Issuu on Google+

1

The AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTOR

J OU R N A L OF TH E A M ER IC A N IN STITU TE OF C ON STR U C TOR S A PR IL 2 0 1 2 | VOLU M E 3 6 | N U M B ER 0 1

in this issue

Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management.

Cost Effectiveness of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Roof Tiles for Residential Buildings Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study Why Owners Pursue LEED Certification

General Interest: Winning Student Papers from the AGC James L. Allhands Essay Competition


Journal of the American Institute of Constructors PURPOSE

The purpose of the American Institute of Constructors is to promote individual excellence throughout the related fields of construction.

MISSION

Our mission is to provide:

A qualifying body to serve the individual in construction, the Constructor, who has achieved a recognized level of professional competence;

AIC 2012/2013 Officers & Directors PRESIDENT Tanya C Matthews, FAIC DBIA TMG Construction Corporation

PO Box 2099 Purcellville, VA 20134 Work Phone: 540-751-4465 Fax: 540-338-9518 tmatthews@tmgworld.net

SECRETARY Matthew A Conrad, CPC The Christman Company

3011 N. Cambridge Rd. Lansing, MI 48911 Work Phone: (517) 482-1488 matt.conrad@me.com

TREASURER Paul W Mattingly, CPC

2116 Plantside Dr. Louisville, KY 40299-1924 Work Phone: (502) 671-0995 pmattingly@bmconstructors.com

Opportunities for the individual constructor to participate in the process of developing quality standards of practice and to exchange ideas;

Leadership in establishing and maintaining high ethical standards;

Support for construction education and research;

Encouragement of equitable and professional relationships between the professional constructor and other entities in the construction process; and

An environment to enhance the overall standing of the construction profession.

AIC PAST PRESIDENTS 1971-74 Walter Nashert, Sr., FAIC 1975 Francis R. Dugan, FAIC

1990 O.L. Pfaffmann, FAIC

1991 David Wahl, FAIC

1976 William Lathrop, FAIC

1992 Richard Kafonek, FAIC

1978 William M. Kuhne, FAIC

1994 Roger Liska, FAIC

1977 James A. Jackson, FAIC

1979 E. Grant Hesser, FAIC

1980 Clarke E. Redlinger, FAIC

1981 Robert D. Nabholz, FAIC

1993 Roger Baldwin, FAIC

1995 Allen Crowley, FAIC

1996 Martin R. Griek, AIC

1997 C.J. Tiesen, AIC

1982 Bruce C. Gilbert, FAIC

1998-99 Gary Thurston, AIC

1984 Herbert L. McCaskill Jr.,FAIC

2001-02 James C. Redlinger, FAIC

1983 Ralph. J. Hubert, FAIC

2000 William R. Edwards, AIC

1985 Albert L Culberson, FAIC

2003-04 Stephen DeSalvo, FAIC

1987 L.A. (Jack) Kinnaman, FAIC

2007-09 Stephen P. Byrne, FAIC, CPC

1986 Richard H. Frantz, FAIC

1988 Robert W. Dorsey, FAIC

1989 T.R. Benning Jr., FAIC

2005-06 David R. Mattson, FAIC

2009-11 Mark E. Giorgi, AIC

2011-12 Andrew Wasiniak, CPC


AIC 2012/2013 Board of Directors Bernard J. Ashyk, Jr. National Director (Appointed) Shook Inc. Northern Division

10245 Brecksville Rd. P.O. Box 41020 Brecksville, OH 44141-0020 Work Phone: (440) 838-5400 x8005 Email: bashyk@shookconstruction.com

Dennis C. Bausman, FAIC CPC PhD National Director (Elected 2011-2014)

126 Lee Hall Clemson, SC 29634-0001 Work Phone: (864) 656-3919 Email: dennisb@clemson.edu

David J. Bierlein, CPC National Director (Elected 2011-2014) TMG Construction Group

10245 Brecksville Rd. P.O. Box 2099 Purcellville, VA 20134 Work Phone: (800) 610-9005 x4499 Email: dbierlein@tmgworld.net

Greg Carender, PMP AIC CPC National Director (Elected 2012-2015) Denmark Consulting Inc. 4814 M Ave. NW Cedar Rapids, IA 52405 Work Phone: (303) 896-9901 Email: gpcinfo@att.net

Matthew A. Conrad, CPC AIC Secretary The Christman Company

3011 N. Cambridge Rd. Lansing, MI 48911 Work Phone: (517) 482-1488 Email: matt.conrad@me.com

Allen L. Crowley, Jr., FAIC National Director (Elected 2010-2013) COR Services

16781 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 225 Cleveland, OH 44122 Work Phone: (216) 406-2364 Email: allenc@corsvcs.com

Joseph DiGeronimo National Director (Elected 2011-2014) Precision Environmental Co.

5500 Old Brecksville Rd. Independence, OH 44131-1508 Work Phone: (216) 642-6040 Email: joedig@penv.net

Edward Terence Foster, CPC PhD PE FAIC National Director (Elected 2009-2012) University of Nebraska

1014 N 67th Circle Omaha, NE 68132-1110 Work Phone: (402) 554-3273 Email: efoster1@unl.edu

Mark E. Giorgi National Director (Elected 2010-2013) Past-President Erie Affiliates, Inc.

Tanya C. Matthews, FAIC, DBIA AIC President TMG Construction Corp

PO Box 2099 Purcellville, VA 20134-2099 Work Phone: (540) 751-4465 Fax: (540) 338-9518 Email: tmatthews@tmgworld.net

Paul W. Mattingly, CPC AIC Treasurer BosseMattingly Constructors, Inc.

29017 Chardon Rd., Ste. 200 Willoughby Hills, OH 44092-1405 Work Phone: (440) 943-5995 Email: mgiorgi@erieaff.com

2116 Plantside Dr. Louisville, KY 40299-1924 Work Phone: (502) 671-0995 Email: pmattingly@bmconstruction.com

Saeed A. Goodman, PMP CPC CMIT National Director (Elected 2012-2015) Construction Specialist United States Army Corps of Engineers

Hoyt Monroe, FAIC National Director (Elected 2010-2013) Vice President Clark Power Corporation

3626 Weymouth Road Browns Mills, NJ 08015 Work Phone: (757) 462-9121 Email: Goodmansa42@yahoo.com

PO Box 45188 Little Rock, AR 72214-5188 Work Phone: (501) 558-4901 Email: hmonroe@clarkpower.com

Mike W. Golden, AIC CPC National Director (Elected 2011-2014) MW Golden Constructors

Bradley T. Monson, CPC National Director (Elected 2010-2013) Tierra Group, LLC

PO Box 338 Castle Rock, CO 80104-0338 Work Phone: (303) 688-9848 Email: mwg@mwgolden.com

182B Girard St. Durango, CO 81303 Work Phone: (970) 375-6416 Email: bmonson@tierrallc.com

Mark D. Hall, CPC National Director (Elected 2009-2012) Hall Construction Co., Inc

Wayne Joseph Reiter, CPC CPA National Director (Elected 2011-2014) Reiter Companies

Larry C. Hiegel, CPC National Director (Elected 2010-2013)

Bradford L. Sims, PhD National Director (Elected 2010-2013) The Kimmel School of Constr. Mgmt. & Tec

PO Box 770 Howell, NJ 07731-0770 Work Phone: (732) 938-4255 Email: mhall18721@aol.com

10914 Panther Mountain Rd. Maumelle, AR 72113 Work Phone: (501) 851-7484 Email: lchiegel@sbcglobal.net

John R. Kiker, III, CPC National Director (Appointed - Tampa) Kiker Services Corp.

1501 Missouir Ave. Palm Harbor, FL 34683-3642 Work Phone: (727) 787-8877 Email: jk@kikerservices.com

110 E. Polk St. Richardson, TX 75081-4131 Work Phone: (972) 238-1300 Email: wreiter@swbell.net

211 Belk Building Cullowhee, NC 28723 Work Phone: (828) 227-2175 Email: bradfordsims@indstate.edu

Andrew J. Wasiniak, CPC AIC Past President Walbridge

777 Woodward Ave., Suite 300 Detroit, MI 48226 Work Phone: (313) 221-1013 Email: awasiniak@walbridge.com


THE AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTOR Volume 36, Number 01

APRIL 2012

Articles Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management...........5 M. Malek, PH.D, AM ASCE, James J. Sorce, M.B.A., Jose J. Murcia University of North Florida

Cost Effectiveness of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Roof Tiles for Residential Buildings..............................................................................................13 Ifte Choudhury, Ph.D. and Aswin Babadhrapatruni, M.S.(COMG)

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes....................................................20 Gopu Pillai, Matt Syal, M. Hastak, Kweku Ofei-Amoh, Daniel Duah

Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study ................................................................38 Lauren J. Staniec, LEED AP; Kenneth J. Tiss, AIC, CPC

Why Owners Pursue LEED Certification ......................................................................46 Snowil J Lopes, MCSM, Dennis C Bausman, PhD and Shima Clarke, PhD Clemson University

General Interest Articles ..............................................................................................52

The American Professional Constructor (ISSN 0146-7557) is the official publication of the American Institute of Constructors (AIC), 700 N. Fairfax St. Suite 510 Alexandria, VA 22314. Telephone 703.683.4999, Fax 703.683.5480, www.professionalconstructor.org.

Subscription rates: This subscription includes 2 copies of The American Professional Journal in digital PDF copy for the year for $112.00 USD.

Published in the USA by the American Institute of Constructors Education Foundation, and copyrighted by the American Institute of Constructors.

This publication or any part thereof may not be reproduced in any form without written permission from AIC. AIC assumes no responsibility for statements or opinions advanced by the contributors to its publications. Views expressed by them or the editor do not represent the official position of the The American Professional Constructor, its staff, or the AIC.

The American Professional Constructor is a refereed journal. All papers must be written and submitted in accordance with AIC journal guidelines available from AIC. All papers are reviewed by at least three experts in the field.


5

Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management. M. Malek, PH.D, AM ASCE James J. Sorce, M.B.A. Jose J. Murcia University of North Florida Jacksonville, Florida

ABSTRACT: It is probably fair to say that most construction companies persist in relying on traditional methods for construction management. However, economic downturn and the ever changing nature of the construction industry necessitated innovations in computer technologies in order to be financially sound and to maintain a competitive advantage in the market. Currently, the most prominent technologies can be categorized as: 3-D modeling programs, 4D scheduling packages, 5-D modeling, on-line program-management systems, surveillance systems, and software that integrates data systems.

Despite the industry’s past reluctance to incorporate these advanced practices, there are many proven benefits to these technologies. Some of the most prominent areas benefiting from those emerging technologies include procurement policies and the investment risk that traditionally relied on heuristic approaches and subjective assessments. Although experience is valuable, it is not infallible. Computers can offer a more analytical and often more accurate assessment. This document provides a description of these innovative technologies, their benefits, the resistance to implement them, and strategies to build a technologically innovative construction company.

Keywords:

Construction Management, 3-D Modeling, 4-D scheduling, 5-D Modeling, Building Information Modeling, BIM, Data Integration, Online Program Management, surveillance systems and decision support systems (DSS), IT Strategy, Technological innovation in construction.

INTRODUCTION Building construction has traditionally been viewed as a relatively immutable process with little change in techniques or administrative procedures. Fortunately, innovations in computer technologies for construction management have emerged. This emergence of technology is due to advances in computers and society’s views shifting towards a more economical and

technology-driven world. Cost is the driving factor in most major decisions for construction companies, Therefore, these innovations have been created with specific goals of cost reduction, improved building quality, and enhanced productivity.

The limitation imposed on this study is the deliberate attempt to focus on only those technologies that, in the authors’ view, directly affect the management process. Numerous innovations in construction management computer technologies have become prominent in the industry. These technologies include 3-D modeling programs, on-line project-management programs, surveillance systems, and software that integrate data systems. These technologies increase construction performance and enhance the quality.

Dr. Malek presently serves as Chair of the Construction Department, College of Computing Sciences, Engineering and Construction at the University of North Florida (UNF).  He has been teaching in academia for 15 years.  His education is supplemented with a rich 15 years of working experience in the industry. 

James J. Sorce is an instructor and advisor at the University of North Florida. His primary focus is economics, management, strategic planning and international construction. APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management

COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 3-D Modeling programs

Many designers entrenched in computer-aided design for construction companies are incorporating 3-D modeling in their construction practices (Anonymous 2006). 3-D modeling gives a simulated realistic approach rather than traditional two-dimensional building plans. The software models an entire building into an interactive, virtual 3D drawing. The software allows comprehensive plan details including, geometric and intelligent composite objects, such as virtual doors, walls, and windows. It also allows for visualizing and updating revisions more precisely (Bentley Systems Incorporated 2000). This software offers professionals preconstruction information at the onset of the project.

One of the primary benefits of 3-D modeling software is the ability to conduct a meaningful and cost effective constructability assessment. Additionally, 3-D modeling is a valuable tool to predict possible component interferences. The software suggests solutions to technical problems, and can be used as a decision support system (DSS) for the project manager. As trades overlap on the project, managers can react to conflicts and resolve them prior to their occurrence. The 3-D modeling enables the project manager to correct conflicts immediately without visiting the construction site. Additionally, the DSS program has the capability to assist in compliance to building codes. The program recommends alternatives for compliance if the standard is violated, or suggests economical revisions if the standard cost is exceeded. It enables users to focus on the information and their decisions, rather than on the documentation tools and processes (Bentley Systems Incorporated 2000). These 3-D modeling software packages allow managers to make more informed decisions in a timely manner. This will produce results in the field and a reduction in project cost. The above identifies some of the driving forces of 3-D modeling and its use in the industry. Owners are however identified as the main driving energy for the adoption of the newest technology in 3-D modeling (Basu 2007).

In 2007, the GSA mandated BIM and related initiatives for all projects (Basu 2007). This trend will continue as projects become more complex. 3-D modeling allows all stakeholders to have more information at hand.

6

Furthermore, 3-D modeling allows people to view a workable model of the project. It will help to eliminate discrepancies due to misinterpretation. Besides, better informed stakeholders contribute to a smoother operation. These are some of the reasons why 3-D modeling has become more prevalent in the industry. Building Information Modeling (BIM) has emerged as one of the standards for 3-D modeling. BIM attaches real information to objects in the 3-D model that can be either renderings or models made up of properties (Basu 2007). The software has revolutionized the way that architects and engineers design buildings with the ability to render beautiful conceptual designs (Yoders 2010).

3-D modeling is being integrated in every aspect of the construction process to make more effective methods. 3D information is being required from trades and is being incorporated into the supply chain process to confirm that the model matches the built project (Williams 2009). This alleviates conflicts before materials are delivered, saving time and money. New rendering software allows even more manipulation and control over specific objects or processes. This software enables interactive changes to be made to materials, environments, lighting and textures at any stage of the process without compromising the image (Clarke 2010). This has led to a trend in 4-D schedules, which would not be possible without the emergence of 3-D modeling. 4-D Scheduling Software Packages

4-D scheduling is a comprehensive tool which allows architects, engineers and contractors to simulate and visualize the construction sequence as a part of an interactive experience (McKinney, Kim, Fischer and Howard 2004)(Dixit 2007). Put simply, 4-D scheduling is the 3-D CAD project model tied to a schedule with the time component attached, and it includes building components with spatial information and properties. This allows stakeholders to address how the project will be constructed at each stage of the schedule with a visual representation of time.

The 4-D schedule is developed from software packages that combine a schedule from a scheduling package and a 3-D CAD model (Basu 2007). Some of the major advantages of 4-D scheduling are being able to visualize the scope, design and phasing of the project (Basu 2007). 4-D scheduling allows schedulers more flexibility. These models allow a computer simulation of the project before the materials are delivered.

— Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


7

Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management

Therefore, it is a desired environment to develop strategies for complex operations.

There are limitations of 4-D scheduling that have proven difficult to overcome. 4-D scheduling does not account for procurement and offsite activities, critical path, late dates, and float days and advanced features of scheduling such as: cost and resource loading, cash flow analysis, and earned value analysis (Basu 2007). Therefore, a separate CPM schedule must be kept in order to perform these functions efficiently and accurately. Furthermore, there must be a 3-D CAD model of the project to construct a 4-D schedule (Dixit 2007). Despite these limitations, 4-D modeling can be used to convey the following to stakeholders: Phasing, relocation, move management, construction operations, and sequencing (Dixit 2007). In addition, these models give a frame of reference to extrapolate data to better predict future events and eliminate problematical issues at the onset of the project, eliminating them before they arise.

4-D modeling allows stakeholders enhanced planning of proposed construction methods and visualization of the planned progression of the project. The next logical progression is to add cost to the construction model to create a 5-D model with capability of creating scenarios and tracking to visualize how costs will be affected by other facets of the project. 5-D Construction Modeling

5-D Modeling builds cost into the 4-D scheduling model. This allows stakeholders to track changes in the estimate based on changing scenarios for completing the project. 5-D Modeling uses the 3-D and 4-D models to show a construction project’s life cycle, from planning to, construction building operation and maintenance, incorporating cost into the model (Popov et al). The model now yields a better picture of changing scenarios to allow flexibility of process. The main advantage of using this type of model is the possibility to analyze alternative solutions of project implementation at every stage of the project, while comparing alternatives, ensuring that the most effective alternative is chosen (Popov et al). Different scenarios of the building process will change resource demand for the project. These different conditions can be built and quickly analyzed by computers calculating the different aspects of each process combination. Therefore, the automation of the generation of drawings and reports, design analysis,

cost estimating, schedule simulation and facilities management will ultimately enable the building team to focus on the information and decision-making, rather than the documentation tools and the process itself (Popov et al). “This results in the creation of better working conditions for building teams, time saving, higher quality of work and better buildings because of the informed decisions made in the process” (Popov et al). Still, there are limitations of the 5-D model. The computer only has the information provided by users. Therefore, bad information will still yield bad output. Managers must be diligent to provide the most accurate and up-to-date data available to produce precise models for analysis. On-line program-management programs

On-line program-management software is another innovative computer technology becoming widely used in the construction industry. The main purpose of these programs is to keep track of daily activities. In addition, these programs help with communication and allow access to current project progress to all project stakeholders. On-line program-management software has remarkable archiving capability (Anonymous 2006). Other features of these programs include production reports, project analysis, and analysis of subcontracts (Sage Master Builder, n.d. 2008).

There are definite economic benefits in using these programs. Construction managers get a complete visualization and tracking capability of resources. This software includes the capability to compare projected cost, actual cost and productivity. Therefore, the construction manager can direct the project to meet or exceed project cost and productivity. Steve Padilla, President of Hunter Contracting, stated that using such programs allows Hunter Contracting to track labor and equipment utilization and find what didn’t work on a given day, so those resources can be put to better use in the future (Sawyer 2007). This can also eliminate snowballing as errors create more issues, which is often a difficult and costly problem to solve.

Another feature of the software is that it provides data that allows construction managers to evaluate workers’ performance, identify unproductive workers and locate cost centers for employer evaluation purposes. Additionally, these programs are a useful reference tool when building similar future projects, especially in comparable geographic areas (Anonymous 2006).

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management

Surveillance Systems

Surveillance systems constitute another innovative computer technology that has become an invaluable way of ensuring full productivity and reducing costs (Manseau, A., & Shields R. 2005). A surveillance camera can be installed at the construction site and relay real time images to the construction company. These images can be stored in a database for future review. These surveillance cameras have many innovative features, including: measuring moments of intense site activity, recording weather conditions, and providing remote access to the images via the Internet.

In the past, construction managers could supervise the construction site only by physical presence. Some construction companies had surveillance cameras, but they did not provide real time transmission, nor did they collect data about the construction site i.e. measure of productivity at any specific time. This innovative computer technology cuts several costs by providing full observation of the construction site at all times. The obvious example of reduced costs is in the overhead, due to reduced frequency of the jobsite visits, spending less time and money traveling. Another cost reduced by the use of this technology is the insurance premium because of fewer site thefts (Site-I-sight 2005).

Research shows that providing visually rich feedback to workers can significantly improve communication on a project (Site-I-sight, 2005). A major advantage is the ability for the construction manager to see a real time situation, in the event an immediate decision must be made, which is another example of using the surveillance cameras as a (DSS) tool. The construction company can also evaluate project safety and ensure the absence any safety rule violation. Another valuable utilization of surveillance system is company’s vehicles tracking. Construction managers can monitor the locations where company vehicles are traveling as well as the driving behavior. other facets of the project.

Data Systems Integration Programs

Properly extrapolating information and managing data obtained from these innovative computer technologies, is key to the success of their use. The need for consolidation of these programs has emerged, to ensure that all information is archived in the proper location and is easily accessible. The need to merge these data

8

systems into a single enterprise has led to the creation of data systems integration software. The data systems integration software consolidates data systems, and ensures entries are properly handled. Furthermore, they can detect flaws when newly entered data in one area affect other parts of the integrated system. Moreover, the program can guide the user to make the connections and possible corrections. The information is displayed in an array of formats, modifiable by the user, making it above all, user friendly. This becomes especially accommodating for change order processing. The system indicates to managers that a change in the design occurred, following a change order.

There are several other features to ensure that all departments receive construction information that are deemed important. For example, one of these features routes project-related e-mail directly into the project database, as well as automates the routing and tracking of Requests for Information (RFI’s). John Watkins, Senior Vice President and Corporate Production Director at Jordan, Jones, & Goulding claim, “It has a huge positive impact on the project. You do a ‘file/save as’ in Outlook, select the project from a list, hit the button and boom, it’s gone to project file accessible by all the other team members, which is different from sitting in my in-box where I am the only one who can see it” (Sawyer 2007).

Companies, such as the Builders Group headquartered in New York City, have gone as far as to create their own exclusive software system that allows the companies’ computers to communicate with their clients’ computers, no matter what software they're running (Archer 2003). This is to ensure that all stakeholders in the construction process are simultaneously updated, which improves productivity and lowers cost.

RESISTANCE TO INNOVATIVE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FOR CONSTRUCTION Despite its many advantages, there are many barriers that impede the innovations of computer technologies in construction management. These factors, primarily cultural, include procurement policies that often have adversarial views towards suggestions for higher start up investments, and strong reliance on past experience (Manseau, A., & Shields R. 2005). Innovative computer technologies require a start up cost, training, time, and

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


9

Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management

carry a certain liability. This reluctance to adopt and experiment with new computer technologies may hinder the creation of new and more modern computer software for construction management. Reluctance of construction firms to invest

Many company’s procurement policies contribute to this resistance to innovative computer technology. The main reason for this resistance is the interest in lower initial cost rather than in best performance (Manseau, A., & Shields R. 2005). Initial supplementary costs are incurred by firms and cannot be readily transferred to owners. Private firms are unenthusiastic to absorb these costs. This disincentive to builders is a major obstacle in furthering innovative computer technologies for construction. However, these traditional companies fail to recognize that with better performance, overall costs are expected to be reduced. Moreover, better performance leads to better constructed buildings and improved quality.

Several companies in other industries have shown that first adopters of 4-D scheduling applications have shown great success (Basu 2007). The nature of the construction industry has led to the development of these technologies. “The increasing pressure of costing competition and tighter production deadlines, as well as continually increasing quality requirements and the need for technological enhancements, are the driving force of information modeling and numerical simulation in the construction industry” (Popov et al). Hence, 4-D and 5-D Modeling have been developed from necessity of the construction firm to stay competitive. Preconceptions of technology are due to scarce and at times unavailable information. Construction companies must embrace technology in order to catch up with the progressive trends of other industries.

However, to adopt innovation, the industry as a whole must understand what the potential benefits are. Only then will construction firms realize that the initial cost and continued updating cost will be minimal compared to the cost saving in current and future projects.

Too often companies look only at the overall cost of implementation including: hardware, software, IT resources, training cost, personnel, downtime and other implementation cost. However, after technology companies must understand that the return on investment will be substantial to the future of business

and the bottom line. Cost reductions have come from enhanced collaboration and coordination in schedule planning and logistics, building systems clash detection and project planning and organization (Basu 2007). The cost savings can be enormous. This will be especially true as the company builds a culture that embraces advancements in innovation and construction technology. The use of 4-D and 5-D modeling “can save up to 40% of the time required for design and calculation of the money and labor spent on preparing drawings, estimates, schedules and the analysis of a number of the alternative projects (Popov et al).” Firms should be encouraged to understand the benefits of new technologies to the future of the company and create a culture of progressive thinking. Strong reliance on past experience

One of the major factors impeding the use of computer technology in construction management is the strong reliance on past experience. The paradigm is that if construction practices are effective, then changing them would be undesirable. Construction is not only an onsite activity; it is rather an entire network of activities.

By implementing innovative computer technologies in the office, site practices are improved. Therefore, construction becomes more productive. Resistance to changes in technology can be attributed to many factors. Innovation cannot be mandated; managers must create a working environment conducive to embracing change (Mcdermott and Sexton 1998). Stakeholders must understand how these actions will benefit the company and each individual. Innovative organizations must allow all employees to express ideas freely. The organization must foster innovation by operating with open minds, stimulating and harnessing employee collective intelligence, prioritizing the use of resources, directing daily activities and allowing individuals to use their talents to their best abilities (Mcdermott and Sexton 1998).

STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF INNOVATIVE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES IN CONSTRUCTION Defining the company’s culture is key for a construction company to embrace technological changes (Mcdermott and Sexton 1998). Managers must create a culture devoted to innovation and an atmosphere that rewards

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management

original solutions. All levels of management should be involved. Management must define and commit to continuous improvement that includes: assessing their current climate, target resources toward modernization, align structures and systems to support a culture of innovation, involve the entire management team early in the process and maintain this momentum as the company progresses (Mcdermott and Sexton 1998). Employees must understand what the vision of the organization is and how each facet will interact with company stakeholders.

Managers must define everyone’s role in the development of this culture. There is importance of visible and concrete support from top management of what this will look like and how people will act (Mcdermott and Sexton 1998). “Basadur et al. (2002) found that creativity can be developed, increased, and managed by organizations. Specific results from increasing organizational creativity can be identified, including new products and methods, increased efficiency, greater motivation, job satisfaction, teamwork, a focus on customer satisfaction, and more strategic thinking at all levels” (Mostafa 2005). It is important to clearly define the culture. Managers from different levels, background and demographics will have differing levels of acceptance of this culture. Higher level managers, older managers, and less educated ones are less likely to embrace technology and innovation (Mostafa 2005). In addition to developing this culture, management must establish a policy to govern all improvement in the firm.

The corporate culture should be consistent throughout the organization with clear lines of communication that stresses the strategic value of Information Technology (IT) (Ko and Fink 2010). In addition, there should be clearly defined roles within the organization and an understanding of the role that the organization wants IT to play. (Ko and Fink 2010). Information sharing is a factor in the progression toward integration of an innovative philosophy. Information must be shared through all levels of the firm. The prime concern of management should be to foster knowledge creation and to transfer it to all levels of the company (Corso and Pavesi 2000). Management must establish an IT governance policy to effectively manage knowledge and promote a culture of innovation. IT governance focuses on organizational alignment, integration and relationships (Ko and Fink 2010). Essentially, IT governance improves company understanding and the

10

connection between IT and the rest of the business (Ko and Fink 2010). One essential part of the IT governance policy must be to include a strategy to update IT and revise the IT governance policy as technology changes. Management must be totally committed to innovation to build a true culture in the firm. In like manner, there must be “buy in” at all levels of the organization. Reluctance to IT governance will significantly lessen the effectiveness of the innovation (Ko and Fink 2010). Resource allocation will be the main determining factor in the success of establishing a progressive culture in the firm. Resources will be necessary at all levels in establishing the culture and IT governance policy. Management will require new skills and competencies to effectively manage IT and develop a true culture of innovation (Corso and Pavesi 2000). This will be paramount to the success of establishing a dedication to technological changes and success of the IT policies. “IT governance structure is the single most important predictor of whether an organization will derive value from IT” (Ko and Fink 2010).

The strategy must include a program for pursuing new innovation and an extensive training program. This must be a continuous process to keep the firm updated. Companies must continually invest in this field to keep their competitive advantage, especially concentrating on the most important aspects and increasing the efficiency of their management (Ortega, Martinez and De Hoyos 2007). Initiatives for measuring innovative corporate culture in the construction industry

Firms must establish appropriate performance measures for technical and business related issues to achieve improvements and sustain positive outcomes (Ko and Fink 2010). Evaluation of IT systems is essential to business function. Organizational innovation management (OIM) assessment systems and Organizational innovation performance (OIP) indicators can be established for construction companies to indicate how the company is fostering and utilizing innovation.

According to research collected by Wong and Chin 2007, the key to sustaining competitive organizational innovation in the long-term is a combination of innovative ideas and good OIM. OIM is a managerial design, which offers an organization a vehicle for

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


11

Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management

innovation, encouraging and facilitating groundbreaking ideas in the firm (Wong and Chin 2007). There are seven core values that are found in innovative organizations, these include: continuous innovation, system adaptability, leadership, value of people, focus on customer, continuous learning and use of knowledge (Wong and Chin 2007). Construction companies must evaluate their organizations in terms of these values and determine what areas need improvement and where the firm is creating the correct environment. Combined with OIP indicators managers can measure the organization’s actual performance of innovation.

A set of OIP indicators can be established to measure the actual performance of organizational innovation in a company (Wong and Chin 2007). OIP indicators are grouped in three categories according to their properties. These categories are: the rate of product innovation, the rate of process innovation and technology indicators (Wong and Chin 2007). “Rate of product innovation - number of product changed to total product - change in sales (due to product change) to total sales - change in profit (due to product change) to total profit.

Rate of process innovation - number of process changes to total processes - change in overall productivity due to product change

Technology indicators - percentage of expenditure on R&D to total sales - number of technologies adopted externally - number of patents developed internally.” (Wong and Chin 2007)

These OIM assessment systems can assist construction companies scrutinize established OIM practices. This can be done by comparing the current position with the desired results; these differences can be determined and analyzed to help management develop new strategies to produce desired results (Wong and Chin 2007). These assessment tools can be modified to be relevant to the construction industry. Modification of management tools to fit a firm’s or industry’s requirements is common practice in business (Mamman 2009).

CONCLUSION Creating and implementing innovative computer technologies for construction management, offers owners and builders financial benefits that conventional construction management techniques fail to provide. These benefits include the reduction of cost, maximizing productivity, and providing a superior quality building. “Companies must develop innovation in highly competitive markets to survive and succeed” (Sanchez and Ricart 2010).

Unfortunately, cost constraints and the construction industry’s reluctance to accept or experiment with innovative computer technologies, have hindered these innovations. In addition, the reluctance of management to innovate and the lack of organizational commitment contribute to the fledgling use of technology in the construction industry. Firms must develop a strategy that includes a plan to govern the use and implementation of innovative technologies. Construction firms are strongly encouraged to establish an IT governance policy to effectively integrate technology into the firm’s corporate culture.

There are several pioneers in the construction industry. These companies are improving from these innovative technologies and simultaneously benefit from substantial financial rewards. These companies can also benefit from establishing innovation management and assessment tools. These tools can be modified to fit the construction industry. Their use will help construction firms in developing a culture of innovation. Furthermore, as building systems become more complex, technological innovation will be a necessity for the future of the construction industry. Firms must establish a culture conducive to the utilization of innovation in order to survive. Construction companies must find ways to develop a competitive advantage in one of the most aggressive markets in business.

The technological gap in the construction industry is an opportunity for firms to develop this advantage. However, construction firms must be committed to all aspects of the technology. They must be willing to contribute adequate resources to implement and develop a technological advantage. The firm must be willing to commit to continuous innovation and dedicate the resources necessary to propagate it.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Overview of Emerging Technological Innovations in Construction Management

REFERENCES Anonymous (2009). “Public Service Company of New Mexico Builds a Reliable Network with AutoCAD.” Transmission & Distribution World. Overland Park: Dec 2009. Vol. 61, Iss. 12.

Anonymous, (2006). Improving Project Performance. Chain Store Age, 82(1), 106. Archer, R (2003). The Personal Touch. Real Estate Weekly, Retrieved June 4,2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/ articles/mi_m3601/is_13_50/ai_111899048

Basu, Abhimanyu (2007). “4D Scheduling - A Case Study.” AACE International Transactions. Morgantown: 2007.

Bentley Systems Incorporated. (2000). Bentley Systems. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.bentley.com/en-US/

Clarke, Charles (2010). “RENDERING SOFTWARE: State of the art.” The Engineer. London: Jan 11, 2010.

Corso, Mariano and Pavesi, Sara (2000). “How management can foster continuous product innovation.” Integrated Manufacturing Systems. 2000. Vol. 11, Iss. 3. Dixit, Vidya C. (2007). “4D Modeling: Adding a New Dimension to CPM Scheduling.” AACE International Transactions. Morgantown: 2007.

Ko, Denise and Fink, Dieter (2010). “Information technology governance: an evaluation of the theory practice gap.” Corporate Governance. Bradford: 2010. Vol. 10, Iss. 5.

Mamman, Barka Aminu (2009). “From Management Innovation To Management Practice.” International Journal of Organizational Innovation (Online). Hobe Sound: Fall 2009. Vol. 2, Iss. 2.

Manseau, A., & Shields R. (Ed.) (2005). “Building Tomorrow: Innovation in Construction and Engineering.” Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Markoff, John (2010). “Turning Flat Photos Into 3Dimensional Buildings; [Science Desk].” New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Feb 23, 2010.

McDermott, Brian and Sexton, Gerry (1998). “Sowing the seeds of corporate innovation.” The Journal for Quality and Participation. Cincinnati: Nov/Dec 1998. Vol. 21, Iss. 6.

12

Mostafa, Mohamed. “Factors affecting organisational creativity and innovativeness in Egyptian business organisations: an empirical investigation.” The Journal of Management Development. Bradford: 2005. Vol. 24, Iss. ½.

Ortega, Blanca Hernández, Martínez, Julio Jiménez and De Hoyos, Mª José Martín (2007). “Influence of the business technological compatibility on the acceptance of innovations.” European Journal of Innovation Management. Bradford: 2007. Vol. 10, Iss. 1. Oswald, Paul (2010). “Being Smart About Intelligent Building Systems.” Baseline. New York: May/Jun 2010.

Popov, Vladimir, Juocevicius, Virgaudas, Migilinskas, Darius, Ustinovichius, Leonas and Saulius Mikalauskas, The use of a virtual building design and construction model for Developing an effective project concept in 5D environment, Automation in Construction, Volume 19, Issue 3, May 2010, Pages 357-367, ISSN 0926-5805, 10.1016/j.autcon.2009.12.005. Sage Master Builder. (n.d.) (2008). Construction Software Management, Estimating, Accounting, Support Solutions - Sage Software Master Builder. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.sagemasterbuilder.com/

Sánchez, Pablo and Ricart, Joan E. (2010). “Business model innovation and sources of value creation in low-income markets.” European Management Review. Houndmills: Autumn 2010. Vol. 7, Iss. 3.

Sawyer, Tom (2007, February 26). Innovative Tools Help Companies Cut the Data Beast Down to Size. ENR, Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://enr.ecnext.com/comsite5/ bin/comsite5.pl?page=enr_document&item_id=027137635&format_id=XML

Site-I-Sight. (2005). Siteisight.com - Construction Cameras, Webcams. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://www.siteisight.com/

Williams, Patricia (2009). “BIM models being extended to subtrades.” Daily Commercial News and Construction Record. Dec 30, 2009. Vol. 82, Iss. 250.

Wong, Shui-Yee and Chin, Kwai-Sang (2007). “Organizational innovation management; An organization-wide perspective.” Industrial Management + Data Systems. Wembley: 2007. Vol. 107, Iss. 9. Yoders, Jeffrey (2010). “Architectural Visualization Rendering the Future.” Building Design & Construction. Chicago: Apr 2010. Vol. 51, Iss. 4.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


13

Cost Effectiveness of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Roof Tiles for Residential Buildings Ifte Choudhury, Ph.D. and Aswin Babadhrapatruni, M.S.(COMG)

ABSTRACT: A Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) material has a great potential of being used as a source of renewable energy for buildings. The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of BIPV roofing for residential buildings in the United States. A total number of 70 sites, 14 each from five climatic zones in the United States, were randomly selected for the study. A general linear model was used to find out the cost effectiveness of BIPV roof compared to asphalt shingle roof, using net present values of both the roof types. Net present value of asphalt roofing was done based on available database of material and labor costs in the cities selected. Net present value of BIPV roofing was done using a simulation model developed by National Renewable Energy Laboratory. A similar model was used to determine energy savings estimates for BIPV roof.

The results of the analysis indicate that the use of BIPV roofing is not currently cost-effective when compared to asphalt shingle roofing in residential buildings. However, the installation of BIPV roof tiles provide a significant saving in energy costs. The energy savings of a building using BIPV systems was found to be affected by annual heating degree days and location of the building. Keywords:

Building Integrated Photovoltaic, Cost Effectiveness, Energy Savings, Net Present Value, Residential Buildings

INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem

Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) is one of the most promising renewable energy technologies. It allows buildings to generate all or part of their energy needs using photovoltaic (PV) panels that are integral part of the structure. In BIPV systems, the PV array is part of the building’s roof, wall, or windows. A PV array directly converts solar radiation to electrical energy. A residential PV system can be can be hooked up with utility grid, making it possible to export the excess energy to the utility company (Muhida et al., 2009).

Even though BIPV technology has been in existence for over a decade, cost issues have slowed down wide-

spread acceptance and installation of the systems. Costeffectiveness of BIPV roof tiles, in comparison with asphalt roof shingles, for residential buildings has been analysed in this study. The primary objective of the study was to find out the economic viability of the use of BIPV roof tiles for residential buildings in the United States. Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1

It was hypothesized that net present value of the roof of a residential building using BIPV roof tiles is significantly different that of the roof of a residential building using asphalt shingles. Hypothesis 2

It was hypothesized that net energy savings of a residential building using BIPV roof tiles is affected by the climatic location of a building, and number of heating and cooling degree days of the location.

Ifte Choudhury is an Associate Professor in the Department of Construction Science at Texas A&M University and has extensive experience as a consulting architect working on projects funded by the World Bank. His areas of emphasis include housing, alternative technology, issues related to international construction, and construction education. He is also a Fulbright scholar. Aswin Babadhrapatruni has graduated with a degree in architecture from India. He has received his Master’s degree in Construction management from Texas A&M University. APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Cost Effectiveness of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Roof Tiles for Residential Buildings

LITERATURE REVIEW With an increase in worldwide energy consumption and consequent build-up of greenhouse gases, there has been a continuous pursuit for developing clean energy. The use of solar energy, in the form of PV cells, is recognized as an important approach to generate an environmentally friendly, sustainable, and clean energy to replace fossil fuels (Li and Lam 2008).

Photovoltaic cells (PV) are made by joining P and N type semi-conductors. P types contain positive ions, while the N types contain negative ions. These ions produce an environment necessary for flow of electrical current within the cells. Current generated by the cells is DC, which has to be converted to AC by using an inverter (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Residential BIPV Systems

PV cells were first used commercially in the late 1950s to power communication satellites (Cholakkal 2006). Gradually, the practical application of the technology expanded to include building industry. The benefits of using PV energy compared to fossil fuel energy include (1) autonomy, (2) reliability, (3) sustainability, and (4) zero emission. The quantity of energy savings due to installation of BIPV systems, however, may be affected by the geographical location of the building.

PV cells can be woven into building components such as wall and roof, making them an integral part of the building. Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) systems activate the PV system very efficiently by utilizing PV cells as surface materials of buildings (Hoon et al. 2011). The system assumes multi-faceted roles by replacing conventional exterior walls, roofs, windows, and shading devices.

14

BIPV systems for buildings can be either stand-alone or connected to grid. Grid-connected systems are advantageous in the sense that any surplus energy is exported to the utility grid, eliminating the need for onsite batteries. The owners are thus able to sell excess energy.

Apart from solar radiation, power production by BIPV is correlated with a number of other variables. They include (1) solar altitude, (2) solar azimuth, (3) outdoor dry-bulb temperature, (4) shading, (5) dirt accumulation on the surfaces, and (6) efficiency of the cells (Cholakkal 2006). Solar altitude and azimuth, and outdoor dry-bulb temperatures vary according to geographical setting. It is, therefore, likely that quantity of energy savings due to installation of BIPV systems, may be affected by the climatic regions, and heating and cooling degree days of a location.

Despite some significant advantages of using PVs to produce energy, the manufacturing and installation costs of the systems were higher than that for conventional sources of energy in the past decade (Oliver and Jackson, 2000). A study done in the mid2000s provides similar report related to cost-effectiveness of the technology (Cholakkal 2006). Another study conducted by Muhida et al. (2009) also fails to offer any encouraging evidence in support of the BIPV systems as far as costs are concerned. The authors, however, conclude that “break event (sic) point for this system is still far from our wishes, but this system gives a contribution in reducing air pollution and promoting the clean energy (p. 698).” Li and Lam (2008), however, report some positive economic aspects of using BIPV facades for 40-storey office building in Hong Kong. Their results indicate that when incorporated properly with daylight, the overall simple monetary payback for installation of BIPV systems would be 6½ years. This is remarkable considering the high first cost of the systems. The authors, of course, limit the findings only to commercial buildings.

The literature review provides an understanding of the basic principles, advantages, limitations, and economic aspects of BIPV systems. The cost of BIPV is reportedly on the decline. Based on the current cost of materials and installation of BIPV roof tiles, the cost-effectiveness of the system has been analysed in this study.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


15

Cost Effectiveness of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Roof Tiles for Residential Buildings

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Data Collection Procedure

Energy performance of BIPV roof tiles in different climatic locations of the United States was required to be ascertained for the study. This was done through simulation by using Solar Advisor Model (SAM), also known as System Advisor Model, developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (US Department of Energy 2011).

SAM is a performance and economic model designed to facilitate decision making for people involved in the renewable energy industry (Figure 2). The software makes performance predictions for grid-connected solar systems, small wind and geothermal power systems, and economic estimates for distributed energy and central generation projects. It calculates the cost of generating electricity based on information provided about a project's location, installation and operating costs, type of financing, applicable tax credits and incentives, and system specifications. SAM also calculates the value of saved energy from a BIPV system

Location

Seventy locations were selected from the 5 different climatic zones of the United States, 35 each for buildings using BIPV roof tiles and asphalt roof shingles. The climatic zones are: (1) Zone 1 (Cool), (2) Zone 2 (Temperate), (3) Zone 3 (Moderately temperate), (4) Zone 4 (Hot and arid), and (5) Zone 5 (Hot and humid). Prototype Residential Building

A simple prototype residential building was designed by the authors for the study (Figure 3). The roof area of the building was 1680 sq. ft. Data on different variables was collected for the same building, assumed to be constructed in all the selected locations. Data collection for buildings using BIPV roof tiles was done using SAM.

Figure 3. Roof plan of the prototype residential building

Figure 2. Screenshot of BIPV analysis using SAM

Annual incident energy striking a roof surface is a function of solar altitude and azimuth angles. SAM selected the part of the roof that would contribute to energy savings when BIPV roof tiles were installed. Figure 4 shows the roof area selected by SAM for this purpose. Cost comparison was done based on only this part of the roof. The tilt angle for the roof surface selected by the program was 26.6°.

All data related to BIPV roof tiles was collected by using SAM. The data included cost of BIPV roof tiles including their installation for all locations, operation and maintenance costs, cost of auxiliary devices such as inverters, and energy savings.

Cost of asphalt roof shingles for different locations in the United States was obtained from published sources (Waier et al. 2010). The costs were adjusted for all different locations.

Figure 4. Roof plan of prototype building showing the location of BIPV roof tiles

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


16

Cost Effectiveness of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Roof Tiles for Residential Buildings

Variables

Roof type (MATERIAL): It is the type of roof used for a residential building according to material used. This is a categorical variable with two levels, 1) BIPV and 2) ASPHALT.

Net Present Value (NPV): This is the net present value of the buildings using both BIPV roof tiles and asphalt roof shingles, assuming a life span of 25 years and discount rate of 10 percent. It was measured in US dollars. NPV was calculated using the cost of materials and installation of roof, energy savings due to installation of BIPV systems, and operations and maintenance cost of the building during its life span. Since NPV takes into account all cost inflows and outflows of a project over its lifetime, it is considered as an ideal variable for analyzing cost-effectiveness of an investment. This variable was used as a proxy for cost of the prototype residential building at different locations.

Location (LOCATION): It is the climatic zone in which a residential building was located. This is also a categorical variable with five different levels, (1) ZONE 1, (2) ZONE 2, (3) ZONE 3, (4) ZONE 4, and (5) ZONE 5.

Energy savings (ENERGY): These are the net savings in electrical energy costs for a building using BIPV systems, during the first year of its operation. The variable was measured in US Dollars.

FINDINGS Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1was tested using a General Linear Model available in SPSS statistical package. The following model was used for the analysis: NPV = β0 + β1(MATERIAL) + β2(LOCATION) + eEqn. (1)

Where NPV = net present value, MATERIAL = roof type in terms of material used, LOCATION = climatic location of the building, β0 = intercept, β1 and β2 = regression coefficients, and e = error term. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 1 Variables

Intercept

Intercept MATERIAL

-23155.98 ASPHALT BIPV

LOCATION

F = 540.38 p-value: <0.0001

Regression Coefficient 26214.65

t-value

p-value

-38.80

<0.0001

31.06

<0.0001

0*

ZONE 1

874.44

1.04

0.30

ZONE 2

543.38

0.64

0.52

ZONE 3

0*

ZONE 4

-1149.40

-1.36

0.18

ZONE 5

-1745.60

-2.07

0.04

Model R2 = 0.97

Adju usted R2 = 0.97

* This parameter was automatically set to zero by SPSS.

T Table 1. Summary of statistical analysis using NPV as dependent variable Perfect relation is said to exist between the d The model, which is derived from empirical data, needs

to be checked for its predictive efficacy. A widely used measure for checking theofpredictive a (NPV) model This means that 97 percent the variances inefficacy net present of value are e is its coefficient of determination, or R2 value. Perfect relation is said to exist between the dependent and independent variables, if R2 is 1 and no relationship exists between the dependent and independent variables, if R2 is 0. Predictive efficacy of this particular model was found to be quite high with an R2 of 0.97, and also an adjusted R2 of the same value. This means that Annual Heating Degree Days (HDD): A heating degree 97 percent of the variances in net present value (NPV) day is also a difference of 1°F between balance point are explained by the variables included in the model. temperature and average daily outdoor dry-bulb temperature of a location. When this difference is lower The F-value of the model was found to be 540.38, which than the balance point temperature, it is one heating is statistically significant at less than the 0.0001 level. It degree day. The sum of this difference for a year is the indicates that the model as a whole accounts quite well annual heating degree days for the location. for the behavior of the predictor variables. Annual Cooling Degree Days (CDD): A cooling degree day is a difference of 1°F between balance point temperature and average daily outdoor dry-bulb temperature of a location. When this difference is higher than the balance point temperature, it is one cooling degree day. The sum of this difference for a year is the annual cooling degree days for the location.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


d

e

17

Cost Effectiveness of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Roof Tiles for Residential Buildings

This means that 97 percent of the variances in net present value (NPV) are

The results indicate that net present value (NPV) has a statistically significant relationship with roof type (MATERIAL), at the level of significance of less than 0.0001. It means that BIPV roof tiles are not costeffective compared to asphalt roof shingles used in residential buildings in the United States. This is despite the fact that the use of BIPV roof tiles generated considerable amount of energy (Table 2), resulting in a substantial saving in energy costs (Table 3).

cooling degree days, HDD = annual heating degree days, β0 = intercept, β1, β2, and β3 = regression coefficients, and e = error term. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. Variables

Intercept

Intercept

Regression Coefficient

1423.61

t-value

p-value

13.61

<0.0001

CDD

0.011

0.66

0.52

HDD

-0.05

-3.23

0.003

ZONE 1

-72.26

-1.56

0.13

Loc.

Annual Energy

Loc.

Annual Energy

Loc.

Annual Energy

Loc.

Annual Energy

Loc.

Annual Energy

LOCATION

ZONE 2

-199.71

-3.87

0.001

ZONE 3

0*

1 2 3 4

4000 4500 3800 3500

8 9 10 11

4100 3800 4800 4200

15 16 17 18

3900 3700 3900 3900

22 23 24 25

4800 4000 4100 5200

29 30 31 32

4700 4200 4500 4200

ZONE 4

-141.44

-2.36

0.03

ZONE 5

-222.01

-2.81

0.009

5 6 7

3900 4300 4200

12 13 14

4000 4900 4900

19 20 21

3900 3800 5200

26 27 28

4700 4100 4200

33 34 35

4300 4900 4200

Table 2. Annual energy output (in kWh/kW peak rating) from BIPV roof tiles installed in prototype residential buildings at 35 locations Loc.

Annual average

Loc.

Annual average

Loc.

Annual average

Loc.

Annual average

Loc.

Annual average

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

939 1069 906 890 1037 1069 1005

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1077 978 1190 1112 1049 1216 1203

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1010 997 911 1040 1038 972 1290

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1208 1062 1093 1275 1164 1076 1101

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

1199 1118 1146 1102 1119 1226 1100

Table 3. Average annual energy savings (in US $) for prototype residential building using BIPV roof tiles at 35 locations

None of location variables, except ZONE 5 (hot and humid region) were correlated with NPV of the buildings. It was found to be statistically significant at the level of 0.04. Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 was also tested using a General Linear Model using SPSS statistical package. This test was done using the data only from 35 locations where BIPV roof tiles were used for the residential buildings. The following model was used for the analysis: ENERGY = β0 + β1(LOCATION) + β2(CDD) + β3(HDD) + eEqn. (2)

F = 6.39 p-value: <0.0001

Model R2 = 0.58

Adjusted usted R2 = 0.49

* This parameter was automatically set to zero by SPSS.

Table 4. Summary of statistical analysis using ENERGY as dependent variable

F-value of this model was found to be 6.39, which is also statistically significant at less than the 0.0001 level. However, predictive efficacy of the model was not that high. Adjusted R2 of the model was found to be 0.49. This means that 49 percent of the variances in energy savings (ENERGY) are explained by the variables included in the model.

The results indicate that net energy savings has a statistically significant relationship with almost all the climatic zones (LOCATION) except ZONE 1 (cool zone), at the level of significance of less than 0.05. It means that the savings in energy cost would be significantly different for buildings using BIPV roof tiles with respect to climatic regions in which they are located.

HDD (annual heating degree days) was also found to have a statistically significant on net energy savings, at less than the 0.05 level. The results show an inverse relationship exists between HDD and Energy, which means that higher the number of annual degree days, lower is the amount of energy cost savings. However, CDD was not found to have any statistically significant relationship with ENERGY.

Where ENERGY = net energy savings cost, LOCATION = climatic location of the building, CDD = annual APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Cost Effectiveness of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Roof Tiles for Residential Buildings

DISCUSSIONS The results of the analyses clearly show that BIPV roof tiles do not have a competitive edge over asphalt roof shingles for residential use at current market costs of materials, labor, and maintenance. The average cost of BIPV roof on the selected sides of the example building was found to be about $25,600 and that of asphalt roof the same roof areas is $2,400 at current market cost of materials, labor, and maintenance for both.

However, there are some optimistic viewpoints regarding cost-effectiveness of BIPV systems. Like all other new innovations, the cost of BIPV is also continuously declining. Cost improvements are expected with the increase in cell efficiencies, reduction in the use of materials, and improvement in mass production techniques. Davis (2002), using what he calls an experience curve, reports that the price of PV cells decreased by 82 per cent over a period of one and half decades. Assuming a continuation of this trend, the author predicts that the production cost of BIPVgenerated energy will be comparable to that of fossil fuel electricity by 2020. Costs of asphalt roof shingles, on the other hand, are likely to increase because of rising fuel costs (Primer Roofing Company 2012).

Keeping all other variables constant and assuming a price decrease of 6 percent for BIPV roof tiles and a similar rate of price increase for asphalt roof shingles per year, the BIPV systems may be eventually competitive with conventional materials in about two decades (Figure 5).

18

Federal government provides a tax credit for 30 percent of the cost of installing a solar energy system in residential buildings (US Environmental Protection Agency 2012). The credit has no upper limit and applies to both existing homes and new construction. Most of the states also provide some form of incentive for buildings that use photovoltaics. Until the systems become economically attractive, such financial subsidies may be continued for dissemination of BIPV systems.

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH Use of BIPV systems in the building sector is receiving immense interest nowadays in order to make the buildings able to supply their own energy requirements. This study was conducted to find out the cost-effectiveness of BIPV roof tiles in residential buildings, compared to conventional asphalt roof shingles. A secondary objective of the study was to find out the factors of energy cost savings for residential buildings using PIV system.

Computer simulation, which is a non-invasive and powerful tool, was used for assessing the performance of BIPV systems. Particular software selected for the purpose was Solar Advisor Model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The findings of the study indicate the net present value of such buildings is significantly lower than that for buildings using asphalt roof shingles. In other words, at current costs of materials and installation, BIPV systems are not economically attractive for use in residential buildings in the United States.

However, the results demonstrate that the use of BIPV roof tiles results in considerable saving in energy costs for the residential buildings. The net energy cost savings are correlated with all but one climatic region in which a building is located and the annual heating degree days of that location.

Figure 5. Assumed future costs of BIPV roof tiles and asphalt roof shingles

Despite this drawback, it would not probably be a good idea for the industry to give up on the technology altogether. It is energy-efficient, renewable, sustainable, and “green.” Apart from making the buildings autonomous, BIPV is one of the best sources of clean energy. Buildings, including production and

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


19

Cost Effectiveness of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Roof Tiles for Residential Buildings

transportation of materials, consume about 50 percent of energy (Wattkopf 2007). A large portion of this percentage is used by residential buildings. Therefore, adoption of the technology by the building industry would help reduce environmental degradation to a considerable extent.

Only BIPV roof tiles have been analyzed in this research. Other BIPV components are also currently available. A study in Hong Kong (Li and Lam 2008) was conducted to find out the cost effectiveness of BIPV façade for commercial buildings. The authors concluded that the payback period for such a system for a commercial building would be 6 ½ years. It would be interesting to conduct a similar study for residential buildings in the United States, using BIPV wall and window components.

REFERENCES Cholakkal, L. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis of a building integrated photovoltaic roofing system for a school located in Blacksburg, Virginia. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, School of Architecture and Design, Virginia Polytechnic & State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Oliver, M. & Jackson, T. (2000). The evolution of economic and environmental costs for crystalline silicon PVs. Energy Policy, 28 (14), 1011–1021.

Primer Roofing Company (2012). Economics of “putting-off” your roof. Primer Roofing Company http://www.premier-roofing.com/blog-posts-comingsoon, Retrieved on February 29, 2012. US Department of Energy (2011). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. US Department of Energy. http://www.nrel.gov/. Retrieved on May 25, 2011.

US Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Federal tax credits for consumer energy efficiency. Energy Star, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx _index, Retrieved on February 29, 2012. Waier, P.R. et al. (2010). RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data 2011, RSMeans Company, Kingston, MA.

Wittkopf, S. (2007). Building Integrated Photovoltaics. Innovation, 7 (3), 20-22. .

Davis, B.N. (2002). A technical and policy analysis of building integrated photovoltaic Systems. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis., Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA.

Hoon, J.H., Song, J., & Lee, S.J. (2011). Practical application of a building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) system using transparent amorphous silicon thin-film PV module. Solar Energy, 85 (2011), 723-733.

Li, D.H.W. & Lam, T.N.T. (2008). An analysis of building energy performances and benefits using solar façades. Journal of Power and Energy, 222 (404), 299-308.

Muhida, R. et al. (2009). A simulation method to find the optimal design of photovoltaic home system in Malaysia, case study: A building integrated photovoltaic in Putrajaya. Proceedings of the World Academy of Science, Engineering, & Technology, WASET, Las Cruces, NM, 694-698.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

20

Gopu Pillai, Matt Syal, M. Hastak, Kweku Ofei-Amoh, Daniel Duah

ABSTRACT: The use of specialized trades in home building can result in each building system being dealt with separately, resulting in the possibility of negative interaction among the systems As a result, many building systems may not function efficiently leading to deficiencies in the performance of the home. Deficient performance is one major impact that can affect indoor environment quality (IEQ), which in turn, has shown to have a direct influence on the occupants’ health. In order to explore this impact, researchers have started focusing on the interactions between various building systems using the “whole house” approach. This approach views the home as a system composed of different components that must work together. In addition, green home guidelines, such as LEED-Homes, have resulted in better systems integration and improved IEQ. The main objective of this research is to propose a framework to demonstrate the impact of building systems on occupants in a home. This is accomplished through the understanding of indoor environment quality and human health, the “whole house” approach, and green building and home guidelines (e.g. LEED-Homes). Based on the proposed framework, a sample criterion was developed and applied to a case study house, in order to demonstrate the potential applications of the proposed framework. Keywords:

Housing, Whole House, Health Performance, Indoor Environmental Quality

INTRODUCTION The “whole house” approach is rooted in the idea of “systems thinking” in design, construction and maintenance of homes. The involvement of specialized trades in home building can cause each building system to be dealt with separately resulting in the possibility of negative interactions among the systems. As a result, many building systems may fail to function efficiently leading to deficiencies in the performance of the home. In order to explore this impact, researchers have started focusing on the interactions between various building systems and integration possibilities between them, with the objective of improving the overall performance of homes (Swarup, 2005). The “whole house” approach views the home as a system

composed of different components that must work together. The challenge is to use the synergies among building systems to improve the performance of the home (PATH, 2003).

Occupant health is an important performance expectation that has received much attention lately. The characteristics that the design of a home must achieve to be considered as a “whole house” vary according to individual attributes and expectations (Swarup 2005). Several studies point to the effects of the design of a home on the health of its occupants (Levin 1989, Fisk et at. 2002, Laquatra 2008, Singh et al. 2010 A). Indoor environment quality (IEQ) is considered to be a critical part of residential occupant health performance. Research has associated indoor environmental quality with occupant health and comfort (DOH-WA 1999, Fisk 2005, NIOSH 2005, Wood 2003). Though several reasons can be attributed to the decline in IEQ in recent times (NIOSH 2005, Wood 2003), one major cause can be

Gopu Pillai: Former Graduate Student; Construction Management; School of Planning, Design and Construction; Michigan State University; East Lansing; MI 48824; E-Mail: gopinat3@msu.edu Matt Syal: Professor; Construction Management; School of Planning, Design and Construction; 213 Human Ecology Building; Michigan State University; East Lansing; MI 48824 and NCHRC Member. E-Mail: syalm@msu.edu (Corresponding Author) M. Hastak: Professor and Head; Division of Construction Engineering & Management; Purdue University; West Lafayette; IN 47907 and NCHRC Member. E-Mail: hastak@purdue.edu Kweku Ofei-Amoh: Graduate Research Assistant; Construction Management; School of Planning, Design and Construction; Michigan State University; East Lansing; MI 48824; E-Mail: ofeiamoh@msu.edu Daniel Duah: Graduate Research Assistant; Construction Management; School of Planning, Design and Construction; Michigan State University; East Lansing; MI 48824; E-Mail: duahdani@msu.edu APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


21

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

traced back to isolated optimization of building systems to achieve energy efficiency (Bass et al. 2003). This factor combined with less than optimal performance in temperature, humidity control, lighting, acoustics and ergonomics, has the potential to undermine the IEQ of homes. The adoption of the “whole house” approach can assist in understanding and subsequently, improving the health and environmental performance of homes.

The impact of buildings on the overall environment needs to be understood in a larger perspective because the indoor environmental quality of a home is also related to the quality of the external environment. Green buildings promote the idea of sustainable built environment with limited negative environmental and human health impacts. The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) has developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) green building rating systems to rate the built environment. The “LEED®” rating systems have separate provisions for new construction (LEED-NC), homes (LEED-H) and neighborhood development (LEED-ND). Green buildings purportedly have environmental, economic, health and safety benefits associated with both the external and internal environs of a building (USGBC-LEED 2008).

The main objective of this paper is to propose a framework to demonstrate the impact of building systems on occupants in a home. This is accomplished through the understanding of indoor environment quality and human health, the “whole house” approach, and home and green building guidelines (e.g. LEED-Homes). IEQ credits in the LEED-H rating system are used as a basis to define building systems as well as design, construction, and integration strategies used in the framework.

The proposed framework tabulates all the concepts propagated by the “whole house” approach and integrates them into the design. There are six categories of performance parameters and the interactions between the various systems are analyzed. Based on the proposed framework, a sample criterion is developed and applied to a case study house in order to demonstrate potential applications of the proposed framework.

INDOOR ENVIRONMENT QUALTITY (IEQ) AND HUMAN HEALTH Current research shows that indoor air may be more polluted than outside air. This is exacerbated by the fact that most Americans often spend the majority of their time indoors, in artificially controlled environments of buildings (DOH-WA 1999, Klepeis, Nelson, Ott, Robinson, Tsang, Switzer, Behar, Hern, and Engelmann 2001). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH 2005) has found that Indoor environment Quality (IEQ) problems are usually caused by ventilation system deficiencies, overcrowding, off-gassing from materials in the office and mechanical equipment, tobacco smoke, microbiological contamination, and outside air pollutants. It also found comfort problems are due to improper temperature and relative humidity conditions, poor lighting and unacceptable noise levels, as well as adverse ergonomic conditions and job related psychosocial stressors. All these factors can lead to significant health issues and many of them can be attributed to negative interactions between building systems (Singh et al 2010 and Pillai 2006).

The direct health impacts of these IEQ problems include respiratory ailments from inhaling air pollutants, decreased lung function, asthma, severe allergic reactions; nonspecific hypersensitivity, bronchitis, pneumonia; mutagenicity and carcinogenicity; eye, nose and throat irritation, changes in skin temperature; headaches, fatigue, lethargy disorientation, visual distortion, nausea; hypersensitivity pneumonitis, Legionnaires’ disease, pulmonary hemorrhage; toxic and systemic effects; eyestrain, eye irritation; skin irritation and rashes, erythema (skin redness); reproductive problems; cardiovascular effects; musculoskeletal problems; sleep disturbance, hearing problems; disruption of human circadian clock and stress related problems. In worst cases even death can result. Indirect health impacts include a range of comfort issues such as the ability to concentrate, productivity, annoyance, interference with communication and changes in social behavior (Laquatra et al. 2008, Southface 2002, Hawks & Hansen 2002, DOH-WA 1999, Jaakkola et al. 1999, LHC 1990).

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

Reductions in adverse health effects associated with IEQ can lead to possible productivity gains and savings in health care costs. It is suggested that building and ventilation characteristics can influence the rates of respiratory disease by a factor of approximately 1.2 to 2. The annual cost associated with allergies and asthma is about $20 billion in the United States. This includes both direct medical expenditures and indirect costs, e.g., loss of work due to absenteeism (AAAAI 2007). Control measures can be targeted in homes or offices of susceptible individuals, which can result in a 10% to 30% reduction in symptoms and associated costs. With this estimate, the materialized annual savings would be $1 to $5 billion. Similarly, Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) has included costly changes in the building or in some cases, has led to costly litigation. It is estimated that the productivity decrease caused by SBS equals 2%. As SBS is primarily associated with office buildings with the annual gross national product of office workers approximately $2.5 trillion in the 1990’s, the estimated annual cost of SBS is $50 billion (Fisk & Rosenfeld 1997, Singh et al. 2010). There is a need to explore new systems such as the “whole house” approach for improving indoor environment quality associated with occupant health and comfort.

“WHOLE HOUSE” AND BUILDING SYSTEMS INTEGRATION The negative interactions between various building systems can be the result of inadequate system compatibility, design integration, poor construction or installation practices, insufficient quality control, or occupant operation. For example, mechanical systems including heating, ventilation and air conditioning; gas and water pipes and vents; and fire protection schemes interact with structural systems and can negatively impact structural performance. The size of ductwork and piping elements and space for the changes in direction of mechanical and fire protection systems require provision for openings, chases and horizontal bulkheads that impact placement of structural framing. Also, large notches and holes placed in framing to allow runs for piping and ductwork reduces the strength of the structural members. This reduction in structural performance subsequently may also compromise other aspects of the building performance. In some cases, the location of large, key elements of the mechanical system such as furnaces can

Design of a Solar Power System22

create problems due to the presence of framing conflicts in overhead floors or adjacent walls (Pillai 2006).

The “whole house” approach promotes the idea that the home must be viewed as a system comprised of different components which work together. The challenge it addresses is to use the synergies among building systems to better the performance of the home (PATH, 2003). The “whole house” concept can be traced back to the industrial revolution of the late 1800's. The progression of modern architecture resulted in the use of new building materials. This required the resolution of complex building systems existing within one structure and finally mass production, rather than traditional stick built, to facilitate and accelerate the building process. Since then, designers have been experimenting with the issue of integrating complex services as part of a built structure. Initiatives in the United States include Levitt Technology, a proposal for factory built volumetric module housing and Triad, an open plan three bedroom modular house (Fein, 1972). The Whole House Roadmap

Partnership for Advancement of Technology in Housing (PATH) is a partnership between government agencies, academic institutions and the private sector, initiated in 1998 by the US Congress and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The PATH program developed roadmaps to promote research in certain key areas that were identified by an expert panel. One such roadmap was the “Whole House and Building Process Redesign Roadmap” (Whole House 2003).

The “whole house” roadmap envisions that in the near future, home design and construction will be efficient, predictable and controllable with a median cycle time of 20 working days from ground breaking to occupancy. The roadmap defines the “whole house” approach in the context of building systems integration. The roadmap also identifies several barriers that hamper innovation and ultimately derail the integration of the “whole house” approach into mainstream homebuilding. Possible solutions include optimizing design and operation by integrating components and subsystems, integrating components and subsystem functions, simplifying schedule and construction by modifying management approaches and relevant processes, and expanding the use of factory-built assemblies (PATH, 2000).

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


23

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

“Whole house” researchers have identified the need to address the complex problem of comparing the performance of one house to another. The “whole house” approach considers both the end product and the processes that produced it. This represents a difficult task for both prospective homebuyers and builders because each house is effectively unique. The complexity arises from the 54,000+ total parts counted in a house. Taking into account alternatives for each part, different climate conditions, and alternative house designs facing one of various possible compass orientations, provides a huge number of combinations for the system. Various trades involved in the production process, alternative production methods, and different objectives of buyers and builders further complicate the problem. The large number of choices is a considerable barrier in adopting a systems approach to housing production. Any tool that aids whole house design or evaluation for the purpose of comparison should be capable of addressing multiple parameters to support optimization of the design and production process in housing in a systematic way and requires both subjective and objective analysis. With this goal in mind, two whole house frameworks were proposed by researchers in recent years (Swarup 2005, O’Brien et al. 2005). “Whole House” Performance Calculator

The “whole house” performance calculator (O’Brien et al. 2005) was introduced as a tool for the quantitative assessment of the performance of design and production processes, materials and systems, and the interaction between them for the purpose of comparative scoring. It also took into account characteristics valued by prospective buyers, builders, or other stakeholders involved in residential construction. The calculator helps the builder or buyer make an appropriate selection by analyzing various “what-if” scenarios. “Whole House” Performance Criteria Framework

The Whole House Performance Criteria Framework (Swarup 2005) is based on the building systems integration of IEQ-related building systems. The criteria framework systematically tabulates all the concepts propagated by the “whole house” approach and integrates them into the design of a home. The IEQrelated building systems are selected based on LEED-Homes’ IEQ credits. Expectations from the “whole house” are categorized into six performance

parameters - spatial flexibility, thermal performance, structural integrity, ease of construction, ease of maintenance and sustainability.

BACKGROUND WORK FOR THE FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT Previous research in the “whole house” design and evaluation domain concentrated on developing a broad criteria framework and rating system for designing and evaluating the performance of homes based on the building systems integration approach. These studies stressed the need for expanding this research domain by including health and IEQ aspects related to housing (Swarup 2005, O’Brien et al. 2005). Due to the limited scientific research within the area of indoor environment quality as it relates to design and construction of buildings and due to the fact that research on indoor environment and health involves many scientific disciplines and not often reflected in the literature, there is a shortage of collaborative research knowledge in this area.

There are a few multidisciplinary studies but those were mainly done with an emphasis on one or two disciplines, and the peer-review process in scientific journals also uses expertise from mainly one discipline. As a result, published studies often have depth in one discipline but lack depth in other equally important disciplines (Sundell & Nordling 2003, Bornehag et al. 2004). Multidisciplinary studies within the framework of building systems integration and environment responsive design need to be aware of these deficiencies. This research attempts to address these concerns by proposing a framework to demonstrate the impact of building systems in a home on its occupants by incorporating the “whole house” approach to building systems integration and other aspects of indoor environment quality.

The development of the health performance criteria framework is comprised of a series of steps starting with the analysis of health issues associated with indoor environments. A different health matrix based on IEQ credits in LEED-H has been developed for this analysis and is described in detail in the following section. These health issues are then traced back to various physical, chemical and biological interactions

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


24

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

in the indoor environment. Existing research indicates that the health performance of a home can be improved by implementing the building systems integration approach that will eliminate negative interactions while promoting synergistic associations between various building components. Therefore, the negative interactions and synergistic associations are identified by studying the various physical, chemical and biological interactions involved in building systems and health performance attributes. The building systems and various health performance attributes are also defined as a part of the process. This analysis is then utilized to develop broad goals that will promote health performance of homes. Strategies are developed based on the goals that promote health performance. Health performance criteria helps evaluate strategies during the design and construction stages based on performance and interaction attributes. The framework helps to score strategies based on their ability to insure health performance of homes and the degree of synergism that exists between the various implemented strategies. In order to develop the framework, several “building blocks” had to be defined. The following sections describe these “building blocks.” Health Matrix

A critical starting point in the framework was developing a health matrix to relate building systems associated with the IEQ of a home with potential health impacts. IEQ credits in LEED-H were used to identify building systems because of the consistency across all aspects of the framework and later case study applications. The LEED health matrix was developed as a part of this study to systematically relate each of the LEED credits to direct and indirect health effects on the building occupants. It is a step by step method for analyzing the health impacts of LEED green building criteria and then associating them with interactions and possible solutions through building systems integration. The intent of each credit is analyzed in detail and associated with relevant direct and indirect health effects with the help of the related public health literature. Figure 1 shows a part of the health matrix, for an example LEED-H credit (USGBC-LEED 2008).

The health matrix has five columns for each LEED credit. The first column lists the intent and rationale of a particular LEED credit. For example, the intent of

“Credit 3 – Humidity or moisture control” in the Indoor Environmental Quality section of LEED-H, is to provide a comfortable thermal environment in the home. Health effects and supporting literature comprises the second major column, which has two subsections. The first subsection lists the direct health effects associated with the particular LEED-H credit and the second one lists the indirect health effects. Direct health effects are more physiological in nature while indirect health effects address comfort problems and latent physiological effects. For example, a direct health effect for the previously mentioned credit can be asthma caused by an allergy to dust mites and other indoor air pollutants, since high humidity can cause the growth and spread of biotic agents. Discomfort caused by the drying out of nasal and throat membranes due to low humidity is an indirect effect associated with humidity control. The third column in the health matrix shows broad guidelines from LEED used to achieve the stated intent. The fourth column lists possible positive and negative interaction scenarios associated with the particular intent. The information in this column is extracted from LEED criteria and other sources. For example, when designing for humidity/moisture control, water leakage through the building envelopes can be a major cause of indoor environmental problems such as mold. This has both health and energy concerns which must be addressed. The last column in the LEED-H health matrix lists building systems integration aspects associated with that particular credit. Health Performance Attributes

Based on the literature review, the following seven attributes have been identified for defining the health performance of a home: Indoor Air Quality – presence of pollutants; Humidity/moisture; Temperature; Ventilation; Lighting; Acoustics; and Ergonomic Design and Safety issues (Pillai 2006). Building Systems

This study focuses on the improvement of health performance of homes by implementing building systems integration principles. Therefore, it is necessary to define the building system, which is the major functioning part of a building, which must be integrated in the design of a home. The following six building systems have been defined from the perspective of health performance of homes (Pillai

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


25

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

2006). This definition of building systems closely follows the method adopted in the Whole House Performance Criteria Framework (O’Brien et al. 2005, Swarup 2005):

• Envelope – that part of the building that protects the occupants from climate and other natural forces. In most cases, it also provides stability to the home and allows it to stand. • Heating Ventilation and Cooling (HVAC) – the building system that tempers the living environment for comfort. • Plumbing – the building system that provides water supply to all outlets. • Electrical/Communication – the building system that provides electrical supply to run all home appliances and support systems. It also includes communication supply such a phone, cable and Internet. • Lighting – the building system that provides both artificial and natural lighting inside the home. Artificial lighting systems include light fixtures and natural lighting systems such as windows, skylights, light wells, etc. • Interior – the building system that makes up the interior of the house comprised of movable elements including finishes and furnishings like furniture, movable storage, carpet, drapes, etc. It also includes elements that are visible from the inside of the home and are in some manner connected to the structure or the envelope like partition walls, ceilings, etc.

Health Performance Goals Health performance goals are established with the intent of improving the health performance of a home. These goals require the application of the building systems integration concepts in the design and construction of a home. These goals are developed by analyzing the following factors (Pillai 2006): Health/comfort effects identified using LEED matrices; Relevant physical, chemical and biological interactions and processes in the indoor environment; and Attributes of health performance involved in a particular interaction.

An example scenario illustrates the development of these goals. In “Credit 3 – Humidity/Moisture

Control” in the Indoor Environmental Quality section of the LEED-H criteria, several associated health effects were observed (Figure 1). Humidity levels are associated with respiratory ailments, hypersensitivity pneumonitis and asthma. Humidity levels can also influence local thermal comfort. These effects can be traced back to physical, chemical and biological processes in the indoor environment. Elevated humidity in the indoor environment can be traced back to moisture infiltration through the envelope due to temperature and vapor gradients between indoor and outdoor environments; moisture released in bathroom and kitchen due to occupant activities like showering and cooking; rise of dampness through the structure; faulty mechanical equipment; or condensation of water vapor in homes due to microclimate formation. Moisture may be retained inside building materials due to their impermeable nature.

Humidity levels can influence growth and spread of biotic agents including pathogens, mold, mites, etc. and the release of aerosols and VOCs from building materials. Formaldehyde off-gassing from pressed wood products is related to levels of humidity. In most cases, interactions induced by humidity are also a function of temperature. Therefore, the health performance attributes involved in this scenario include humidity/moisture, temperature and presence of indoor pollutants. The health performance goals developed to achieve better health performance for this scenario include the following: 1. reducing moisture infiltration through the envelope; 2. reducing moisture infiltration through the structure; 3. reducing interior moisture levels through mechanical equipment; 4. reducing interior moisture levels by controlling occupant activities; 5. preventing condensation in homes; 6. preventing chances of biotic growth in the indoor environment; and 7. preventing chances of VOC release in the indoor environment associated with humidity.

Building Systems Design/Construction/ Integration Strategies Building system design/construction/integration strategies are developed from the health performance goals developed in the previous section. The strategy is the process that will be employed to achieve the goal. These strategies take into account health performance and integration potential between building systems. By analyzing the health performance goals and driving

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


26

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

processes behind IEQ issues, the relevant building systems that require design/construction/integration treatment are identified. The intent is to improve health performance through design/construction/integration strategies that will enhance synergistic associations. For example, to address the goal of reducing the moisture infiltration into the structure through the envelope, two building systems have been identified as relevant: envelope and HVAC. Two strategies involving these two building systems are available to achieve the goal: tight envelope construction to prevent moisture infiltration, and maintaining high pressure inside buildings to prevent moisture infiltration. Figure 2 shows the process for generating building systems design/construction/integration strategies and Figure 3 shows such strategies for an example LEED-H credit.

HEALTH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FRAMEWORK The Health Performance Criteria Framework is based on concepts similar to those used by the “whole house” researchers (O’Brien et al. 2005, Swarup 2005). This framework can help to systematically tabulate all the goals and strategies that go into the design and construction of a healthy home. The main intent is to evaluate a particular combination of strategies chosen for the design and construction of a healthy home. The evaluation is attained by means of a scoring system which takes into account the health performance potential of a particular strategy and its degree of synergism compared to other prospective strategies. For the purpose of evaluation, the concept of an ideal healthy home is introduced. This ideal “whole house” epitomizes the situation where all involved building systems work synergistically, thereby enhancing the health performance of the home and avoiding any negative interaction.

Structure of the Health Performance Criteria Framework The proposed framework has two sections: one for compiling health performance goals and the other one for building systems design/construction/integration strategies. The goals section lists all building elements against the seven health performance attributes identified in the previous section. Each health performance goal is to be compiled against the

particular building system and the performance attribute to which it is associated. For each building system, the goals are segregated into two design considerations, architectural design and engineering design. Architectural design involves specifics, such as space usage in terms of placement of units and arrangement of partitions. Engineering design encompasses all building services design issues. Figure 4 shows the goals section of the health performance criteria framework. The health performance goal specified under each design consideration for each building system is then associated with a building systems design/construction/integration strategy in the next section of the framework. The strategies are specific to the user and may be defined as per the individual expertise. The strategies section has provisions for scoring the performance and interaction potentials of each listed strategy. Figure 5 shows the strategies section of the health performance criteria framework.

Scoring System for the Health Performance Criteria Framework The scoring system for the Health Performance Criteria Framework is modified from the Whole House Calculator (O’Brien et al. 2005). Each building system’s design/construction/integration strategy is scored for performance and interaction. The performance score of a strategy denotes its ability to deliver the required health performance. The interaction score denotes the degree of synergism of that particular strategy in combination with other strategies. Each building system and attribute of IEQ is associated with a certain weight that refers to the role of the strategies pertaining to that building system or the attribute in the overall performance of the home. The building system or attribute that affects the performance of the home to a large degree is given a larger weight than others. The weightage/credit system defines the level of importance of each building system within the complete design of the home.

While scoring a particular strategy for performance, the relative weight of the building system and the health performance attribute to which it is most associated is taken into consideration. The product of relative weights of the building system and the health performance attribute will adequately reflect the effect of the strategy’s performance on the overall health performance of the home.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


27

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

Performance Scoring The performance scoring (Ps) in Health Performance Criteria Framework is conducted on a scale of 1-5, where 1 represents the least effective strategy, and 5 being the most effective strategy. The weighted performance factor (Pf) for a particular strategy is the product of the performance score (Ps), the weightage of the building system and the weightage of the IEQ attributes it is associated with. Pf =Ps X relative weight of building system X relative weight of associated IEQ attribute

Interaction Scoring The interaction scoring in Health Performance Criteria Framework is adapted from Whole House Calculator (O’Brien et al. 2005). Each of the strategies is compared with the other strategies for identifying synergistic interactions. The strategies are grouped as synergistic combinations and unrelated combinations to determine the interaction score. A synergistic combination will result in improving the health performance of homes. An unrelated combination will result in degradation in the health performance of homes. The combinations are scored on a scale from 1 to 5. The scoring system for the combinations is as follows

1 – represents a combination which results in a major degradation of health performance. 2 – represents a combination which results in a minor degradation of health performance. 3 – represents a combination which has no effect on health performance. 4 – represents a combination which results in a minor improvement of health performance. 5 - represents a combination which results in a major improvement of health performance.

Intermediate values represent degrees of performance degradation or improvement. After scoring each strategy on this scale, a total interaction score (Is) is determined for each strategy by obtaining the average of all the individual combination interaction scores. ∑ interaction scores of combination involving Is = a particular strategy number of combinations involving that particular strategy

Whole House Health Performance Score (Hs) The Whole House Health Performance Score is obtained in two steps. The performance factor (Pf) of each strategy is multiplied with its interaction score (Is). These values for all the strategies are summed up together to obtain the Whole House Health Performance Score (Hs). Hs = ∑ (Pf X Is)

The resultant value is compared with the score of the ideal healthy home. Comparing the case study house score with this ideal score will give the user an idea of how close the case study design comes to being an ideal healthy “whole house.”

SAMPLE “HEALTH PERFORMANCE CRITERION” AND ITS APPLICATION TO A CASE STUDY HOUSE In order to demonstrate the application of the framework, a sample health performance criterion was developed. This criterion was applied to a case study house to demonstrate its potential applications. The case study home is a site-built home provided by a major homebuilder. Several assumptions were made so that the case study would satisfy the LEED for homes rating system. The credits that have significant impact on health and comfort of occupants are given more importance. It is a three level home with standard 2x4 studs at 16” O.C. The foundation walls are cast in place concrete and the floor and roof have pre-engineered trusses. Electrical and HVAC distribution was largely through the floor and through a vertical mechanical chase running from the basement to the second floor. The HVAC ducting used was flex duct and was easier to install. An optional zoned HVAC system was also specified, and all supply air registers openings on exterior walls were specified to be insulated with rigid urethane insulation board (R12). The design also specified use of low ‘E’ glass for all skylights, and all doors and windows were to be insulated.

Sample Criterion The sample criterion was based on relative scoring of various IEQ credits using the experiential judgment of the research team. It should be noted here that based on the framework presented in this research, different scoring criterion can be developed for a different region

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


28

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

and/or preference. The rating associated with each strategy is based on the understanding of the researchers and will be corroborated with a discussion of the specific strategy used within the design. The sample criterion has five components:

Weighting factors are applied to both the health performance attributes and the building systems that will highlight the importance of each of them in the health performance of a home. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was adopted to determine the weightage of each of the building system in respect of the health performance attributes and also the relative importance of each of these attributes (Saaty 1980, Haas & Meixner 2005). This process has been demonstrated here for the sake of conducting the case study and is based on the research team’s understanding of the relative importance of various building systems and health performance attributes.

Relative Weights of Building Systems and Health Performance Attributes The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) requires the development of a tree-like hierarchical structure of all the factors involved. AHP allows the user to assign relative weights in a logical manner through pair-wise relative comparison of these factors (Saaty 1980, Haas & Meixner 2005). The Health Performance Criterion has a three tier hierarchy. The lower tier consists of all the building systems, the middle one includes all the health performance attributes and the upper one is the health performance of the home. The first step in AHP is to make a pair-wise comparison of all the elements belonging to the same tier of hierarchy. The elements are pair-wise compared with respect to an element in a higher tier of the same hierarchy to show the relative importance of each element of the lower tier with respect to that element in the higher tier (Hass & Meixner 2005). Here the building systems in the lower tier are pair-wise compared to determine their level of impact on each of the health performance attributes. For example, the “envelope” is compared pair-wise to the remaining five building systems to determine its impact on humidity/moisture performance. Additionally, each of the health performance attributes is compared against each other to determine their relative importance for the health performance of the home. For example, the “humidity/moisture” performance is compared with the rest of the six

attributes to decide its relative importance in ensuring the health and comfort of occupants. For the purpose of pair-wise comparison the scale in Table 1 is used. Intensity Definition 1 Equal importance

Explanation Two activities contribute equally to the object 3 Moderate importance Slightly favors one over another 5 Essential or strong importance Strongly favors one over another 7 Demonstrated importance Dominance of the demonstrated importance in practice 9 Extreme importance Evidence of favoring one over another of highest possible order of affirmation 2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values When compromise is needed

Table 1. Scale of relative importance for pair-wise comparison (Dey 2002)

The various steps in AHP employed for establishing the relative importance of the factors in the Health Performance Criterion are as follows. First the six building systems are pair-wise compared to determine their levels of impact on each of the health performance attributes. For example, Table 2 shows a matrix of the pair-wise comparison of envelope, HVAC, plumbing, electrical/communication, lighting and interior systems to determine their levels of impact on the health performance attribute of IAQ - presence of indoor pollutants. The next step in AHP was to calculate the sum of all elements in a column and divide each element in that column by this sum. This process is known as normalizing the column and has been indicated in Table 3.The final step in AHP was to add all the elements in a row of the normalized matrix and divide it by the number of elements in that row. The new value obtained is the relative weight for the building system represented by that row. The relative weights for the six building systems are shown in Table 4. Envelope HVAC Plumbing Electrical Lighting Interior

Envelope HVAC Plumbing Electrical Lighting Interior 1 0.33 5 5 5 1 3 1 5 7 5 3 0.2 0.2 1 3 3 0.33 0.2 0.14 0.3 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1 1 0.33 1 0.3 3 5 3 1

Table 2. Matrix of comparison for building systems affecting IAQ – presence of indoor pollutants

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


29

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

Envelope HVAC Plumbing Electrical Lighting Interior Envelope 0.18 0.15 0.34 0.23 0.28 0.17 HVAC 0.54 0.46 0.34 0.32 0.28 0.51 Plumbing 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.14 0.17 0.06 Electrical 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.03 Lighting 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.06 Interior 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.23 0.17 0.17

Table 3. Normalized matrix for building systems affecting IAQ – presence of indoor pollutants Envelope HVAC Plumbing Electrical Lighting Interior Relative Weights

0.22

0.41

0.09

0.04

0.05

0.18

Table 4. Relative weights for building systems affecting IAQ – presence of indoor pollutants

The steps outlined above are conducted for the rest of the health performance attributes and relative weights are obtained and these are shown in the Table 5. The relative weights are rounded off to the nearest multiple of 5 and then multiplied by 10. Therefore, effectively 10 points are distributed among the six building systems for each of the health performance attribute, in accordance to their relative weights. The process is continued for the next level of hierarchy to establish the relative importance of the health performance attributes with respect to the health performance of the home. These values are shown in Table 6. While scoring a particular strategy for performance, the relative weight of the building system and the health performance attribute to which it is most associated, is taken into consideration. The product of relative weights of the building system and the health performance attribute will adequately reflect the effect of the strategy’s performance on the overall health performance of the home. IAQ Humid./Moisture Temperature Ventilation Lighting Acoustics Ergo./safety

Envelope HVAC 2.00 4.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 0.50 3.50 1.50 3.00 1.00

Plumbing Electrical Lighting Interior 1.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 0.50 0.50 2.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 0.50 3.50 3.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00

Table 5. Adjusted relative weights for building systems affecting health performance attributes

Humidity/ IAQ Moisture Temperature Relative weights

3.50

2.00

1.50

Ergono. Design/ Ventilation Lighting Acoustics Safety 1.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

Table 6. Adjusted relative weights for attributes affecting the health performance of a home

Health Performance Score Figure 6 shows the actual health performance calculation score for the case study house. The attributes of indoor environmental quality and their relevant strategies are weighted and related to the various building systems. Using the envelope as an example, the relative weight of this building system under Indoor Air Quality - presence of indoor pollutants (a) is 2.00 and a corresponding relative weight of associated IEQ attribute (b) of 3.50 is indicated above it. A performance score of 2 is indicated in column (x) and an interaction score of 2.3 is also indicated in column (y). In the relevant interference column, an A1-A4 interaction for instance means that garage-living spaces interface (A1), exterior water management systems (A2), material thermal performance (A3), and natural ventilation (A4) together with their corresponding strategies will interact. The performance factor is determined by the product of the performance score (x), relative weight of the building system (a) and relative weight of the associated IEQ attribute (b). Finally, the “whole house” score (Hs) for this particular building system of 32.2 is determined by the product of the performance factor (a*b*x) and the interaction score (y). This is repeated for all other architectural and engineering design considerations and the “whole house” score (Hs) for the envelope is determined by adding all the “whole house” scores to get a total score of 321.6 (~322). This process is repeated for Humidity/moisture; Temperature attributes and their relevant strategies to get a score of 252.1 (~252) and 169.7 (~170) respectively. The sum of all the attributes, that is IAQ – Presence of Indoor Pollutants, Humidity/moisture, Temperature, Ventilation, Lighting, Acoustics, and Ergonomic design and safety, which totals 744 is put in the corresponding Final Score for the particular building system (Envelope).

Going through the same process, as indicated above, for the HVAC Building System results in a final score of 1586.05 (~1586) and this has been indicated in the

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


30

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

corresponding Final Score section. This process is repeated for the remaining building systems and attributes of indoor environmental qualities that is, Plumbing; Electrical/Communication; Lighting; and Interior. To obtain a final value, the Final Scores for all the building systems and attributes of indoor environmental qualities are summed up.

The score for the case study house was then compared with the sample criterion used by the researchers which can lead to a maximum score representing the ideal health performance score. This is obtained by assigning a performance score of 5 and an interaction score of 5 for all the strategies and adding the individual scores for the various strategies. The maximum score comes out to be 6680 and the hypothetical case study house score added to 2870 or about 43% of the ideal performance score. It should be noted again that the sample criterion and the scores are qualitative and can vary based on the expectations and preferences of the evaluators. The case study application was performed to demonstrate the possible applications of the Health Performance Criteria Framework.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This research attempts to substantiate the importance of building design, construction and building systems integration on the health and comfort of its occupants. The main objective of this research was to propose a framework to demonstrate the impact of building systems in a home on its occupants. This was accomplished through the understanding of a) indoor environment quality and human health, b) the “whole house” approach, and c) green building and homes guidelines by using the LEED-Homes rating system. The research began by establishing the IEQ of a home as a critical factor to achieve residential occupant health and comfort. Though several reasons can be attributed to the decline in IEQ in recent times, a major cause can be traced to the isolated optimization of building systems to achieve efficiency. This factor combined with less than optimal performance in temperature, humidity control, lighting, acoustics and ergonomics has the potential to undermine the IEQ of homes. The “whole house” approach was adopted to understand and improve health performance of homes.

The Health Performance Criteria Framework was developed using the IEQ related credits in the LEEDH health matrix which is a step by step method for analyzing the health effect on the building occupants. The Health Performance Criteria Framework is scored for performance and interaction based on the design/construction/integration strategy of the building. Each building system and attribute related to IEQ is associated with a certain weight that refers to the role of the strategies pertaining to the building system or the overall performance of the home.

In order to demonstrate the application of the framework, a sample criterion was developed and applied to a case study house provided by a national homebuilder. The hypothetical score obtained as a comparison to the ideal Health Performance score of 6680 was about 43% of the ideal score. This exercise was conducted to demonstrate the potential application of the proposed framework.

This research raises the awareness of the importance of building design, construction and building systems integration on the health and comfort of occupants. The framework may be a useful tool for a homeowner/ builder in decision making. It can be concluded that integrated design measures focusing on synergistic interactions of building systems in homes can enhance their health performance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the National Science Foundation (CMS-0229856) in conjunction with The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environment Research Initiative of the Environment Science and Policy Program at Michigan State University. The authors would also like thank the national homebuilders who provided the case study projects.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


31

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

LEED checklist LEED Health Effects and d Supporting item Intent & Literatu a ure Rationale Direct Effects Indirect Effects Intent: !No direct health !Humidity Credit 3: effects from significantly Humidity/ Provide a comfortable humidity per se. affects local Moisture thermal BUT thermal Control

LEED LEED Broad Interaction Guidelines Scenarios

Systems Interaction Aspects

!Analyze !Water leakage !Humidity control moisture through equipment should be loads and building selected to maintain need for a envelopes can maximum humidity levels environment !Known health comfort. Local central be another based on the summer in the home. effects related to thermal humidity major cause of design indoor air discomfort can control indoor temperature. high humidity are system. environmental !Adding humidity may Rationale: primarily caused by be due to the insufficient Install problems (e.g., waste energy and in some the growth and Occupant cooling of the humidity mold). The cases has been shown to comfort may spread of biotic mucous control LEED points be unhealthy and may be adversely agents under membrane in system for improved have adverse effects on affected by elevated humidity, upper where foundation, durability (LEED 2005). very high or and humidity respiratory needed to exterior wall, !Studies show that interactions with very low tract, resulting maintain and roof water moisture transfer between non-biotic humidity from high humidity management indoor air and the levels in the pollutants, such as ratios water are hygroscopic structure home. High formaldehyde (Arens temperature included in significantly reduces the & Baughman 1996). and humidity below humidity of air (Toftum 0.012 (lb. Materials and peak indoor humidity. levels may !A few pathogens et al. 1998). water Resources causing infectious Hygroscopic structure also foster vapor / lb. credit 4, with a permeable interior mold growth. diseases can !Humidity dry air) per Durability plan. coating is able to colonize abundantly affects the within moist perception of Section significantly improve 5.2.2 of environments indoor air warm respiratory comfort outside the human quality (Fang ASHRAE and perceived air quality Standard body and become et al. 1998). (PAQ) during occupation. airborne given In general, a hygroscopic !Low humidity 55-2004. proper conditions structure will reduce the can result in (Flannigan 1992). peak values of indoor the drying out humidity, but as heat and of nasal and !The majority of patients suffering moisture transfer are throat from asthma are coupled, the indoor membranes, allergic to dust temperature will increase leading to mites, mold, and/or discomfort. when moisture animal dander accumulates in the !Dehumidificati (Berglund et al. hygroscopic structure and on can result in 1992). decrease when moisture static is dried from the electricity in !Non-allergic immunologic structure. As humidity is buildings responses like important for warm which can be hypersensitivity respiratory comfort and hazardous. pneumonitis can be PAQ, the net result is that triggered by fungi comfort levels increase and bacteria. They (Simonson et al. 2002). occur as a result of repeated pollutant exposures (Burge 1988).

Figure 1: Health Matrix for an Example LEED-H Credit

APRIL 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


32

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

Health Impacts

Relevant Physical, Chemical and Biological Interactions

Involved IEQ Attributes

IAQ ! Pathogens colonize in Humidity/moisture moist environments and Temperature become airborne given Ventilation !Infectious diseases caused proper conditions. by pathogens. Lighting ! Growth and spread of biotic agents under elevated Acoustics !Asthma caused by mites, mold and animal dander. Ergo. design/safety humidity. !Hypersensitivity ! Dust collected in humid pneumonitis caused by areas promotes biotic fungi and bacteria. growth. !Respiratory ailments ! Fungi can produce VOC caused by aerosols. that can be harmful for !Susceptibility to biological health. and non-biological ! Formaldehyde off gassing pollutants. from pressed wood products is related to levels !Local thermal comfort. of humidity. !Perception of IAQ. !Static electricity hazards. ! Nitrogen and sulphur dioxide present in indoor environment react with water on indoor surfaces to form aerosols. ! Moisture infiltration through envelope due to temperature and vapor gradients between indoor and outdoor environments. Credit : Humidity/ Moisture Control

Health Performance Goals and Involved Building Systems

Building Systems Design/ Construction/Integration Strategies

! Reduce moisture infiltration (air). ! Tight envelope construction to prevent Envelope moisture infiltration. HVAC ! Maintain high pressure inside buildings to prevent moisture infiltration through external air. ! Reduce moisture infiltration (structure). ! Slope roof to prevent moisture infiltration. Envelope ! Roof overhang. HVAC ! Foundation waterproofed and insulated Electrical to prevent moisture infiltration and Plumbing dampness. Communication ! Reduce service duct runs through envelope. Interior ! Properly design electrical fixtures in the exterior. ! Soil grading to be done away from the building. ! Site drainage. ! Gutter positions. ! Protect building materials from the elements during construction. ! Reduce humidity/moisture levels ! HVAC to maintain proper humidity levels. HVAC system design should in homes. HVAC take into account moisture due to infiltration and occupant activities. ! Bathrooms and kitchens mechanically vented. ! Reduce moisture level in homes (occupant activities). ! Bathroom/kitchen venting should take into account problems due to negative HVAC pressure.

Figure 2: Process for Generating Building Systems Strategies Identify Health Impacts of LEED Credits

Identify relevant Physical-ChemicalBiological Interactions and Processes

Identify Involved IEQ Attributes • IAQ • Humidity/Moisture • Temperature • Ventilation • Lighting • Acoustics • Ergonomic design/ Safety

Identify Relevant Building Systems • Envelope F• HVAC • Electric./Comm. • Plumbing • Lighting • Interior Generate Building Systems Design/ Construction/ Integration Strategies

Frame Health Performance Goals

Figure 3: Building Systems Strategies for an Example LEED-H Credit APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


33

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

Figure 4: Health Performance Criteria Framework - Health Performance Goals

Figure 5: Health Performance Criteria Framework â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Building Systems Design/Construction/Integration Strategies APRIL 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

Figure 6: Sample Health Performance Criteria Case Study – Site Built Home

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org

34


35

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

REFERENCES

AAAAI (2007). American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, Asthma Statistics, 2007. URL: http://www.aaaai.org/media/statistics/asthmastatistics.asp, (viewed in November 2010). Arens & Baughman (1996a) - Arens, E., Baughman, A. (1996). “Indoor Humidity and Human Health: Part I – Literature Review of Health Effects of HumidityInfluenced Indoor Pollutants.” ASHRAE Transactions, 102(1).

Arens & Baughman (1996b) - Arens, E., Baughman, A. (1996). “Indoor Humidity and Human Health: Part II – Buildings and their systems.” ASHRAE Transactions, 102(1).

Bass et al. (2003) - Bass, B., Economou, V., Lee, C., K., Perks, T., Smith, S., Queenie Yip, Q. (2003). “The Interaction Between Physical and SocialPsychological Factors in Indoor Environmental Health.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 85(2): 199 - 219.

Berglund et al. (1992) - Berglund, B., Brunekreep, B., Knopple, H., Lindvall, T., Maroni, L. (1992). Effects of indoor air pollution on human health. Indoor Air 2: 2-25.

Bornehag et al. (2004) - Bornehag, C. G., Sundell, J., Bonini, S., Custovic, A., Malmberg, P., Skerfving, S., Sigsgaard, T., and Verhoeff, A. (2004). “Dampness in buildings as a risk factor for health effects, EUROEXPO: a multidisciplinary review of the literature (1998-2000) on dampness and mite exposure in buildings and health effects.” Indoor Air, 14(4), 243-257.

Burge (1998) - Burge, H.A. 1988. Environmental allergy, definition, causes, control. Proceedings of IAQ ’88. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Dey (2002). Dey, P. (2002). “Benchmarking project management practices of Caribbean organizations using analytic hierarchy process.” Benchmarking: An International Journal, Department of Management Studies, University of West Indies, Barbados, West Indies. 9(4).

DOH-WA (1999) – Department of Health Washington. (1999). “Indoor Air Quality – Primer.” Division of Environmental Health, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA. URL: http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/IAQ/IAQPRIME.pdf, (viewed in June 2007). Fein (1972) - Fein, G. (1972). “The Evaluation of the Technical and Spatial Aspects of Selected Types of Pre-fabricated Modular Construction.” Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Fisk & Rosenfeld (1997) - Fisk W. and Rosenfeld A. (1997). “Estimates of improved productivity and health from better indoor environments.” Indoor Air 1997; 7: 158-72. Fisk et al. (2002) - Fisk, W., Brager, G., Brook, M., Burge, H., Cole, J., Cummings, J., Levin, H., Loftness, V., Logee, T., Mendell, M., Persily, A., Taylor, S., and Zhang, J. (2002). “A Priority Agenda for EnergyRelated Indoor Environmental Quality Research.” Indoor Air 2002, The 9th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Monterey, California. Fisk (2005) - Fisk, W. (2005). “Impact of Indoor Environmental Quality on Health and Productivity and Implications for Building Design and Operation.” Engineering Sustainability 2005 Conference, University of Pittsburgh, PA.

Flannigan (1992) - Flannigan, B. Approaches to assessment of the microbial flora of buildings. Environments for People: Proceedings of lAQ ’92, September, San Francisco, pp.139-145. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc.

Hass & Meixner (2005) - Haas, R. and Meixner, O. (2005). “A guide to analytic hierarchy process.” University of Natural Resources and applied Life Sciences, Vienna. URL: http://www.boku.ac.at/ mi/ahp/ahptutorial.pdf (viewed in December 2007).

Hawks & Hansen (2002) - Hawks, L., and Hansen, A. (2002). “How to purchase a healthy home.” Electronic publishing, Utah State University extension. http://extension.usu.edu/files/homipubs/ hh06.pdf (viewed in June 2007).

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


36

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

Jaakkola et al. (1999) - Jaakkola, J., Oie, L., Nafstad, P., and Botten, G. (1999). “Interior surface materials in the home and the development of bronchial obstruction in young children in Oslo, Norway.” American Journal of Public Health, 82(2), 188-92.

Klepeis et al. (2001) - Klepeis, N., Nelson, W., Ott, W., Robinson, J., Tsang, A., Switzer, P., Behar, J., Hern, S., and Engelmann, W. (2001). “The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) - A Resource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants.” Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA. Laquatra et al. (2008) - Laquatra, J., Pillai, G., Singh, A., and Syal, M. (2008). “Green and Healthy Housing,” Forum Paper, Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE.

Levin (1989) - Levin H. (1989). “Building materials and indoor air quality.” Occupational Medicine, 4(4):667-93.

LHC (1990) – LHC (1990). “Sick Building Syndrome: Causes, Effects and Control.” London Hazard Center, London, UK.

NIOSH (2005) - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2005). “NIOSH Safety and Health Topic: Indoor Environmental Quality.” National institute for occupational safety and health, URL: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ indoorenv/ (viewed in November 2005).

O’Brien et al. (2005) - O’Brien, M., Wakefield, R., and Nowak, M. (2005). “A Preliminary Method to Develop a Calculator for Evaluating Physical Design Characteristics and Whole House Performance Scoring.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, D.C.

PATH (2000) - Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (2000). “Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing: Year 2000 Progress Assessment of the PATH Program.” Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS).

Pillai (2006) - Pillai, G. (2006). “Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes Based on Whole House and LEED Approaches,” Master’s thesis, Construction Management, Michigan State University, MI.

Russell (1981) - Russell, B. (1981). Building Systems Industrialization and Architecture, John Wiley & Sons Inc., NY. Saaty (1980) - Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York, NY

Simonson et al. (2002) - Simonson, C., Salonvaara, M., and Ojanen, T. 2002b. Humidity, comfort and air quality in a bedroom with hygroscopic wooden structures. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Building Physics in the Nordic Countries.Trondheim, 17 - 19 June 2002. Vol. 2, pp. 743-750. Byggforsk; SINTEF; NTNU. Trondheim.

Singh et al. (2010 A) - Singh, A., Syal, M., Grady, S., and Korkmaz, S. (2010). “Effect of Green Buildings on Employee Health and Productivity.” American Journal of Public Health, 100(19), 1665 – 1668. Singh et al. (2010 B) - Singh, A., Syal, M., Korkmaz, S., and Grady, S. (2010). “Life Costs and Benefits of IEQ Improvements in LEED Office Buildings, Accepted for publication in the ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Pre-edited version published online – http://www.ascelibrary.aip.org/iso.

Southface (2002) - Southface Energy Institute (2002). “Indoor Air Quality - sources, controls, testing.” http://www.southface.org/web/resources&services /publications/factsheets/4airqual.pdf (viewed in June 2007).

Sundell & Nordling (2003) - Sundell, J. and Nordling, (2003), European interdisciplinary networks on indoor environment and health, Report no. 2003:32, National institute of public health, Sweden.

Swarup (2005) - Swarup, L. (2005). “Whole House Criteria Framework and its Application.” Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Toftum et al. (1998) - Toftum J., Jorgensen, A.S. and Fanger, P.O., 1998, Upper limits of air humidity for preventing warm respiratory discomfort, Energy and Buildings, 28, 15-23.

USGBC-LEED (2008) - LEED Rating System for Homes (LEED-H) Version 2, (2008). www.usgbc.org/leed United States Green Building Council, Washington, DC.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


37

Health Performance Criteria Framework for Homes

Whole House (2001) - Whole House and Building Process Redesign (2001). NAHB Research Center and Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C.

Whole House (2003) -Whole House and Building Process Redesign Roadmap, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C.

Wood (2003) - Wood, R. (2003). “Improving the Indoor Environment for Health,(2003). Well-being and Productivity.” AILA NSW conference, 2003, Sydney, Australia. .

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study

38

Lauren J. Staniec, LEED AP; Kenneth J. Tiss, AIC, CPC

ABSTRACT: With evidence of global climate change mounting, industries are looking for ways to mitigate its damages. The purpose of this study is to generate preliminary discussions of how the construction and associated industries can ease economic (i.e.; revenue, tax and insurance impacts), environmental (i.e.; raw material preservation, reduction of greenhouse gas generation, and natural resource preservation) and social burdens (i.e.; life and safety considerations) in areas of most immediate concern: coastal areas. This case study uses the island of Manhattan and, in particular, the Empire State Building to determine the potential economic, environmental and social impacts associated with demolition as a mitigation tactic. Keywords:

Demolition, Natural Decomposition, Deconstruction, Global Climate Change

INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem

Mans repeated land and atmospheric alterations throughout the course of history have created potentially treacherous living conditions in coastal areas worldwide. Rising sea levels and increasing storm events when combined with engineered landscapes could lead to devastating consequences if scientific predictions are accurate.

New York City serves as our case study. Since the Dutch occupation of the Island of Manhattan in the 17th century, the terrain has been systematically altered. Land was flattened and naturally occurring waterways drained to accommodate an increasing number of settlers. Transportation of Dutch East India Trading Company exports required the creation of deep water ports and so the Island was artificially extended along the southern and eastern coasts for this purpose. Today, the island is an engineered marvel both above and below ground and sea. Engineered seawalls and dykes are the

current barriers between the rising sea and the City. As seen in New Orleans, Louisiana these stormwater mitigation methods can grow weak and fail. According to Climate Risk Information 2009 (New York City’s Panel on Climate Change) it is estimated that sea levels surrounding New York City have already risen 10 inches over the last century and are anticipated to rise another 22 inches during the twenty first century.

If coastal sea level rise around Manhattan does occur as anticipated, some portions of the Island may be permanently submerged, requiring evacuation, and creating hazardous coastal environments; a phenomenon currently occurring in the Pacific atolls. Entire island nations are being forced to relocate to mainland. Given these precedents, could demolition be a measure for creating multiple social benefits in a time of a drastically changing global environment?

METHODOLOGY Three methods of demolition were studied to determine their associated societal impacts: natural decomposition (allowing building disintegration via the laws of nature—common in rust belt cities); traditional demolition (specifically, building

Lauren Staniec, LEED AP is a project manager, LEED consultant and tenant coordinator with Syracuse, NY developer Pyramid Management Group. Lauren previously studied at SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry where she obtained a Master's of Science in Sustainable Construction Management.

Kenneth Tiss, AIC, CPC is currently on staff at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in the Sustainable Construction Management and Engineering Faculty.  He conducts undergraduate and graduate coursework and research in the Construction Management program. APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


39

Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study

implosion); and deconstruction (tearing down the building with its materials mostly intact for reuse). Each method was studied for its impact on the following criteria:

• Economic impact- Does this method generate revenue? Is it economically viable? Does it create beneficial or detrimental tax and insurance impacts — for individuals/ organizations? What miscellaneous economic impacts are discovered through research? • Life and Safety- How are construction workers and local communities affected? What considerations must be made for the people of Manhattan; the companies performing the work? Is this information transferable to locations outside of the research area? • Environmental impact- What happens to the air and water quality at the demolition site? How are surrounding ecosystems affected by demolition and the result of demolition? How does each demolition method preserve or impair remote sites associated with material manufacturing?

The Empire State Building served as the test subject for this research, selected for its notoriety and thus abundance of construction documentation. The art deco building was designed by Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates and completed in 1930 by the Starret Brothers & Eken contractors. It is located at 350 Fifth Avenue between 33rd and 34th Streets, a location recognized as being outside of the currently anticipated flood zone. The building covers roughly two acres at its base, beginning 55 feet below ground, and extending 102 stories above ground to a height of 1,252 feet above street level. Three primary building elements were assessed to determine the abovementioned impact of each method: the building skin, structure (including steel, elevator shafts and stairwells), and mooring tower. Interior finishes were not recognized in this research due to lack of information regarding up-todate tenant fit-ups.

Material quantities for this article were established by the author using the building's architectural construction documents studied at Columbia University's Avery Architectural Library. Structural drawings were unavailable at the time of research and required assumptions by the author regarding material quantities. These assumptions were established with

the aid of the architectural drawings and buildingspecific literature--most commonly referenced is the book Building the Empire State. The breakdown of building elements are as follows:

Building skin: • 198,328 cubic feet of limestone cladding stoneanchored to masonry back-up wall constructed of approximately 10 million common bricks. • 2,738 cubic yards of granite at five entrances. • Lead cowing joints (noted for recognition of abatement). • Metal accents for adornment and joint covers: 300 tons of aluminum spandrel panels and 300 tons of chrome nickel steel joint covers. • 6,620 double hung steel windows. • Current roofing information was unavailable. Documentation of the original roof consists of single ply tarp paper, 500 barrels of pitch, and 77,200 square feet of one-inch cork insulation, cement and sand. These estimates also include the building skin for the mooring tower. • No quantifiable information exists for the skin of the mooring tower. Its elements were approximated with the use of drawings plans and elevations and incorporated into the numbers listed above.

Building Structure: • The riveted steel structure is estimated to weigh 57,480 tons including vertical columns and horizontal floor beams. Structural drawings were not available, but column counts and floor to floor heights were available on the architectural plans. The steel was then assigned a weight per lineal foot. • Floors were constructed of four-inch concrete slabs (62,000 cubic yards) reinforced with 2,900,000 square feet of wire mesh throughout the building. Electrical wires also ran through these slabs. • 73 elevator and 12 stair shafts created approximately 824,168 square feet of various sized brick and hollow tile. • No quantifiable information exists for the structure of the mooring tower. Its elements were approximated with the use of drawings plans and elevations and incorporated into the numbers listed above.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study

Due to the foresighted nature of this report, all methods of comparison were based on the economics and laws at the time of the paper's initial writing: between 20082009. All three demolition methods were designed to abide by New York City’s Department of Building’s requirements, as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Association’s Safe Work Environments under both their construction and demolition work requirements. Additional organizations and requirements considered for this paper include: the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the Fire Department of New York, and the New York Police Department. Demolition design considerations from these organizations included: abatement of hazardous materials, fire protection, pedestrian protection, and the structural security of all vertical transportation and work surfaces.

All demolition estimates were assumed to be performed prior to longstanding flooding. The cost estimates for each method were conducted using 2007 RS Means Building Construction Cost Data Guidebook to ensure equal costing measures across all processes. Each mode was designed and costed with appropriate construction activities, timelines, tools, insurance, bonds, utilities and crews to safely complete the work in accordance to criteria mandated by local authorities. Industry resources were used for building elements outside of Mean’s abilities. Permitting fees were established using the 2009 requirements of the appropriate governing agency by demolition method.

Given the forward thinking approach of this paper, life and safety considerations were difficult to predict and heavily relied on generic research—very little quantifiable data was available for this topic. Therefore, considerations for life and safety impacts associated with each demolition method were generally considered, visualizing both documented and assumed effects on people and communities as they related to environmental impact progression, construction timelines, and research associated with the vacated buildings. This portion of research was ultimately used to inform future discussions and research.

Lastly, environmental considerations were estimated for all three demolition methods. Each process compared the embodied energy and global warming

40

potential of each material salvaged, recycled, or disposed of versus the impact of that same material in its virgin form. This data was generated using the materials identified within the building and calculating their environmental impact using the University of Bath’s Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) Version 1.6—a resource guide previously funded by the Carbon Trust for the “Carbon Vision Buildings Programme”. This guide is recognized as one of the most complete references of greenhouse gas and embodied energy data for commonly utilized construction materials on today’s projects. Additional consideration was given to the effects on land, air, and water in the surrounding area and how these environmental impacts affected the life and safety of the surrounding community and ecosystem..

FINDINGS Economics

The initial closing of the Empire State Building would create the same revenue and property tax loss across all three demolition methods. In 2009 the management company paid nearly $22.5 million in annual property taxes. These taxes would require payment regardless of rent roles on the property, and without income generation by leases would force a lien on the property. Currently, two interest-only mortgages exist on the property summing $92 million due in May 2012. These interest-only improvement loans frequently persist on commercial properties and are likely to be harder to secure in the future as income on the property decreases due to a lack of tourism or rental profits creating the potential for foreclosure of the property. At this time the loans are held by two separate financial institutions which create a complicated foreclosure situation.

Determined upfront costs associated with natural decomposition are the least expensive of all three methods at $40.4 million. However, recurring expenses related to property taxes (currently $22.5 million), liability insurance, and the cost of sporadic Citymandated repairs must be paid. Annual tax and insurance premiums will likely decrease as the building decomposes, but such costs remain tied to the building and would quickly meet and exceed the costs associated with the other two methods. A crew of

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


41

Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study

approximately 170 people was required for sealing work including abatement, window and door sealing, and the installation of one operational roller grill door for fire department access. Work would take place for a duration of three months. This level of short-term paid employment is the smallest cost burden of the three methods to the building owner but only briefly generates income to the wider local economy. Materials are sourced for the project, installed, and then the site is abandoned; there is no long-term economic gain. Once the building is sealed, nature takes many years to complete the tear-down.

The cost of traditional demolition is $64.8 million, reduced by the resale of $21.0 million in recyclable materials, for a net total of $43.8 million. This method of demolition will dramatically change the assessment on the property thus immediately lowering taxes and insurance premiums. Demolition increases the project duration to nine months and will employ approximately 427 people over various stages. Despite these marked increases, the upfront cost is only $3.4 million more natural decomposition. The building is abated, stripped of loose materials, (namely glass and cladding) imploded, then further crushed into fill for onsite use. From an economic standpoint this method pays a larger, more varied group of workers for a longer period of time. In addition, the recycling efforts create additional work in other sectors, namely glass and metal recycling, and the manufacturing of new products from these materials.

Deconstruction is the most expensive model of demolition considered. The initial costs of the project are estimated at $94.1 million with material offset values of $26.2 million bringing the net total to $67.9 million. Deconstruction had the greatest employment opportunity creating continuous full time employment for approximately 572 workers over two years. Because of deconstruction’s systematic nature, all crews are utilized for the project’s entire duration. This process is the most expensive but on a larger economic scale creates the largest workforces both on and off site. In addition to construction activities, recycling efforts, work associated with their end product, and salvage and restoration jobs are created from the byproducts of this building.

Demolition Salvaged Material Demolition Offset Total Demolition Method Subtotal Natural Decomposition $40.4 Million $0 $40.4 Million* Traditional $64.8 Million $21.0 Million $43.8 Million Demolition Deconstruction $94.1Million $26.2 Million $67.9 Million *Recurring costs

Table 1: Cost Comparisons of Three Methods of Demolishing the Empire State Building

Life & Safety

Each form of demolition has its own life and safety concerns. Decomposition presents the smallest risk to crews onsite due to the relatively safe process of sealing the building. However, the safety of the broader community is highly variable. The population immediately surrounding the building, the potential for anticipated volatile weather events, and the rate of decomposition all play roles. Due to the anticipated vagrancy associated with vacant buildings, a police presence would be required by the City of New York to maintain a criminal-free environment—vacant buildings being a common source of fire and criminal activity within cities today. But concerns over patrol’s compensation T would have to be considered. Additionally, the hazardous abatement of the building eliminates risk of any foreseen, long-term health implications.

A majority of building implosions occur exactly as planned; however, in the rare instance of error, consequences can be catastrophic. Misfires and the intentional weakening of the building could cause an uncontrolled collapse endangering crews and spectators. In the densely populated area of Fifth Avenue, nearby buildings are prone to blast vibrations which can cause the shattering of glass and cracking of building materials creating additional falling debris. The clearing of the premises during and post-implosion would reduce the air quality in the immediate area for both workers and community members. This is due to the dust created from clearing the debris pile and the emissions of equipment clearing and transporting the rubble. Reduced air quality can create a number of health risks, and in turn insurance impacts to those exposed for long periods of time. Such illnesses include, but are not limited to: asthma, respiratory infections, and heart disease.

The same health issues from dust and diesel emissions occur in areas of deconstruction. However, these effects

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


42

Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study

can be amplified due to longer work durations and the close proximity of workers to dust and equipment emissions (i.e., inside the building being deconstructed). Much of the work would be performed at great heights, in close proximity to equipment and falling debris, and use hand-tools that can cause accidental injury with improper use. Despite deconstruction being a slower method of demolition it can still create risk to workers which must be mitigated by mandated preventive measures to keep insurance costs associated with this work from rising. Environmental

Each form of demolition created an environmental impact. In natural decomposition, materials used for the sealing process exploited 5,357,772 MJ of embodied energy (the sum of energy consumed to create a product from raw material extraction through installation) and created 516,324 kg of carbon dioxide during their manufacture. At first glance these impacts are far less than those seen in traditional demolition and deconstruction; however, these new materials and the original stockpile of building materials are left to decompose. While not creating a large environmental impact at this site, these materials sit wasted, unable to contribute to the production of new materials/products. At the time the building is abandoned, the building pieces in place will have used 6,772,117,441 MJ of energy and created 396,989,719 kg of carbon dioxide.

From the standpoint of new material creation, improvements are found with traditional demolition. With the exception of hazardous materials and the roofing system, the remaining building elements are recycled. Metals and glass are processed and added to new products as recycled content. Concrete, masonry, and stone are crushed and used as fill on-site. These recycling efforts extend the existing materials’ lifecycle and their processing into new, comparable products uses 535,656,036 MJ of energy and creates 24,510,862 kg of carbon dioxide. Additional fill was required on-site adding to the sum of embodied energy for this method totaling: 563,602,983 MJ and 25,562,022 kg carbon dioxide. The use of these recycled materials in new products contributes to ecosystem preservation and is E directly associated with the avoidance of raw material extraction, as well as preservation of clean air and water in these local ecosystems.

Clearing, loading, and hauling of these materials do create an environmental impact. Transportation energy and emissions are factored into the carbon dioxide numbers of this strategy. However, the air quality degradation associated with the effects of constant, onsite equipment operation could not be calculated due to lack of industry data. Traditional demolition projects demand the full-time operation of machinery for the duration of work causing nitrous oxide and particulate matter pollution—both of which are associated with smog and acid rain.

Deconstruction creates the most positive environmental impact of the three demolition methods. The windows, granite, limestone, and aluminum spandrel panels are all salvaged and intended to remain in their existing state, adding only transportation energy and emissions to their existing embodied energy. The remaining metals and storefront glass are recycled into new consumer products as recycled content. Concrete floor slabs and masonry are processed as fill and used on site. Additional clean fill is required on-site, more so than was required by demolition, due to salvage of the granite and limestone materials. This unfortunately reduced the environmental benefits gained by the salvage, the embodied energy used from this scenario is 547,075,557 MJ with the creation of 24,694,744 kg of carbon dioxide.

Deconstruction also utilizes diesel-run equipment at the project site but for a longer, two-year duration. It is expected that much of the equipment (except the tower cranes) will be smaller in size for their use inside the building. Their emissions will have the same environmental effects as the larger machinery, but it is unknown which process will create more pollution by project’s end. Demolition Method Embodied Energy Carbon Dioxide Emissions Traditional Demolition 562,602,983 MJ 25,562,022 kg CO2 Deconstruction 547,075,557 MJ 24,694,744 kg CO2

Table 2: Embodied Energy Comparison of Traditional Demolition and Deconstruction

Table 2 above illustrates the energy used and emissions created for the manufacture of new building products The salvage of materials from the from the existing building stock within the Empire State Building. Since natural decomposition leaves all materials in place, there is nothing to be analyzed. Moreover, it could be argued that natural decomposition is a greater environmental offender,

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 l The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org

Despite the

The life and


43

Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study

creating materials with the ultimate purpose of natural decomposition. The salvage of materials from the Empire State Building via deconstruction creates a three percent reduction of emissions and energy when compared to traditional demolition.

CONCLUSIONS The combination of findings from all three methods demonstrates that currently at least one social benefit suffers on behalf of the other two.

Natural decomposition does not favorably contribute to any of the topics discussed. Despite the low initial investment in sealing a building, there are ongoing costs associated with building upkeep and finances. At this time it is unclear how financial institutions would deal with the loss of loan payments on a scale as large as the indebted building stock of Manhattan. The life and safety of this demolition method would greatly depend on the status of the city—partially populated versus evacuated, and is impossible to evaluate at this time. And environmentally, natural decomposition holds valuable, energy intensive building resources in place, and requires the use of additional raw materials in the sealing process.

As laws and economies exist today, a combination of traditional demolition and deconstruction operates as the most successful method of demolition. This research reiterates why this is the case: the pace and cost of demolition is preferred by owners and constructors, but the environmental impacts and their associated charges lend themselves to deconstruction. Both methods create deeper economic stimulus within the construction community when compared to natural decomposition-but today a holistic view of the economy is not considered and is not the priority of demolition projects. Both methods contribute to the life and safety of on-site crews and the adjacent community--but again this is not a priority of a project.

With this opportunity of change ahead can we begin to view social benefits more holistically? Economies, resource availability, and our coastlines are changing. If as an industry we were to acknowledge the forecasted changes, we can being to react to aspects of demolition we know are not promoting social benefits. Demolition

for global climate change has the ability to create multiple benefits such as community preparedness, economic stability at a time of instability, and decreased environmental impacts—both in localized and remote areas. But our system is not yet set up for this.

A collaboration of industries could create true socially beneficial resolutions towards community preparedness associated with global climate change, and specifically sea level rise. Design, construction/deconstruction, financial institutions, insurance providers, local governments and their laws and incentives could be adapted to compliment and promote social considerations that will be effected by change.

Enduring questions related to this research: How would the additional examination of interior finishes and systems have affected the social benefits associated with this research? What are the environmental and widespread ecosystem impacts of vacant structures— especially those in loss-prone areas? What are the true environmental and health impacts associated with continuously operated construction equipment? How do the findings of the three previous questions alter the conclusions of this research? And, how can financial institutions better prepare for the anticipated, but unknown changes associated with global climate change?

REFERENCES Books Berge, Henley. The Ecology of Building Material, Princeton: Architectural Press, 2009.

Byles, Jeff. Rubble: Unearthing the History of Demolition. New York: Harmony Books, 2005.

Feld, Jacob and Carper, Kenneth. Construction Failure Second Edition. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publication,1997.

Levy, Matthys et al. Why Buildings Fall Down. New York: W.W. Norton Company, 1992.

McCully, Betsy. City At the Water’s Edge: A Natural History of New York. New Brunswick: Rivergate Books, an Imprint of Rutgers University, 2007.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study

Ponting, Clive. A New Green History of the World; The Environmental Collapse of Great Civilizations. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2007.

RS Means, 2007 Building Construction Cost Data Book. Massachusetts: Construction Publishers and Consultants, 2007. Sanderson, Eric. Manahatta- A Natural History of New York City. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc., 2009.

Tauranac, John. The Empire State Building. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

Weisman, Alan. The World Without Us. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin Press, 2007.

Willis, Carol. Building the Empire State. New York: W.W. Norton Company, 1998.

Zukas, Jonas A., and Walters, William P. Explosives Effects and Applications. New York: Springer Verlang Inc., 1998.

Articles Cho, Aileen and Bergeron, Angelle. “Louisiana Examines, Fixes Once Submerged Roads.” Engineering News Record, July 14, 2008.

Guy, Brad. “Labor vs. Salvage.” Construction and Demolition Recycling, September 2005. Kelley, Stephen. “American Construction Specifier, July 1990.

Skyscraper.”

The

Taylor, Brian. “Seeking Clear Skies.” Construction and Demolition Recycling, July 2006. The Economist. “Economic Fallout: New York City Finances.” The Economist, September 25, 2008.

Online Sources AOL News. “A Demolition Goes Very Wrong.” American Online posted August 4, 2009. http://news.aol.com/article/implosion-gone-wrongbuilding-rolls-over/602168 (accessed December 13, 2009).

Box, Dan. “Paradise Lost.” The Dan Box Blog, entry posted May 2009, http://www.theecologist.org/ pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=2470 (accessed August 12, 2009).

44

Preston Browning, Brad Guy, and Chris Beck. “Deconstruction: A New Cottage Industry for New Orleans.” Lifecycle Building Challenge. August 2006, http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/files/deconstruction %20A%20New%20Cottage%20Industry.pdf (accessed December 13, 2009).

Empire State Building Official Internet Site. “Facts and Trivia.” http://www.esbnyc.com (accessed July 17, 2009).

Knutson, Thomas. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA Overview of Current Research Results for Global Warming and Hurricanes. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr_web page.html#section1 (accessed September 10,2009). Mazria, Edward, ed. Architecture 2030. http://www.architecture2030.org (accessed September 9, 2009).

Navarro, Mireya. “Empire State Building Plans Environmental Retrofit.” The New York Times. April 7, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/science/eartch/ 07empire.html (accessed November 17, 2009)

New York City Department of Buildings. “Construction, Demolition, and Abatement Information.” New York City Department of Buildings Requirements. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/ construction_safety/demolition_safety.shtml (accessed December 13, 2009).

New York City Department of Finance. Tax Roll for Lot 41, Block 835, Empire State Building. http://nycprop.nyc. gov/nycproperty/nynav/jsp/stmtassesslst.jsp (accessed December 13, 2009). Owen Compliance Services, Inc. “Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS-RDX).” http://www.ocsresponds.com /ref/msds/msds-rdx.pdf (accessed October 13, 2009). Recycler’s World. “2008 Annual Report of Cast Aluminum.” www.recycle.net (accessed November 20, 2009).

---.”2008 Annual Report of Hastelloy C Scrap.” www.recycle.net (accessed November 20, 2009).

---.”2008 Annual Report of Number One Steel Scrap HMS1.” www.recycle.net (accessed November 20, 2009).

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


45

Demolition for Global Climate Change: The Empire State Building as a Case Study

Rocky Mountain Institute. “Greening the Empire State Building.” http://bet.rmi.org/rmi-news/greening-theempire-state-building.html (accessed December 13, 2009). ScienCenter. “Irreversible Warming: an Interview With Susan Soloman.” NOAA, ScienCentral News Website. http://www.sciencentral.com/video/2009/01/26/ irreversible-warming/ (accessed June 6, 2009)

Skyler, Edward, Chair. “Strengthening Safety, Oversight, and Coordination of Construction, Demolition, and Abatement Operation.” Construction, Demolition, and Abatement Working Group. 2008. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/pr277-08_safety _report.pdf (accessed July 6, 2009).

Whole Building Design Guide. “Construction Waste Management.” http://www.wbdg.org/resources/ cwmgmt.php (accessed December 14, 2009). Reports

Anair, Don. “Digging Up Trouble: The Health Risks of Construction Pollution in California.” Union of Concerned Scientists posted November 2006. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicle s/digging-up-trouble.pdf (accessed November 31, 2009).

Hammond, Geoff and Jones, Craig. Inventory of Carbon and Ice (ICE) Version 1.6. University of Bath. 2008.

Mills, Evan. A Ceres Report: From Risk to Opportunity, Insurer Responses to Climate Change 2008. April 2009.

National Demolition Association, Demolition Industry Promotes C&D Recycling. National Demolition Association Report. July, 2004.

Raskin, Paul et al. Great Transition; A report by the Global Scenario Group. Boston: The Stockholm Environmental Group, 2002. Reddy, B.V. Venkatarama. Department of Civil Engineering at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore. Embodied Energy in Building, 2003.

Rosenzweig, Cynthia et al. Climate Risk Information 2009. New York City’s Panel on Climate Change. February 17, 2009. http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/ pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf (accessed April 2, 2009). United States Department of Energy—Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Reducing Consumption for Water Pumping at Quarries. 2004.

Bovis Lend Lease. “130 Liberty Street: Contractor’s Implementation Plan for Decontamination and Deconstruction.” Bovis Lend Lease Report. http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/130Liberty/0 90218ImplementationPlan.pdf (accessed December 13, 2009). Construction, Demolition, and Abatement Working Group. Strengthening Safety, Oversight, and Coordination of Construction, Demolition, and Abatement Operations, 2008

Energy Information Administration. International Energy Annual Report 2006. U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/ overview.html (accessed September 9, 2009).

IPCC Summary of Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/ pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-frontmatter .pdf (accessed September 9, 2009).

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Why Owners Pursue LEED Certification

46

Snowil J Lopes, MCSM, Dennis C Bausman, PhD and Shima Clarke, PhD Clemson University ABSTRACT: Over 40,000 commercial and industrial projects representing 7.9 billion square feet of construction in 50 states and 117 countries have achieved, or are in the process of obtaining, LEED certification. The initial cost premium to build green can range from 0% to 10%+/- depending on the actual study and a number of design and construction variables, including the level of green certification. So why are owners increasingly making the choice to obtain green building certification? This study examines the variables that influence an owner’s decision. The findings are that owners perceive that LEED certification enhances the energy efficiency of a building. Building owners also believe that certification improves indoor air quality, indoor lighting quality, and the general environment of the occupants. LEED certification is perceived to enhance sustainable site development, save natural resources, and minimize material use. However, there was no statistical support that post occupancy energy performance of certified buildings was monitored and that post occupancy energy efficiency performance met design expectations. Actual building performance was not adequately monitored to confirm intended or perceived results. Keywords:

LEED, green certification, building performance

INTRODUCTION The ‘Green’ movement pervades most every aspect of our lives from the food that we consume, the car that we drive, to the buildings we occupy. Buildings are one of the largest end users of energy accounting for 25-40% of the final global energy demand. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, buildings in the US account for 38.9% of the nation’s energy consumption, 72% of US electricity use, and contribute approximately forty percent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions (EPA, DOE).

To achieve a sustainable energy future with low carbon emissions, energy efficiency in buildings is a very important factor. Energy efficient buildings are a very attractive goal from a number of perspectives. Building owners attain lower energy costs, the push for energy

efficient technology can create growth and new employment opportunities, and progress toward environmental CO2 reduction targets can be achieved. In addition, energy efficient building is becoming more important as energy costs rise (Laustsen 2009).

As the interest in energy efficiency has risen, so has the number of green building certification and rating systems. One of the most common in the US is LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Another common US rating system is Energy Star. It is a program developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy to promote and measure energy efficient products and practices. Green Globes is an online assessment and rating system used for certification of green buildings in the US and Canada. Its origin emanates from the BREEAM rating system which stands for British Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method. BREEAM is a UK environmental rating system to evaluate building design, construction and use. CASBEE, Comprehensive

Dr. Dennis C. Bausman serves as Professor and Endowed Faculty Chair in the Construction Science and Management (CSM) Department at Clemson University. He is an AIC Fellow, a member on AIC’s Board and the Constructor Certification Commission, and serves as Editor of AIC’s Journal The American Professional Constructor.

Dr. Shima Clarke received her PhD in Civil Engineering from University of Tennessee.  She is an associate professor in the Construction Science and Management department at Clemson University, a registered professional engineer, and a Constructor member of AIC. Snowil J Lopes is a graduate student in the Masters of Construction Science and Management at Clemson University

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


47

Why Owners Pursue LEED Certification

Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency, is a rating system that takes into consideration issues and problems peculiar to Japan and Asia. GB Tool is an assessment system managed by the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment and the Pearl Rating System was recently developed by the Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council (USGBC, Energy Star, Green Globes, BREEAM).

Currently the standard in the US for evaluating a building’s environmental impact is LEED certification process created by the US Green Building Council. “LEED provides building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions (USGBC).” It establishes metrics that encourage efficient energy and water use, enhance indoor environmental quality, and support resource stewardship and environmentally sensitive site development techniques (USGBC).

Increasingly, more owners are opting to construct LEED certified buildings, reducing their carbon footprint and improving the value of their buildings. Since the U.S. Green Building Council  (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification process was first developed in March 2000, the number of buildings certified has grown annually. More than 40,000 commercial and industrial projects have gone through or are in the process, representing 7.9 billion square feet of construction space in 50 states and 117 countries (The Business Journal, 2011).

But why are owners increasingly making the choice to build green? The initial cost premium to build green can range from 0% to 10%+/- depending on the study and a number of variables including the level of certification (Suttell 2006, Morris & Langdon 2007). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) there are three primary benefits – environmental, economic, and social. Environmental benefits include enhanced air and water quality, reduction of the waste stream, protection of the ecosystem, and the conservation of natural resources. Social benefits entail occupant health and comfort, reduced stress on the local infrastructure, and quality of life issues. Economic benefits include a reduced operating cost, improved occupant productivity, optimal life-cycle performance, and increased opportunity and demand for green products and services (EPA).

When considering the green attributes of a potential investment property, energy efficiency often comes first. It provides the cornerstone of a property’s green rating and is of paramount consideration to an investor undertaking a green real estate purchase or development. Energy efficiency is important not only because of the environmental concerns surrounding energy use, but because among all potential environmental facets of a green building it provides by far the most economic return. Cash flow and profitability resulting from building green are largely derived through energy savings. For investors interested in the green real estate market space, a little knowledge of current green building issues will go a long way toward ensuring that a green asset meets financial expectations. For investors interested in developing or purchasing green properties, an understanding of the scoring and methodology underlying the various rating systems is especially important when gauging the energy efficiency of any certified green property. On the other hand, investors themselves may need to be persuaded that green buildings make for sound returns. Consequently, one of the strongest selling points for green construction is reduced operating costs from increased energy efficiency. In fact, much of the “business case” for green buildings is founded on the assumption that a certified green building will be more energy efficient than a conventional building. However, this assumes that all certified green buildings have scored meaningful points for energy-efficient design and actual energy performance. (Energy Star) Green buildings with lower operating costs and better indoor environmental quality are more attractive to a growing group of corporate, public and individual buyers. Green features will increasingly enter into tenants’ decisions about leasing space and into buyers’ decisions about purchasing properties and homes. Reducing energy consumption has gone from being a “good idea” to a business necessity. It’s not just that energy conservation has a positive life-cycle cost impact, but also that it offers a direct reduction in an organization’s carbon footprint (USGBC).

Study Objectives The objective of this study was to investigate why owners pursue green building certification. The study was designed to gain input regarding perceived and actual benefits of green building, the desirability of the key design elements of green building, and to examine the

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


48

Why Owners Pursue LEED Certification

importance of occupancy comfort and building energy efficiency.).

METHODOLOGY Survey Instrument Based upon the insight obtained from the literature search a self-administered survey questionnaire was developed. The initial portion of the instrument asked for general information regarding company, profession, and LEED experience. Questions were a combination of multiple choice and open-ended. At the completion of this section, only respondents with LEED experience were asked to continue with the survey. The second part of the questionnaire contained questions specific to green building certification and LEED. Questions typically asked the respondents to rank or provide a response on a 5-point Likert scale. The survey instrument was pilot tested and noted improvements and clarifications were incorporated to enhance the reliability and validity of respondent data.

Sampling The targeted population for the research was architects, facility owners and managers, and other LEED professionals. To reach this population the selected sampling frame was the US Green Building Council (USGBC) membership database. One hundred fifty randomly selected members were asked to complete the questionnaire. The final survey was sent out to the selected participants with a cover letter describing the purpose of t research and confidentiality of respondent. Participants were given four weeks to respond to the survey.

Data Analysis Survey responses were subjected to statistical means testing using a confidence level of 95%. T-tests with an σ = .05 (assuming unequal variances) were conducted between selected samples of the respondent groups.

By the cutoff date, twenty-one percent of the sample had responded. Forty-two percent of the respondents identified their profession as architect, thirty-two percent as an owner or owner’s representative, eleven percent as a facility manager, and the balance (16%) were agents or other LEED professionals.

FINDINGS LEED Experience Participants were asked to provide their LEED green building experience by indicating the number of LEED projects that they had worked on, owned, or managed during their career. Ninety-two percent (92%) of the respondents had experience on 2 or more projects and three quarters (75%) of the respondents had project experience on 3 or more projects. As a group, respondent LEED experience averaged 5.2 projects.

Green Building Rating System Preference Respondents were asked to rank the current green building certification systems. They were asked to rate their preference on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the most preferred and 1 the least preferred. Table 1: Green Rating System Preference tabulates the survey results. Rating System LEED Energy Star Green Globes BREEAM GB Tools CASBEE Pearl

Ave. Rating i 4.31 3.61 2.54 3.00 2.80 1.33 1.00

% of Reespondents No/Very Knowleedgeable of the he System Limited Top 1st or 2nd Less Choice Choice Preferred Knowledge 69.2% 80.8% 7.7% 3.7% 13.0% 60.9% 4.3% 11.5% 18.2% 18.2% 54.2% 33.3% 16.7% 73.9% 40.0% 20.0% 79.2% 66.7% 87.5% 100.0% 92.0%

Table 1: Green Rating System Preference

Consistent with the sampling frame, the most preferredOver 96% rating system was LEED. Over 96% of the respondents were familiar with LEED and two-thirds of those respondents selected LEED as their top choice and more than eighty percent (80.8%) identified it as one of their top two rating systems. Only 8% identified LEED as the rating system they preferred least. The rating system with the second highest preference was Energy Star. While only 11% of the respondents familiar with this rating system selected it as their top choice, approximately 61% (60.9%) identified it as one of their top two rating systems. Energy Star was also the second most widely known rating system. More than 88% of the respondents were familiar with Energy Star. Respondents had limited knowledge of the remaining rating systems. Less than half of the respondents were familiar with Green Globes and only eighteen percent

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


49

Why Owners Pursue LEED Certification

(18.2%) of those, or approximately 8% of the sample, selected it as one of their top 2 choices. The remaining rating systems – BREEAM, GB Tools, CASBEE, and Pearl – were largely unknown to a vast majority of the respondents.

A majority of the rspondents (59.3%) identified lower operating cost as the top benefit of LEED certification and over seventy percent (70.4%) rated lower operating cost in their top 2. While only a quarter (25.9%) of the respondents selected environmental benefits as their top choice, two thirds of the respondents (66.7%) rated it as one of their top 2 perceieved benefits. Increased LEED Category Desirability building marketability and the ability to charge Survey participants were then asked toTable rank2:theLEED desirability premium rent or command a higher sales price was Design Category of the LEED green building categories for consideration of rated the top benefit by only 14.8% and 18.5% of the their building design. Table 2: LEED Design Category respondents respectfully. Desirability tabulates the respondent input. The interval data obtained from this survey question % of Respondent nts was subjected to paired t-tests to determine statistically Rank LEED Category st nd significance. The findings were that the top ranking in 1 or 2 Ave. Least Top Choice Choice Table 3 was confirmed. Low operating cost is viewed as Energy Efficiency 4.57 76.9% 88.5% 3.8% the top benefit of LEED certification. Indoor Air Quality

3.31

LEED Design Category 11.5%Table 2:42.3% 7.7%

Site Sustainability

2.76

3.8%

34.6%

15.4%

Resource Use

2.56

4.0%

24.0%

12.0%

Innovation in Design

2.03

7.7%

19.2%

57.7%

Table 2: LEED Design Category Desirability

More than three quarters (76.9%) of the respondents selected energy efficiency as their top choice and over eighty-eight percent (88.5%) selected this category as their first or second choice. Only eleven percent (11.5%) selected indoor air quality as their top choice and less than five percent of the respondents selected site sustainability and resource use as their top choice. A one tailed Chi-square test was performed and the statistical results confirm that energy efficiency is the most desirable design consideration.

LEED Certification Benefits Table 3: LEED Certification Benefits, tabulates the respondents’ input regarding their perception of the benefits of LEED certification. Respondents rated each benefit on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most beneficial and 1 the least.

B fit Benefit

% off Respondent nts

Lower Operating Cost

Average A Ranking 4.07

59.3%

70.4%

7.4%

Environmental Benefits

3.67

25.9%

66.7%

7.4%

Increased Building Marketability

3.19

14.8%

44.4%

11.1%

Premium Rent or Sales Price

3.00

18.5%

37.0%

11.1%

Top Benefit

Top 2 Selection

Least Benefit

Table 3: LEED Certification Benefits

LEED Certification The respondents were asked to express their level of agreement, or disagreement, with a series of statements regarding LEED certification. Response options ranged from: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Respondent input was subjected to statistical means testing using a confidence level of 95%. The findings are tabulated in Table 4: LEED Certification. Respondents submit that LEED certification enhances the energy efficiency of a building and that the LEED rating system encourages the use of alternative energy. Survey participants believe certification improves indoor air quality and environment for the occupants. In addition, they felt that certification improved indoor lighting quality. Respondents also submit that LEED certification enhances sustainable site development, saves natural resources, and minimizes material use.

Statistical testing of respondent input does not provide support for a number of the statements contained in the survey. Respondents neither agree or disagree that LEED has been the driving force behind energy efficiency awareness. Similarly, there is lack of agreement on whether post occupancy energy performance of certified buildings is monitored and if post occupancy energy efficiency performance meets design expectations. Respondents neither agree or disagree that LEED energy efficiency credits are appropriate and if the cost of obtaining energy credit is disproportionate to the cost of receiving credit in other

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


50

Why Owners Pursue LEED Certification Statement

Agree

Neither Agree or Disagree

LEED Certification: Certification improves indoor air quality & environment.

X

Certification saves natural resources and minimizes material use.

X

Certification improves the energy efficiency of a building.

X

Certification enhances sustainable site development.

X

The LEED rating system encourages the use of alternative energy.

X

Diasagree

of the respondents thought the payback period was 6-10 years while twenty-seven percent (27%) of the respondents indicated 11-15 years. However, approximately thirty-one percent (30.8%) thought the payback period was less than 610 years.

Performance of LEED Certified Buildings Post P ost occupancy occcupancy energy energy efficiency efficiency performance perfformance meets meets design design expectations. expectations. X Respondents were also asked to rate Certification Ce rtification improves improves indoor indoor lighting lightingg quality. quality. X the actual performance of their LEED L EED energy energy efficiency efficiency credits credits are are appropriate appropriate when when compared compared with with the the X LEED building(s). Response data ccredits redits given given in in other other categories. categories. The T he cost cos o t of obtaining obtainingg 1 energy energy credit creedit is is disproportionate dispproport p ionate to to the thee cost cost of was subjected to statistical testing X re ceiving 1 credit credit in in other other categories. categories. receiving using a confidence interval of 95%. LEED L EED ra rating ting system system is is the the best best certification certifi f cation for achieving achieving energy energy efficiency efficiency X of a bu uilding. g building. The findings indicated that Table 4: LEED Certification respondents experienced enhanced water and electrical efficiency in their categories. There was also lack of support for the statement that the LEED rating system is the best LEED buildings. In addition, lighting quality and indoor air quality was improved in their LEED certified certification for achieving energy efficiency. facilities. All four measures, LEED certified buildings Energy Efficiency Cost and Payback Period exhibited improved performance. - A section of the survey asked the respondents to provide feedback regarding the cost of improving building energy efficiency. They were asked, based on their experience, to indicate the approximate percent CONCLUSIONS increase in initial building cost to increase energy efficiency by 20-25%. Response ranged from 0% to Energy efficiency is seen as the most desirable design greater than 10% with an average cost increase of 4.5%. attribute of LEED certification. Improved indoor air quality is the second most desirable design attribute " followed by enhanced site sustainability. LEED L EED has has been been the the driving driiving force force behind behiind energy energy efficiency efficiency awareness. awareness.

X

Post P ost occupancy occcupancy energy energy performance performance of o certified certified buildings buildings is is monitored. monitorred.

X

Complimenting the findings regarding design attributes, the top benefit of LEED certification is lower operating cost due to enhanced water and energy efficiency. Environmental benefits are also given a high ranking. Increased marketability of the building leading to premium rents or increased sale price were also deemed benefits of certification, but were only a Top 2 selection by approximately 40% of the respondents.

Figure 1: Payback Period

Survey participants were then asked to indicate, again based on their experience, what the payback period is for the additional cost incurred to increase energy efficiency of a building by 20-25%. Figure 1: Energy Efficiency Payback Period displays the distribution of response. Approximately thirty-nine percent (38.5%)

Respondents perceived that LEED certification enhances the energy efficiency of a building and the LEED rating system encourages the use of alternative energy sources. Certification improves indoor air quality, indoor lighting quality, and the general environment of the occupants. LEED certification enhances sustainable site development, saves natural resources, and minimizes material use.

APRIL 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


51

Why Owners Pursue LEED Certification

hen respondents were asked to rate the actual performance of their LEED building(s) the findings support enhanced water and electrical efficiency, and improved lighting and indoor air quality. LEED certified buildings exhibited improved performance on all four measures.

However, there was not statistical support that post occupancy energy performance of certified buildings was monitored and that post occupancy energy efficiency performance met design expectations. Actual building performance may not have been adequately monitored to confirm intended or perceived results. As a result, the actual benefits of LEED certification are not supported by this study.

REFERENCES BREEAM, www.breeam.org/

Energy Star, www.energystar.gov/

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), www.epa.gov/ Green Globes, www.greenglobes.com/

Laustsen, Jens (2009), Factor 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;The role of policies for Zero Energy Buildings, International Energy Agency IEA, http://www.iea.org/work/2009/zero_energy/ Laustsen.pdf LEED, www.usgbc.org/

Morris, Peter and Langdon, Davis (2007), What Does Green Really Cost? PREA Quarterly, Summer 2007 Suttell, Robin (2006), The True Cost of Building Green, www.buildings.com

The Business Journal (2011) http://www.bizjournals.com/ dayton/news/2011/04/13/leed-certified-buildingsgrowing.html US Department of Energy (DOE), www.energy.gov/ USGBC http://www.usgbc.org/

APRIL 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


General Interest Articles from

The AGC James L. Allhands Essay Competition

Each year the Associated General Contractors Education and Research Foundation (AGCERF) sponsors the James L. Allhands Essay Competition. The competition is named for (and funded by) the late James L. Allhands, a founding member of the AGC who spent his career as a prolific writer of construction related books. The essay competition is open to any senior level student in a four or five year ABET or ACCE accredited university construction management or construction related engineering program.

This year’s topic, ‘Critical Components of being a Great Project Manager’, generated submissions from across the nation. Judging was conducted by AGCERF board members who are among the most esteemed leaders in the industry. The first place selection was Branden Burke of Purdue University, second place was awarded to Nestor Colmenero of Texas A&M, and third place went to Daniel Scott of Missouri State University. All three essays can be found on the AGC Foundation web site, www.agcfoundation.org. The 2013 competition will open in July, 2012 and essays are due in November. First place winners and their faculty sponsors are awarded cash prizes of $1,000 and $500, respectively, and will be invited as guests (all expenses paid) of the AGC Foundation to the March, 2013 convention. The second place winner is awarded $500 and third place, $300. With AGC’s permission, this issue of The American Professional Constructor is featuring the 1st and 2nd place essays for 2012 in our general interest category. We trust that our readership will enjoy reviewing the work of two top performers who will soon be graduating and starting their construction careers.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org

52


53

Critical Components of Being a Great Project Manager 2012 Allhands Essay 1st Place Branden S. Burke

A key

r

('" ABSTRACT: The success of a construction project can develop from &#''#" '! Project Managers play a key role in a construction project. Each Project many different aspects. A key role in success or failure is rested on the Project Managerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shoulders through the entire schedule of the project. A M ) "&(  great Project Manager can foresee upcoming challenges and use insight,

&'$ "#+  experiences, and skills to lead a team to success. Five critical components that make a great Project Manager in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s construction industry are gathered together. Those definable components are ethics and professionalism, leadership, communication, organization, and the &".(#" #!!)"(#" development and building of practical construction knowledge.

INTRODUCTION Project Managers are essential to all construction projects. From those that cost several thousand to those that cost billions, from projects located in the heart of big cities to those in rural settings, and more importantly, those over seas and in the middle of deserts. As stated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, Project Mangers, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Plan, direct, coordinate, and budget a wide variety of construction projectsâ&#x20AC;ŚThey schedule and coordinate all design and construction processes, including the selection, hiring, and oversight of specialty trade contractorsâ&#x20AC;? (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Project Managers play a key role in a construction project. Each Project Manager has his or her own traits, style, and attributes that they bring to their projects. It is these characteristics that set each Project Manager apart; they can either make or break a construction project. Today, owners of construction projects want everything cheaper and faster while still expecting great quality. Many qualities make up a great Project Manger, but carrying out those qualities and being a substantial Project Manager may be difficult for even the brightest managers in the industry. Five components have been chosen that make a great Project Manager.

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONALISM

The first component of being a Great Project       Manager, employee, â&#x20AC;˘ *&($&'#" ('  ((! and person is to have â&#x20AC;˘ "#+-#)&'&! admirable ethics and professionalism. Some â&#x20AC;˘ "#+#+#(&'() - '-#) may think this is common sense, but it is not something to dismiss easily. In a study published by the technology magazine, The Institute, a survey was taken of over 250 owners, architects, engineers, consultants, construction managers, contractors, and subcontractors about their experiences with ethics. 85% said there should be  an industry- wide code of ethics, while 30% indicated that they had company programs in place (Parson). Although many want a uniform code of ethics that blankets the entire industry, only 30% of organizations have actually taken matters into their own hands and have developed programs within their company. Being a good Project Manager is being able to follow personal ethics while ensuring professionalism in everything you do, even without a policy stating what is right and wrong. Being able to set personal limitations and living within its boundaries, while obtaining the knowledge of how to dissect and understand the â&#x20AC;&#x153;grayâ&#x20AC;? areas where our true character is, can be challenging and contested.

Great personal ethics directly correlate to professionalism in the work place. Being professional

APRIL 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Allhands Essay 1st Place

in the workplace and on the jobsite is important for the image that a Project Manager is trying to portray. This easily could make the difference between an average project and a great one. If you are not managing your personal image, others are. In an article published by Harvard Business School, Laura Morgan Roberts, a HBS professor, stated that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;People are constantly observing your behavior and forming theories about your competence, character, and commitment, which are rapidly disseminated throughout your workplace,â&#x20AC;? she adds, â&#x20AC;&#x153;It is only wise to add your voice in framing others' theories about who you are and what you can accomplishâ&#x20AC;? (Stark). Learning how to handle your a professional image and being professional is just the start of being a great Project Manager. Significant         Project Managers have successfully mastered and continue to build from the process below: * What do I want my key constituents to say about me when:

9!"#("( &##!3

' '#!#"(# #!$ ( ('3

 *( $&#( (& &3

in five levels and are summed up in the fivelevel hierarchy chart, Figure 4-7, on next page. This is where â&#x20AC;&#x153;greatâ&#x20AC;? business leadership is defined (Collins 20). Harry S. Truman once said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;You can accomplish anything in Harry Truman oncethat said,you â&#x20AC;&#x153;Youdo cannot mind who gets the creditâ&#x20AC;? life,S.provided (McCullough 564). Being a leader is not just accomplishing tasks and seeking the individual benefits that thrive from the accomplishment, but it is working  together in order to reach a profitable goal. A great Project Mangers gives affirmation in public, shares success as a team, and takes full responsibility for failure. Successful leadership is about the power of any individual who can blend personal humility with intense professional will. They are self-effacing individuals who do what ever is required to make the company, project, and team prosper. With a â&#x20AC;&#x153;succeed or die attitudeâ&#x20AC;?, a great Project Manager knows their leadership style and is a level five leader because they never stop trying to become qualified for their job (Collins 20-21).   â&#x20AC;˘ "#+-#)& &'$ '(-  â&#x20AC;˘ "#+"#+(#(( &($#$ "(&( $ ' â&#x20AC;˘  (-(#!$#+&"  ""*) ' - â&#x20AC;˘ "'(!"$&' (#'+#, "$) 

'& &#''#" 

! *

Ideas taken and revised by Branden Burke fron (Stark).

It is important to understand your professional image, know when to modify professional goals when they have become uncharacteristic, and comprehend how others perceive you (Stark). Great Project Managers use ethics and professionalism as a solid foundation to build successful careers and to complete winning projects for their team. 



LEADERSHIP



54















Figure 4-7 Five-Level Hierarchy Chart (Collins 20)





When it comes to great Project Managers, being a true    leader is what sets the great apart from the good. In Jim     Collinsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s book, Good to Great, leaders are broken down

 

         2012  â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Volume   36, Number  APRIL 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St.,  | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org  Suite 510 | Alexandria,   VA 22314


55 Allhands Essay 1st Place Being a great Project Manager means having the right people on your team. This concept is displayed in Good to Great, and is described like a bus, â&#x20AC;&#x153;There are going to be times when we canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t wait for somebody. Now youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re either on the bus or off the busâ&#x20AC;? (Wolfe 83). Starting with a great Project Manager, it is important to know â&#x20AC;&#x153;whoâ&#x20AC;? is going to be on the bus and then, â&#x20AC;&#x153;whatâ&#x20AC;? is the best path to follow for success. Leadership can be judged by the success of a project. If a project falls short it is usually because of two things: Someone failed to complete their respected task or, someone did not follow the accurate guidelines to complete the task. In both of these cases it is up to the Project Manager to ensure the right people are doing the right things. Great Project Managers cand lead their team to success (Collins 47).

(&((

&'(#

2&(&#( 2((&($#$  "&  #"()'1)   ')$&#&$&#((!1

"( 2#+/?)&#)(( '($(#& ')'') $&#(1

As the construction changes, it is important to empower everyone on site. With Millennials and other generations being the future of the industry, it is important to keep them challenged, empowered, and ready for the future. It is important to relate and lead all generations, young and old. Maintaining influence over older generations in order for have them continue to add success to a project is an important component of a great Project Manager. The challenge not only pertains to the older generations of construction, but also the future generation of people as well. In the ENR article describing the upcoming construction managers, they said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;their priorities are sustainability, high ethical standards and career fulfillment. They must be managed differently, or they jump shipâ&#x20AC;? (Abaffy). Part of being a prominent Project Manager is to keep employees and followers happy, encourage discussions on expectations, development, and personal goals.

COMMUNICATION The second critical   component of being a great â&#x20AC;˘ "#++(-#)&(&-" (##!!)"( Project Manager is having â&#x20AC;˘  ("&'$(-#)& the ability to communicate &('!" with everyone during all â&#x20AC;˘ "#+#+(##!!)"( +(!) ($ "&(#"' parts of the construction process; from the craftsmen in the field to the client. Great communication starts with knowing exactly what is going to be communicated. After knowing what is intended, it is Communicating with people from important to thoroughly understand who is going to be receiving this information. Communicating with people from different educational backgrounds, generations, and skill levels add challenges in the process. A great Project Manager knows how to handle every different type of individual and can successfully communicate their point effectively.

Communicating with craftsmen in the field is not ordering them to complete a task, nor is it just micromanaging a particular part of their work. A great Project Manager gains respect through understanding; not just the task at hand, but who they are. It is important to gain understanding of these individualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; families, things they like to do, and what motivates them. Great Project Managers build respect and effectively communicate through relationships, as well as conceptualizing the idea that respect needs to be a growing theme in the workplace.

 Knowing how to communicate with multiple generations is becoming more prominent now that the upcoming managers begin their internships in the industry. A great Project Manager continues to positively influence older generations, but also is reminded of the Millennials, Generation Y, or Generation Next, all are used interchangeably. However, the questions arise of how to understand, relate, and communicate. ENR reported by the year 2018, the Millennials will be the majority of all construction workforce. It is important for Project Managers, or baby boomers, to fully understand the appropriate way to communicate with them in order to groom them for upcoming leadership roles in construction. A great Project Manager not only understands and acknowledges the generation gap, but

APRIL 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Allhands Essay 1st Place

also knows how to relate and get the information across. It is important to be their mentor and friend, challenge them with multiple tasks, and give them a high degree of freedom. Valuing how a generation grows up and knowing what is available to them in those times are just a few things to look for when it comes to effectively communicating with them on a construction site (Abaffy).

ORGANIZATION Proper implementation of    project goals is next in â&#x20AC;˘  (-(##&".(&' "+#& needing to successfully be an influential Project â&#x20AC;˘  (-(##&".'( "!($$&#$&( Manager. Organization  "' brings everything together â&#x20AC;˘ #)"( (-"' "& and is the final critical â&#x20AC;˘ &".(#">&#)(*(- component in being a great Project Manager. When the Project Manager possesses an upmost understanding of organization in trades and work, then he will be able to achieve something that is not inherited, but learned over time. This helps in scheduling, forecasting costs, and negotiations.

Taking the organization from the field and then back into the office can sometime be overlooked, but is just as essential as anything else. Another key part of great organization from a Project Manager is being able to hold others accountable for tasks. Whether this be done by meeting minutes or through other avenues of tracking, it is imperative for keeping a project moving forward. Having great organization of personnel greatly promotes and allows for increased efficiency, a safer work environment, improves job satisfaction, and decreases turnover (Harvard Business Review).

56

BUILDING PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE The construction industry     is rapidly changing and    evolving into a leaner, â&#x20AC;˘ ((""*# *"(& #&".(#"')'0 environmentally !("'/ '''/" conscious, and #"*"(#"' technological advanced â&#x20AC;˘ (& !."5&( '" industry. As a Project #"'(&)(#""+'#" Manager, it is essential to  -'' be current with industry â&#x20AC;˘ #"4(&(#' %)'(#"' news, events, and innovative findings. The â&#x20AC;˘ "#+ > (#"'$' construction industry has many trade organizations from those at the community level to their national affiliations. No matter the organization, an effective Project Manager is involved outside the job as well. Each AGC organization will provide great opportunities and allow a Project Manager to remain current on industry news and recent developments, as well as provide network opportunities that are critical to the growth of individuals and companies. Not only is it good to be a member of the associations, it is also important to attend  the events, run for future offices, and connect with as many industry leaders as possible.

The key to success in the industry is staying on top of current events and reading daily news in trade magazines, SmartBrief emails, or any other resource. Building a personal library of case study knowledge and project lessons can make or break a great Project Manager when a situation on site occurs. Contrary, if a Project Manager finds a predicament of not knowing the answers to a problem, he should be able to know where to go to find these answers. Whether it be a source or another individual, it is important for a Project Manager to be proactive in order to lead their project. Being able to analyze, relate, and react as quickly as possible with the right solution can save critical days on a schedule.

Although Project Managers may be the ones always answering questions of those around site, this does not always have to be the case. Great Project Managers are constantly asking questions to those around them and themselves to ensure they completely comprehend every situation. Just because someone is a Project

APRIL 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


57 Allhands Essay 1st Place Manager does not mean they know all the information, even successful Project Managers know when to ask appropriate questions at the appropriate time. Substantial Project Managers have mastered these skills and continue to build themselves for their futures.

CONCLUSION The critical components of being a great Project Manager all come from personal experiences, the will power to succeed, and the significance of bettering others in an organization. Great Project Managers are leaders not for what they do, but for what they want to achieve. They have the strongest ethics and professionalism, even when they are away from the job. They have the understanding of how to communicate with everyone on site, and even those who will be entering the industry within the next few years. Leadership is not a trait but a seed living within which empowers individuals to succeed and rewards all those for accomplishments for the great good of an organization. It is about who you have on your team before you know where you want to go. Continuing to build knowledge is not a chore for great Project Managers, but a necessity to stay on the leading edge of the industry. Gathering information for their personal library is something that is valued and is not taken for granted. A Project Manager knows how to organize all their components to better organize trades, staff, and the life that surrounds them. These are the critical components of a great Project Manager, and once achieved, will result in project and company success.

REFERENCES Abaffy, Luke. Millennials Bring New Attitudes. 23 Feburary 2011. 9 November 2011 http://enr.construction.com/business_management/ workforce/2011/0223-NewAttitudes-1.asp Collins, Jim. Good To Great. New York: Harpercollins Publishers Inc., 2001. Harvard Business Review. “Harvard Business Review.” Corporate Resource Net 1 January 1985. McCullough, David. Truman. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992. Parson, Ellen. The Construction Industry's Ethical Dilemma. 1 August 2005. 9 November 2011 http://ecmweb.com/mag/electric_construction_ industrys_ethical/

Stark, Mallory. Creating a Positive Professional Image. 20 June 2005. 9 November 2011 http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4860.html U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition. 17 December 2009. Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections. 9 November 2011 http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos005.htm

Wolfe, Tom. The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. New York: Bantam, 1999.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Critical Components of Being a Great Project Manager

58

2012 Allhands Essay 2nd Place Nestor Colmenero Texas A&M University, College of Architecture, Department of Construction Science ABSTRACT: The current image of the construction industry contains negative stereotypes that impair its ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. In order to improve this image, it is necessary for the industry to establish high standards and recognize the skills of these construction professionals. In this essay I will provide different ways in which one can lead by example and become a skilled, professional project manager. I will also discuss the benefits a great project will provide to a company’s organizational culture. The construction industry is considered to be unique and complex compared to other industries. When the average person thinks about construction, as opposed to other professions, construction often lacks a sense of prestige and respect. This is most likely caused by the negative stereotypes of the common construction worker. People often think of construction as an unreliable workforce with a dangerous and dirty work environment; that people within the industry are all-brawn and no-brain workers, or unscrupulous con-artists posing as professional contractors, or laborers and supervisors with discriminatory attitudes and sexist beliefs. It is because of this that the construction industry does not always receive the respect that it deserves. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Construction accounts for approximately 4% of employees on nonfarm payrolls as of September 2011 which is relatively low compared to the actual market share of construction related services.

In order to promote and endorse a positive image in the construction industry, it is important to recognize the professionalism of individual construction managers, encourage the study of construction management, advance the practice of construction related fields, and establish high standards of ethics and competence. A great project manager would understand the positive relationship between respect, competence and image not only at an individual level, but as a whole when looking at the entire industry. Like political activist Mohandas Gandhi once said: “Be the change you want to see in the world”. The best way to influence the image of the construction industry is to personally model and display the ethical and competent professional you want people to associate with when they think of the word “construction”.

Great project managers are those who consistently deliver projects that meet or exceed stakeholders' expectations on time and within budget. According to Fumi Kondo, Managing Director of Intellilink, a management consulting and training company, project managers must be able to understand that “leadership and people skills are even more important to good project management than a sound methodology and project tracking tools”. Experienced project managers know that if you do not have buy-in from the key players in your project, it will not matter how good your methodology or your tools are. Even if a manager is able to deliver a project on budget, if they are not proactively managing communications between the users and the stakeholders, they might not meet the actual needs of the owner which will eventually lead to dissatisfaction. Competent project managers are important in improving and influencing the overall image of the construction industry.

So what are some of the attributes necessary to become a successful project manager? Kondo's firm analyzed the skill sets of both its own best project managers and those of its clients and came up with the following six attributes: 1. They have a gift of foresight Great project managers are able to foresee and anticipate possible problems that can jeopardize the schedule, the budget and the user acceptance. This is critical in risk management and allows the manager to come up with a contingency plan in case something does go wrong in the project and thus avoid getting caught by an unpleasant surprise that could have been avoided with some careful planning.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


59 Allhands Essay 2nd Place 2. They are organized Organization might seem like an obvious characteristic of a great project manager, but it is demonstrated in a variety of ways, including an ability to stay focused and to prioritize conflicting responsibilities. According to Kondo, in most projects, “there are so many things that have to get done that it is hard to stay on top of everything and in control of everything”. Having the ability to prioritize and delegate work for your team is a critical aspect of what a project manager has to do.

3. They know how to lead It is the responsibility of project managers to interact with and influence a variety of stakeholders, including their project teams, project sponsors and other third parties involved. Since many of the team members do not report directly to the project manager, the project manager has to find ways to motivate others, whom they have no direct influence over but who can make or break a project. Project managers also need to be able to inspire confidence in the team in the event that the budget or schedule needs to be renegotiated or additional resources are needed to complete the project.

4. They are great communicators Successful project managers are able to take advantage of new technology to maximize communication between stakeholders. They effectively use e-mails, coordinate meetings and generate status reports to communicate their ideas, make decisions and resolve problems. They also understand the need to discuss their ideas in the context that is most relevant to their target audience and will modify their arguments accordingly. 5. They are pragmatic Sometimes project managers can be too analytical and tend to overthink to the point that it slows progress on a project. Knowing that “time is money”, great project managers will realize that there is a deadline to be met and will instead focus on getting work done and finding an effective solution with the resources currently available.

6. They are empathetic Project managers must often rely on others to be successful and must be able to effectively influence them by understanding what motivates them. A

competent project manager needs to carefully listen and learn about the stakeholders' concerns regarding a project, take those concerns seriously and address them.

The key components that are consistent in all attributes include being a good problem solver and being able to build good relationships with the team and the stakeholders. There are always varying opinions and ideas about the importance of certain attributes necessary to become a successful project manager, but many have consistent themes such as being proactive, assertive and persistent. In one of Steven Covey’s self-help books: “7 Habits of Highly Effective People”, he introduces a systematic approach to being an effective person who is able to reach their goals by aligning themselves to what he calls "true north" principles of character and ethics that are considered to be “universal” and “timeless”. The purpose of this book can be easily translated as the habits, or attributes, necessary to become a great project manager who is aligning him/herself and its resources to the “true north”, or the higher purpose of completing a project. These habits include the following:

1. Being Proactive A project manager must be able to think beyond what is seen at the present moment and quickly evaluate the consequences of possible decisions and actions. This information is needed to effectively act and make sound decisions that will influence their environment, as opposed to having the environment influence them in a negative manner in the future. 2. Beginning With The End in Mind To be an effective project manager, it is important to start with a clear vision of what is to be accomplished. Covey makes an excellent analogy of a person working very hard, and even efficiently, to climb a ladder only to find that in the end the ladder was against the wrong wall. It is important that project managers not only make progress toward a goal, but also question whether the progress made is consistent with the goals of the project. 3. Putting First Things First A good project manager should be able to identify the objectives and tasks needed to complete a project. A great project manager is able to not only identify those tasks but also prioritize them in a logical manner. Covey presents the concept of the

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


Allhands Essay 2nd Place

“Four Quadrants”, a tool that evaluates the level of priority of a task based on the level of importance and urgency. FOUR QUADRANTS I. Important and Urgent II. Important but not Urgent III. Urgent but not Important IV. Neither Urgent nor Important

Covey points out that in order to be effective, one must spend the majority of their time focusing on Quadrant II. The reason for this is because if you focus on the important things first, you would essentially eliminate most of the urgent tasks that have been, or could have been, caused by poor planning or even procrastinating.

4. Thinking Win-Win Having a positive and assertive attitude is also an important attribute of a successful project manager. The attitude that managers display can significantly influence the level of cooperation and communication. Communication can vary from being defensive (one party wins/one party loses), respectful (compromise) to synergistic (win/win). A great project manager seeks to ensure that all parties involved come out as “winners”. 5. Seeking First to Understand, Then to be Understood In an environment where ideas are constantly being pushed hard (sales, management, development), one can go a long way by investing as much time as possible to understand the situation first before they begin to push their ideas in order to maximize good communication. Good communication is similar to that of the breathing process in which it is necessary for the lungs to expand (push your ideas) and contract (allow input from others). One is able to better engage their listeners if they are responding to the issues they mentioned. Also, providing the other side with an opportunity to vent their frustrations will make them more receptive to your arguments, which is critical when trying to negotiate.

60

6. Synergizing The essence of synergy is to value and respect differences, build on strengths and compensate for weaknesses. Respect is needed for trust, and trust is essential for cooperation and communication. A great project manager understands the impact that trust has on building long lasting relationships with other stakeholders which is important in redefining the image of construction that the public currently perceives. 7. Sharpening the Saw No other resource is as valuable as human resources. A great project manager should be able to not only balance their job responsibilities, but also be able to preserve and enhance the greatest asset they have – themselves. Sharpen the saw means having a balanced program for “selfrenewal” in the four major areas of your life. i. Physical – Eating right, exercising and resting. ii. Emotional – Making social and meaningful connections with others iii. Mental – Learning, reading, writing and teaching iv. Spiritual – Expanding spiritual self through art, meditation, prayer or service

After analyzing both Covey’s and Kondo’s ideas, many of those components seem to overlap each other, making it difficult to identify which trait is more important. After making a list of the attributes I believe are most important, I asked 3 industry professionals to rate, on a scale of 1 to 8 (1 - least important, 8 - most important), the attributes that distinguish a successful project manager’s performance.

This is a list of attributes that I derived from both lists of attributes I mentioned earlier. They are sorted by priority as perceived by several industry professionals.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


61 Allhands Essay 2nd Place An effective and efficient project manager is considered to be a very valuable asset to any organization. The basic responsibilities of project managers include: 1. Identifying a Problem 2. Gathering Information 3. Visualizing a Solution 4. Making Decisions 5. Assessing Outcomes

The bottom line is that the project manager’s main purpose is to make “sound and logical” decisions. How does one decide whether a decision is “sound and logical”? A great way to assess the quality of a decision is to compare the action and outcome to the organizational culture’s mission statement and evaluate how consistently it meets those goals. In each of the responsibilities listed above, the project manager must always keep in mind the main purpose of their responsibilities, which are explicitly stated and sometimes implicitly assumed. Of course, to fulfill the responsibilities of their corporate culture, every member of the organization must be actively involved at making that happen. With the division of responsibilities, each individual has the opportunity to provide valuable input and generate new ideas on how to perform their responsibilities in an efficient and effective manner. A great project manager should be a competent leader who is able to create an environment in which new ideas are welcomed to be heard, applied and evaluated. The attribute that helps in creating this type of environment is being empathetic (seeking first to understand, than to be understood).

REFERENCES American Institute of Constructors. “About AIC”. Constructor Certification Commission, 2011. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. http://www.professionalconstructor.org/aboutaic/

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment – Seasonally Adjusted. United States Department of Labor. Oct 18, 2011. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb3.txt Covey, Stephen. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Simon & Schuster, 1989

Jackson. “The Construction Industry”. Construction Management: Jump Start 2nd Edition. Kim. Indianapolis, Indiana. Wiley, 2010. Pages 26-27

Levinson. “Six Attributes of Successful Project Managers”. Sept. 2008. Oct 21, 2011. http://www.cio.com/article/447182/Six_Attributes_of _Successful_Project_Managers>Bantam, 1999

In conclusion, there are many different attributes and skills needed to be a great project manager. From all this information presented, it is apparent that the most prevalent attributes include having strong communication skills, being a good listener and being organized. These attributes need to be associated with construction managers if the industry wishes to attract and retain competent professionals. By achieving this, the public will begin to appreciate and respect the abilities of a competent construction manager.

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


62

Reviewer/Publication Interest Survey

The American Professional Constructor is a refereed journal published two times a year by the American Institute of Constructors (AIC). Each author’s manuscript submission is given a blind review by three AIC members. to evaluate the content and style, and appropriateness as either a general interest or scholarly publication. Based upon the decision of the reviewers, each article is accepted or rejected for publication. Acceptance can be predicated upon incorporation of reviewer comments. Approximately 10-15 articles are published annually in The American Professional Constructor. To maintain our high standards of publication, AIC requires the support of competent and committed reviewers. We would like to express our deep gratitude to the following reviewers of the articles published in the Journal’s Spring and Fall 2011 Issues:

Ryan Abbott, Heber Arch, Scott Arias, Bernard Ashyk, Eric Bartholomew, David Bierlein, David Bilbo, Richard Boser, Steve Byrne, Paul Byrne, James Caldwell, Joseph Cecere, Joseph DiGeronimo, Mark Federle, Mark Giorgi, Mike Golden, Frederick Gould, Merlin Kirschenman, Roger Liska, Tanya Matthews, Paul Mattingly, Hoyt Monroe, Bradley Monson, Seth O’Brien, Chris Piper, Jens Pohl, Randy Rapp, Wayne Reiter, Thomas Smithey, M.G. Syal.

We are always looking for additional industry professionals that are interested in serving on our review board. To help ensure reviewers continue to be selected based upon competency and interest, we ask that prospective reviewers take a few minutes to complete the survey below. The reviewer survey and manuscripts for publication consideration should be submitted to: Dennis C Bausman, FAIC, CPC, PhD Editor, The American Professional Constructor Clemson University 133 Lee Hall Clemson, SC 29634-0001 Work Phone: (864) 656-3919 Email: dennisb@clemson.edu Fax (864) 656-7542

Please place a mark beside each keyword that is a topic area indicating your expertise or interest. Thank you, in advance, for serving as a reviewer for The American Professional Constructor.

Name: ______________________________________________________ Member No.: __________________________________ E-Mail: ______________________________________________________ Phone No.: ____________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topic Areas

❑ Computer Applications ❑ Construction Safety ❑ Estimating ❑ Financial Management ❑ Personnel/Human Resource Management ❑ Contract Law and Legal Applications ❑ Materials and Methods ❑ Project Management ❑ Steel Construction ❑ Concrete Construction ❑ Design-Build Construction ❑ Mechanical Construction ❑ Contract Documents ❑ Strategic Planning

❑ Planning and Scheduling ❑ Site Management ❑ Marketing and Sales ❑ Community Planning ❑ Labor Relations ❑ Quality Management ❑ Productivity ❑ Cost Control ❑ Undergraduate Education ❑ Graduate Education ❑ Wood Construction ❑ Masonry Construction ❑ Heavy/Highway Construction ❑ Electrical Construction ❑ Residential Construction ❑ International Construction

The American Institute of Constructors

❑ Architecture ❑ Real Estate and Factors Affecting Contractors ❑ Housing and Related Issues ❑ Procurement ❑ Bonding ❑ Bidding ❑ Ethics ❑ Commercial Construction ❑ Industrial Construction ❑ Utilities Construction ❑ Institutional Construction

Other ______________________________

___________________________________ ___________________________________


63

American institute of Constructors Constructor Code of Ethics The Construction Profession is based upon a system of technical competence, management excellence and fair dealing in undertaking complex works to serve the public safety, efficiency, and economy. The members of the American Institute of Constructor are committed to the following standards of professional conduct: I. A Constructor shall have full regard to the public interest in fulfilling his or her responsibilities to the employer or client. II. A Constructor shall not engage in any deceptive practice, or in any practice which creates an unfair advantage for the Constructor or another. III. A Constructor shall not maliciously or recklessly injure or attempt to injure, whether directly or indirectly, the professional reputation of others. IV. A Constructor shall ensure that when providing a service which includes advice, such advice shall be fair and unbiased. V. A Constructor shall not divulge to any person, firm, or company, information of a confidential nature acquired during the course of professional activities. VI. A Constructor shall carry out responsibilities in accordance with current professional practice, so far as it lies within his or her power. VII. A Constructor shall keep informed of new thought and development in the construction process appropriate to the type and level of his or her responsibilities and shall support research and the educational processes associated with the construction


64

T The Constructor Certification Commission “Building the Professional Constructor” J J J Takethe the next next step step in in your your career, career, become become aa Certified Certified Professional ProfessionalConstructor! Constructor! Take J J J theJoin overprofessionals 12,000 professionals who have soughtProfessional the Certified Professional and (AC) Join overthe 12,000 who have sought the Certified Constructor (CPC)Constructor and Associate(CPC) Constructor Associate Constructor (AC) designations. designations.

th open on July 15th, Mark your calendars forexamination our next examination November 2012. Online registration will , more information regarding Mark your calendars for our next on Novemberon 5, 2011. Online3,registration will open on July 15 more information regarding registration and certification can be found at www.professionalconstructor.org. registration and certification can be found at www.professionalconstructor.org.

handbooks are available upon request, to request yours. Upon registration candidates Candidate handbooks are available upon Candidate request, email info@professionalconstructor.org email info@professionalconstructor.org to request yours. can download the digital PDF study guide. Upon registration candidates can download the digital PDF study guid

• • Fees Examination • • A 1 (AC) Applications $155.00 A •• Level •• Level A 2 (CPC) Applications: AC Upgrade (Current AC's applying for the CPC exam) $405.00 A • Level 2 (CPC) Applications: AC Exemption (For Level 2 applicants not AC certified) $535.00 A A Applicants receive a PDF study guide via email after registration is completed

Why Become Certified? • • •• • •• • • • •• • • •• • •• • • • ••

Benefits to the Constructor B Provides an internationally recognized certification of construction management skills and knowledge. Provides an analysis of individual strengths and weaknesses in the subject areas tested. Enhances the Constructor image as a professional to their employer, their clients, and the public. BProvides a marketable credential that sets you apart. B B B Benefits to the Employer B BBProvides an independent assessment of an employee’s skills and knowledge, based on a comprehensive national standard. Provides a recognized credentialing within your company that improves marketability to clients. Provides assurance that employee will continue to hone their skills, through the required Continuing Professional Development program. Benefits to Owners:

• ••• • •• •• • • • ••

An increased level of assurance that their projects will be managed more effectively. Could use the qualification as a means to prequalify contractors Knowledge that their contractor management team will be more professional. C Click to view our nationwide testing locations: http://goo.gl/ztnLC C C Visit www.professionalconstructor.org or email info@professionalconstructor.org for more information. C CC


65

The AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTOR

J OU R N A L OF TH E A M ER IC A N IN STITU TE OF C ON STR U C TOR S

TO SUBMIT AN ARTICLE FOR CONSIDERATION PLEASE REVIEW THE AUTHOR’S GUIDE

For more information contact us at info@professionalconstructor.org

APRIL 2012 — Volume 36, Number 01 The American Institute of Constructors | 700 N. Fairfax St., Suite 510 | Alexandria, VA 22314 | Tel: 703.683.4999 | www.professionalconstructor.org


American Professional Constructor Journal April 2012