2016 Geo-Structures Presentations

The ASCE-SEI Sustainability Committee and the ASCE Geo-Institute Sustainability in Geotechnical Engineering Committee had a very successful 2016 Geo-Structures Congress. We are happy to report that the two committees had representation at five sessions; they presented on various aspects of sustainable design. Since one of our main committee goals is to spread the word on sustainable design aspects that the practicing structural engineer can put to use, we’re posting the presentations here on our website. Have any questions on these presentations or on how to make your designs more sustainable, please comment below or contact Dave DeLong. Online copies of all of the following presentations are available here.

Track: The SEI Climate Action Initiative

‘Introduction/The Role of the Structural Engineer’ by Jim D’Aloisio

Raise awareness of the importance of climate change mitigation and adaptation by structural engineers, and share mitigation and adaptation ideas and strategies with the structural engineering community

’Mitigation of Emissions During Construction’ by Megan Stringer

My presentation discussed how engineers can quantify and reduce the embodied energy and emissions from buildings. 

‘Rationale for Concern’ byMark Webster

'Mitigation of Emissions During Building Operation'  by Dave DeLong

'The decisions that structural engineers make in detailing the building envelope can influence the building's R-value by a great degree. By detailing to increase this R-value, structural engineers can reduce the heating and cooling loads - and, as a result, the carbon impact - of the building over its service life

Track: Disaster Resilience – Indispensable for Sustainable Design

‘Introduction / Incorporating Life Cycle Assessment with Disaster Resilience’ by Tona Rodriguez-Nikl

An introduction to the session, putting forward the argument that disaster resilience must be considered as part of sustainable design. / A summary of recent efforts to integrate life cycle assessment with disaster risk methodologies. The goal of these studies is to quantify how different levels of disaster resistance affect environmental life cycle impacts.

‘Resilient Design Strategies for Structural Engineers

My presentation discussed resiliency, why it matters to structural engineers and how engineers can design resiliently. The presentation also reviewed current legislation, organizations, and rating systems that deal with resiliency. 

‘Learning to Survive: A global comparison of recovery from disasters’ by Erica Fischer and Sal Gimbert-Carter

Disasters have catastrophic impacts on countries economically, socially, culturally, and politically. This presentation compares how three different countries responded to three different disasters: 2004 Summatra Earthquake and Tsunami in Indonesia, 2005 Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and 2010-2011 Christchurch Earthquake Sequence in New Zealand.

 

Read more...

Learn to Design Thermal Breaks at the 2014 Structures Congress

Many of a structural engineer's common design tasks may affect the energy efficiency and environmental performance of a building. Designing exposed projections of the supersturcture, supporting enveloping facades, and attaching exterior equipment can create a conduit for thermal bridges between the outside and conditioned envelope of a building.

A preconference workshiop titled Design of Sustainable Thermal Breaks has been planned on the afternoon before the start of the this year's Structures Congress in Boston, Massachusetts. The workshop will focus on providing practicing engineers with state-of-the-art strategies implementing thermal break connections. Design and construction examples by the SEI Sustainability Committee's Thermal Bridging subcommittee will be presented. You probably won't find these tips in typical structural engineering texts.

Additionally, an architect and a mechanical engineer will discuss why thermal break connections are important aspects of building science. They will also describe how overall energy modeling effects ASHRAE's recent reporting on building envelopes.

The 2014 ASCE/SEI structurs congress is April 3-5, 2014, at the Sheraton Boston Hotel and Hynes Convention Center.

Register for the preconference seminar here. 

MODERATOR: Mark Webster, P.E., LEED AP BD+C, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.

SPEAKERS:

• James A. D’Aloisio, P.E., SECB, LEED AP BD+C, Klepper Hahn & Hyatt
• Dave DeLong, S.E., LEED AP, Halvorson & Partners
• Andrea Love, Building Scientist, Payette
• Russ Miller-Johnson, P.E., Engineering Ventures
• Raquel Ranieri, S.E., LEED AP, Walter P Moore & Associates
• Chris Schaffner, P.E., LEED Fellow, The Green Engineer

PLEASE NOTE: Application for AIA Educational Credits has been submitted, but is not yet confirmed.

Additional Registration Fee: EB: $99 / ADV: $175 / ONS: $250

Read more...

Q3b: Reducing Operational Energy with Structural Innovation

As designers look to make buildings more sustainable, the comparison between operational and embodied energy highlights the importance of honing in on the operations of the buildings as it holds the larger energy footprint. Structural engineers should be aware of opportunities for structural materials (the embodied impacts) to participate beneficially to reduce operational impacts.  Therefore, perhaps a more meaningful question to ask is “What active and passive technologies in low operational energy buildings require special structural solutions?”

Considerations for participation of the structure in operational benefits are two-fold.  The first consideration is synergies between the structural system and the operations of buildings. “Synergies refer to the acting together of building parts or systems to the benefit of the building as a whole.” (Kang 2006)  The second consideration is for the unique detailing required for innovative systems that operate the building.

Most of the examples below address the first strategy to integrate structural elements into the mechanical system, providing savings in cooling and heating energy. Primary components of operational energy that are tracked are electricity for lighting and energy used for heating, ventilation, and cooling. The last example addresses the second strategy using special structural considerations for miscellaneous architectural and MEP strategies that reduce operational energy savings.

Structure and Heating/Cooling

Exposed concrete ceilings and walls can provide adequate thermal mass to support natural ventilation, also known as “nighttime cooling” (Kang 2006) One example of this is the San Francisco Federal Building. This strategy exposes underside of suspended concrete floor slabs to utilize their thermal mass to absorb heat in the daytime and passively cool the indoor space.  Then at night the concrete purges the stored heat into the cooler air flowing across the slab between automated window openings near the height of the slabs, as depicted in Figure 2b.

For the SF Federal Building, this strategy enabled elimination of A/C on the top 13 floors of the 18 floor office building.  HVAC ordinarily accounts for about 28% of operational energy use in commercial buildings using standard air conditioning and designed with good practice to meet energy standards. Thus, integrating the structure with the energy saving strategies in this building “... does more to reduce lifetime energy use than most other measures that only target embodied energy.” (Kestner 2010) 

Figure 3b-2: Section of raised perimeter bay for increased day lighting.  Also indicated by the arrows is the path of airflow for night-time cooling utilizing thermal mass of the slab.  Credit: Morphosis architects

Another example of this strategy from One Tooley Street in London, UK is described in Figure 3-3b.

Figure 3b-3: One Tooley St uses the hollow cores of columns as air ducts and thermal mass of the concrete to passively cool the air as is it drawn down and distributed to plenum space between the slabs and access floor before entering the occupied space.

Only a few studies have attempted to quantify the savings due to integration of structural elements into the heating and cooling system.  The energy modeling for San Francisco Federal Building showed an energy cost savings of approximately 20%.  Perez predicts a 25% savings for a naturally ventilated office building in New Zealand compared to an office building with typical HVAC. (Perez 2008)  In contrast, an MIT study shows up to 6% reduction in operational energy over the life of building can be achieved through a thermal mass strategy for commercial buildings. (Oschendorf 2010) This may be due to very different climates in New Zealand and the studied regions of the US.

For residential construction, the same MIT study shows that the average increase in insulating value and decrease in thermal bridging from the insulated concrete forms (ICF) compared to a wood-frame house resulted in 2-10% carbon savings over a home’s 100 year life,  This was due to reduced electricity and gas usage, but was highly dependent on climate and tightness of construction.  In energy terms, the ICF lowered operational energy by 4.7-8%.  This study further found that up to 20% operational savings can be achieved by using ICFs with even thicker insulation panels, increasing air tightness, and using thinner concrete walls. (Oschendorf 2010)  

Foundations and Heating/Cooling

Geothermal cooling and heating can be provided through conduit in foundation piles. The new GSA building in Seattle will be using 135 of its 205 structural piles as “’energy piles,’ meaning they have been combined with a geothermal system to provide heating and cooling. This will be one of the first projects in the region to combine both systems. The geothermal energy piles have been designed to provide 100% of the heating and cooling needs of the building. In combination with natural ventilation, the extremely low energy needs of this project is expected to earn it an ENERYG STAR score of 100, meaning it will be in the top 1% of comparable buildings in energy performance. (Zemtseff 2011)

Structure and Lighting

The SF Federal Building from above also provides examples of integration for reduced lighting loads. The design team raised the ceiling in the exterior bay and set column lines off the façade first bay to increase daylight penetration to the interior.  The structural engineer also intentional chose to use slag in the slab mix to create a whiter and more reflective exposed interior surface. (Kestner 2010)  The upturned beams already provided for an unobstructed soffit for the natural ventilation strategy also removed daylight obstructions. Increasing daylight penetration could have the effect of decreasing electricity required for lighting, since studies show lighting can be as much as 40% of the total operating energy consumption. (Perez 2008).

The combination of daylighting and views, reduced operational energy, and use of recycled content in the cement earned the SF Federal Building 10 points under the LEED rating system.  Five of these points were from energy reductions enabled by structure, exemplifying how structural engineers can have a greater role to play in green building design if they expand beyond their traditional scope and approach the task with an understanding of whole-building and life-cycle building performance.  (Ratchye 2009)

Miscellaneous Strategies

Miscellaneous strategies requiring structural coordination include sunshades and light shelves, solar arrays / photovoltaic (PV), radiant heating, and green roofs. These elements are often all used in combination to get to net zero energy buildings, such as those meeting the Living Building Challenge, the most stringent green building certification currently in existence.

For more detail on structural considerations of these systems, go here. 

Another Look at Embodied Versus Operational Comparison

When thinking specifically in terms of global warming potential, designers should keep in mind that the greenhouse gas emissions that arise from construction materials, in other words, the embodied carbon of our buildings, enters the atmosphere well before the operational carbon emissions.  Thus, although they seem dwarfed by operational carbon over the life of the building, reduction in embodied impacts carries its own importance due to the benefits of acting sooner rather than later to address climate change (Webster 2012).  Thus, these reductions should be pursued concurrently with reduction in operational impacts. (See Q2 on the effectiveness of strategies aimed at reducing embodied impacts and Q8 for the difference between embodied energy, carbon, and other environmental impact metrics.)

Lastly, the proportions of embodied vs. operational impacts generally assume a 50 year or more building life.  The proportions would change drastically if this building life is shortened or extended.  (See Q9 for the environmental impacts of disasters and Q2 for LCA studies on ways that extending the life of structure reduces embodied impacts.) 

Author: Rebecca Jones ; Contributors: Kate Simonen, Frances Yang, Steve Buonopane

References

Basbagill, J., Lepech, M. (2013). “Characterizing Life Cycle Impacts of Conceptual Building Designs”. Energy and Buildings (in preparation)

Gartner, Mikael (2008). “Structural Implications of Green Roofs, Terraces, and Walls,” SEAOC 2008 Convention Proceedings

Kang, Grace and Alan Kren, (2006). “Structural Engineering Strategies Towards Sustainable Design,” SEAOC Proceedings 2006. Pp.473-490.

Kestner, Dirk, Jennifer Goupil, and Emily Lorenz, (2010). Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural Engineer,  Sponsored by Sustainability Committee of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE, Reston, VA: ASCE, 978-0-7844-1119-3.

Ochsendorf, J., et al., (2011). Methods, Impacts, and Opportunities in the Concrete Building Life Cycle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Concrete Sustainability Hub, Cambridge, MA.

Perez Fernandez, Nicolas, (2008). “The influence of construction materials on life-cycle energy use and carbon dioxide emissions of medium size commercial buildings,” School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, July.

Webster et al. (2012) Structure and Carbon: How Materials Affect the Climate written by the Carbon Working Group of the Structural Engineering Institute’s Sustainability Committee, ASCE.

Zemtseff, Katie.(2011) “$72M HQ for corps pushes the green building envelope,” Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce, June 27.

Return to Top 10 Home

Read more...

Q4: How much of total embodied impact comes from structure?

A rule of thumb often stated within the building design community is that the structure accounts for approximately 50% of a building's life cycle embodied energy.  

Author: Terry McDonnell; Contributors: Frances Yang, Kate Simonen, Rebecca Jones

This article examines three main scenarios for the amount of embodied energy due to structure compared with the entire building;

1. Structural Embodied Energy During Construction
2. Structural Embodied Energy Over Building’s Single Lifespan
3. Structural Embodied Energy Over Building’s Rebuilt or Repaired Lifespan

Structural Embodied Energy @ Initial Construction

There are numerous studies of structural embodied energy during the initial construction phase.  The following is a brief summary of those studies:

• In the embodied energy study by Kofoworola and Gheewala shows that the concrete and steel components of a 38 story reinforced concrete office tower in Thailand can be as high as 71% of embodied energy of a building through construction. (Kofoworola 2007)
• In the embodied energy study by Treloar et al shows that the concrete and steel components of a 15 story steel office tower in Australia can be as high as 90% of embodied energy of a building through construction. (Treloar 2001)
• The international building consulting firm Arup studied multiple pieces of literature and their own building designs in order to gather a data set of embodied energy that was bounded by “cradle to site”.  Calculations included all impacts of the extraction of the raw material, factory production and delivery to site.  Their analysis shows two interesting points;

           1) That the type of structure is not changing the significance of structural contribution to
           embodied energy.  Figure 4.1 shows a 50%-60% contribution independent of building type
           (Arup 2010).
           2) That the structural system may vary the contribution of embodied energy much more.
           Figure 4.2 shows that the structural system selected produces a range between 30%-60% of
           structural embodied energy compared to the entire building (Arup 2010). 

Figure 4-1:  Prepared by Arup (Kaethner 2012) Shows embodied energy vs. type of building use.

Figure 4-2, Prepared by Arup (Kaethner 2012), shows embodied energy vs. type of structural system.

Structural Embodied Energy Over Building’s Single Lifespan

Going further, one can look at the percent of embodied energy (or sometimes embodied carbon) of the structural materials throughout the entire life span of a building, including all operational impacts.  In most cases this will reduce the structural related percent vs. the total, especially during very long life spans.  Most building designs are benchmarked for 40-50 year life spans, but the exact amount is often determined during conversations between the building Owner and design team.   The following are studies and analyses performed in order to determine this value:

• An oft-cited study by R. Cole and P. Kernan based on the Canadian construction industry estimates that a 50,000 sft, 3 story office building using steel, concrete, and timber structural systems still produces a 25% to 33% range of the building’s total embodied energy. (Cole 1996)
• The carbon consulting firm dcarbon8, in a more recent case study conducted in 2007, calculated the total cradle-to-grave embodied carbon emissions (which are indicative of embodied energy) attributable to a warehouse building’s structure to be 57% of the total. (Werner 2012)
•  A similar study performed by Fernandez, N. Perez goes in depth to analyze an actual 55,000 sft, 6 story office building located in Christchurch, New Zealand.  Using the actual concrete design, and alternates of steel and timber, the author concludes that the life cycle structural embodied energy accounts for 30% of the concrete and timber designs, and 44% within the steel design alternate. (Fernandez 2008)
• Taking an actual four story, 80,000 sft office building located in Chicago, IL, a group of building designers studied four different structural systems using two separate material quantity calculations within the ATHENA EcoCalculator for the purpose of determining the structural material embodied energy.  By adding in non-structural components and using TRACE 2000 energy model each design assuming a 50 year life span.  The total embodied energy of the structure for this low rise building was determined to be between 6%-10% of the total cradle to grave energy.  This is lower than expected but remains a significant amount. (Stek 2012)

Structural Embodied Energy Over Building’s Rebuilt or Repaired Lifespan

Common practice in conducting an environmental life-cycle assessment (LCA) on a building includes a consideration of the impacts stemming from first construction of a building through its life span.   But in special circumstances, such as buildings in earthquake prone locations, the repair of damage or demolition and re-construction (sometimes referred to as multiple lives) of a building may significantly affect the overall structural embodied energy.  A comprehensive LCA includes impacts related to demolition but rarely includes the potential additional environmental impacts that could stem from repairing or demolishing and rebuilding a building after a natural disaster included in an LCA, if ever at all.  Methods are being developed to include seismic performance in LCA analysis.

One such study by Degenkolb attempts to include the affect of seismic systems within active earthquake locations in order to achieve a more accurate sense of a building’s full life-cycle impacts.  In this paper, an LCA study using the EnvISA methodology is performed.  This analysis measures common structural unit costs rather than a straight LCA inventory.  Anticipated seismic losses are then paired with the cost LCA database which forms the basis of EnvISA.  Their conclusions show that a more robust structural system can provide approximately 18% - 25% depending on the structural system selected, and how well that system can limit damage to the non-structural building elements over a 50 year life span. (Comber 2012)

The difficulty in all of the seismic evaluating studies is that they are to date based upon proprietary software.  Without knowing more about the system, the data sets, assumptions, inventories, boundary conditions, and actual measuring algorithm are different.

This brief paper shows that the often quoted rule of thumb that the structural materials are 20% of the total embodied energy is in reality subject to a lot of fluctuation.    Most cases presented show values higher than 20%.  As modern energy codes continue to reduce the operational energy, the percent of total embodied energy due to the structure will only increase.  In addition, the high rise building type has a much greater percentage of structural embodied energy out of the total.  Studies show that in buildings over 200 feet high (often times much more) the embodied energy can be 4 times or more of the embodied energy percentage of a shorter sized building. (Kaethner 2012)

Therefore it is relevant and altogether prudent to continue measuring and trying to decrease the environmental impact of structural materials.

References

Arup (2010) “Embodied Carbon Study: Study of Commercial Office, Hospital and School buildings,” The Concrete Centre, United Kingdom

Cole R., Kernan P. (1996) “Life-Cycle Energy Use in Office Buildings”, Buildings and Environment, 31 (4): 307-317

Comber, Poland, & Sinclair (2012) “Environmental Impact Seismic Assessment: Application of Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodologies to Optimize Environmental Performance”, Victoria University School of Architecture, Wellington, New Zealand

dcarbon8 (2010) “Footprint Measurement and Reduction Study for Development Securities”

Fernandez, N. Perez (2008) “The Influence of Construction Materials on Life-cycle Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Medium Size Commercial Buildings”, Victoria University School of Architecture, Wellington, New Zealand

Hsu, S. (2010) “Life Cycle Assessment of Materials and Construction in Commercial Structures: Variability and Limitations,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Kaether, Burridge (2012) “Embodied CO2 of Structural Frames”, The Structural Engineer.

Kofoworola, Gheewala (July 2007), “Environmental life cycle assessment of a commercial office building in Thailand”

Stek, DeLong, McDonnell, Rodriguez (2012) “Life Cycle Assessment Using Athena® Impact Estimator on Buildings: A Case Study”, SEI Congress 2012.

TRELOAR, G. J., FAY, R., LLOZOR, B. & LOVE, P. E. D. (2001a). Building Materials Selection: Greenhouse Strategies for Built Facilities. Facilities, Vol. 19, No. 3/4, pp,139 – 149

Werner, Burns (2012) “Qualification and Optimization of Structural Embodied Energy and Carbon”, SEI Congress 2012.

Other papers to research

Seppo, J.; Horvath, A., and Guggemos, A. (2006)  “Life-Cycle Assessment of Office Buildings in Europe and the United States,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, March 2006 Issue.

CTBUH Journal, Tall Buildings and Embodied Energy, 2009 Issue III

Return to Top 10 Home

Read more...

Q9: Environmental Impact of Disasters

What is the environmental impact of natural and man-made disasters?   How can holistic life cycle thinking impact the way we design for disasters?

Author: Matthew Comber, Lionel Lemay ; Contributors: Frances Yang, Tonatiuh Rodriguez-Nikl

At the end of 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the U.S. had experienced 14 separate disasters, each with an economic loss of $1 billion or more, surpassing the record set in 2008 (NOAA 2011). Losses in 2011 amounted to $55 billion in the U.S. Globally, insurers lost at least $108 billion on disasters in 2011. Reinsurer Swiss Re Ltd. said that 2011 was the second-worst year in the industry's history. Only 2005, with Hurricane Katrina and other major storms, were more costly (Swiss Re 2011). In 2012, there have been 11 natural disasters costing $1 billion or more in damage, making 2012 the second highest year with billion-dollar disasters. Tornadoes in 2012, the widespread and intense drought that covered at least 60 percent of the contiguous U.S. and Hurricane Sandy are expected to be the most costly weather-related disasters in U.S. history.

Figure 9-1 Source: Billion-Dollar U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters 1980-2012 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf

Most of the increased disaster losses cannot be attributed to an increased occurrence of hazards but changes in population migration and wealth. In the last several decades, population in the United States has increased and migrated toward the coasts, concentrating along the earthquake-prone Pacific coast and the hurricane-prone Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Over 60% of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of one of its coasts (including the Great Lakes) (CRSR 1997). At the same time, wealth and the value of their possessions have increased substantially. The high concentration of people in coastal regions has produced many economic benefits, but the combined effects of booming population growth and economic and technological development are threatening the ecosystems that provide these economic benefits. Moreover, many elements of these aged infrastructures are highly vulnerable to breakdowns that can be triggered by relatively minor events (Masters 2011).

Figure 9-2 Sources: GDP Data: MeasuringWorth.com; Storm Damage Data: Wunderground.com

As a society, we have placed a great deal of emphasis on recycling rates and reducing operational energy use in green building codes and rating systems.  However, standard building code requirements for seismic or wind loads that accept significant damage in a major event are not addressed.  For example, the latest version of LEED introduced special emphasis on LCA criteria, but does not recognize disaster resilience as one of its standard criteria.

There is a jurisdictional elective in the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) for performing LCA as a way to demonstrate that a proposed building has a lower environmental impact than a reference design, but there is no guidance on incorporating resilience into the analysis. ASHRAE 189.1, Standard for Design of High Performance, Green Buildings does have an option for evaluating the embodied emissions of all building materials in a building. Clause 9.5.1.2 Step 1-1.e does require that maintenance, repair, and replacement during the design life with or without operational energy consumption must be taken into account, but it is clear that this is referring to regular maintenance, repair and replacement and not damage caused by natural hazards.

For a building to be truly sustainable it should be resilient. It should consider potential for future use and re-use and have a long service life with low maintenance costs. (Kestner, Goupil & Lorenz, 2010) In addition, a sustainable building should be designed to sustain minimal damage due to natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, flooding and fire (Kneer & Maclise 2008). Otherwise, the environmental, economic and societal burden of our built environment could be overwhelming. A building that requires frequent repair and maintenance or complete replacement after disasters would result in unnecessary cost, from both private and public sources, and environmental burdens including the energy, waste and emissions due to disposal, repair and replacement.

Resilience and LCA

A few methodologies have been proposed (Court et al. 2012) and implemented (Comber et al. 2012 & 2013b, Comber & Poland 2013, Sarkisian et al. 2012) to assess the environmental impacts of seismic damage. At their core, these methodologies share a common approach: a pairing of a seismic loss assessment methodology with building component LCA data. The concept of using a seismic damage assessment to understand environmental impacts is very new- there is no standard method or procedure, however the methods proposed by these authors can be very useful depending upon the desired results and amount of detailed information damage an life cycle inventory data available.

 

Damage Assessment

Consideration of isolated disastrous events can be a useful approach for clients who are looking at potentially large capital losses associated with direct damage or downtime during the repair process.  Care should be taken, however, to communicate to the client that these events have a somewhat small probability of occurrence during any building’s lifespan.  A more holistic understanding of a building’s probable lifetime environmental impacts may be gained by conducting a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and examining the potential impacts across a range of risk levels. Comber et al. (2013a) propose a method for conducting such an assessment and note the importance of including a consideration of small- to moderate-sized seismic events in such an assessment.

The method proposed by Court et al. has yet to be explicitly defined; rather the authors are currently making recommendations to FEMA for various approaches that may be feasible.  Regardless of the final version of their approach, it stands to provide a useful method to gaining a detailed understanding of the building’s impacts and their distributions throughout the structure.  Sarkisian et al. propose a method and associated software tool that allows a general understanding of total impacts best used when comparing one structural seismic system to another.  The methodology proposed by Comber et al. is a more detailed approach that is designed to target key “environmentally sensitive” components so that the structural and/or nonstructural seismic design strategy can be adjusted at the project outset to best protect those components from damage.  A common theme can be found throughout these authors’ approaches: the role of the structure (and thus the structural engineer) must often be heightened to one of protecting nonstructural components in order to effectively minimize impacts of seismic damage.

Environmental Impact Data

Sarkisian et al. propose a process-based LCA that is defined in terms of material quantities, whereas Comber et al. use an Economic Input-Output LCA that is based on a building cost estimate (more detail on their EIO procedure is presented by Comber et al. 2013a).

Sustainable Building Standards

For green building standards to truly address sustainable construction, the concept of disaster resilience must be addressed. State-of-the-art modern buildings are no doubt currently in construction that are designed to meet LEED or other green building requirements that could be easily destroyed as a result of a hurricane, earthquake or other force of nature.  There is a high risk that the monetary & environmental investment made to create high-efficiency systems in these buildings will not generate a return if the building undergoes damage due to a natural hazard event.  A consideration of the risks and benefits associated with resilient design strategies would ensure that the statistical minimum lifetime environmental impacts are realized in these designs.

References

Comber M.V., Poland C., Sinclair M. (2012).  “Environmental impact seismic assessment: application of performance-based earthquake engineering methodologies to optimize environmental performance.”  Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers/ Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE-SEI) Structures Congress, Chicago, IL.

Comber, M.V., Erickson, C., & Poland, C. (2013a). “Quantifying and Minimizing the Environmental Impacts of Seismic Damage to Buildings: A Procedure and Case Study.” Journal of Structural Engineering, in review.

Comber, M.V., Poland, C., & Sinclair, K.M. (2013b). “Sustainable Concrete Structures through Seismic Resilience: A Case Study.” Proceedings, International Concrete Sustainability Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Comber, M.V. & Poland, C. (2013). “Disaster Resilience and Sustainable Design: Quantifying the Benefits of a Holistic Design Approach.” Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers- Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE-SEI) Structures Congress, Pittsburgh, PA.

Congressional Research Service Report (CRSR). (1997). Oceans & Coastal Resources: A Briefing Book, Congressional Research Service Report 97-588 ENR.

http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/BriefingBooks/Oceans. Accessed November 13, 2012.

Court A., Simonen K., Webster M., Trusty W., Morris P. (2012).  “Linking next-generation performance-based seismic design criteria to environmental performance (ATC-86 and ATC-58).”  Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers/ Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE-SEI) Structures Congress, Chicago, IL.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). (2012). State of Working America, http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wealth-figure-6a-average-household-net. Accessed November 13, 2012.

Kestner, D, Goupil, J. & Lorenz, E. ed. (2010).  Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural Engineer.  American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute, Reston Virginia.

Kneer, E., & Maclise, L. (2008). “Consideration of Building Performance in Sustainable Design: A Structural Engineer’s Role.” Proceedings, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Annual Convention.

Masters, J. (2011). 2011’s Billion-Dollar Disasters: Is climate Change to Blame?, Weaterwise, March-April 2012, http://www.weatherwise.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2012/March-April%202012/dollar-disasters-full.html. Accessed November 13, 2012.

National Climate Data Center (NOAA). (2011). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions. Accessed November 13, 2012.

Sarkisian M., Hu L., Shook D. (2012).  “Mapping a structure’s impact on the environment.”  Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers/ Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE-SEI) Structures Congress, Chicago, IL.

Swiss Re Estimates 2011 Economic Cat Loss at $350 Bn; Insured Loss $108 Bn. (2011) http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2011/12/15/227534.htm, accessed November 13, 2012.

Return to Top 10 Home

Read more...