaluated Point Item Evaluated Content Point 1 Point I. Efforts related to use of bicycles (use of alternative means of transport) 1) Provision of an appropriate number of cycle parking spaces (incl uding motorcycle spaces) for building users, and consideration for the convenience of cycle park 1

PAGE 267

267 users (ease of entry and egress, placement in a convenient location, etc.). Excluded 2) Other (state content) 1 0 Point II .Efforts t o provide car parking space 1) Provision of an appropriate number of car parking spaces (as a measure to avoid parking on roads, and congestion of nearby roads). 1 0 Point 2) Provision of parking facilities for unloading goods vehicles (residential buildings are not applicable). 1 0 Point 3) Consideration of the position, form and number of parking lot approach roads (entry and exit) (to contribute to relieving congestion of local roads). 1 Excluded 4) Other (state content) 1 Total= 1 Point 2.3.4 Waste Treatment Loads Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.2 5 Level 2.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 1 point or less in the table of the efforts to be evaluated 2 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 3 3 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 4 4 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 5 5 points or more in the table of the efforts t o be evaluated Efforts to be evaluated Point Item Evaluated Content Point 0 Point I. Estimation of types and quantities of waste 1) The types and quantities of waste generated on the site (interior and exterior) on a day to da y basis have been 1

PAGE 268

268 estimated to assist in planning measures to reduce the waste processing load. 1 Point II. Provision of space and equipment to encourage separate collection 2) Interior and exterior stock space has been planned that will allow sort ed collection of many varieties of waste. 1 1 Point 3) Interior and exterior waste sorting and collection containers and boxes has been planned. 1 0 Point 4) Planned collection of valuable materials has been planned (group collections, etc.) 1 0 Point III. Installation of equipment for waste reduction, compaction or composting 5) Measures are planned to reduce, compact and compost organic garbage (home processing and composting etc. of organic waste). 1 0 Point 6) Reduction and co mpaction of bottles, cans etc. are planned. 1 1 Total= 2 Point 3 Consideration of Surrounding Environment 3.1 Noise, Vibration & Odor 3.1.1 Noise Weighting coefficients(default )= 0.3 3 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct If there are no administrative guidelines Level 1 The current regulation standard ) set by the Noise Regulation Law is exceeded. Level 3 Level 2 (No corresponding level) Noise is kept below the current regulation standard ) set by the Noise Regulation Law. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 Noi se is kept substantially 2) below the current regulation standard ) set by the Noise Regulation Law. *1)Take the current values of the regulation standard, and evaluate facilities accordingly, even if they were installed befor e the current values cam e into effect (evaluate for day, morning, evening and night). *2) For level 5, noise should be limited to below [current standard value 5dB] (for day, morning, evening and night).

PAGE 269

269 Reference 1) Standard Values from the Noise Regulation Law a condition of assessment is that the standards must be satisfied for all the measurement times stipulated in the Noise Regul ation Law and the Large Scale Retail Stores Location Law, namely day (8am ~ 7pm), morning and evening (6am ~ 8am, 7 pm ~ 10pm) and night (10pm ~ 6am). Type 1 zones Type 2 zones Type 3 zones Type 4 zones Day Morning & evening Night Day Morning & evening Night Day Morning & evening Night Day Morning & evening Night Level 1 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequat e for level 3 Not adequa t e for level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Not exceedi ng 45dB Not exceedi ng 40dB Not exceedi ng 40dB Not exceedi ng 50dB Not exceedi ng 45dB Not exceedi ng 45dB Not exceedi ng 60dB Not exceedi ng 55dB Not exceedi ng 50dB Not exceedi ng 70 dB Not exceedi ng 60dB Not exceedi ng 55dB Level 4 Level 5 Not exceedi ng 35dB Not exceedi ng 30dB Not exceedi ng 30dB Not exceedi ng 40dB Not exceedi ng 35dB Not exceedi ng 35dB Not exceedi ng 50dB Not exceedi ng 45dB Not excee di ng 40dB Not exceedi ng 60dB Not exceedi ng 50dB Not exceedi ng 45dB 3.1.2 Vibration Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.3 3 Excluded Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct If there are no administrative guidel ines Level 1 The current regulation standard 1) set by the Vibration Regulation Law is exceeded. Exclude Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Vibration is kept below the current regulation standard 1)set by the Vibration Regulation L aw. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 Vibration is kept substantially 2) below the current regulation standard 1)set by the Vibration Regulation Law. *1)Take the current values of the regulation standard, and evaluate facilities accordingly, even if they were installed before the current values came into effect (evaluate for both day and night). *2)For level 5, vibration should be limited to below [current standard value 5dB] (for both day and night).

PAGE 270

270 Standard Values fro m the Vibration Regulation Law a condition of assessment is that the standards must be satisfied for all the measurement times stipulated in the Vibration Regulation Law and the Large Scale Retail Stores Location Law, namely day (8am ~ 7pm) morning and evening (6am ~ 8am, 7pm ~ 10pm) and night (10pm ~ 6am). Type 1 zones Type 2 zones Day Night Day Night Level 1 Not adequate for level 3 Not adequate for level 3 Not adequate for level 3 Not adequate for level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Not exceeding 60dB Not exceeding 55dB No t exceeding 65dB Not exceeding 60dB Level 4 Level 5 Not exceeding 55dB Not exceeding 50dB Not exceeding 60dB Not exceeding 55dB 3.1.3 Odor Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.3 3 Excluded Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct If there are no administrative guidelines Level 1 Odor level is below the allowable limit for odor index, and for the concentrations of currently designated malodorous substances under the Offen sive Odor Control Law. Exclude Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Odor level satisfies the allowable limit for odor index, and for the concentrations of currently designated malodorous substances under the Offensive Odor Control Law. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 (No corresponding level) 3.2 Wind Damage & Sunlight Obstruction 3.2.1 Restriction of Wind Damage Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.7 0 Level 1.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct No preliminary study or was performed about the creation of strong wind spots and no countermeasures were taken against wind hazard.

PAGE 271

271 Level 2 A preliminary study has been performed and measures take n to avoid or reduce wind hazard, but there has been no assessment. Alternatively, wind strength grade has been evaluated on the basis of a desktop forecast, and wind strength has been worsened in some areas, or there are measurement points at which the wi nd environment rank for the sight has been lowered. Level 3 A preliminary study has been performed and measures taken to avoid or reduce wind hazard. Then, the wind strength grade has been evaluated on the basis of a desktop forecast, and the results show that wind strength has not worsened. Alternatively, rank assessment has been performed on the basis of wind environment assessment indices, and the results indicate that a wind environment with suitable rank for the location has been achieved. Level 4 A preliminary study or prevention planning has been performed and measures taken to avoid or reduce wind hazard, followed by a rank assessment has been performed on the basis of wind environment assessment indices. Results indicate that the wind en vironment in some parts is better than usual for the location. Level 5 A preliminary study or prevention planning has been performed and measures taken to avoid or reduce wind hazard, followed by a rank assessment has been performed on the basis of w ind environment assessment indices. Results indicate that the wind environment is better than usual for the location. 3.2.2 Restriction of sunlight obstruction Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.3 0 Level 4.0 Off, Sch, R tl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 (No corresponding level) Level 2 (No corresponding level) Level 3 Shade regulations are satisfied, or there are no shade regulations applicable to the site. A standard one rank* above the shade regulations is satisfied. Level 5 (No corresponding level) jacent commercial areas to 5 hours/ 3 hours (at 5m 10m), the next higher standard is for residential areas, set at 4/ 2.5 hours. If the strictest level or regulation is already applied, one rank above should be taken to mean one hour/ 0.5 hours (5m, 10m) higher than the regulation standard. 3.3 Light Pollution 3.3.1 Outdoor Illumination and Light that Spills from Interiors Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.7 0 Level 5.0 Off, Sch, Rtl, Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 0 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 2 1 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 3 2 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated Level 4 3 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated 4 points in the table of the efforts to be evaluated

PAGE 272

272 Efforts to be evaluated Point Evaluated Content Point 2 Point 1) Outdoor illumination and light that spills from interiors 1~2 Only some of 2 Point 2) Countermeasures agai nst light pollution from billboard lighting. 1~2 Billboard lighting satisfies some of the considerations in Illuminatio Total= 4 Point 3.3.2 Measures for Reflected Solar Glare from Building Walls Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.3 0 Level 3.0 Off, Sch, Rtl Rst, Hal, Hsp, Htl, Apt, Fct Level 1 Reflected glare from building walls (including glazing) is observed to cause any major impact on the surroundings. Level 2 (No corresponding level) Reflected glare from building walls (including glazing) is not observed to cause any major impact on the surroundings. Level 4 (No corresponding level) Level 5 Reflected glare from building walls (including glazing ) is not observed to cause any reflected glare on the surroundings. LCCO2 Calculation Conditions Sheet (standard calculation) Building Name Rinker CASBEE NCe_2008(v.2.0) Item Reference (Reference Building) Subject B uilding Comments Building Outline Building type Schools, Schools, Gross Floor Area 4,322m2 4,322m2 Structure S S

PAGE 273

273 Lifecycle Setting Expected Service Life Schools section, 60years, Schools section, 60years, CO2 Emission 10.24 10.24 kg CO2/m2 yr Construction Stage Calculation of Embodied CO2 Average in Japan calculated by Architectural Institute of Japan from the 1995 Industrial Input Output Table Estimated by subtracting reduced CO2 volume by resource saving efforts from reference va lue Reference for CO2 Emission units Architectural Institute of Japan from the 1995 Industrial Input Output Table See reference Boundary up to the domestic consumption expenditure See reference Quantities of Representative Materials Regular concrete 3/m2 Blast furnace cement concrete 3/m2 Steel frame /m2 Steel frame (electric furnace) /m2 Steel reinforcement /m2 Timber /m2 XXX XXX XXX kg/m2 Environmental Loads of Representative Materials Regular co ncrete 282.00 282.00 kg CO2/m3 Blast furnace cement concrete 206.00 206.00 kg CO2/m3 Steel frame 0.90 0.90 kg CO2/ Steel frame (electric furnace) 0.90 0.90 kg CO2/ Steel reinforcement 0.70 0.70 kg CO2/ Formwork 7.20 7.20 kg CO 2/ XXX XXX XXX kg CO2/kg

PAGE 274

274 Major Recycled Materials and use rate Blast furnace cement (% in entire main structure 0% 0% Existing structural members (% in entire main structure 0% 0% Electric furnace steel Steel reinforcement 0% 0% Electric furnace steel Steel frame 0% 0% Repair, Renewal / Demolition Stage CO2 Emission 16.68 16.68 kg CO2/m2 yr Renewal intervals (year) Exterior Interior Building Service Average repair rate %/year Exterior Interior Building Service Calculation of CO2 emission at demolition stage Demolition material quantity was assumed to be 2,000kg/m2, and the road transport distance at 30km See reference CO2 Emission 68.53 26. 55 kg CO2/m2 yr Operation Stage Calculation of primary energy consumption Estimated from the average primary energy consumption in statistical records Estimate reduction volume of primary energy consumption by the efforts assessed under "LR1 Energy" Primary energy consumption MJ/year CO2 emission coefficient and conversion factor

PAGE 275

275 Conversion factor from primary energy consumption See reference CO2 kg/MJ Electricity 0.555 See reference CO2 kg/kWh Town gas 0.0506 See reference CO2 kg/MJ Other energy source ( ) XXX See reference CO2 kg/MJ Water Other

PAGE 276

276

PAGE 277

277 APPENDIX E G REEN STAR RATING SYSTEM S CORECARD Please use the tabs at the bottom of the workbook to navigate. Green Building Council of Australia 27 July, 2010 (Original release 28 August, 2008) Please ensure that you are working w ith the latest release of the Green Star Education v1 tool. Green Star rating tools are updated when required, to incorporate improvements made by the Green Star Team. The release date of this tool is shown above. Green Star registered projects are permi tted to use the release which was current at the date of registration, or later. Earlier releases must not be used.

PAGE 278

278 Green Star Education v1 Building Input WorkShee t New or Refurbished Building: Name of Building: Rinker Hall Address of Building: Postcode: State: Applicant: Contact Person: Green Star Accredited Professional: Proj ect Manager: Architect: Structural/Civil Engineer: Building Services Engineer: Quantity Surveyor: Acoustic Consultant: Landscaping Consultant: Building Surveyor: Main Contractor: Local Planning Authority: Usable Floor Area (UFA) in m2: 4,322 Gross Floor Area (GFA) in m2: 4,322 No. of Storeys: 3 % of Educational Facility Space: 33

PAGE 279

279 Building Description: (Orientation, Form, Structure, Faade, etc.) North South orientation, steel constr uction with metal and glazing veneer Building Services: (Heating, Cooling, Ventilation, Lighting, Lifts, Domestic Hot Water) heating, cooling, ventilating Date of Submission: Current Project Phase: Date of Registration (dd/mm/ yy): 1/1/04 Please fill in 'Date of Registration' field above A number of credits become applicable based on the registration date of the project. Projects registered prior to the release of a revised credit can choose to use the credit in the Techni cal Manual, or the revised credit. To override the credit selection based on registration date, please click the 'Override Credit Assignments' button, and select the credit that you wish to override. NB Use of Green Star Education v1 may predi ct a rating that differs from that achieved via Green Star certification. Detailed guidance on credit compliance criteria is contained in the Green Star Education v1 Technical Manual.

PAGE 280

280 Green Star Education v1 Credit Summary for: Rin ker Hall Management Ref No. Title Aim of Credit Credit Criteria Summary No. of Points Available No. of Points Achieved Points to be Confirmed Man 1 Green Star Accredited Professional To encourage and recognise the engage ment of professionals who can assist the project team with the integration of Green Star aims and processes throughout design and construction phases. Two points are awarded where: is a Green Star Accredited Pr ofessional engaged to provide sustainability advice from the schematic design phase through to construction completion. 2 2 Man 2 Commissioning Clauses To encourage and recognise commissioning and handover initiatives that ensure that all building ser vices can operate to optimal design potential. Up to two points are awarded as follows: demonstrated that: Comprehensive pre commissioning, commissioning, and quality monitoring are contractually required to be perfor med for all building services (BMS, mechanical, electrical and hydraulic); and The works outlined above are done in exact accordance with CIBSE Commissioning Codes or ASHRAE Commissioning Guideline 1 1996 (for mechanical services only) and CIBSE Commiss ioning Codes for the other Services. 1 1

PAGE 281

281 demonstrated that: The point above is achieved; and The design team and contractor are required to transfer project knowledge to the building owner/manager th rough all of the following: > documented design intent; > as built drawings; > Operations and Maintenance Manual; > Commissioning Report; and > training of building management staff. 1 1 Man 3 Building Tuning To encourage and recognise commissioning ini tiatives that ensure optimum occupant comfort and energy efficient services performance throughout the year. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that: implements tuning of all building systems; ember of the design team is involved in the tuning process; outcomes are reported to the building owner quarterly; months after practical completion; and ng Report on the outcomes of the tuning process is provided to the building owner and made available to the design team. 1 0 Man 4 Independent Commissioning Agent To encourage and recognise the appointment of an Independent Commissioning Agent from project design through to handover. One point is awarded where an Independent Commissioning Agent has been appointed to: building owner and the design team; and all building systems. 1 1

PAGE 282

282 Man 5 Building Guides To encourage and recognise information management that enables building users environmental performance. Up to two points are awarded as follows: One point is awarded where: asy to Guide, which includes information relevant for the building users, occupants and made available to the building owner. One point is awarded where: deve loped, which provides detailed guidance on accessing and maintaining both the building's services and external building fabric. The guide is to be developed by the design team and made available to the Building Owner/s or Manager. 2 0 Man 6 Environmenta l Management To encourage and recognise the adoption of a formal environmental management system in line with established guidelines during construction. Up to two points are awarded independently of each other and as follows: e it is demonstrated that: -The contractor implements a comprehensive, project specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the works in accordance with Section 4 of the NSW Environmental Management System guidelines 1998. ere it is demonstrated that: The Contractor has valid ISO 14001 Environmental Management System (EMS) accreditation prior to and throughout the project. 2

PAGE 283

283 Man 7 Waste Management To encourage and recognise management practices that minimise the amo unt of construction waste going to disposal. Up to two points are awarded where: Management Plan (WMP), retains waste records and submits quarterly reports to the building owner; and ition and construction waste is re used or recycled as follows: One point for 60% of the waste; and -Two points for 80% of waste. 2 2 Man 8 Not applicable to this tool Man 9 Not applicable to this tool Man 10 Learning Resources To encourage and recognise the building and site attributes that serve as an environmental learning resource to all building users. One point is awarded where: environmental attributes are displayed in a manner that can b e readily understood by building users, and meet the following criteria: Each attribute must reflect an environmental initiative rewarded within a Green Star Education credit; --One attribute must relate to energy use and one attribute must rela te to water use; and --Each attribute must be clearly displayed and the measurable environmental and economic benefits communicated (e.g. through signage and/or live data) to the casual observer. 1 1

PAGE 284

284 Man 11 Maintainability To encourage and recognis e building design that facilitates ongoing maintenance, and minimises the need for ongoing building maintenance lifecycle. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that: or a suitably qualified maintenance staff member, or a qualified facilities manager, has performed and submitted a design review at both the preliminary and final design stages. This review must consider the design with respect to access, ongoing maintenance and ongoing cleaning of the following: Building services; and --External building features. 1 0 Total Points = 14 8 0

PAGE 285

285 Green Star Education v1 Credit Summary for: Rinker Hall Indoor Environment Quality Ref No. Title Aim of Credit Credit Criteria Summary No. of Points Available No. of Points Achieved Points to be Confirmed Comment Definition: Usable Floor Area (UFA) The sum of the floor areas measured at floor level from the general INSIDE face o f walls of all spaces related to the Primary Function of the building. This will normally be computed by calculating the Fully Enclosed Covered Area (FECA) and deducting common use areas, service areas, and non habitable areas. Note: in some cases the Use able Floor Area may include some external covered areas which relate to the Primary Function of the building. Example: an open but roofed hydraulics modelling laboratory associated with Civil Engineering should be counted as part of the UFA. Common use ar eas include corridors which are defined by partitions but do not include passages and secondary circulation areas which are part of open plan spaces. Foyers of large lecture theatres should be treated as UFA.

PAGE 286

286 IEQ 1 Ventilation Rates To encourage and rec ognise designs that provide ample amounts of outside air to counteract build up of indoor pollutants. Three points are available as follows: Naturally Ventilated Spaces Three points are awarded where it is demonstrated that 95% of the nominated area is nat urally ventilated in accordance with AS1668.2 2002. Mechanically Air Conditioned and Mechanically Assisted Naturally Ventilated Spaces Up to three points are awarded where for 95% of the nominated area, outside air is provided at rates greater than the re quirements of AS1668.2 1991, as follows: Mixed Mode Ventilated Spaces Both modes of operation must individually satisfy the relevant mechanical and natural ventilation criteria. The points awarded will be limited to the maximum points awarded under the mechanical ventilation criteria. UFA, excluding external covered areas. 3 3

PAGE 287

287 IEQ 2 Air Ch ange Effectivene ss To encourage and recognise systems that effectively deliver optimum air quality to any occupant throughout the occupied area. Two points are awarded where it is demonstrated that the Air Change Effectiveness (ACE) for at least 95% of the nominated area meets the following criteria: Naturally Ventilated Spaces 95% of the nominated area of each space in the direction of air flow for not less than 95% of standard hours of occupancy is de monstrated. Mechanically Air Conditioned and Mechanically Assisted Naturally Ventilated Spaces an Air Change Effectiveness (ACE) of >0.95 for at least 95% of the nominated area when measured in accordance with ASHRAE 129 1997: (nominally one metre above finished floor level). Mixed Mode Ventilated Spaces an Air Change Effectiv eness (ACE) of >0.95 when measured in accordance with ASHRAE 129 1997: (nominally one metre above finished floor level); and t 95% of the nominated area of each space in the direction of air flow for 95% of hours of predicted natural ventilation operation is demonstrated. UFA, excluding external covered areas. 2 2

PAGE 288

288 IEQ 3 Carbon Dioxide Monitoring and Control and VOC Monitoring To encourage and recognise the provision of response monitoring of Carbon Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) levels to ensure delivery of optimum quantities of outside air and monitoring o f VOC pollutants. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that: Is linked to the Building Management System; Has a minimum of one sensor per return duct; Facilitates continuous monitoring of VOC p ollutants; and -Can detect and provide an alarm when VOC pollutants reach 0.5 mg/m3 level. AND Naturally Ventilated Spaces in accordance with AS1668.2 2002; and lled by occupants. Mechanically Air Conditioned and Mechanically Assisted Naturally Ventilated Spaces (CO2) monitoring and control system with a minimum of one CO2 sensor at all return points on each floor is provided to facilitate continuous monitoring and adjustment of outside air ventilation rates to each level, to ensure independent control of ventilation rates to ach ieve outside air requirements; O R rec irculated component. Mixed Mode Ventilated Spaces Both modes of operation must satisfy the relevant mechanical and natural ventilation criteria. The points awarded will be limited to the maximum points awarded under the mechanical ventilation criteria. Fo UFA, excluding external covered areas. 1 1

PAGE 289

289 IEQ 4 Daylight To encourage and recognise designs that provide good levels of daylight for building users. Up to four points are awarded as follows: three points are awarded as follows where it is demonstrated that a Daylight Factor (DF) of 2% is achieved at desk height level (720mm AFFL) under a uniform design sky: One point is awarded for 30% of the nominated area; Two points are awarded for 60% of the nominated area; and Three points are awarded for 90% of the nominated area. 3 1 1 secondary schools where: A Daylight Factor (DF) of 2% is achieved for 90% of the nominated area; a nd It is demonstrated that 50% of learning spaces achieve a Daylight Factor of not less than 4% for 95% of the area of the learning space, measured at desk height level (720mm AFFL) under a uniform design sky. For tertiary institutions, this additiona available used to calculate the Indoor Environment Quality Category Score Learning Spaces include classrooms/multi purpose spaces, computer and physics labs, library, workshops, and gymnasiums. UFA (excluding atrium and corridor spaces). 1

PAGE 290

290 IEQ 5 Thermal Comfort To encourage and recognise buildings that achieve a high level of thermal com fort. Up to three points are awarded where the following is demonstrated: Naturally Ventilated and Mechanically Assisted Naturally Ventilated Spaces Two points are awarded where the Acceptability Limits of ASHRAE Standard 55 2004 are achieved during Standa rd Operating Hours of Occupancy for 98% of the year: One point for internal temperatures within 80% of Acceptability Limit 1; and Two points for internal temperatures within 90% of Acceptability Limit 1. Mechanically Air Conditioned Spaces T wo points are awarded where Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) levels, calculated in accordance with ISO7730, are achieved during Standard Operating Hours of Occupancy for 98% of the year using standard clothing and metabolic rate values: One point for PMV levels between 1 and +1, inclusive; and Two points for PMV levels are between 0.5 and +0.5, inclusive. Mixed mode Ventilated Spaces For mixed mode buildings, the above mechanical and natural ventilation thermal comfort criteria must be met. 2 2

PAGE 291

291 Naturally Ventilated and Mechanically Assisted Naturally Ventilated Spaces the first two points are achieved and individual user control of ventilation openings no less than 0.75m2 is provided for every four (or fewer) workstations. Mechanically Air Conditioned Spaces One additional point is awarded where either one or two points are achieved above and control of air supply rates, air temperature, or radiant temperature is provided for every fou r (or fewer) workstations. Mixed mode Ventilated Spaces For mixed mode buildings, the above mechanical and natural ventilation thermal comfort criteria must be met. area s. The point for individual thermal comfort control need not be assessed for libraries, canteens or gymnasiums (as defined in the Energy Calculator Guide). 1 IEQ 6 Hazardous Materials To encourage and recognise actions taken to reduce health risks to occupants from the presence of hazardous materials. One point is awarded where: has been carried out on the project site, as defined by the relevant Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) le gislation; and biphenyls (PCBs) were found, they have been removed in accordance with the standards listed under Table IEQ 6.1. For new developments or developments in which none of the above hazardous material s were 1

PAGE 292

292 excluded from the points available used to calculate the Indoor Environment Quality Category Score. IEQ 7 Internal Noise Levels To encourage and recognise buildings that are designed to maintain internal noise levels at an appropriate level. Building Services Design services noise meets the recommended design sound levels provided in Table 1 of AS/NZS2107:2000. Overall Building where it is demonstrated that: The nominated design sound levels measured in LAeq and reverberation times, for each functional space are provided in accordance with the lower values in Table 1 of AS/NZS2107:2000; and All partitioning between adjoining academic offices or classrooms is constructed to achieve a weighted sound reduction index (Rw) of at least 45 between spaces. UFA, excluding external covered areas. 2 2

PAGE 293

293 IEQ 8 Volatile Organic Compou nd To encourage and recognise specification of interior finishes that minimise the contribution and levels of Volatile Organic Compounds in buildings. Up to four points are awarded where the various finishes and furniture used in the project meet the bench marks as follows: Paints painted surfaces meet the Total Volatile Organic Compound (TVOC) Content Limits outlined in Table IEQ 8.1 or where no paint is used in the project. 1 1 Adhesives and sealan ts sealants meet the TVOC Content Limits outlined in Table IEQ 8.2 or where no adhesives or sealants are used. 1 1 Carpets and Flooring emissions limits outlined in Table IEQ 8.3 OR project and projects wish to use low VOC flooring, one point is awarded where all the flooring installed in the project meet the emissions limits outlined in Table IEQ 8.3. Where no carpet h as been installed in the project, from the points available used to calculate the IEQ Category Score. 1 1 Tenancy Fitout items (workstations, walls/p artitions, chairs, tables and storage units) meet the TVOC emission limits outlined in Table IEQ 8.4. 1 1

PAGE 294

294 IEQ 9 Formaldeh yde Minimisatio n To encourage and recognise the specification of products with low formaldehyde emission levels. One point is awar ded where all engineered wood products (including exposed and concealed applications) either: OR If no engineered wood products are used within excluded from the total number of points available to calculate the IEQ Category Score. 1 1 IEQ 10 Mould Prevention To encourage and recognise the design of services that eliminate the risk of mould growth and its associated detrimental impact on occ upant health. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that: system actively controls humidity to be no more than 60% relative humidity in the space and no more than 80% relative humidity in the supply du ctwork; OR mechanically assisted naturally ventilated, (MANV). 1 1

PAGE 295

295 IEQ 11 Daylight Glare Control To encourage and recognise buildings that are designed to reduce the discomfort of glare from natural ligh t. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that glare from daylight is reduced across the nominated area through any combination of the below: atrium, fixed shading devices shade the working plane, 1 .5m in from the centre of the glazing, from direct sun at desk height (720mm AFFL) for 80% of standard occupancy hours; OR and atriums as a base building provision and meet to following criteria; Elim inate all direct sun penetration; --Are controlled with an automatic monitoring system; -Are equipped with a manual override function accessible by occupants; and --Have a visual light transmittance (VLT) of <10%. For the purposes of this credi UFA, excluding external covered areas. 1 1 IEQ 12 High Frequency Ballasts To encourage and recognise the increase in workplace amenity by avoiding low frequency flicker that may be associated with fluorescent lighting. frequency ballasts are installed in fluorescent luminaires over a minimum of 95% of the nominated area. UFA, excluding external covered areas. 1 1

PAGE 296

296 IEQ 13 Electric Lighting Levels To encourage and recognise lighting that is not over designed. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that: maintenance illuminance of no more than 25% above those recommended in Table E1 of AS1680.2.3 for 95% of the nominat ed area as measured at the working plane (or as required by AS1680.2.3). UFA, excluding external covered areas. 1 1 IEQ 14 External Views To encourage and recognise designs that provide occupants with a visual connection to the external environment. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that: sight to the outdoors, or into an adequately sized and day lit internal atrium. For the purposes of UFA, excluding external covered areas and gymnasiums. 1 1 Total Points = 26 12 10

PAGE 297

297 Green Star Education v1 Yes Credit Summary for: Rinker Hall No Energy Ref No. Title Aim of Credit Credit Criteria Summary No. of Points Available No. of Points Achieved Points to be Confirmed Ene Conditional Requirement To encourage and recognise designs that minimise the greenhouse gas emissions To meet the conditional requirement: must meet the greenhouse gas emission benchmark. The Green Star Education v1 Energy Calcu lator determines the benchmark for Condition al Requirem ent Yes

PAGE 298

298 associated with operational energy consumpti on, and maximise potential operational energy efficiency of the base building. each project based on the composition of space types within each project. The conditional requirements are: Primary and High Schools Conditional Requirements (kgCO2 e/m2/annum) Classrooms 61 Computer and physics labs 127 Office and staff rooms 85 Library 73 Common space 53 Canteen 65 Workshops 77 Gymnasiums 58 Car parks 58 Universities Conditional Requirements (kgCO2 e/m2/annum) Teaching/classroom spaces 82 Dry labs/speciality learning spaces and libraries 88 Office/administrative spaces 79 Common spaces 57 Wet labs (varies based on density of fume cupboards) Gymnasiums 143 Car parks 52

PAGE 299

299 The methodology used to establish the conditional requirement for each space type is detailed in the Green Star Education v1 Energy Calculator Standard Practice Benchmark document available on the GBCA website. The predicted greenhouse gas emissi ons must be determined using energy modelling in accordance with the final and current version of the Green Star Education v1 Energy Calculator. ne 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions To encourage and recognise desig ns that minimise greenhouse gas emissions associated with operational energy consumption. Up to 20 points are awarded where it is greenhouse gas emissions have been further reduced below the Conditional Requiremen t. The number of points achieved is determined as follows: Predicted reduction in Greenhouse Gas Points Awarded Emissions (%) 0 Conditional 5 1 10 2 15 3 20 20

PAGE 300

300 4 25 5 30 6 35 7 40 8 45 9 50 10 55 11 60 12 65 13 70 14 75 15 80 16 85 17 90 18 95 19 100 Zero net operating emissions 20 5

PAGE 301

301 Ene 2 Energy Sub metering To encourage and recognise the installation of energy sub metering to facilitate ongoing management of energy c onsumption. Sub metering is provided to separately monitor lighting and general power consumption for primary functional areas (per floor) as defined in the Technical Manual, these areas include: > class/lecture/tutorial ar eas; > office/administration space; and > laboratories. Where a functional area is less than 200m2, they may be grouped with an adjacent functional area providing the total area being metered does not exceed 1000m2. The sub meters must be connected to a Building Management System (BMS) or dedicated electronic energy monitoring and reporting system and continually demonstrate actual performance against energy benchmarks. 1 Ene 3 Peak Energy Demand Reduction To encourage and recognise designs that r educe peak demand on energy supply infrastructure. Up to two points are awarded where it is demonstrated that the building has reduced its peak energy demand load on electricity infrastructure as follows: Peak energy demand is actively reduced by 15%; OR A flatter demand curve is achieved, i.e. the difference between the peak and average demand does not exceed 40%; and Peak energy demand is actively reduced by 30%; OR A flatter demand curve is achieved, i.e the difference between the peak and average demand does not exceed 20%. 2

PAGE 302

302 Ene 4 Lighting Zoning To encourage and recognise lighting design practices that offer greater flexibility for light switching, making it easier to light only occupied areas. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that: occupant detection and daylight adjustment is provided. The nominated area for the purpose of this credit is UFA. 1 Ene 5 No applicable to this tool Ene 6 No applicable to this tool Ene 7 Unoccupied Areas To encourage and recognise designs that minimise or eliminate energy use for spaces when unoccupied. Up to two points are awarded as follows: n ominated area achieves the below criteria; The building is naturally ventilated; OR The HVAC system in each separate enclosed space within the nominated area, e.g. laboratory, classroom, office, tutorial space, lecture theatre, is: > designed to be automatically shut down when not in use; OR > designed to allow a wider temperature control band when not in use, a minimum of an additional 2 in each direction is required (e.g. if the band allowed for an occupied room is 20 to 24C then the band for an unoccupied must be 18 to 26C). nominated area achieves the above criteria. For the purpose of this credit the nominated area is Usable Floor Area (UFA). 2

PAGE 303

303 Ene 8 Stairs To encourage and recognise buildings that reduce energy consumption by providing accessible and highly visible stairs as an alternative to vertical transportation by lift. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that internal stairs meet the following criteria: or use by the building users and, where relevant, the public; doors); within 20m of a main entrance; and 25% of the stairwell wall area is exterior glazing; OR Each level within the stairwell has a Daylight Factor of at least 3.5 at finished floor level (FFL); OR The stair is fully open to the interior on at least one side over the entire span of the stairwe ll. If the building is single storey or does not have a passenger or goods passenger lift (dedicated disabled persons lift can be excluded), then the points available used to calculate the Energy Categor y Score. 1 Ene 9 Efficient External Lighting To encourage and recognise designs that facilitates the reduction in energy consumption by external lighting. One point is awarded where all externally lit spaces over the entire site meet the following cri teria: at least 50 lumens/watt; minimum requirements of AS1158 for illuminance levels; and daylight sensors (da ylight sensors can be combined with a time switch). Emergency lighting required for BCA compliance is excluded from this credit. 1

PAGE 304

304 Ene 10 Shared Energy Systems To encourage and recognise the use of shared energy stations that minimise maintenance, en ergy and resource consumption. One point is awarded where: system shared by at least two buildings. the points available used to calculate the Energy Category Score if: are within 200m of each other. 1 Total Points = 29 5 0

PAGE 305

305 Green Star Education v1 Energy Calculator Num ber of Points Achieved 5 The Green Star Education v1 Energy Calculator Guide provides guidance on each of the required inputs and must be followed to ensure an accurate assessment of the building's e nergy performance. The benchmark figures used in this energy calculator were calculated based on standard practice greenhouse gas emissions. Details of how the benchmarks were calculated are outlined in the Green Star Education v1 Standard Practice Bench mark document. Input data in white cells Calculations Based on Project Data Calculations Based of Benchmark Data BUILDING LOCATION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FACTORS Facility Type University Building Facility Location NSW Note: The facility location is selected in the Building Input' tab.

PAGE 306

306 The greenhouse gas emissions factors for gas and electricity depend on the state/territory. All other emiss ions factors do not vary depending on the state or territory. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Factors Modelled Retail Education Facility Emissions Factor Benchmark Emissions Factor Electricity (kgCO 2 e/kWh) 1.060 1.120 Gas (kgC O 2 e/MJ)) 0.066 0.063 Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) (kgCO 2 e/MJ)) 0.065 0.065 Diesel (kgCO 2 e/MJ)) 0.075 0.075 Coal (kgCO 2 e/MJ)) 0.093 0.093 Solid Biomas (kgCO 2 e/MJ)) 0.0018 0.0018 Liquid Biofuels (kgCO 2 e/MJ)) 0.0003 0.0003 BUILDING SPACE TYPES Space Types within the building Space Area (m 2 ) HVAC Benchmark Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kgCO 2 e/yr) The Benchmark HVAC Greenhouse Gas Emissio ns

PAGE 307

307 Teaching / Classroom Spaces 1,440 57,092 by Space Type are calculated by multiplying the space area by a per metre squared benchmark Dry Labs / Specialty Learning Spaces / Libraries 111 5,160 Office / Administrative Spaces 1,440 38,681 Common Spaces 1,331 26,154 Wet Labs 0 0 Gymnasiums 0 0 0 0

PAGE 308

308 Car Park 0 0 Subtotal 4,322 127,087 Total peak air exhaust rate in wet lab areas (l/s) 0 Number of car parking spaces 8 MODELLING INFORMATION Modelled Facility Energy Consumption Modelled Energy Consumption (kWh/yr Electricity, MJ/yr Gas) Modelled Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kgCO2 e/yr) Benchmark HVAC Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kgCO 2 e/yr) HVAC Energy Consumption (incl. boilers, chillers, and fans) Total Electricity (kWh/yr) 78000 82,680 127,087 The Total Benchmark HVAC Gree nhouse

PAGE 309

309 Gas (MJ/yr) 13064 864 Gas Emissions are calculated by adding the emissions by space type in the table above Co generation and Tri generation Select Fuel Type 0 Subtotal 83,544 Lighting Energy Consumpti on Modelled Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) Modelled Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kgCO 2 e/yr) Benchmark Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kgCO 2 e/yr) Teaching / Classroom Spaces 28,178 29,869 41,933 Dry Labs / Specialty Learning Spaces / Libraries 2,172 2 ,302 3,232 Office / Administrative Spaces 38,558 40,871 57,378 Common Spaces 15,026 15,928 22,361

PAGE 310

310 Wet Labs 0 0 Gymnasiums 0 0 0 0 0 0 Car Parks 0 0 0 Subtotal 83,934 88,970 124,904 Extras Modelled Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) Modelled Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kgCO 2 e/yr) Benchmark Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kgCO 2 e/yr) Gymnasium Mechanical Exhaust 0 0

PAGE 311

311 Car Park Mechanical Exhaust 0 0 Lifts 26,000 27,560 27,592 Escalators and Travelators 0 0 Domestic Hot Water Electricity (kWh/yr) 11,000 11,660 11,908 Gas (MJ/yr) 0 0 Other 0 0 Subtotal 37,000 39,220 39,500 On site Electricity Generation Electricity Generation (kWh/yr) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided (kgCO 2 e/yr)

PAGE 312

312 Total renewable Energy Generation (kWh/yr) (e.g. Photovoltaics, geothermal and wind, but not solar hot water) 0 Total Electricty produc ed by Co generation and Tri generation (kWh/yr) 0 RESULTS SUMMARY Total Project Energy Consumption (kWh/yr Electricity, MJ/yr Gas) Total Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kgCO 2 e/yr) Total Benchmar k Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kgCO 2 e/yr) Grid electricity 198,934 210,870 289,950 Gas 13,064 864 1,541 Liquid Petroleum Gas 0 0 / Diesel 0 0 / Coal 0 0 / Solid Biomass 0 0 / Liquid Biofuels 0 0 / TOTAL 211,734 291,491

PAGE 313

313 Greenhouse Gas Savings (Difference in greenhouse gas emissions between benchmark and facility (kgCO2/yr)) 79,757 Percentage reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions compared to the Standard Practice Bench mark 27.4% POINT SCORE CALCULATION Green Star Points Percentage reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions compared to the Standard Practice Benchmark Maximum greenhouse gas emissions to achieve points ( kgCO 2 e/yr) 20 100% 0 19 95% 14575 18 90% 29149 17 85% 43724 16 80% 58298 15 75% 72873 14 70% 87447 13 65% 102022 12 60% 116596 11 55% 131171 10 50% 145745

PAGE 314

314 9 45% 160320 8 40% 174895 7 35% 189469 6 30% 204044 5 25% 218618 4 20% 233193 3 15% 247767 2 10% 262342 1 5% 276916 Conditional Requirement 0% 291491 Is the Conditional Requirement met? Yes The project's emissions must be less than or equal to the benchmark to meet the conditional requirement. Number of Points Achieved 5 End

PAGE 315

315 Green Star Education v1 Credit Summary for: Rinker Hall Transport Ref No. Title Aim of Credit Credit Criteria Summary No. of Points Available No. of Points Achieved Points to be Confirmed Tra 1 Provision of Car Parking To encourage an d recognise developments that limit the facilities provided for cars. Up to two points are awarded as follows: number of car parking spaces is: At least 25% less than the maximum local planning allowances applicable to the project. OR Not exceeding the minimum planning allowance by more than 10%. number of car parking spaces is: At least 50% less than the maximum local planning allowances applicable to the project. OR No more than the minimum local planning allowances. Where car parking is not permitted in the local planning scheme, this credit from the points available to calculate the Transport Category Score. 2 0 2

PAGE 316

316 Tra 2 Fuel Efficient T ransport To encourage and recognise developments that facilitate the use of fuel efficient vehicles. If no parking spaces are to be and is excluded from the points available used to calculate the Transport Category Score. One point is awarded where: parking spaces on the site are designed and labelled for small cars in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 (i.e. maximum 2.3m wide x 5.0m long) and/or mopeds/motorbikes. The greatest of 10 parking spaces or 10% of the total parking spaces must be for small cars (rather than mopeds/motorbikes); and preferred parking spaces (i.e. located near the facility entrance) are dedicated solely for use by car pool parti cipants, hybrid or other alternative fuel vehicles and be clearly signposted and marked with a separate colour from other parking spaces. 1

PAGE 317

317 Tra 3 Cyclist Facilities To encourage and recognise building design that promotes the use of bicycles by ensuri ng adequate cyclist facilities are provided. Up to four points are awarded as follows: Students For primary and secondary schools: minimum of one secure bicycle storage space per five students (over grade 4) are provided; a nd minimum of two secure bicycle storage spaces per five students (over grade 4) are provided. For universities and colleges: minimum of 5% of the peak number of students using the building at any one time (with 75% occupancy) are provided with a secure bicycle storage space. minimum of 10% of the peak number of students using the building at any one time (with 75% occupancy) are provided with a secure bicycle s torage space. Staff facilities are provided for 5% of building staff; and cyclist facilities are provided for 10% of building staff. 4 2

PAGE 318

318 Tra 4 Commuting Mass Transport To encourage and recognise developments that facilitate the use of mass transport. Up to five points are awarded for the quality of mass transport options available to building users. The points are determined using the Green Star Mass Transport Calculator based on: type of mass transport services available within 1000m of the site; services during weekday peak hours. OR For primary or secondary schools: Transport is provided for 80% of the students; and This service is provided to school every morning and from school every afternoon. 5 4 Tra 5 Not applicable to this tool Tra 6 Transport Design and Planning To encourage and recognise site design a nd planning that promote transport modes of low environmental impact. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that: route is provided on and off the site; and that includes: A site specific transport assessment; and A report on sustainable transport initiatives. 1 0 Total Points = 13 6 2

PAGE 319

319 Green Star Education v1 Credit Summary for: Rinker Hall Water Ref No. Title Aim of Credit Credit Criteria Summary No. of Points Available No. of Points Achieved Points to be Confirmed Comments Wat 1 Occupant Amenity Water To encourage and recognise designs that reduce potable water consumption by building occupants. Up to five p oints are awarded where: consumption for sanitary use within the building has been benchmark. The points are determined by the Green Star Potable Water Calculator. 5 4 Wat 2 Water Meters To encourage and recognise the design of systems that both monitor and manage water consumption. One point is awarded where: major water uses in the project; and for monitoring wate r consumption data. 1 0

PAGE 320

320 Wat 3 Landscape Irrigation To encourage and recognise the design of systems that aim to reduce the consumption of potable water for landscape irrigation. Three points are awarded where: landscap e irrigation has been reduced by 90% OR installed. If there is no landscaping, or landscaping represents less than 1% of the site area, this point is from the points available used to calculate the Water Category Score. 3 3 Wat 4 Heat Rejection Water To encourage and recognise design that reduces potable water consumption from heat rejection systems. Up to four points are awarded as follows: Potable water c onsumption of water based heat rejection systems is reduced by 50%. Potable water consumption of water based heat rejection systems is reduced by 90%; OR No water based heat rejection systems are provided. 4 4

PAGE 321

321 Wat 5 Fire System Water To encourage and recognise building design which reduces consumption of potable water for the protection and essential water storage systems. One point is awarded where: storage for a minimum of 80% of the routine fire protection system test water and maintenance drain downs, for re use on site; and system has isolation valves or shut off points for floor by floor testing; OR One point is awarded whe re: not expel water for testing. If the building does not have a the points available used to calculate the Water Category Score. 1 0 Wat 6 Pota ble Water Use in Laboratories To encourage and recognise designs that reduce demand on potable water consumption from laboratory equipment cooling. Two points are awarded where it is demonstrated that: once through cooli ng is sourced from non potable water; OR for any equipment (excluding water for cooling tower makeup or other evaporative systems). If less than 10% of the nominated area is devoted to laboratories, this credit is 'Not A excluded from the points available used to calculate the Water Category Score. For the purposes of this credit 2 2 Total Points = 16 11 2

PAGE 322

322 Green Star Education v1 Potable Water Calculator Points Achieved 4 Facility Type University Building AREAS BY SPACE TYPE: Space Type Area (m) Teaching / Classroom Spaces 1440 Dry Labs / Specialty Learning Spaces 111 Office/Administrative Space 1440 Common spaces 1331 Wet Labs Gymnasiums

PAGE 323

323 TOTAL (m) 4,322 WATER CONSUM PTION DUE TO FITTINGS: Toilets Water Efficiency (Enter manually OR nominate WELS star rating) L/flush Percentage of type Manual entry from Manufacturer's data sheet (L/flush) WELS Star rating selection Toilets 6 6 100% 0 0 0 Water Efficiency (Enter manually OR nominate WELS star rating) L/flush Percentage of type Urinals Manual entry from Manufacturer's data sheet (L/flush) WELS Star rating selection standard 3.8 3.8 50% waterless 0 0 50% 0

PAGE 324

324 0 Urinal flushes on auto timer 0 Enter number of urinals on autotimer Water Efficiency (Enter manually OR nominate WELS star rating) L/min Percentage of type Indoor Taps Manual entry from Manufacturer's data sheet (L/min) WELS Star rating selecti on lavatory 9.5 9.5 100% 0 0 0 Shower Demand: No showers installed (except in gymnasium) Water Efficiency (Enter manually OR nominate WELS star rating) L/min Percentage of type Showerheads Manual entry from Manufacturer's data sheet (L/min) WELS Star rating selection 0

PAGE 325

325 0 0 0 Please ensure percentages add up to 100% Total Water Consumption (L/day/m 2 ) 0.47 POTABLE WATER REDUCTIO N DUE TO RAINWATER, GREYWATER OR BLACKWATER: Are there any rainwater or recycled water systems (greywater, blackwater or other) installed? Yes Do you wish to use the Simple Calculators (below) to calculate rainwater and greywater wate r availability? Yes Enter percentage (%) of toilets and urinals flushed with rainwater and reused water Toilets Urinals

PAGE 326

326 Rainwater 0% 0% Greywater and/or Blackwater Enter amount of rainwater availa ble (L/day) 0 Enter amount of greywater and blackwater available (L/day) Enter the amount of Rainwater used for other purposes than toilets and urinals (e.g. irrigation, cooling towers, car washing) (L/day) Enter th e amount of Greywater and/or Blackwater used for other purposes than toilets and urinals (e.g. irrigation, cooling towers, car washing) (L/day) SIMPLE RAINWATER CALCULATOR: Enter the average annual rainfall (mm) 1016 Ente r the roof area for rainwater collection (m) 1440

PAGE 327

327 Select run off coefficient Flat non absorbent roof (<30 pitch) 0.8 Enter the rainwater tank size (kL) 44853 Toilets Urinals Enter the percentage of toilets an d urinals that are flushed using rainwater 100% 50% Enter the amount of rainwater used for purposes other than toilet and urinal flushing (e.g. irrigation, cooling towers, car washing) in litres per day 0 SIMPLE GREYWATER C ALCULATOR Toilets Urinals

PAGE 328

328 Enter the percentage of toilets and urinals to be flushed using greywater Showers Taps Enter the percentage of taps and showers used for greywater collection The following estimated total potable water consumption is based on the data entered above. The water consumption of the fittings per person is based on assumptions of typical education facility usage. The benchmarks for the credits are shown below and are based on the Water Conservation Rating & Labelling Scheme and assumed usage (including expected use of showers). Estimated Total Potable Water Consumption (L/day/m) 0.14 Points Achieved 4 Points Available

PAGE 329

329 Water Consumption (Potable Water Litres/day/m) Points 0.38 1 0.31 2 0.25 3 0.18 4 0.11 5

PAGE 330

330 Green Star Education v1 Credit Summary for: Rinker Hall Materials Ref No. Title Aim of Credit Credit Criteria Summary No. of Points Available No. of Points Achieved Points to be Confirme d Mat 1 Rec ycling Waste Storage To encourage and recognise the inclusion of storage space that facilitates the recycling of resources used within buildings to reduce waste going to landfill. Two points are awarded where a dedicated storage area for the separation an d collection of recyclable waste is provided and it: streams specified in the Compliance Requirements; Section A, points A 12 through A 17. facilities; a clearly marked, sign posted, convenient and guaranteed access route which allows: Level ac cess from tenancies (or goods lifts are provided); and Avoids the need for manual handling of the waste; OR Is within one of the following walking distances: 20m of the exit used for recycling pick up; 20m of the lift core serving all floors; o r 3m of the shortest route connecting the lift core serving all floors and the exit used for recycling pick up. 2 1

PAGE 331

331 Mat 2 Building Reuse To encourage and recognise developments that re use existing buildings to minimise materials consumption. Two points are awarded where it is demonstrated that at least 50% of the total faade of the building by area comprises re used building facade. the existing major structure, by gross building volume is re used: Two points for 30% re use; Three points for 60% re use; Four points for 90% re use. Where the site contained no buildings at the time of purchase, or the total GFA of the original building(s) is less than 20% of the nominated are a of the new and is excluded from the points available used to calculate the Materials Category Score. The nominated area for the purpose of this credit is GFA. 0 na Mat 3 Recycled Content & Re used Products and Materials To encourage and recognise designs that prolong the useful life of existing products and materials and encourage uptake of products with recycling content. One point is awarded where at least 2% of the t value is represented by: OR 20%. This credit excludes materials specifically addressed by other credits (i.e. steel, concrete, PVC and timber); neither does it address the re use of the original 1 1

PAGE 332

332 Mat 4 Concrete To encourage and recognise the reduction of embodied energy and resource depletion occurring through use of concrete. Three points are available a s follows: reduced the absolute quantity of Portland cement, as an average across all concrete mixes, by substituting it with industrial waste product(s) or oversized aggregate as follows: For on e point, 30% for in situ concrete, 20% for pre cast concrete and 15% for stressed concrete; For two points, 60% for in situ concrete, 40% for pre cast concrete and 30% for stressed concrete. At least one of the above points is achieved; 20% of all aggregate used for structural purposes is recycled (Class 1 RCA in accordance with HB155 2002) or slag aggregate; and No natural aggregates are used in non structural uses (e.g. building base course, sub grad e to any car parks and footpaths, backfilling to service trenches, kerb and gutter). If the material cost of new concrete represents less available us ed to calculate the Materials Category Score. 3 1 Mat 5 Steel To encourage and recognise the reduction in embodied energy and resource depletion associated with reduced use of virgin steel. Up to two points are awarded as follows: where: 60% of all steel, by mass, in the project either has a post consumer recycled content greater than 50%, or is re used. 90% of all steel, by mass, in the project either has a post consumer recycled content greater than 50%, or is re used. If the material cost of steel represents less than 1% of used to calculate the Materials Category Score. 2 2

PAGE 333

333 Mat 6 PVC Minimisation To encourage and recognise the reduction in use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products in buildings. Up to two points are awarded as follows: awarded where: 30% of the total cost of PVC content was reduced through r eplacement with alternative materials. 60% of the total cost of PVC content was reduced through replacement with alternative materials. Please refer to the Technical Clarifications page on the GBCA website at www.gbcau s.org for updates and further information. 2 0 Mat 7 Sustainable Timber To encourage and recognise the specification of re used timber products or timber that has certified environmentally responsible forest management practices. Two points are award ed where: building and construction works have been sourced from any combination of the following: Re used timber; Post consumer recycled timber; or Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified Timber. If the material cost of timber represents less than 0.1% available used to calculate the Materials Category Score. Please refer to the Techni cal Clarifications page on the GBCA website at www.gbca.org.au for updates and further information. 2 2 Mat 8 Design for Disassembly To encourage and recognise designs that minimise the embodied energy and resources associated with demolition. One point is awarded where: faade cladding systems are designed for disassembly; OR If the material cost of the structural framing, roofing, and facade cladding systems represent less than 1% used to calculate the Materials Category Score. 1 1

PAGE 334

334 Mat 9 Dematerialis ation To encourage and recogn ise designs that require less material than conventional designs. One point is available where a substantial reduction in materials consumption occurs as follows: nominated area is framed in structural stee l, and requirements and integrity have been achieved using 20% less steel (by mass) than in a structure with conventional steel framing, without changing the load path to other structural components; OR demonstrated: Structure Within projects where at least 50% of the nominated area is framed in structural steel, and where it is requirements and integrity have b een achieved using 10% less steel (by mass) than in a structure with conventional steel framing, without changing the load path to other structural components; Ductwork The building is fully naturally ventilated; OR The requirement for ductwork has be en reduced by 95%. 1 1

PAGE 335

335 Finishes As installed final design must require no finish: 95% of all base building floor material is exposed structure with no covering (e.g. exposed sealed concrete floor); OR 95% of all base building ceiling is exposed structure (and services, where relevant) with no cladding (e.g. exposed concrete ceiling). Cladding 25% of the roof cladding area has a dual function (e.g. roof garden substrate or photovoltaic shingles serve as cladding); OR 25% of the faade cladd ing area has a dual function (e.g. photovoltaic panels serve as cladding). Piping No piping is used for urinals (i.e. all urinals are waterfree); OR No piping is used for toilets (i.e. all toilets are waterfree); OR Mass of underground piping is re duced by 25% for the same functional requirement and material. Mat 10 Not appliable to this tool

PAGE 336

336 Mat 11 Flooring To encourage and recognise the selection of flooring that has a reduced environmental impact relative to available alternatives. Up to three points are awarded where it is demonstrated that: has a reduced environmental impact as determined by the Flooring Calculator under the following assessment categories: Environmentally Innovative: flooring that has been certified for its environmental merit by a third party recognised by the Green Building Council of Australia; Re use: flooring that is i) brought from the tenant's previous premises ii) pre existing in the building from a previous tenant or iii) purchased from a second hand retailer; Eco Preferred Content: content certified for its environmental merit by a third party recognised by the Green Building Council of Australia, (score determined by percentage mass); Durability: the length of the warranty of the flooring is assessed; Environmental Management System (EMS): a required; if the system is ISO14001 certified, extra points are awarded; 3 0

PAGE 337

337 Product Stewardship: a contractual agreement to take back the flooring at the end of its service life for re use, recycling or re processing is required; Modularity: flooring that has been manufactured with standardised dimensions or design that enable the item to be arran ged, fitted or stacked together in various configurations; and Design for Disassembly: flooring that can be readily disassembled, using non specialist tools, into elemental components for re use, recycling or re processing. An item is considered to be designed for disassembly when at least 50% of the item (by mass) can be readily disassembled, however extra points are awarded where the percentage exceeds 90%. Maximum points can only be awarded if information regarding all flooring in the tenancy projec t is provided.

PAGE 338

338 Mat 12 Joinery To encourage and recognise the selection of joinery that has a reduced impact on the environment relative to available alternatives. One point is awarded where it is demonstrated that: vironmental impact as determined by the Mat 12 Joinery Calculator under the following assessment categories: Environmentally Innovative: joinery that has been certified for its environmental merit by a third party recognised by the Green Building Counc il of Australia; Re use: previous premises ii) pre existing in the building from a previous tenant or iii) purchased from a second hand retailer; Eco Preferred Content: content certified for its environm ental merit by a third party recognised by the Green Building Council of Australia, (score determined by percentage mass); Modularity: joinery that has been manufactured with standardised dimensions or design that enable the item to be arranged, fitted or stacked together in various configurations; and 1 0 Design for Disassembly : joinery that can be readily disassembled, using non specialist tools, into elemental components for re use, recycling or re processing. An item is considered to be designed for disassembly when at least 50% of the item (by mass) can be readily disassembled. Where the percentage exceeds 90%, this is more highly rewarded in the calculator.

PAGE 339

339 Mat 13 Loose Furniture To encourage and recognise the selection of loo se furniture that has a reduced environmental impact relative to available alternatives. Up to three points are awarded where it is demonstrated that: storage only) used in the project has a reduced env ironmental impact as determined by the Loose Furniture Calculator under the following assessment categories: Environmentally Innovative: loose furniture that has been certified for its environmental merit by a third party recognised by the Green Buildi ng Council of Australia; Re use: loose furniture that is i) brought from the building from a previous tenant or iii) purchased from a second hand retailer; Eco Preferred Content: content certified for its environmental merit by a third party recognised by the Green Building Council of Australia, (score determined by percentage mass); Durability: the length of the warranty of the furniture is assessed; Environmental Management System: A Manu required; if the system is ISO 14001 certified extra points are awarded; 3 0

PAGE 340

340 Product Stewardship: A contractual agreement to take back the furniture at the end of its service life for re use, re cycling or re processing is required; and Design for Disassembly: loose furniture that can be readily disassembled, using non specialist tools, into elemental components for re use, recycling or re processing. An item is considered to be designed for di sassembly when at least 50% of the item (by mass) can be readily disassembled, however, extra points are awarded where the percentage exceeds 90%. Total Points = 21 7 2 Green Star Education v1 Credit Summary for: Rinker Hall Land Use & Ecology Ref No. Title Aim of Credit Credit Criteria Summary No. of Points Available No. of Points Achieved Points to be Confirmed Comments

PAGE 341

341 Eco Conditional Requirement To encourage and recognise development o n land that has limited ecological value and to discourage development on ecologically valuable sites. The Eco Conditional Requirement is met where the project site is not: should the project site be on prime agricultural lan d then this project is not eligible for a Green Star certified rating; growth forest; should the project site be on land containing old growth forest then this project is not eligible for a Green Star certified rating; metres of a wetland listed as being of Should the project site be within 100 metres of a wetland listed as being of the project can only be deemed eligible for a Green Star certified rating if the pro ject is defined as a Wetland Protection Measures (outlined below) have been completed; wetland NOT listed as being of high ecological value. Should the project site be within 100 metres of a wetland NOT list ed as being of high ecological value, then the project can only be deemed eligible for a Green Star certified rating if the Conditional Requirement Yes

PAGE 342

342 Wetland Protection Measures (outlined below) have been completed. Wetland Protection Measures specific Wetland Management P lan has been produced, exhibited and implemented; and Emi and in Emi The GBCA reserves the right to provide the final ruling on a Conditional Require ment. Eco 1 Topsoil To encourage and recognise construction practices that conserve the ecological integrity of topsoil. One point is awarded where: construction works is separated and prote cted from degradation, erosion or mixing with fill or waste; the volume of topsoil on the site; and volume) retains its productivity. 1 0

PAGE 343

343 and is excluded from the points av ailable used to calculate the Land Use and Ecology Category Score where: the construction works; refurbishment; or inherently non productive. Eco 2 Reuse of Land To encourag e and recognise the re use of land that has previously been developed. One point is awarded as follows: refurbishment; OR the extension boundaries are within a site that has been previously built on; OR purchase, 75% of the site has been previously built on. 1 1 Eco 3 Reclaimed Contaminate d Land To encourage and recognise developments that reclaim contaminated land that otherwise would not have been developed. Two points are awarded where: at the time of purchase; and undertaken full remedial steps to decontaminate the site prior to construction. for projects that are refurbishments or buildin g extensions, and is excluded from the points available used to calculate the Land 2 0

PAGE 344

344 Use and Ecology Category Score. Eco 4 Ecological Value of Site To encourage and recognise developments that maintain or enhance the ecological value of their sites. Up to four points are awarded where: vulnerable species and for re used sites (e.g. refurbishments), such species are protected if present; is enhanced beyond its previously existing state. The points are determined by the Green Star Change in Ecology Calculator on the basis of comparison between the al value of the site. 4 1 Total Points = 8 2 0

PAGE 345

345 Green Star Education v1 Credit Summary for: Rinker Hall Emission s Ref No. Title Aim of Credit Credit Criteria Summary No. of Points Avai lable No. of Points Achieved Points to be Confirmed Comments Emi 1 Refrigerant ODP To encourage and recognise the selection of refrigerants that do not contribute to long term damage to stratospheric ozone layer. One point is awarded where: All HVAC refrigerants have an Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP) of zero; OR 1 0 Emi 2 Refrigerant GWP To encourage and recognise the selection of refrigerants that reduce the potential for increased global warming from the e mission of refrigerants to the atmosphere. Up to two points are awarded as follows: fluorocarbon refrigerant charge has been replaced with refrigerant(s) that have a Global Warming Potential (GWP100) of 10 or less; s where: All refrigerants have a GWP100 of 10 or less; OR Where no refrigerants are used at all. 2 0

PAGE 346

346 Emi 3 Refrigerant Leaks To encourage and recognise building systems design that minimises environmental damage from refrigerant leaks. Up to two points are awarded as follows: HVAC Systems containing refrigerants are contained in a moderately airtight enclosure; and A refrigerant leak detection system is installed to cover high risk parts of the plant. itional point is awarded where: The point above is achieved; and The project has installed a refrigerant recovery system that is: > equipped with an automated pump down system; and > sized to effectively and safely capture, isolate, and store 95% (by weight) of the maximum refrigerant charge. Where the project is fully naturally ventilated or is fully mechanically assisted naturally ventilated OR if all excluded from the points available used to calculate the Emissions Category Score. 2 0 Emi 4 Insulant ODP To encourage and recognise the selection of insulants that do not contribute to long term damage to the ozo ne layer. One point is awarded where all thermal insulants in the project avoid the use of ozone depleting substances in both its manufacture and composition. 1 0

PAGE 347

347 Emi 5 Watercours e Pollution To encourage and recognise developments that minimise stormw ater run off to, and the pollution of, the natural watercourses. Up to three points are awarded as follows: The development does not increase peak stormwater flows for rainfall events of up to a 1 in 2 year storm; and A ll stormwater leaving the site, at any time up to a 1 in 20 year storm event, is treated or filtered in accordance with either: > Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (CSIRO 1999) OR > Australian and New Zealand Environment Co nservation Council Stormwater Management. 2 2 The points above are achieved; and A Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ) that has three separate zones of pollution buffering is instal led within nine metres of a waterway or natural watercourse and the development. Where the project site does not contain or is not immediately adjacent to a points available used t o calculate the Emissions Category Score. 1 0

PAGE 348

348 Emi 6 Discharge to Sewer To encourage and recognise developments that minimise discharge to the municipal sewerage system. Up to three points are available as follows: the building outflows to the sewerage usage have been reduced against an average practice benchmark as follows: One point for a 20% reduction; and Two points for a 40% reduction. 2 0 arded where: At least one point above was achieved; and There is a Blackwater Treatment Maintenance Plan; and There is a maintenance contract for a minimum of five years to ensure that the blackwater treatment system operates as intended by the desi gn. Where no blackwater treatment system points available used to calculate the Emissions Category Score. 1 Emi 7 Light Pollution To encourage and recognise developments that minimise light pollution into the night sky. One point is awarded where: within the building or outside of the building boundary, is directed at any point in the sky; in cidence directed to the sky must be obstructed by a non transparent surface; the minimum requirements of AS1158 fo r illuminance levels. 1 1

PAGE 349

349 Emi 8 Legionella To encourage and recognise building systems designed to eliminate the risk of disease (Legionellosis) as far as is reasonably practicable. rejection system(s) se rving the building; OR based heat rejection system(s) meet all of the following: Do not contain water that is kept at a temperature between 20C and 50C; Do not release an aerosol spray during operation; Are designed and built to maintain constant movement of the water in the system, when in operation, to prevent stagnation; Are designed and built for routine and periodic flushing to remove bio film buildup and stagnant water from the system(s) whenever it is not in operatio n; and Are designed, located and built in accordance with AS/NZS 3666.1:2002; AND has been prepared in accordance with AS/NZS 3666.2:2002 or AS/NZS 3666.3:2000 and has been included in the O&M manual provided to the building owner. This credit is applicable to all projects registered after December 18th, 2008. All projects registered prior to this date can choose to use this new credit in its entirety or use the credit issued within the Technical Manual. 1 1 Total Points = 14 4 0

PAGE 350

350 Green Star Education v1 Credit Summary for: Rinker Hall Innovation Ref No. Title Aim of Credit Credit Criteria Summary No. of Points Available No. of Points Achieved Po ints to be Confirmed Comments Inn 1 Innovative Strategies & Technologies To encourage and recognise pioneering initiatives in sustainable design, process or advocacy. Up to two points can be awarded for an innovation initiative where: a technology or process that is considered world; or contributes to the broader market transformation towards sustainable development in Australia or in the world. Points for this credit are allo cated as follows: either of the above is true for the Australian market; and when either of the above is true for the global market. No individual initiative can achieve more than two points in this cred it. Qualifying 2 2

PAGE 351

351 initiatives may achieve additional points in other innovation credits, for the maximum of the five points available in total within the Innovation Category. Inn 2 Exceeding Green Star Benchmarks To encourage and recognise projects that achieve environmental benefits in excess of the current Green Star benchmarks. Up to two points can be awarded for an innovation initiative where there has been a substantial improvement on an existing Green Star credit, as follows: solution that results in the elimination of the specific negative environmental impact of the project targeted by an existing credit; and results in a substantial (e.g. restorative environment al impact targeted by an existing credit. No individual initiative can achieve more than two points 2

PAGE 352

352 in this credit. Qualifying initiatives may achieve additional points in other innovation credits, for the maximum of the five points available in total with in the Innovation Category. Inn 3 Exceeding Green Star Scope To encourage and recognise sustainable building initiatives that are currently outside of the scope of this Green Star rating tool but which have a substantial or significant environment al benefit. One point can be awarded where: project viably addresses a valid environmental concern outside of the current scope of this Green Star tool. No individual initiative can achieve more than one point in this credit. Qualify ing initiatives may achieve additional points in other Innovation credits, for the maximum of the five points available in total within the Innovation Category. 1 Total Points = 5 2 0

PAGE 353

353 Green Star Education v1 Credit Summary for: Rinker Hall Category Title Credit No. Points Available Points Achieved Points to be Confirmed Management Green Star Accredite d Professional Man 1 2 2 0 Commissioning Clauses Man 2 2 2 0 Building Tuning Man 3 1 0 0 Independent Commissioning Agent Man 4 1 1 0 Building Guides Man 5 2 0 0 Environmental Management Man 6 2 0 0 Waste Management Man 7 2 2 0 Learning Resources Man 10 1 1 0 Maintainability Man 11 1 0 0 TOTAL 14 8 0 Indoor Environment Quality Ventilation Rates IEQ 1 3 0 3 Air Change Effectiveness IEQ 2 2 0 2 Carbon Dioxide Monitoring a nd Control and VOC Monitoring IEQ 3 1 1 0 Daylight IEQ 4 4 1 1 Thermal Comfort IEQ 5 3 2 0 Hazardous Materials IEQ 6 1 0 0 Internal Noise Levels IEQ 7 2 0 2 Volatile Organic Compounds IEQ 8 4 4 0 Formaldehyde Minimisation IEQ 9 1 1 0 Mould Prevention IEQ 10 1 1 0 Daylight Glare Control IEQ 11 1 1 0

PAGE 354

354 High Frequency Ballasts IEQ 12 1 0 1 Electric Lighting Levels IEQ 13 1 0 1 External Views IEQ 14 1 1 0 TOTAL 26 12 10 Energy Conditional Requirement Ene Conditional Requirement Yes / Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ene 1 20 5 0 Energy Sub metering Ene 2 1 0 0 Peak Energy Demand Reduction Ene 3 2 0 0 Lighting Zoning Ene 4 1 0 0 Unoccupied Areas Ene 7 2 0 0 Stairs Ene 8 1 0 0 Efficient External Lighting Ene 9 1 0 0 Shared Energy Systems Ene 10 1 0 0 TOTAL 29 5 0 Transport Provision of Car Parking Tra 1 2 0 2 Fuel Efficient Transport Tra 2 1 0 0 Cyclist Facilities Tra 3 4 2 0 Commuting Mass Transport Tra 4 5 4 0 Transport Design and Planning Tra 6 1 0 0 TOTAL 13 6 2 Water Occupant Amenity Water Wat 1 5 4 0 Water Meters Wat 2 1 0 0 L andscape Irrigation Wat 3 3 3 0 Heat Rejection Water Wat 4 4 4 0 Fire System Water Wat 5 1 0 0 Potable Water Use in Laboratories Wat 6 2 0 2 TOTAL 16 11 2

PAGE 355

355 Materials Recycling Waste Storage Mat 1 2 1 0 Building Reuse Mat 2 0 na 0 Recycled Content & Re used Products and Materials Mat 3 1 1 0 Concrete Mat 4 3 0 1 Steel Mat 5 2 2 0 PVC Minimisation Mat 6 2 0 0 Sustainable Timber Mat 7 2 2 0 Design for Disassembly Mat 8 1 1 0 Dematerialisation Mat 9 1 0 1 Flooring Mat 11 3 0 0 Joinery Mat 12 1 0 0 Loose Furniture Mat 13 3 0 0 TOTAL 21 7 2 Land Use & Ecology Conditional Requirement Eco Conditional Requirement Yes 0 / Topsoil Eco 1 1 0 0 Reuse of Land Eco 2 1 1 0 Reclaimed Contaminated Land Eco 3 2 0 0 Ecological Value of Site Eco 4 4 1 0 TOTAL 8 2 0 Emissions Refrigerant ODP Emi 1 1 0 0 Refrigerant GWP E mi 2 2 0 0 Refrigerant Leaks Emi 3 2 0 0 Insulant ODP Emi 4 1 0 0 Watercourse Pollution Emi 5 3 2 0 Discharge to Sewer Emi 6 3 0 0 Light Pollution Emi 7 1 1 0 Legionella Emi 8 1 1 0 TOTAL 14 4 0

PAGE 356

356 Sub total weighted points: 40 12 Innovation Innovative Strategies & Technologies Inn 1 5 points in total for Inn 1,2&3 2 0 Exceeding Green Star Benchmarks Inn 2 0 0 Exceeding Green Star Scope Inn 3 0 0 TO TAL 5 2 0 Total weighted points: 42 12 Minimal standards for Green Star acreditation not met. The GBCA does not endorse any self assessed rating achieved by the use of Green Star Educa tion v1. The GBCA offers a formal certification process for ratings of Four Stars and above; this service provides for independent third party review of points claimed to ensure all points can be demonstrated to be achieved by the provision of the necessar y documentary evidence. The use of Green Star Education v1 without formal certification by the GBCA does not entitle the user or any other party to promote the Green Star rating achieved.

PAGE 357

357 APPENDIX F GREEN GLOBES RATING SYSTEM SCOREC ARD CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS NEW OR FULLY RENOVATED BUILDINGS Rinker Gerson FINAL RATING SUMMARY OF POINTS Answer Rule Points A Project Management Policies and Practices 50 50 5 A.1 Integrate d design process 20 A 1.1 Was an integrated design process used for the design development? (Yes / Partially / No) Yes 10 10 Partially 5 A 1.2 Was a team approach used during the design process? Y/N 5 5 A 1.3 Was the green design facilitation process used to support green design integration? Y/N 5 5 A.2 Environmental purchasing 10 A 2.1 Have aspects of green product specifications been incorporated? Y/N 1 1 Give examples of specified products reflecting green specifications: If Y and entered 2 2 A 2.2 Was environmental purchasing integrated, including the procurement of energy saving, high efficiency equipment? Y/N 7 7 A.3 Commissioning plan documentation 15 A 3.1 Have the following best practice, commissioning procedures b een implemented? A Commissioning Authority has been engaged. Y/N 3 3 reviewed. Y/N 3 3 Commissioning requirements are included in the Construction Documentation. Y/N 3 3 A Commissi oning Plan has been developed. Y/N 6 6 A.4 Emergency response plan 5 A 4.1 Does Division 1 include the project's environmental goals and procedures with regard to emergency response? Y/N 5 5 5 B Site 115 90 39 B.1 Development area 30 B 1.1 Does the site plan indicate that the building is constructed on: (Select appropriate) an existing serviced site? Selected 20 20 20

PAGE 358

358 a remediated, previously contaminated site? Selected 20 land with an existing minimum development density of 60,0 00 ft/acre (i.e. two storey inner city development)? Selected 20 a new greenfield site? Selected 0 B 1.2 Does the site plan show that the building is constructed on land that is neither a floodplain, nor a wetland, nor a wildlife corridor? Y/N 5 5 5 B 1.3 Does the design accommodate the building's functions, while minimizing disturbance to the site's topography, soils and vegetation? Y/N 5 5 B.2 Minimization of ecological impact 30 B 2.1 Are erosion control measures in place in accordance w ith best management practices (including during construction)? Y/N 9 9 9 B 2.2 Will at least 35% of impervious surfaces be shaded preferably with trees, shrubs or vines? Y/N 7 7 B 2.3 Do the construction documents specify measures to reduce heat build up on the roof, either by using high albedo roofing materials (reflectance of at least 0.65 and emissivity of at least 0.9) for a minimum of 75% of the roof surface, or by constructing a green roof, or by a combination of both high albedo materials and gr een roof? Yes using high albedo materials Selected, max 7 7 Yes by means of a green roof Selected, never in max 7 Yes by a combination of high albedo materials and green roof Selected, never in max 7 No Selected, never in max 0 B 2.5 Will the obtrusive aspects of exterior lighting such as glare; light trespass and sky glow be minimized and will the building design reduce collisions of birds with building? Y/N/NA out 7 7 B.3 Enhancement of watershed features 15 B 3.1 Will st orm water run off be controlled to prevent damage to project elements and vegetation, and to minimize run off into waterways such that: Select applicable for site conditions: There is no storm water management. Selected, never in max 0 Stor m water is directed to pervious areas. Selected, never in max 5 5 In the case of a site which was previously 100% pervious (green site), there will be no increase in run off. Selected, never in max 10

PAGE 359

359 In the case of a site whose pre development impe rvious area is greater than 50% (site previously built on), a storm water control plan will achieve a 25% decrease in storm water run off. Selected, max 10 10 Select applicable for roof conditions: There are no specific measures to reduce, control or direct run off from the roof. Selected, never in max 0 Run off from the roof will be controlled and directed to a pervious area. Selected, never in max 5 There will be a green roof. Selected, max 5 B.3.2 State the pre development ratio of p ervious to impervious area: Not scored B.3.3 State the post development ratio of pervious to impervious area: Not scored B.4 Enhancement of site ecology 40 B 4.1 Is the development occurring on a brownfield site that is being remediated? Y/N 20 B 4.2 Does the landscape plan create/preserve natural core and corridors and/or specify a naturalized landscape using native trees, shrubs and ground cover, with minimal lawn? Y/N/NA out 20 20 C Energy 365 222 89 C.1 Building energy performance 100 C 1.1 Have the energy performance targets been achieved? Not scored C.1.2 Input the value of the projected annual energy use in kBtu. Based on %age from C.1.3 if entered, else based on energy use per area per year from C.1.2 if entered. C .1.3 Input the value of the projected energy savings as a percentage compared to the reference base building. (Performance better than that of a building that meets the 75% target as defined by the EPA Energy Star Target Finder ) 5% or more 10 10% or more 20 15% or more 30 20% or more 40 25% or more 50 50 30% or more 60 35% or more 70 40% or more 80 45% or more 90 50% or more 100 don't know 0 C.1.4 Input the value of carbon dioxide ( CO2) emissions savings. Not scored C.2 Energy demand minimization 99

PAGE 360

360 Space Optimization 10 C 2.1 Has the floor area been optimized to efficiently fulfill the building's functional and spatial requirements, including circulation and service s, while minimizing the amount of space that will need to be heated or cooled? Y/N/NA out 2 Describe how the space is being optimized: If Y and entered / NA out 6 C 2.2 Will the construction process be phased? Y/N/NA out 2 Response to microclim ate and topography 24 C 2.3 Is the building sited and oriented to optimize the effect of microclimatic conditions for heating or cooling? Y/N 2 2 Describe how the building is sited and oriented to optimize effects of microclimatic conditions: If Y and entered 6 6 C 2.4 Are site topography and design measures including location and orientation optimized to provide shelter from wind and snow deposition? Y/N 8 C 2.5 Does the building design maximize opportunities for natural or hybrid ventil ation? Y/N 2 Describe how the building design maximizes opportunities for natural or hybrid ventilation: If Y and entered 6 Integration of daylighting 35 C 2.6 Is daylighting maximized through building orientation, window to wall size ratios ? Y/N 5 5 Briefly describe the fenestration strategy: If Y and entered 10 10 C 2.7 Is window glazing which optimizes daylight (high visible transmittance (VT)) specified? Y/N 2 2 Indicate the VT value: If Y and entered 8 8 C 2.8 Is electrical l ighting integrated with daylighting, taking into account daily and seasonal variations? Y/N 10 10 Building envelope 30 C 2.9 Does the thermal resistance of the exterior enclosure meet Federal or State Energy Building Codes? Y/N 2 2 2 Indicate t he R value for walls: If Y and entered 4 4 Indicate the R value for the roof: If Y and entered 4 4 C 2.10 Do the construction documents indicate window glazing with a low U factor and window treatments that enhance interior thermal comfort? Y/N 2 2 Indicate the window U value: If Y and entered 8 8

PAGE 361

361 C 2.11 Do the construction documents specify measures to prevent groundwater and/or rain penetration into the building? Y/N 5 C 2.12 Is the integrity of the building envelope optimized, using the fol lowing best air/vapor barrier practices? air barrier materials meet the requirements of local and national building codes Y/N 2 2 2 drawings provide air barrier detailing between components of the building envelope and around penetrations Y/N 1 1 1 mock ups and mock up testing is required for air and vapor barrier systems Y/N 1 field review and testing is required for air and vapor barrier systems Y/N 1 C 2.13 Will the building design and construction Y/N/NA out Energy metering 0 C 2.14 Will major energy uses be sub metered? Y/N/NA out 0 List the major energy uses that will be sub metered: If Y and entered / NA out 0 C.3 Energy efficient systems 66 C 3.1 Is the building's energy efficienc y increased through the use of the following energy efficient equipment? Energy efficient lighting fixtures, lamps and ballasts Y/N 6 6 6 Lighting controls Y/N 6 6 Energy efficient HVAC equipment Y/N 6 6 6 High efficiency (modulating or conden sing) boilers Y/N 8 High efficiency chillers Y/N 6 Energy efficient hot water service systems Y/N 6 6 6 Building automation systems Y/N 6 6 Variable speed drives Y/N 6 6 6 Energy efficient motors Y/N 6 6 6 Energy efficient elevators Y/N 4 4 4 Others Y/N 6 Describe: If Y and entered 0 B.4 Renewable sources of energy 20 B 4.1 Do the construction documents indicate the integration of renewable energy sources? Renewable energy will supply more than 10% of the total load Selected, max 20 Renewable energy will supply more than 5% and less than 10% of the total load Selected, never in max 10

PAGE 362

362 No renewable energy Selected, never in max 0 C.5 Energy efficient transportation 80 Public transport 60 C 5 .1 Will public transport be easily accessible within 500 yards of the building, and with service at least every 15 minutes during rush hour? Y/N 50 50 50 C 5.2 Will there be designated preferred parking for car/van pooling and shelter from weather for p ersons waiting for a lift? Y/N 6 Will there be alternative fuel re fueling facilities on site or in the general vicinity? Y/N/NA out 4 Cycling facilities 20 C 5.3 Will there be safe, covered storage areas with fixed mountings to secure bicycl es against theft? Y/N 10 C 5.4 Will there be changing facilities for building tenants and staff? Y/N/NA out 10 10 D Water 71 62 22 D.1 Water performance 30 D 1.1 Do water consumption estimations meet an established target of: Based on level Offices MURBs Schools, Universities: < 35 gallons/ft/year < 66,000 gallons/apt/year < 720 gallons/student/year 18 < 20 gallons/ft/year < 33,000 gallons/apt/year < 900 gallons/student/year 24 < 10 gallons/ft/year < 11,000 gallons/apt/year < 1150 gallons/student/year 30 30 No target has been set 0 D.2 Water conserving features 31 Minimal consumption of potable water 16 D 2.1 Is there water sub metering for high w ater usage operations or occupancies? Y/N/NA out 0 Which operations will be sub metered? If Y and entered / NA out 0 D 2.2 Does the design include the following water efficient equipment? Low flush toilets (less than 1.6 gallons/flush) Y/N 4 4 4 Water saving fixtures on faucets (2.0 gallons/min) and showerheads (2.4 gallons/min.) Y/N 4 4 4 Water saving devices or proximity detectors on urinals Y/N/NA out 4 4 4 Other water saving appliances (For example low flow kitchen faucets, low water consumption domestic and commercial dishwashers (8 gallons) and water efficient Y/N/NA out 4

PAGE 363

363 (H axis)washing machines). Briefly describe other water saving measures: Not scored Minimal use of water for cooling towers 0 D 2.3 Wher e wet cooling towers are used, do they have features to minimize the consumption of make up water? Y/N/NA out 0 Minimal use of water for irrigation 15 D 2.4 Is a water efficient irrigation system specified? Y/N/NA out 5 5 D 2.5 Will the landsc aping use plants that are able to withstand extreme local weather conditions and that require minimal irrigation? Y/N/NA out 5 5 5 D 2.6 Will non potable water (i.e. captured rainwater or recycled site water) be used for irrigation? Yes, 100% of th e irrigation will consist of non potable water Selected, max, NA out 5 5 5 Yes, irrigation consist of non potable water, supplemented with potable water as needed Selected, never in max 3 No N/A D.3 Minimization of off site treatment of w ater 10 D 3.1 Is a graywater collection, storage and distribution system specified? Y/N/NA out 5 5 Is an on site wastewater treatment system specified? Y/N/NA out 3 Briefly describe the on site wastewater treatment: If Y and entered / NA out 2 E Resources Systems and materials selection 100 40 0 E.1 Systems and materials with low environmental impact 35 E 1.1 Did the selection and specification process for the following assemblies and materials include a life cycle assessment of t heir environmental burden and embodied energy? Foundation and floor assembly materials Y/N 10 Structural systems (column and beam or post and beam combinations) and walls Y/N 10 Roof assemblies Y/N 10 Other envelope assembly materials (cl adding, windows etc.) Y/N 5 Specify: If Y and entered 0

PAGE 364

364 E.2 Materials that minimize consumption of resources 16 E 2.1 Will used building materials and components be integrated in construction? Y/N 2 2 Describe the types and quantities of used materials that will be integrated: If Y and entered 2 2 E 2.2 Will building materials with recycled content be used in construction? Y/N 2 2 Describe the types and quantities of recycled materials that will be integrated: If Y and entered 2 2 E 2.3 Are materials from renewable sources and/or locally manufactured materials specified and have these undergone a life cycle assessment? Y/N 2 2 Describe the materials that will come from renewable or locally manufactured sources: If Y and entered 2 2 E 2.4 Do the construction documents specify that tropical hardwoods will not be used and that solid lumber and timber panel products will originate from certified and sustainable sources (i.e. Sustainable Forestry Initiative, CSA, Forestry Stewardsh ip Council, American Tree Farm System)? Y/N 4 4 E.3 Reuse of existing buildings 20 E 3.1 Do the construction documents indicate that the design includes existing faades in fully renovated buildings? Less than 50% Selected, never in max 0 At least 50% Selected, never in max 5 At least 75% Selected, never in max 8 100% of existing faades in fully renovated buildings Selected, max 13 E 3.2 Are 50% of the existing major structures (other than the shell) being reused? Y/N/NA out 7 E.4 Building durability, adaptability and disassembly 14 E 4.1 Are durable and low maintenance building materials and assemblies specified? Y/N 2 2 Describe the materials and assemblies that have been specified for their durability and low maint enance: If Y and entered 2 2 E 4.2 Do the construction documents indicate that the design promotes building adaptability? Y/N 2 Describe the main features that promote building adaptability: If Y and entered 3

PAGE 365

365 E 4.3 Does the design indicate that m aterials and fastening systems will allow for easy disassembly? Y/N 2 2 Describe the features that allow disassembly: If Y and entered 3 3 E.6 Reuse and recycling of construction/demolition waste 5 E 6.1 Is there a construction, demolition and r enovation waste management plan? Y/N 5 5 E.7 Facilities for recycling and composting 10 E 7.1 Do the construction documents indicate that adequate waste handling and storage facilities for recycling and composting are provided? Y/N 5 5 Indicate how much storage area will be provided for storing recyclable waste: If Y and entered 5 5 F Emissions, Effluents and Other Impacts 50 40 40 F.1 Minimization of air emissions 0 F 1.1 Are low NOx boilers and furnaces specified? Y/N/NA out 0 Hea t Input: If Y and entered / NA out 0 Emissions: If Y and entered / NA out 0 F.2 Minimization of ozone depletion 25 F 2.1 Are refrigeration systems specified that avoid the use of ozone depleting substances (ODS) and potent industrial greenhouse gases (PIGGs) in the cooling systems? Yes Selected, never in max 20 No Selected, never in max 0 There are no refrigerants Selected, max 20 20 20 Retro fit Selected, never in max 0 Indicate which refrigerant is specified: Not score d F 2.2 In the case of a new building or a retro fit, where CFC (chlorofluorocarbon), HFC (hydrocfluorocarbon) or HCFC (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) refrigerants are specified, what will be their ozone depleting potential (ODP)? Only scored if F.2.1 is ans wered No or Retro fit Higher than 0.05 Selected, never in max 0 Less than 0.05 Selected, 10

PAGE 366

366 never in max Equal to 0 Selected, never in max 15 15 15 F 2.3 Do the construction documents indicate that the building's air conditioning system compl ies with the requirements of ASHRAE 15 1994? Y/N/NA out 5 5 5 F.3 Avoiding contamination of sewers or waterways 5 F 3.1 Are there measures to intercept and/or treat contaminated water to prevent contaminants from entering sewers or waterways? Y/N/NA out 3 Briefly describe measures: If Y and entered / NA out 2 F.4 Pollution minimization 20 Compliant storage tanks 0 F 4.1 Do the construction documents indicate that soil and surface water contamination will be prevented, in compliance with the federal and state regulations? Y/N/NA out 0 Control other pollutants (PCBs, asbestos, radon) 0 F 4.2 In the case of a retro fit, do all PCBs present in the building meet applicable regulatory requirements? Y/N/NA out 0 4.2.2 In the case of a retrofit, do the construction documents require that the removal or abatement of asbestos and asbestos containing materials meet all applicable state and local regulations? Y/N/NA out 0 F 4.3 Do the design and construction documents include m easures appropriate to the region to prevent the accumulation of harmful chemicals and gases such as radon and methane in spaces below the substructure, and their penetration into the building? Y/N/NA out 0 Integrated pest management 10 F 4.4 Do the construction documents specify components, materials and the protection of structural openings to avoid infestation by pests? Y/N 10 Storage and control of hazardous materials 10 F 4.5 Do the construction documents include secure, appropria tely ventilated storage areas for hazardous and flammable materials? Y/N 10 G Indoor Environment 180 63 18 G.1 Effective ventilation system 50 G 1.1 Will the ventilation system be designed with the following features to avoid entraining pollutan ts into the ventilation air path?

PAGE 367

367 To avoid re entrainment, air intakes and outlets will be positioned at least 30 ft apart, and inlets will not be downwind of outlets. Y/N 3 3 3 Air intakes will be located more than 60 ft from major sources of poll ution and at least the minimum recommended distances from lesser sources of pollution. Y/N 3 3 3 Air intake openings will be suitably protected. Y/N 2 2 2 Ventilation lining that will avoid the release of pollution and fibers into the ventilation air p ath. Y/N 2 G 1.2 Will sufficient ventilation be provided to obtain acceptable IAQ, in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1 2004? Yes, using the Ventilation Rate Procedure Selected, max 6 Yes, using the Indoor Air Quality Procedure Selected, never in max 6 No Selected, never in max 0 Indicate ventilation rate: If Yes and entered 4 G 1.3 Is there evidence that the mechanical systems will provide effective air exchange? Y/N 5 Describe how ventilation effectiveness will be achieved: If Y and entered 5 Will there be indoor air quality monitoring? Yes, using CO2 monitoring Selected, max, NA out 5 5 Yes, using digital electronic airflow monitoring Selected, never in max 5 No Selected, never in max 0 N/A Selected, ne ver in max 0 G 1.4 Will the mechanical ventilation system have the capability of flushing out the building with 100% outside air at ambient temperatures above 32F? Y/N 5 5 G 1.5 Will enclosed parking areas be mechanically ventilated? Y/N/NA out 0 G 1.6 Do the construction documents specify personal controls over the ventilation rates, or, in naturally ventilated buildings, operable windows or trickle vents on windows? Y/N 3 3 Describe personal controls: If Y and 2 2

PAGE 368

368 entered G 1.7 Do the constr uction documents specify a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of at least 13 (80 90% Dust Spot Efficiency) for air distributed to occupied spaces? Y/N 5 5 G.2 Source control of indoor pollutants 35 G 2.1 Are measures specified to prevent the growth of fungus, mold, and bacteria on building surfaces and in concealed spaces? Y/N 5 Describe measures to prevent mold: If Y and entered 5 G 2.2 Are measures specified to ensure easy access to the air handling units (AHUs), facilitating their dr ainage and preventing the accumulation of debris? Y/N/NA out 5 G 2.3 Do the construction documents specify the use of humidifiers that are designed to avoid the growth of microorganisms? Y/N/NA out Describe humidification system: If Y and entered / NA out G 2.4 Do the construction documents specify CO monitoring in parking garages? Y/N/NA out G 2.5 Do the construction documents indicate measures to mitigate indoor pollution at source? Y/N 2 2 Describe measures to mitigate indoor pollution at source: If Y and entered 3 3 G 2.6 Do the construction documents indicate that wet cooling towers are designed and located in such as way as to avoid the risk of Legionella? Y/N/NA out G 2.7 Do the construction documents demonstrate that the dome stic hot water system is designed to prevent the occurence of Legionella? Y/N 5 G 2.8 Do the construction documents specify interior materials that are low VOC emitting, non toxic, and chemically inert? Y/N 5 5 Describe some of the specified material s with these qualities: If Y and entered 5 5 G.3 Lighting 45 Daylighting 20 G 3.1 Do the construction documents show that the building provides ambient daylight to 80% of the primary spaces? Y/N 5 G 3.2 Will the building achieve a minimum daylight factor of 0.2 for a partially lit work place or living/dining area, or 0.5 for a well day lit work area? Y/N 2 Indicate daylight factor: If Y and entered 3 G 3.3 Are there views to the building exterior, or to atria from all primary interi or spaces? Y/N 5 5

PAGE 369

369 G 3.4 Do the construction documents specify solar shading devices to enable occupants to control brightness from direct daylighting? Y/N 5 Lighting Design 25 G 3.5 Do the construction documents show that the building provide s light levels no less than those recommended in IESNA Lighting Handbook, 2000, for the types of tasks that are anticipated in the various building spaces (regardless of the amount of natural light)? Y/N 10 G 3.6 Do the construction documents show that there are measures to avoid excessive direct or reflected glare, as per IESNA RP 5, 1999, Recommended Practice of Daylighting? Y/N 5 5 G 3.7 Are local lighting controls specified that relate to room occupancy, circulation space, daylighting and the numbe r of workstations in office areas? Y/N/NA out 10 G.4 Thermal comfort 20 G 4.1 Does the building design conform to the ASHRAE 55 2004 for thermal comfort? Y/N 20 G.5 Acoustic comfort 30 G 5.1 Is the building sited, and are spaces with in the building zoned so as to provide optimum protection from undesirable outside noise, and fall within acceptable noise criteria (NC) ranges? Y/N 5 G 5.2 Do the construction documents specify the sound level transmission through the building envelope ? Y/N 2 Indicate the sound transmission class (STC) rating of the walls: If Y and entered 3 G 5.3 Do the construction documents include noise attenuation of the structural systems, and measures to insulate primary spaces from impact noise? Y/N 2 Indicate the Field Input Insulation Class (FIIC) value: If Y and entered 3 G 5.4 Does the design provide acoustic controls to meet the acoustic privacy requirements? Y/N 2 Describe how is acoustic control provided: If Y and entered 3 G 5.5 Does the interior design meet speech intelligibility requirements for the various spaces and activities? Y/N/NA out 5 5 5 G 5.6 Does the design include measures to mitigate acoustic problems associated with mechanical equipment and plumbing systems? Y/N 5 5 5 TOTAL 931 567 213 Percentage 0.609 0.2288

PAGE 370

370 APPENDIX G D EUTSCHE G ESELLSCHAFT FUR N ACHHALTIGES B AUEN R ATING SYSTEM SCORECA RD

PAGE 371

371

PAGE 372

372

PAGE 373

373 APPENDIX H L IFE C YCLE A SSESSMENT FOR B UILDING R ATING S YSTEM MODEL ELEMENTS The following graphics depict the modules from the LCABRS program that were developed in conjunction with this research:

PAGE 374

374

PAGE 375

375

PAGE 376

376

PAGE 377

377

PAGE 378

378

PAGE 379

379

PAGE 380

380

PAGE 381

381 LIST OF REFERENCES Adalberth, K. 1997, "Energy use during the li fe cycle of buildings: a method ", Buil ding and Environment, v ol. 32, no. 4, 7, pp. 317 320. Alcorn, A. & Wood, P. 1998, New Zealand Building Materials Embodied Energy Coefficients Database Center for Building Perforrmance Research, Victoria University of Wellington. ASHRAE 2007, "Workshop o n Forecasting Car bon Emissions from Buildings", April 8, 2007. Athena Institute 2011 EcoCalculator Overview Available: http://www.athenasmi.org/tools/ecoCalculator/ Athena Insti tute 2006, Athena EcoCalculator for Assemblies Athena Institute International, Kutstown, PA. Ball, J. 2002, "Can ISO 14000 and Eco labeling turn the construction industry green?", Building and Environment, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 421 428. Bare, J. 2002, Dev eloping a Consistent Decision Making Framework by Using the U.S. EPA's TRACI Systems Analysis Branch, Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk Manag e ment Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. Bare, J., Norris, G ., Pennington, D. & McKone, T. 2003, "TRACI the Tool for the R e duction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts", Journal of Facilities Management, vol. 6, no. 3 4, pp. 49 78. Bordass, W., Cohen, R. & Field, J. 2004, "Energy Performance of Non Domestic Buildings: Closing the Credibility Gap", Borg, M., Paulsen, J. & Trinius, W. 2001, "Proposal of a method for allocation in building related environmental LCA based on economic parameters", International Journal of LCA, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 2 19 230. BRE Global Ltd. 2008, BREEAM BRE Environmental & Sustainability Standard Education 2008 Assessor Manual BRE Global. BRE Trust 2011, BRE Available: http://www.bre.co.uk/ Brown, M.T. & Buranakar n, V. 2003, "Emergy indices and ratios for sustainable material cycles and recycle options", Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1 22.

PAGE 382

382 Buchanan, A. 2008, "Energy and CO2 advantages of Wood for Sustainable Buildings", New Zealand Tim ber Design Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 11. Bunz, K.R., Henze, G.P. & Tiller, D.K. 2006, "Survey of Sustainable Building Design Practices in North America, Europe, and Asia", Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 33 62. Campbell, C. & Laherrere, J. 1998, "The end of cheap oil", Scientific American, no. 278, pp. 78 83. Carson, J. 1989, Weights of Building Materials, Agricultural Commodities, and Floor Loads for Buildings International Code Council. Chen, T., Burnett, J. & Chau, C. 2001, "Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong", Energy, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 323 340. Cole, R. 1999, "Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of alternative structural systems", Building and En vironment, vol. 34, pp. 335 348. Cole, R. & Kernan, P. 1996, "Life cycle energy use in office buildings", Building and Environment, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 307 317. Cole, R. & Sterner, E. 2000, "Reconciling theory and practice of life cycle costing", Buildin g Research & Information, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 368 375. Cole, R.J. 1999, "Building environmental assessment methods: clarifying intentions", Building Research & Information, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 230 246. Dagostino, F.R. & Peterson, S.J. 2011, Estimating in building construction, 7th edition Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. Department of the Environment and Heritage 2001, Greening the Building Life Cycle, Life cycle assessment tools in building and construction DGNB 2011, DGNB Deutsche Gesellschaf t fuer Nachhaltiges Bauen e.V. Available: http:// www.dgnb.de/ Dimoudi, A. & Tompa, C. 2008, "Energy and Environmental Indicators related to construction of office buildings resources", Construction and Rec ycling, vol. 53, no. 1 2, pp. 1051 1063. Dreyer, L., Niemann, A. & Hauschild, M. 2003, "Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco indicator 99, Does it matter which one you choose?", International Journal of LCA, vol. 8, no. 4.

PAGE 383

383 Dryden, J. 2006, A decision model to optimize the hydrologic cycle of high performance buildings in florida Doctor of philosophy in building construction edn, University of Florida. East, A. 2008, What is carbon footprint Horticulture Australia Limited. EPA 2008, Lifecycle construction resource guide Pollution Prevention Program Office, EPA. EPA 2005, Average carbon dioxide emissions resulting from gasoline and diesel fuels Erlandsson, M. & Borg, M. 2003, "Generic LCA Methodology applicable for bu ildings, construction and operations services today practice and development needs", Building and Environment, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 919 938. Erlandsson, M. & Levin, P. 2005, "Environmental assessment of rebuilding and possible performance improvements ef fect on a national scale", Building and Environment, v ol. 40, no. 11, pp. 1453 1465. Fava, J. 1994, A technical framework for life cycle assessment, SETAC foundation. Fay, R., Treloar, G. & Iyer Raniga, U. 2000, "Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case study", Building Research & Information, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 31 41. Gagnon, L., Blanger, C. & Uchiyama, Y. 2002, "Life cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status of research in year 2001", Energy Policy, vol. 30, no. 14, pp. 12 67 1278. GBCA 2011, Welcome to Green Building council of Australia [Homepage of Green Building Council of Australia], Available: http://www.gbca.org.au/ GBCA 2009, Green Star Education v1 Standard Prac tice Benchmark summary Green Building Council of Australia. GBI 2011 Green Building Initiative home Available: http://www.thegbi.org/ GBI 2010, Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Build ings Gifford, H. 2009, "A Better Way to Rate Green Buildings", Northeast Sun, Spring, pp. 19 26. Gugele, B., Strobel, B., Jol, A., European Environment Agency & European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change 2002, Greenhouse gas emission t rends and pro jections in Europe : are the EU and the candidate countries on track to achieve the Kyoto Protocol targets? Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

PAGE 384

384 Guy, B. & Gibeau, E. 2003, Deconstruction Institute a guide to deconstruct ion Deconstruction Institute. Hall, G.M.J. 2001, "M itigating an organization future net carbon emissions by native forest restoration ", Ecological Applications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1622 1633. Hoff, J. 2003, Life Cycle Assessment and the LEED Green Build ing Rating System Hostetler, M. & Escobedo, F. 2010, What types of urban greenspace are better for carbon dioxide sequestration? Wildlife and Conservation Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Services, Un iversity of Florida. Howard, N. 2005, "Building Environmental Assessment Methods: In Practice", The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference 27 29 September 2005. Institute for Building environment and energy conservation 2008, CASBEE for New Construc tion Japan Greenbuild Council/ Japan Sustainable Building Consortium. International Organization for Standardization 2006a, Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Freamework International Organization for Standardization 2006 b, Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Requirements and Guidelines International Organization for Standardization 2000, Environmental Management System Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Interpretation International Organization for St andardization 1997, Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Impact Assessment JSBC 2006, CASBEE Comprehensive Assessment system for Buildt Environment Efficiency [Homepage of Japan Sustainable build ing Consortium (JSBC)], Available: http://www.ibec.or.jo/CASBEE/ Kaltschmitt, M., Reinhardt, G.A. & Stelzer, T. 1997, "Life cycle analysis of biofuels under different environmental aspects", Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 121 134. Kawazu, Y., Shimada, N., Yokoo, N. & Oka, T. 2005, "Comparison of the Assessment Results of BREEA M, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE", pp. 1700. Kelso, J. (ed) 2011, Buildings Energy Data book U.S. Department of Energy, Silver Spring, MD.

PAGE 385

385 Kenny, T & Gray, N. 2008, "Comparative performance of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland", Environmental impact assession review, vol. 29, pp. 1 6. Kibert, C., Olbina, S., Oppenheim, P., Ries, R. & Walters, R. 2010, Life Cycle Guidelines for Material s and Building Systems for Florida's Public Education Facilities Florida Department of Education. Kibert, C.J. 1999, Reshaping the built environment : ecology, ethics, and economics, Island Press, Washington, D.C. Kotaji, S., Schuurmans, A., Edwards, S. & SETAC Europe 2003, Life cycle assessme nt in building and construction : a state of the art report, 2003, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL. Lippiatt, B. 2007, BEES 4.0 Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability technical manual and user guide National Institute of Standards and Technology. Lollini, Barozzi, Fasano, Meroni & Zinzi 2006, "Optimisation of opaque components of the building envelope", Energy, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1001 1013. Luetzkendorf, T. & Loren z, D. 2006, "Using an integrated performance approach in building assessment tools", Building research & information, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 334 356. Management com puter controls, I. 2010 Estimator's Reference Available: http://www.mc2 ice.com Mirza, S. 2006, "Durability and sustainability of infrastructure a state of the art report", Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 639 649. Newell, R. & Stavins, R. 1999, Climate Change and F orest Sinks: Factors Affecting the Costs of Carbon Sequestration Resources for the future. NREL 2011, NREL PV Watts calculator [Homepage of U.S. Department of Energy], Available: http://www.nr el.gov/rredc/pvwatts/ Osman, A., Norman, B. & Ries, R. 2008, "Life Cycle Optimization of building energy systems", Engineering Optimization, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 157 1 78. Pandey, D., Agrawal, M. & Pandey, J. 2010, "Carbon footprint: current methods of e stimation", Environ Monit Assess. Papadopoulou, M., Karatzas, G., Bougioukou,G.Primary Title: Numerical modelling of the environmental impact of landfill leachate l Environmental Modeling & Assessment Cover Date: 2007 02 01

PAGE 386

386 Petersen, A.K. & Solberg, B. 2002, "Greenhouse gas emissions, life cycle inventory and cost efficiency of using laminated woo d instead of steel construction : Case: beams at Gardermoen airport", Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 169 182. POST 2006, Carbon footprint of electricity generation Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, London, UK. Preacher, K.J. 2001, Calculation for the chi square test: an interactive calculation tool for chi square tests of goodness of fit and indep endence. Available: http://quantpsy.org Price Thomas, P. 2011, The Natural Step Available: http://www.naturalstep.org Quantis, Earth Advantage, and Oregon home builders association 2009, A Life Cycle Assessment Based Approach to Prioritizing Methods of Preventing Waste from Residential Building Construction, Remodeling, and Demolition in the State of Oregon State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Reddy, B. & Jagadish, K. 2003, "Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies", Energy and Buildings, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 129 137. Rees, W. & Wackernagel, M. 1996, "Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability", Environmental impact assession rev iew, pp. 224. Rice, G., Clift, R. & Burns, R. 1997, "LCA Software Review, Comparison of Currently Available European Software", International Journal of LCA, vol 2, no. 1, pp. 53 59. Salazar, J. & Sowlati, T. 2008, "A review of Live Cycle Assessment of Windows", Forest Products, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 91 96. Sartori, I. & Hestnes, A. 2007, "Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low energy buildings: a review article", Energy and Buildings, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 249 2 57. Scheuer, C. & Keoleian, G.A. 2002, Evaluation of LEED using Life Cycle Assessment Methods National Institute of Standards and Technology. Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G.A. & Reppe, P. 2003, "Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications", Energy and Buildings, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1049 1064. Schultman, F. & Sunke, N. 2007, "Sustainable manageme nt of construction proj ects", 14 17 May 2007.

PAGE 387

387 Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 2006, Life Cycle assessment: Principles and Practice national Risk Management Research Laboratory. Shah, V., Debella, D. & Ries, R. 2008, "Life Cycle assessment of residenti al heating and cooling systems in four regions in the United States", Energy and buildings, vol. 40, pp. 503 513. Shipworth, D. 2002, "A stochastic framework for embodied greenhouse gas emissions modelling of construction materials", Building Research & I nformation, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 16 24. Siemon, C. 2009, A comparison of the energy efficiency of LEED to Non LEED buildings and to their energy models University of Florida. Sims, S. 2011, Sustainable Tracking Assessment & Rating System AASHE. Stein, R., Stein, C., Buckley, M. & Green, M. 1981, Handbook of energy use for building construction, U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy, Office of Buildings and Community Systems. Sustainable buildings and clima te initiative 2006, Common Carbon Metrics United Nations Environmental Program. Suzuki, M. & Oka, T. 1998, "Estimation of life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of office buildings in Japan", Energy and Buildings, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 33 41. Terr aChoice Environmental Marketing, I. 2007, The "Six sins of Greenwashing" A study of environmental claims in North American Consumer Markets Environmental Choice. The Carbon Trust Ltd. 2011, Carbon Trust Available: http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/ Trane 2002, Earthwise CenTraVac Water Cooled Liquid chillers Trane. Trenberth, K., Jones, P., Ambenje, P., Bojariu, R., Easterling, D., Klein Tank, A., Parker, D., Rahimzadeh, F., Renwick, J., Rusticucci M., Soden, B. & Zhai, P. 2007, "Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change", Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T rusty, W. 2009, "Incorporating LCA in green building rating systems", Environmental Managers, vol. December, pp. 19. Trusty, W. 2000, Introducing an assessment tool classi2cation system. ATHENA Sustainable Materials Institute, Advanced Building Newslette r.

PAGE 388

388 U.S. Energy Information Administration 2011, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ USGBC 2011, U.S. Green Building Council Avail able: http://www.usgbc.org USGBC 2009, LEED reference guide for green building design & construction U.S. Green Building Council. USGBC 2006, Integrating LCA into LEED Verbeeck, G. & Hens, H. 2010, "Li fe Cycle Inventory of Buildings: a calculation method", Energy and Buildings, vo l. 45, no. 4, pp. 964 967. Vitousek, P., Aber, J., Howarth, R., Likens, G., Matson, P., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W. & Tilman, D. 1997, "Human alteration of the global nitro gen cycle: sources and consequences", Ecological Applications, vol. 7, no. 3051, pp. 737 750. Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases 1998, Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings WGBC 2010, World Green Buildi ng Council Available: http://www.worldgbc.org Whitestone Research 1995; 2009, "The Whitestone building maintenanc e and repair cost reference", Wiedmann, T. & Minx, J. 2008, "A definition of "carbon fo otprint"" in Ecological Economics Research Trends ed. C.C. Pertsova, Nova Science Publish ers, Hauppaguge NY USA, pp. 1 11. You, F., Hu, D., Zhang, H., Guo, Z., Zhao, Y., Wang, B. & Yuan, Y. 2011, "Carbon emissions in the life cycle of urban building syst em in China A case study of residential buildings", Ecological Complexity, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 201 212. Zimmerman, A. & Kibert, C. 2007, "Forum informing LEED's next generation with the natural step", Building Research & Information, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 68 1 689.

PAGE 389

389 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mark Russell has focused his career on the built environment and facility management egree i n electrical e egree in environmental e ngineering he became interested in sustainable m ethods to consider energy use and production. Following numerous years working in the construction industry, he saw the need to expand his research interest in the appl ication of methods to determine the effectiveness of building energy savings. After re turning to study for his doctorate, he worked extensively with t he Green Globes and Leadership in Environmental and Energy (LEED) rating systems and performed numerous on site building evaluations throughout the United States. Mr. Russell received his Ph.D from the S chool of Building Construction at the University of Florida in the summer of 2011.