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

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Buildings ( jstor )
Construction costs ( jstor )
Cost analysis ( jstor )
Cost efficiency ( jstor )
Cost savings ( jstor )
Halls ( jstor )
Life cycle costs ( jstor )
Sustainable technology ( jstor )
Utilities costs ( jstor )
Water consumption ( jstor )
Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Building Construction
Anderson Hall ( local )

Notes

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

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Meister, Eric. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
5/1/2005
Resource Identifier:
71321851 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












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














By

ERIC MEISTER


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005



























Copyright 2005

by

Eric Meister
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

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

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

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

CHAPTER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
















LIST OF TABLES

Table pge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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















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

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

By

Eric Meister

May 2005

Chair: Charles Kibert
Major Department: Building Construction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

overall effectiveness.

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for Rinker Hall.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The Green Building Movement is a relatively young phenomenon in the

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

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

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

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

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

pitching revolutionary ideas to owners and builders based only on environmental

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

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

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

Statement of Problem

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

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

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

to balance the added construction costs of implementing sustainable technologies with

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

priority level in the design-development process.

Objective of Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

Florida higher education facilities.

Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

structures on the University of Florida Campus.

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Our literature review explored the growing momentum of sustainable design and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

project.

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maximizing potential gains during the colder winter months.

Effective sustainable designs are unique to each individual project because the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building Council has established the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design









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

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

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

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

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

LEED system was created to

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

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

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

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

commercial buildings intended to promote the application of cost effective design

practices and technologies that minimize energy consumption without sacrificing either

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

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

only on space conditioning.

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

simply ball-park figures rather than true evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

buildings (USGBC, 2003)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost Analysis

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investment Ratio (SIR) (Fuller, 2002).

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

financial gains (Pitts, 2004).

Additional Benefits of Sustainable Design

Aside from the financial implications previously mentioned, green buildings

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

maintenance needs, improved public perception, and high indoor environmental

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

into the overall effectiveness of building design.

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

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

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









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

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

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

correlation between high indoor environmental quality and reductions in occupant illness

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

Numerous characteristics of green buildings contribute greatly to improved IEQ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accredited buildings implement modern daylight harvesting techniques, natural shading,

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

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

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

enjoyable working environments. Workplace qualities that improve the environment of

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justification

Recent literature shows that sustainable design and green buildings are rapidly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

additional up-front cost in the first year alone.









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

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


I-


(Kibert 2005)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

annual savings due to sustainable design efforts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I














CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

campus to display improvements in building efficiency through sustainable design

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

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

* The required parameters to be analyzed were determined.

* Proper sources were identified from which to gather data.

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

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

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

Parameters

The characteristics which determine environmental attributes for the University of

Florida were determined through collecting data on monthly average temperature,

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

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









mechanical systems performance analysis and therefore took into account consumption

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

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

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

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

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

mechanical systems.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






17


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

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














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

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

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

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

Table 4-1. Building Properties

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

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

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

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











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


C D

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



Total GSF: 46,950


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


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










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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

especially by readers unfamiliar with the Gainesville climate.

Rinker Hall Sustainable Design


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

construction costs for Rinker Hall.

Table 4-2. Rinker Hall Day-lighting Premium

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









Table 4-3.

Div. 7
Div.8

Div. 7,9

Div. 15
Div. 16


Rinker Hall Energy Premium

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


No Effect
$"'5.000




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


Table 4-4. Rinker Hall Rainwater-Harvesting Premium

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

predicted savings of fifty percent over ASHRAE 90.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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


I


I









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

resource consumption levels addressed in this comparison.

Direct Resource Consumption Comparison

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

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

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

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

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

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













Table 4-5. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth)

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


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

Table 4-6. Associated Costs for Chilled Water

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














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


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


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


Frazier Vs. Rinker


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month


Aug Sep


Oct Nov Dec


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



Table 4-8. Associated Costs for Electricity

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


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


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


Z4U,ULz
69,440
29,138


- Frazier

- Rinker


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


_ ~c~--~ ~e



_ L~ ~~e,


I
















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


Rinker
Frazier
Difference


b1.1
75.2
-14


4.5
58.9
-9


l3.1.
58.7
14


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


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


Table 4-10. Associated Costs for Steam Consumption

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
















Table 4-11. Water Consumption (Kgal)

Jan Feb Ma Ar M


Rinker
Frazier
Difference


450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0


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


I .9
0.0
2


Frazier Vs. Rinker


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month


Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


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


Table 4-12. Associated Costs for Water Consumption


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


rn ^


I











Table 4-13. Total Utility Consumption Costs

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


R- inker
Frazier Rogers


o


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









Conclusion

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

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

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

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

occupancy. The University Engineering and Performance Department regulates hours of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lower than Rinker Hall's 90.5 hours per week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






31


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

Hall accounting for the majority of the difference.













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


18.8
10.3
8.5


2U.b
13.5
7.0


13.8
15.5
-1.7


1/.1
19.3
-2.2


16.0
19.9
-3.9


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


18.3
20.7
-2.4


23.3
16.2
7.1


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


Table 4-15. Associated Costs for Chilled Water

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


Rinker
Anderson
Difference


, , , ,















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


Rinker
Anderson
Difference


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


Anderson Vs. Rinker


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month


Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


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



Table 4-17. Associated Costs for Electricity


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


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


r- ~n r :r.

R,,, r












Table 4-18. Steam Consumption (Klbs)

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


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


Table 4-19. Associated Costs for Steam Consumption

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














Table 4-20. Water Consumption (Kgal)

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


Anderson Vs. Rinker


-Anderson

- Rinker

I


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month


Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


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


Table 4-21. Associated Costs for Water C(


100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
















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

Jan Feb M Ar Ms Ag Se 6c N


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


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


$4.81.63
$4.860
$2


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


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


Rinker
Anderson
Difference


$3 ?,86
$3.494
$492









Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

performs considerably more efficiently based on horsepower levels than does Anderson

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

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

laboratories, and one large auditorium.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

within the structure.

Summary Analysis

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

and is presented in table 4-23









Table 4-23. Total Annual Values by Square Footage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

displaying the added efficiency of Rinker Hall's operations.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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














Sustainable Design Comparison


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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in comparison to Frazier Rogers Hall.















Sustainable Design Comparison


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

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

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

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

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


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









Anderson Hall is predominately an administration building which caters to a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

account.







44



















2C InitiaCostAnnualCost








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



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

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

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

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

to the graphical display for Rinker Hall.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

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

High performance structures and systems are gaining momentum with each successive

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

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

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

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

question, especially in the more complex Rinker Hall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consistency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the greenness of a high performance building.

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

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









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

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

financial gains of sustainable construction efforts for higher educational facilities under

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

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

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

provide for simple direct comparisons between sustainable and conventional structures.

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

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

These costs include such items as indoor environmental quality, consumer

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

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

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

way for production of substantially more comprehensive economic performance models.

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

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

necessity of sustainable efforts in the built environment.

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

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

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

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

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

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






48


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

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

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

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

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

results in either direction.















LIST OF REFERENCES


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

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

concentration in management) from the Warrington College of Business Administration

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

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

earn his Master of Science in Building Construction.




Full Text

PAGE 1

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

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Eric Meister

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

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

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

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

PAGE 9

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

PAGE 10

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

PAGE 11

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

PAGE 12

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

PAGE 13

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

PAGE 14

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

PAGE 15

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

PAGE 16

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

PAGE 17

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

PAGE 18

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

PAGE 19

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

PAGE 20

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

PAGE 21

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

PAGE 22

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

PAGE 23

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

PAGE 24

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

PAGE 25

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

PAGE 26

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

PAGE 27

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

PAGE 28

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

PAGE 29

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

PAGE 30

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

PAGE 31

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

PAGE 32

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

PAGE 33

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

PAGE 34

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

PAGE 35

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

PAGE 36

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

PAGE 37

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

PAGE 38

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

PAGE 39

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

PAGE 40

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

PAGE 41

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

PAGE 42

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

PAGE 43

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

PAGE 44

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

PAGE 45

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

PAGE 46

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

PAGE 47

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

PAGE 48

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

PAGE 49

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

PAGE 50

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

PAGE 51

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

PAGE 52

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

PAGE 53

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

PAGE 54

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

PAGE 55

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

PAGE 56

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

PAGE 57

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

PAGE 58

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

PAGE 59

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