Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
TACC Presentation - Risks of Green Buildings
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

TACC Presentation - Risks of Green Buildings


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Muscia—energy above promise other energy articlesMusica—lost client due to security daylightingLost tenant who wants green image, including turnkey tenant
  • CA Academy of Sciences (wavy roof)Reston underground Terraset Elementary schoolFrench museum with vertical garden Musée du Quai BranlyInsurance journal=---current technology is about shedding water; vegetative is about holding water02/23/2006The vertical garden at the Musée du Quai BranlyWalk along the Quai Branly, the thoroughfare that runs along the left bank of the Seine between the Pont d'Alma and the Eiffel Tower, and you'll see a site that will make you rub your eyes in disbelief. A building four stores tall, parts of it still under construction, whose walls are entirely cloaked in living vegetation from roof to sidewalk. You're looking at the new Musée du Quai Branly, and what you're seeing is the latest hallucinatory creation of Patrick Blanc, world-trotting botanist, heavy-weight scientist, inventor, and designer of these stupendous vertical landscapes.For nearly ten years, Patrick Blanc, a resident scientist at the prestigious CNRS (Centre National pour la RechercheScientifique), has been creating vertical gardens of a complexity and scale never before realized. Inspired by the plant communities that thrive on wet vertical rock surfaces in nature the world over, Blanc devised an ingenious system to replicate this natural situation on the walls--both indoor and outdoor--of urban buildings. Drawing from a palette of plants adapted or adaptable to this environment from all over the world, he has installed his mursvégétals (vegetal walls) in at least eighteen different locations, many of them in and around Paris.
  • Parties share responsibility—musica vicarious liability and client esthetic changes
  • Musica—unrecognized code changesAIA study
  • LEED MR-7 requires 50% wood certified by Forest Stewardship Council. There are >50 forest certification regimes globally, four major players in US include FSC, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Certified Family Forest, and American Tree Farm system. USBGC is considering developing its own—USGBC Forest Certification System Benchmark. Concerns that MR-7, when adopted by government, is anti-trust since only FSC wood can be used. Also, concerns about FSC and USGBC relationship
  • Thom Mayne—Morphosis—2005 Pritzker—Thom Mayne calls bullshit on LEEDGeorge HW Bush Federal Building SFOccupants have complained it is not conducive to workLimited climate controlsSkip stop elevatorsRelies heavily on natural ventilation
  • Transcript

    • 1. The Risks of Building Green©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®1George H. DuBose, CGCwww.libertybuilding.com407.467.5518April 20, 2012TACC Spring MeetingLexington, KY.
    • 2. The Risks of Building Green2©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 3. The Risks of Building Green©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 3“There’s one sure way to kill anidea: Sue it to death.”Hidden Liability Issues May Wilt Green Building, July 14, 2008 ENR article• “No single entity controls the green building process..”• “This makes the issue of responsibility and risk allocationcritical.”• “Construction is a management-intensive business, and greeninitiatives are adding another layer of complexity.”
    • 4. Killing an Idea©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 4
    • 5. 5Premises of the Presentation• Building green is a noble goal, but a risky endeavor• Risks – Some are obvious, many are obscure.• Risks include:--Technical risks--Legal & contractual risks--Insurance risks--Project risks• Potential building failures range from acute & catastrophic tochronic performance failures--excessive energy usage• Our observation: “Good practices” in key areas such as IAQ,humidity control, waterproofing & hot/humid climate designcriteria are not being incorporated into green design (includingLEED certification)©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 6. Outline of the Presentation©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 6
    • 7. MARSH Green Building Report 2009©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 7
    • 8. MARSH Green Building Report 2009©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 8
    • 9. DefinitionsGreen Building - Design, develop, construct & operate in amanner that reduces the use of non-renewable resources.Sustainable - Includes green issues, but also is interested ineconomic issues (financial payback)High Performance Buildings - Interested in measurable andverifiable improved outcomes (such as 35% improved energyperformance)9(attributed to Ujjval Vyas/Alberti Group)
    • 10. Technical Risks for Green BuildingsGreen Buildings vs. Low Risk Buildings10©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®Green Buildings Low Risk BuildingsMore Outside Air (>ASHRAE by 30+%) Minimum Outside Air (Does not exceedASHRAE)Emphasis on energy conservation Emphasis on humidity controlStresses VOC reduction--Emphasizes exhaust (>5 Pa)--Promotes building flush-outMinimal VOC concern--Very tight control of exhaust--Rejects building flush-outStresses new, innovative materials Stresses proven materialsCarbohydrate based materials Hydrocarbon based materialsStresses extra envelope insulation Stresses drying potential of envelope (walls androof)Minimally addresses air barriers Stresses air barriers
    • 11. 5 Factors in Green Building Risks1. Increased Risk of from Building Complexity2. Pressure to do green construction with no pricepremium3. New and innovative product performance risks4. Codification of green ratings systems5. Emerging requirements for long-termperformance guarantees11©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 12. Copyright Liberty Building Forensics Group - use by permission only12Complex Building + Strong Drivers =“High Risk” BuildingsComplexityDRIVERSMild IntenseSource: 1996 Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) Study.I “low”II “moderate”III “high”
    • 13. ©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®13Green Buildings Low Risk BuildingsMore Outside Air (>ASHRAEby 30+%)Minimum Outside Air (Doesnot exceed ASHRAE)Emphasis on energyconservationEmphasis on dehumidificationStress VOC reduction--Emphasizes exhaust (>5 Pa)--Building Flushout--Low VOC material selectionMinimal VOC concern--Very tight control of exhaust--Rejects building flushout--Agrees w/low VOC materialsGreen Buildings vs. Low Risk Buildings
    • 14. Infiltration and Exhaust Air ProblemsDamage caused by uncontrolled air flows©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®14Mold Growth in Wall CavitiesDue to Uncontrolled Air Flows
    • 15. Copyright Liberty Building Forensics Group -use by permission only 15
    • 16. Copyright Liberty Building Forensics Group - use by permission only 16Four Inches ofWater
    • 17. “How much more do you thinka certified sustainable buildingwould cost to build relative toa normal building?”*16% of respondents indicate involvement in sustainable buildingsGSA ‘043.7%Capital E ‘031.8% SurveyRespondents*16%0.0%Langdon ‘07WBCSD-WorldBuilding Council onSustainableDevelopmentAdditional Costs for Green BuildingsSource: Dax Ponce de Leon, PMA Consultants17©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 18. Financial/Costs• May not meet energy savings*M13, Mass, ImaginOn, Gifford• Loss of income if green power does not deliver• Lost revenues if green not met– Business interruption– Lost tenants– Lower rental rates*RICS– Lost tax incentives• Lost clients*M14• Legal challenges• Negative PR*M15 & M16©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 18
    • 19. FACTOR 1: Protection Against Risks forIncreased Construction Defects1. Compare the building to the risk table2. Identify the green objectives and ratethem for increased risk3. Develop risk and QA management plantargeting those higher risk objectives19©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 20. Building at a GlanceName: MA. Maritime AcademyResidence HallLocation: Buzzards Bay, MA.Size: 90k ft2Completed: 2007Cost: $14.1MCertification: LEED® Gold20©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®.Source:April2009issueofED+CmagazineFACTOR 2: No Premium for Green Buildings
    • 21. Points Item Cost Comment0 Prereq. 1: FundamentalCommissioning$22,000 Cost of independent commissioning agent0 Prereq. 2: MinimumEnergy Performance$0 Basic energy-code requirements0 Prereq. 3: CFC Reduction $0 Basic code requirement10 Optimize EnergyPerformance$641,120 Prescriptive approach and minimal system requirements3 On-site RenewableEnergy$8,000 100% of electricity required by building provided byphotovoltaic array and existing wind turbine1 AdditionalCommissioning$8,000 Cost of independent commissioning agent1 Ozone Depletion $0 No refrigerants utilized21©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®Energy and Atmosphere:LEED® Points.Source:April2009issueofED+Cmagazine
    • 22. Points Item Cost Comment0 Prereq. 1: Minimum IAQ performance $0 No cost – basic code requirement0 Prereq. 2: Tobacco Smoke Control $0 No cost to prohibit smoking at a campus facility1 IAQ Management Plan: ConstructionPhase$0 No real cost, just best construction practice1 IAQ Management Plan: Occupancy $500 Estimate for energy costs during flush-out procedure beforeoccupancy1 Low-Emitting Adhesives and Sealants $0 No real costs – now readily available1 Low-Emitting Paints and Coatings $0 No real costs – now readily available1 Low-Emitting Carpet Systems $0 No real costs – now readily available1 Chemical and Pollutant Source Control $500 Added costs for MERV 13 filters1 Controllability of Perimeter Systems $0 No real cost due to dormitory room layout. Switch on room wall andoperable windows.1 Daylight & Views: Views for 90% $0 No cost due to dormitory room layout22©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®Indoor Environmental Quality: LEED®Points.Source:April2009issueofED+Cmagazine
    • 23. Copyright Liberty Building Forensics Group -use by permission only23“New materials are unproven by definition. Likemost experiments they tend to fail. If theexperiment is the whole exterior of the building [orthe entire HVAC system], they fail big.”Quote from“How Buildings Learn: What happens after they’re built”by Stewart BrandFACTOR 3: Innovative Green Products
    • 24. Copyright Liberty Building Forensics Group -use by permission only24“New materials are unproven by definition. Likemost experiments they tend to fail. If theexperiment is the whole exterior of the building [orthe entire HVAC system], they fail big.”Quote from“How Buildings Learn: What happens after they’re built”by Stewart BrandFACTOR 3: Innovative Green Products
    • 25. ©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 25Sample Flush Out Procedure from LEED 2.2Calculations for 100K sf SE US Building showed200K gallons of added water during LEED Flush Out•Equipment not usually sized for this load•May void equipment warranty•Time is not often factored in to constructionschedule*Hensley Field•Often taken as an “easy credit”•Alternate is IAQ samplingProcesses like flushing the air in a new building is a“time hog”, says one (contractor)-Quote from contractor, Insurers Worry About Green-Building Risks, ENR 2008
    • 26. Copyright Liberty Building Forensics Group -use by permission only26New Bio Based Insulation
    • 27. ©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®27Green Buildings Low Risk BuildingsStress new, innovativematerialsStress proven materialsCarbohydrate based materials Hydrocarbon based materialsStress extra envelopeinsulationStress drying potential ofenvelope (walls and roof)Green Buildings vs. Low Risk Buildings
    • 28. Copyright Liberty Building Forensics Group -use by permission only 28Interaction with Other Materials• If unfamiliar with new material’s individualperformance….…probably know less aboutmaterial’s interaction withother components• Recognize additional risk in innovativeproducts….…and apply higher degree of rigorin evaluation
    • 29. Copyright Liberty Building Forensics Group -use by permission only 29
    • 30. Risks Associated With New Materials & Concepts©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®30“New materials areunproven by definition.Like most experiments theytend to fail. If theexperiment is the wholeexterior of the building,they fail big.”Quote from“How Buildings Learn: What happens after they’re built”by Stewart Brand
    • 31. “In design engineering there are tworesources available: The laws of physicsand the products of the market. Thedesigner of excellence works with theformer and the designer of mediocrityworks with the latter.”Quote: Kevin Dickens/Jacobs Corp.31©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 32. Innovation & Design CreditPossible LEED®Innovation inDesign Credit32©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 33. 33©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®.Source:DraftASHRAEStandard189.1,ThirdPublicReview(May2009)FACTOR 4: Back Door Codification
    • 34. Elements of aComprehensive Peer Review Plan34©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®Design Construction OccupancyDecreasing Options forSolutionsCost ofAction/SolutionLevelofInfluence100%0.0%Source: Adapted from Quality in the Constructed Project, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1988.HVAC ReviewEnvelopeReviewsVEInput ContractorSubmittalsT&B Input Post ConstructionPerformanceVerification
    • 35. What a Peer Review Is1. Inserting SME into the process2. Mirrors the healthcare industry3. Green drives need for SME on productsCopyright Liberty Building Forensics Group - use by permission only 35
    • 36. What a Peer Review Is NOT1. Additional insurance policy2. Contracted to Owner3. Requested by any project team member4. Does not replace LEED ConsultantCopyright Liberty Building Forensics Group - use by permission only 36
    • 37. 37©2009 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 38. Use of Innovative & Energy Saving Products CanHave Unintended Consequences38•Hides water leaks•Reduced wall drying•Air infiltration noteasily detected©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®•Curing issues
    • 39. Vegetative Roofs©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 39Leaks (known claims)Safety•Maintenance•Attractive Nuisance•Guardrails•Brush FiresIAQ•Fertilizer•PollenStructural•Structural stability*M3•Overwatering effectson other buildingcomponents
    • 40. Cool Roofs – “White” Roofs©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 40
    • 41. ©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®41Green Buildings Low Risk BuildingsDo not address rainwaterconcernsStress rainwater intrusionavoidanceDo not fully stress air barriersexcept from energyperspectiveStress air barriersGreen Buildings vs. Low Risk Buildings
    • 42. Unintended Air Flows©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®42• Opened April 2001• Closed July 2002• Cost to remediate- $65M*M4
    • 43. Riverhouse, NYC©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 43• Going for Gold LEED• $1.5MM Claim• Cold air infiltration• 49% Deviation in cumulativesize of cracks and holes
    • 44. FACTOR 5: Emerging Green BuildingRequirementsCopyright Liberty Building Forensics Group -use by permission only 441. Owner’s commit to sharing use data(energy/water)2. LEED certification can be revoked3. Third parties can initiate USGBC non-compliance action
    • 45. 121 Building Study by USGBCCopyright Liberty Building Forensics Group -use by permission only 45
    • 46. Copyright Liberty Building Forensics Group -use by permission only46
    • 47. Lessons LearnedUFAD System: warmer UFAD supply airflow doesn’t allow fordehumidification at the UFAD units without the use of reheat,which was not an option. Dedicated OA units used forventilation and dehumidification requirements.Control Sequences: Very complex control sequences requireadditional designer time to ensure that end performancematches expectations.Air Leaks: It is more difficult to seal a building against air leaksthan it is to agree to a leakage target with a contractor. ActualAir Leakage>5x the Design47Heifer Intl. HQ – LEED PlatinumHigh Performance Buildings – Winter 2008©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 48. Regulatory-Government Mandates• CalGreen-2010 (effective 2011)– USGBC has been critical– El Dorado County fighting extra permit fees as “tax”• City of Albuquerque “green code”-2007– AHRI v. City of Albuquerque-2008– Energy efficiency requirements will harm HVAC/waterheating vendors and contractors• Cannot sell non-compliant equipment• Repairs will trump replacements• Home sales affected by increased costs• Confusion among manufacturers, distributors, contractors– Not unusual for challenge to new regulatory schemes– Preliminary Injunction by District Court-2008©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 48
    • 49. Regulatory-Government Mandates• Washington, DC Green Building Act-2006– Requires compliance w/LEED for private & public (2012)– Green Building Performance Bond is really license orcompliance bond, typically guarantees compliance with law orcode. Performance: perform contract in accord w/T&C– Does not designate which party provides– Sureties may be reticent to issue• Toronto to Mandate Green Roofs-2009– Covers most buildings, including residential >6 stories• Arlington County, VA-2009 (1999, 2003, 2009)– Public Buildings will be LEED certified– Private Buildings Floor Area Ratio increases for LEED©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 49
    • 50. Contract/Legal/Insurance Risks• Many parties have responsibility for LEED*M5 & M6– A/E has 66%– GC and Owner share 33%– LEED consultants and Commissioning Authorities• Contract Forms do not deal with consequences– AIA B101-2007, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner andArchitect– AIA B214-2007, Standard Form of Architect’s Services: LEEDCertification• LEED projects may have mix of design andperformance specifications, which confuses liability• DBIA may have better contracts for liability*M7©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 50
    • 51. Regulatory-Conflicts & Uncertainties• Conflicts & confusion between government mandates andindependent rating systems– LEED– Green Globes– NAHB/ICC/ANSI– AIA Study– ASHRAE 189• Uncertainty of code changesespecially during construction phase*M11• Uncertainty of LEED decisions– Decisions on credits may not occur until end of construction– Reviewers not local– Reliance on third party inspectors (Green Building CertificationInstitute)©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 51
    • 52. Regulatory-Conflicts & Uncertainties52Project at a GlanceName: Emory UniverstiyWhitehead Biomedical ResearchBuildingFirst LEED® Certified Buildingin SoutheastAchieved Silver Rating©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 53. Regulatory-Codes• LEED is not a code, or written in code language– Codes written to ensure safety of occupants– LEED not always climate or regional specific• LEED 2009 begins to address some regional differences• Humidity issues still a concern• Light sensor burnout in NWdue to changing cloud cover– Will local officials be ableto interpret?– Conflicts with other codes– Antitrust Implications*GRELJ2• USGBC and FSC (MR-7 credit)©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 53
    • 54. Thom Mayne on LEED• SF Federal Building• Uses 50% energy• Earned awards forenergy efficient design• May not earn base LEED©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group® 54LEED should give performance requirements and let the architect solve the problem. The pointsystem doesnt scale. A bike rack and air conditioning get you the same point. Id much rather seeBTU and CO2 requirements and let the professional community solve the problem. If you giveproscriptive requirements, it stagnates new development and research. Its like taking a blue booktest. You dont need to know the subject. Because architects deal in creative problem solving, someof that will be curtailed by proscriptive systems. I also think the LEED point system is overladen inthe construction phase versus lifetime energy consumption and secondary effects
    • 55. 55Regulatory-Codes• Developed in conjunctionwith USGBC and IESNA• Written in Code Language• Focus on energy savings• Increase in minimumenergy savings by 30%©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 56. Incentives, grants,tax credits, etcTierra on Ashley, Ann Arbor, MIProject Budget $9 MDDA TIF Grant $275 KDDA Meter Bag Waiver $18 KBrownfield TIF Credit $718 KBrownfield MBT Credit $1 MTOTAL INCENTIVE $2.01 MSource: Dax Ponce de Leon, PMA Consultants56©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®
    • 57. City of Ann Arbor, MichiganFloor Area Premiums for LEED CertificationLEEDCertificationEnergyPerformancePoints (Min)FAR Bonus(% of Lot Area)Silver 4 50%Gold 6 150%Platinum 8 250% Source: Dax Ponce de Leon,PMA ConsultantsWhat Happens IfLEED is not MetAfter Building isConstructed?Regulatory-Incentives57©2010 Liberty Building Forensics Group®Arlington Co., VAhas similar FARBonus ProgramNashville, TNProposed DensityBonus