Green Building and Sustainable Design

Impacts and Challenges

TU112

Richard S. Szecsy, PhD, PE

President & CEO

Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association

www.tx-taca.org

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

AIA Credits

Hanley Wood is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of

Architects Continuing Education Systems. Credit earned on completion

of this program will be reported to CES Records for AIA members who

sign in with their AIA member ID. Electronic Certificates of Completion

for all attendees will be available 6-7 weeks post show.

This program is registered with the AIA/CES for continuing professional

education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or

construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material

of construction or any method or manner of handling, using or

distributing or dealing in any material or product.

Questions related to specific materials, methods and

services will be addressed at the conclusion of this

Presentation.

1. Recognize increasing pace of concrete technology

development and its implementation within the

industry

2. Discuss applicability of various concrete

technologies to green-building systems and

sustainable design

3. Evaluate positive and negative elements from both a

concrete supply and contracting point of view

4. Identify challenges that technologies and green-

building requirements bring to the construction

process

Learning Objectives

Overview

• Green Building and Sustainable Design

• Case Examples

– High volume fly ash

– Pervious Concrete

– Reflective Concrete

– Recycled and storm water

• Issues and Challenges

Sustainable Design Philosophy

Time

FunctionDesign t RequiremenDesign S

ityustainabil

• Design Requirement

– Specified level of performance necessary

• Design Function

– Specified intent for use of the structure from the Owner

Sustainable Design Philosophy

ePerformanctRequiremenDesign

Sustainable Design Philosophy

• Performance

– Expected result from the design as measured by a

standard method

• Function

– Intended use of structure or structural element

Time

Function ePerformancS

ityustainabil

Design Philosophy

• Generally accepted design approach

• Supported by Codes and Standards

• Don’t have to exercise judgment

• Perception that it minimizes liability

ePerformanconPrescripti

Design Philosophy

Time

Functionon PrescriptiS

ityustainabil

• Is it possible to “prescribe” sustainability?

• Does a prescriptive approach create an inherent

conflict?

• How do we resolve the conflict?

Green Building & Sustainable Design

• Design and construction practices to

– Reduce or eliminate impact of buildings

on environment and occupants

• Five Broad Areas:

– Sustainable site planning

– Safeguarding water efficiency

– Indoor environmental quality

– Energy efficiency and renewable energy

– Conservation of materials, resources

Reference: US Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org, 2003

Benefits of Green Building

• Environmental benefits

– Reduce impacts of resource

consumption

• Economic benefits

– Improve the bottom line

– High benefit at low cost (?!?!?)

– Optimize life-cycle, utility costs

• Health and safety benefits

– Enhance occupant comfort, health

• Community benefits

– Reduce strain on infrastructures

Reference: US Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org, 2003

LEED® Program Participation

• System for designing, constructing, operating

and certifying “green” buildings

Energy &

Atmosphere

27%

Water

Efficiency

8%

Materials &

Resources

20%

Sustainable

Sites

22%

Indoor

Environmental

Quality

23%

Reference: US Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org, 2003

Actual LEED® Points

Category Total Points % of total

Sustainable sites 14 2 14%

Water eficiency 5 0 0%

Engery and atmosphere 17 10 59%

Materials and Resources 13 6 46%

Indoor Environmental quality 15 0 0%

Innovation 4 2 50%

LEED Professional 1 0 0%

Total 69 20 29%

Using Concrete

Ref: “Using Concrete to Maximize LEED™ Points,” Concrete International, November 1, 2002

20% Materials and Resources

• Construction Waste Management

– Recycled 50% by weight construction waste (1pt)

• Resource Reuse

– Specify salvaged matls for 5% of building matls (1pt)

• Recycled Content

– 25% of building matl. contain 40% post-industrial matl (1pt)

– +25% building matl contain 40% post-industrial matl (1pt)

• Local/Regional Materials

– Building materials extracted, or manufactured within 500 mi.

radius of project (1pt)

Recycled Equations

)(Weight Total

(%)Content IndustrialPost )(Weight MaterialContent Recycled

lbs

lbs

PriceSellingVolumeContent RecycledValueContent Recycled

($)Cost MaterialsTotal

($) ValueContent Recycled(%) teContent Ra Recycled

Reference: Concrete in Focus, Fall 2004, pg 30-34

Recycled Calculation Example

Reference: Concrete in Focus, Fall 2004, pg 30-34 and Engineering News Record, December 4, 2006

Cement Fly Ash Total

8039 $88.72 41Concrete Paving

3500 psi5.53 25% 390 130 3926

Mix # QtySelling

Price% AshDescription

Per Yard (lbs)Sack

)(Weight Total

(%)Content IndustrialPost )(Weight MaterialContent Recycled

lbs

lbs

%31.33926

%100130Content Recycled

lb

lb

Recycled Calculation Example

Cement Fly Ash Total

8039 $88.72 41Concrete Paving

3500 psi5.53 25% 390 130 3926

Mix # QtySelling

Price% AshDescription

Per Yard (lbs)Sack

PriceSellingVolumeContent RecycledValueContent Recycled

44.120$72.88$14%31.3ValueContent Recycled yds

Reference: Concrete in Focus, Fall 2004, pg 30-34 and Engineering News Record, December 4, 2006

Recycled Calculation Example

Cement Fly Ash Total

8039 $88.72 41Concrete Paving

3500 psi5.53 25% 390 130 3926

Mix # QtySelling

Price% AshDescription

Per Yard (lbs)Sack

($)Cost MaterialsTotal

($) ValueContent Recycled(%) teContent Ra Recycled

%31.352.3637$

44.120$(%) teContent Ra Recycled

Reference: Concrete in Focus, Fall 2004, pg 30-34 and Engineering News Record, December 4, 2006

What about manufactured sand?

Recycled Calculation Example

($)Cost MaterialsTotal

($) ValueContent Recycled(%) teContent Ra Recycled

%09.1952.3637$

58.694$(%) RateContent Recycled

Reference: Concrete in Focus, Fall 2004, pg 30-34 and Engineering News Record, December 4, 2006

Mix # Qty Description Sack % Ash Per Yard (lbs)

Cmt Ash Mansand Fiber Color Total

8039 41

Concrete

Paving 3500

psi

5.53 25% 390 130 1411 0 0 4035

LEED for New Construction 2.2

Bonus Points: Innovation & Design

• 4 points for innovation

– High volume fly ash?

– Water recycling?

– Self compacting concrete?

• Double dipping is allowed

Technology Example - HVFA

• What happens over 30%?

– History is not kind…

• Why not 40%, 50%, 60%?

• Equal performance

– Set time, strength, etc.

• Changes in contracting

– Finishing, curing, etc.

• Proprietary Mix Designs

Video provided by: Lattimore Materials Company, 972-221-4646 www.lattimorematerials.com

HVFA - 3 day Performance Data

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

Mix B Mix C Mix A Mix B Mix C

Av

era

ge

Co

mp

res

siv

e S

tre

ng

th (

ps

i)

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Tim

e o

f In

itia

l S

et

(ho

urs

)

3 day

Initial Set

Lab Produced* Field Produced**

HVFA - 28 day Performance Data

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

Mix B Mix C Mix A Mix B Mix C

Av

era

ge

Co

mp

res

siv

e S

tre

ng

th (

ps

i)

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Tim

e o

f In

itia

l S

et

(ho

urs

)28 day

Initial Set

Lab Produced* Field Produced**

HVFA - Performance Data (Class C)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2

3

7

28

56

5 sack

6 sack7 sack

Co

mp

ress

ive s

tren

gth

(p

si)

Age

(day

s)

HVFA - Performance Data (Class F)

HVFA Results – Azure Tower

Pervious Concrete

• No fines, porous

• Mono-sized

• %15 to 35% voids

• 8 to 20 gal/min/ft2

• 2000 to 4000 psi?

• Fixed proportions?

Video provided by: http://www.chargerconcrete.com/perviousconcrete.htm, August 2004

Pervious Concrete

• No fines, porous

• Mono-sized

• %15 to 35% voids

• 8 to 20 gal/min/ft2

• 2000 to 4000 psi?

• Fixed proportions?

Video provided by: www.judimedozablogspot.com, January 19, 2007

Reflective Concrete…Cool Pavements

• Higher reflectivity reduces air

temperatures

– 0.1 increase 10oF decrease

– Heat island effect

• Solar Reflective Index (SRI)

– ASTM E1980

• “Albedo” is unit of measurement

– ASTM C1549

• When are they measured?

Reflective Concrete…Cool Pavements

• Time and expense of testing

• Function of available materials

– Test panels are critical

– No historical data

– Beware the “this combination worked

on the last job…”

• What if it does not work?

– Contract liabilities?

• Sunset provisions in Contract

Innovation: Self Compacting Technology

• Placement without

segregation

• Non-segregating

• Free flowing

• Not a new concrete!

• Energy reduction???

Video provided by: Lattimore Materials Company, 972-221-4646 www.lattimorematerials.com

Recycled Water and Stormwater

• The problem we all have…

• …we are at zero discharge

• Why would a specification

not support its use?

• Batch panel controls

• Document each load

Green Cement

• Based on emissions from

cement

• Requires contractor/supplier

certification/verification

• More limited/specialty a

source material…

– more expensive it could become

– greater potential concrete

expense

“…A cement kiln

that has met the

emission standard

of 1.7 lb of NOx

per ton of clinker

released into the

atmosphere…”

Opportunity: Proprietary Mix Designs

• Prescriptive vs. Performance

• Let the best technology win

• Performance basis?

– w/cm vs permeability, etc.

• Commodity to engineered…

• National focus, NRMCA

Issues and Challenges

• Our industry does not

like change

• Green Building is Architect

and Owner Driven

– Industry giving input?

• Industry Communication?

– Engineers

– Contractors

– Testing Labs

Issues and Challenges: Engineers

• Green Building = Performance

• What performance is needed?

– Verification of performance

– Do your homework

• Be explicit, not implicit!

– Set time

– What strength at what day?

• Must see the mix design…why?

Issues and Challenges: Architects

• Often don’t understand own

specification

• Material experience is rarely

first hand, based on last

major problem…

• What is the metric for

performance?

• Cost awareness is essential!

Issues and Challenges: Contractors

• “Any change is a bad change”

– Changes in placing

– Changes in finishing

• Someone else is the expert

• $/ft2 can be the deal breaker

• Performance is too good?

• Contradictions?

– Remove the Environmental fee?!?

Issues and Challenges: Testing Labs

• Verify performance for owner

– Based on job specs (explicit!)

– NOT based on speculation

or assumption

• New concrete and old

assumptions = problems

• Mix design?

• When to include in process

Forward Thinking

• This is not an industry fad!

• Leadership within industry

• Where is the resistance?

• Industry must get involved!

• There are hidden gems

– 1st mover advantage

– Proprietary mix designs

– Concrete based on performance

– Best technology wins

Richard S. Szecsy, PhD, PE President & CEO

Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association

www.tx-taca.org

512-451-5100 phone

214-202-1379 cell

rich.szecsy@tx-taca.org

This concludes the American Institute of Architects

Continuing Education Systems Program.

Any Questions?