Insulated Metal Panels Archives - Page 2 of 2

Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Insulation on Metal Roof and Wall Panels

Posted on August 12, 2016 by Jason Allen

With building code compliance and sustainable building envelopes at the forefront in today’s marketplace, spray polyurethane foam insulation (SPF) applied to single skin metal roof and wall panels is an alternative to insulated metal panels with a manufacture-applied polyurethane foam core. SPF insulation improves a building’s energy efficiency and provides thermal, air and vapor barrier capabilities.

What Is Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Insulation?

SPF insulation consists of isocyanate and polyol resin that is chemically combined and applied to surfaces using a spray gun. SPF insulation can be open cell or closed cell. Open-cell foam provides insulation and air sealing for a building, but is water and vapor permeable. Closed-cell foam provides better insulation than open cell and also functions as an air barrier. Closed-cell foam differs from open cell in that it prevents water entry, minimizes moisture vapor permeability and decreases air leakage, making it the preferred insulation to apply to metal panels.

Spray Polyurethane Foam Insulation with Metal Panels. Image courtesy of Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance

SPF insulation is well suited for use as interior insulation for metal wall and through-fastened metal roof panels. The traditional thermal insulation layer—one or two layers of batt insulation with a facer—has its intricacies; for example, compressed areas and difficulty taping seams at edges and penetrations for air barrier performance. But because of SPF’s inherent physical characteristics and spray application method, SPF overcomes many obstacles.

8 Application and Safety Tips for SPF

Using SPF to fully insulate and seal a building with metal panels can have unintended consequences if the material characteristics and project parameters are not well thought out. The Metal Construction Association (MCA) recently conducted research with the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA) and published their findings in a technical bulletin. It includes the following best practices and considerations for installing SPF.

Image courtesy of Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance

Utilize a certified foam spray technician to ensure the insulation meets the desired thickness, density and adhesion.
Only apply SPF to clean, dry areas.
SPF should not be used on standing seam metal roof panels because it may restrict the thermal movement of the panels, causing distortion.
Follow a “picture frame” application technique, further detailed here, to prevent SPF from getting between girts and metal panels, causing deformation.
Notify other contractors, including HVAC and electrical, to ensure necessary precautions are made.
Follow building code requirements for fire protection because in some instances SPF may meet thermal barrier requirements.
Prevent SPF chemicals from being drawn into a building’s ventilation system during and after installation. There may be a mandated wait time before other occupants can reenter the space.
Consult with your metal panel manufacturer before applying SPF.

Read more recommendations and findings by the MCA by downloading their technical bulletin, Spray Polyurethane Foam Insulation on Interior Surfaces of Metal Panels, here.

The Benefits of Integrating Daylighting Systems with Metal Panels

Posted on July 25, 2016August 2, 2022 by MBCI

When metal roofing and wall systems of insulated metal panels, or IMPs, are combined with integrated daylighting and electrical lighting systems (such as with skylights, windows and translucent panels) it can improve occupant wellness and overall building performance. Are you curious if the return would be worth your investment? Uncover the recent advancements in daylighting technologies, the benefits and how to measure your building’s success.

Advancements in Daylighting Technologies and IMPs

In recent years, IMP assemblies have seen significant improvements, including more effective seals and thermal breaks as well as better thermal performance.

A range of novel daylighting products and technologies have been introduced in recent years that aid in the deployment of natural illumination for a multitude of occupancies—maximizing daylighting effectiveness while also maintaining the envelope’s barrier and thermal performance. These tools include pre-engineered, integrated metal envelope and roof solutions with compatible curbless skylights, light tubes, pan-type prismatic skylights, automated dimming controls for lighting, motorized shades and other components.

One example of how new tools are replacing more traditional products is the use of domed and pan-type units with prismatic embossing, which refracts and directs two to four times as much illumination into the indoor spaces when solar incidence angles are more acute, such as in the early morning and late in the day. These prismatic elements also help eliminate “hot spots” and reduce glare and ultraviolet (UV) deterioration from daylighting.

Benefits of Investing in Daylighting

Overall, using the current crop of novel skylight products in combination with a highly thermally efficient base system of metal panel walls and roofing will reduce excessive solar heat gain as they reduce the electrical base load for lighting. Highly diffusing acrylic and polycarbonate lenses and spectrally selective glass openings are very effective for maximizing functional visible light indoors while inhibiting unwanted heat gain. Many of the skylight aperture designs block 85% of infrared (IR) and 99.9% of UV light, which also reduces the unwanted degradation of products and materials inside the buildings. Additionally, the new generation of skylights also optimizes solar harvesting because many of the lenses have a minimal effect on VT.

In this way, the use of skylights with metal roofing and IMPs can be an effective way to meet the requirements of IECC 2012 and state energy codes. The skylights reduce overall electrical loads without adding unacceptable levels of solar heat gain, and their small relative area means the overall roof U-values remain low.

How to Measure the Success of Daylighting

Building teams will encounter a number of key variables that help measure the effectiveness of proposed daylighting designs. The most common (and valuable) daylighting performance metrics in use today include the following:

• Daylight factor
• Window-to-wall ratio, or WWR
• Effective aperture, or ea.
• Daylighting depth
• Solar heat-gain coefficient, or ShgC
• Haze factor
• U-factor

Using the above tools and terminology, building teams can better assess the benefits of daylighting strategies with skylights, prismatic pan-type products and solar light pipes, among others. In particular, these are important for meeting the widely used 2012 International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC) and ASHRAE 90.1 as well as state energy codes and “reach targets” such as green building certifications, the Passive House standard and others.

How to Learn More

The use of building systems combining metal roofing with skylights and integrated lighting provide significant life-cycle performance. Much of this is due to the research and development behind the individual products and materials used for these applications.

For a more in-depth look at daylighting within the context of metal roof and wall systems, please refer to MBCI’s whitepaper, Shining Light on Daylighting with Metal Roofs, which showcases the strong rates of return of using integrated daylighting systems with novel prismatic optics and high-efficiency lighting on metal envelopes with good thermal and barrier performance.

Thermal Bow vs. Thermal Expansion: A Look at Thermal Efficiency in Insulated Metal Panels

Posted on June 28, 2016 by kbuchinger

Insulated metal panels (IMPs), a type of lightweight factory-fabricated metal panel, are a compelling alternative to more conventional roof panel choices. IMPs have a continuous insulating core that works together with metal skins to create a barrier against air, water vapor, and thermal conditions. One major benefit of IMPs, is their thermal efficiency, averaging R-7.0 to 7.2 per inch as compared to R-5.6 per inch for unfaced urethane board stock. Insulated metal roof panels are commonly available in thicknesses ranging from two- to six-inches which generally correlates to R-14 to 42.

Structure of IMPs

IMPs consist of two single skin metal panels and a foamed-in-place core. The foam insulation is made of non-chlorofluorocarbon (non-CFC) polyurethane foam. As an example, MBCI’s IMPs consist of closed cell structure and nominal density of 2.2 pounds per cubic foot. Its closed cell structure also prevents the foam from absorbing water.

Thermal Bow in IMPs

Thermal expansion of insulated metal panels is accommodated by thermal bowing.

An interesting phenomenon with IMP roof panels is that you don’t have to deal with thermal expansion the way you do with single skin panels. On wide, through-fastened roofs, you can have issues with panels slotting around the fasteners. And with standing seam roofs, you have to ensure that the panel clips can handle the anticipated thermal movement. However, insulated panels experience something called “thermal bow.”

An IMP’s exterior metal skin will still expand as it heats up. But, instead of causing the whole IMP to grow in length, the exterior skin of the IMP will bow up slightly between purlins/joists because the interior metal skin of the IMP maintains a relatively constant temperature. The insulating foam that adheres to this metal skin flexes to allow for this bow. Because of this, thermal expansion is accommodated by the small incremental growth (and bowing up) of the exterior metal skin between each purlin/joist, which are usually spaced five to seven feet apart.

Conclusion

Insulated metal roof panels are fixed roof systems that will experience thermal bow between the purlins as opposed to single skin systems, which are designed to allow for expansion and contraction in the panel. With its thermal efficiency benefits, IMP roofs are beginning to get noticed as an alternative for designers looking for a progressive choice to achieve flexibility and function.

Better Barriers: Meeting Thermal Performance and Controlling Air & Moisture

Posted on December 10, 2015 by Robert Baker

Panelized metal exteriors have joints. It’s just a rule of best-practice design. Yet these joints are seen by some as interruptions in the façade or roof, when in fact they are connections — the opposite, one can argue, of the word “interruption” that suggests a discontinuity.

In fact, engineered metal panel systems offer arguably the best possible continuous exterior system. Not only are they properly applied exterior to the building structure—outboard of columns, joists and girts—but they are also designed to ensure an unbroken chain of thermal control and barrier protection. Combined with controlled penetration assemblies as well as windows, doors and skylights that are engineered as part of the façade and roof system, the insulated metal panel (IMP) products provide unequaled performance.

That’s the main reason that specialized facilities designed for maximum environmental barrier control are made of IMPs: refrigerated warehouses, R&D laboratories, air traffic control towers and MRI clinics, to name a few.

But any facility should benefit from the best performance possible with metal roofing and wall panels. Consider insulation shorthand for the code-mandated thermal barrier required for opaque wall areas in ASHRAE 90.1 and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). For a given climate zone, says Robert A. Zabcik, P.E., director of R&D with NCI Group, the project team can calculate the functional amount of insulation needed by using either the “Minimum Rated R-values” method or the “Maximum U-factor Assembly” calculation. For IMPs, teams use the Maximum U-factor Assembly, which can be tested using ASTM C1363.

With IMPs, the test shows thermal performance values up to R-8.515 and better per inch of panel thickness, meaning that a 2.5-inch-deep panel would easily meet the IECC and ASHRAE minimums.

With metal roofing panels and wall panels, a building team can achieve needed energy performance levels with this single-source enclosure, providing a continuous blanket of protection.

The same is true for air and moisture control. In a July 2015 paper by Building Science Corp., principal John Straube wrote, “Insulated metal panels can provide an exceptionally rigid, strong and air impermeable component of an air barrier system.” He noted that, “Air leakage condensation cannot occur within the body of the insulated metal panel, even if one of the metal skins is breached, because all materials are completely air impermeable and there are no voids to allow air flow.”

In terms of water control, Straube writes that IMPs have a continuous steel face that is a “high-performance, durable water control layer: water simply will not leak through steel, and cracks and holes will not form over time. The exterior location of the water barrier,” he adds, “offers some real advantages.”

Connecting the panels at transitions, penetrations and panel joints is the key, of course. Straube notes that sealant, sheet metal, and sheet membranes are effective and commonly used to protect joints.

In my experience, these joint details are incredibly effective. They often outlast most other components of the building. Even more important, they help make IMPs better barriers that meet thermal, air and moisture performance needs. They help make metal panels one of the best choices of all.

Wellness and Envelopes: Four Ways Single Skin & Insulated Metal Panels Keep Us Healthy

Posted on November 17, 2015August 8, 2022 by Brad Johnson

Is there a connection between building design and human health?

We know the answer must be yes, but figuring out how the connection works is the job of experts like the team behind the WELL Building Standard^®, a new certification that takes on the question. Among the solutions that can help make a building better? Metal roofing and siding, according to many healthy building experts.

First, let’s learn about WELL. According to the International WELL Building Institute, the WELL Building Standard “takes a holistic approach to health in the built environment addressing behavior, operations and design.” Their performance-based system measures and monitors such building features as air, water, nourishment, light, fitness, comfort, and mind. Two ratings have been offered: WELL Certified™ spaces and WELL Core and Shell Compliant™ developments. Done properly, these “improve the nutrition, fitness, mood, sleep patterns, and performance of occupants.”

Pilot programs are currently available for retail, multifamily residential, educational, restaurants and commercial kitchens projects. In many of these projects, the use of metal claddings and insulated metal panels (IMPs) is recommended by many health-focused professionals. Why?

1. Occupant comfort

IMPs tend to have excellent R-values and very good thermal efficiency – including long-term thermal resistance, or LTTR, a key measure of how the building will perform over time. For the wellness factor from pure thermal comfort, IMPs are highly effective over conventional construction.

2. Nourishment of people and earth

IMPs are often made with recycled metals and improve the energy performance of the building. With energy cost savings ranging from 5 percent to 30 percent, they cut the carbon footprint of the facility. Plus the interior and exterior skins include up to 35 percent recycled content – and they are 100 percent recyclable – reducing impact on the global carbon load.

3. Daylight for all.

Using metal roofs with skylights or light-transmitting panels in conjunction with integrated dimming lighting is a highly cost-effective strategy, and IMP systems also have integrated window systems that increase available sunlight within building interiors. Light is essential for healthy buildings, and daylight is the best kind of all.

In addition, because rigid insulation per inch offers more R-value than per inch of fiberglass insulation and IMPs have metal liner skins, day-lighting fixtures such as light tubes can be integrated more easily with these roofs.

4. Proper moisture and air control.

Issues such as leaky walls and wet, moldy construction materials are anathema to wellness, and must be controlled for healthy building certifications. Mold has a negative impact on indoor air quality and indoor environmental quality, and one of the main culprits is trapped moisture. This can also corrode the metal studs and furring members, even if they are galvanized, leading to structural issues such as reduced fastener pullout resistance and leaks.

How Does a Building Become WELL Certified?

IMPs used as either rainscreens or as sealed barrier walls backing up a rainscreen are shown to protect against moisture issues and mold over time. They also serve as a continuous layer of insulation and air barrier. In this way, the single-component system can eliminate the need “for air barriers, gypsum sheathing, fiberglass insulation, vapor barriers, and other elements of a traditional multicomponent wall system,” says one industry executive. In fact, many masonry buildings are being upgraded with IMP retrofits on the exterior, directly over the old concrete, brick or stone.

All of these traits of IMPs certainly contribute to more healthy buildings, but do they add up to WELL Building certification levels, such as Silver, Gold or Platinum?

To get there, building teams must undergo an on-site WELL Commissioning process with rigorous post-occupancy performance testing of all the features. If it meets the “preconditions” — the WELL features necessary for baseline certification — WELL Certification is given. If the team pursues “optimization features,” the higher levels of achievement are granted.

Air Barriers and Vapor Retarders

Posted on May 13, 2015 by Brad Johnson

Building design and code requirements are readily becoming rooted in building science, which is the study of heat, air, and moisture movement across the building envelope.

Reducing the heat energy transfer (which is bi-directional based on geography and climate) is why insulation is used. And arguably more important is the need to reduce airflow (aka, air leakage) across and through building envelopes. This airflow often includes a lot of heat and moisture; therefore, buildings’ HVAC systems work hard (and use energy…and cost money) to make up for the heat and moisture gains and losses in order to maintain proper interior temperature and humidity levels. Environmental Building News, in an article titled The Hidden Science of High-Performance Building Assemblies (Nov. 2012) , stated “Air infiltration and exfiltration make up 25%-40% of total heat loss in a building in a cold climate and 10%-15% of total heat gain in a hot climate.” This is why the model codes are now mandating air barriers.

The 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), Section C402.4, Air leakage (Mandatory) provides the requirements for air barriers in new construction. Prior to 2012, building codes did not include air barrier requirements. The first step taken in the IECC was to mandate air barriers in Climate zones 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (locations north of the Mason-Dixon Line, in a broad sense). Climate zones 4 through 8 are heating climates, where the largest potential for heat loss occurs. The IECC provides three ways to comply; air barriers requirements can be met through material, assembly, or whole building testing. A blower door test, used to test a whole building, seems to be the most common way used to show code compliance currently. The IECC included a list of materials that prescriptively meet the code requirements for air barrier materials; sheet steel and aluminum are on that list.

Three years later the 2015 IECC went a step further. Section C402.5, Air leakage—thermal envelope (Mandatory) extended the requirement for air barriers by mandating their use in all climate zones in the United States except zone 2B, which is a hot/dry zone. Climate zone 2-dry includes only southwest Arizona, southwest Texas, and a small part of Southern California. Essentially all new buildings in the United States are required to have air barriers, and sheet steel and aluminum remain prescriptive air barriers. It’s important to know that when reroofing, the air barrier requirements do not apply.

The IECC is available for purchase on ICC’s website: www.iccsafe.org.

Part II – Transparency in Building Products

Posted on April 28, 2015 by MBCI

A huge buzzword in the building products industry these days is transparency. The green building movement, which has previously focused on high-performing buildings with a strong emphasis on energy efficiency and fossil fuel use reduction, has increasingly put its cross hairs on occupant exposure risk in the last few years. Although that change alone is probably enough to start some controversy, how this new emphasis is being implemented is really fueling the fire for new arguments. If you read our last blog, Part I – The importance of consensus in building standards, then you should be familiar with how building codes are developed in a consensus-based forum in which all affected parties have some say. However, many of the movers and shakers of the green building movement have bypassed that forum by folding the requirements they want to emphasize into voluntary programs of their own creation. At the same time, they lobby owners and building officials to carry some level of compliance to these programs, offering a benefit of being able to say their buildings or communities are “green” by displaying plaques on the façade or being listed on a website.

Although that tact seems fair on the surface, it really puts a lot of power into the hands of self-proclaimed experts to decide on the definition of “green” they want to use for their program. As we discussed in Part I, the ANSI consensus process requires policy-making organizations to transparently prove their competence in subjects they affect with their policy. Furthermore, they also have to publicly announce the formation of a committee (called a “Call for Committee”) they designate to create and maintain this policy. They must also allow members of the public to submit curricula vitae for consideration to join the committee without necessarily being a member of the organization. This introduces a mechanism to balance the power the committee is usurping by having control of the policy going forward. Unfortunately, no such mechanism exists for many of the authors of voluntary green building programs and the negative aspects of this are particularly pronounced in the area of building product transparency.

One of the most common ways green building programs administer transparency is through the use of a “red list,” which is essentially a list of banned substances. Using California Proposition 65 or Europe’s RoHS as a model, many of the NGO-based programs related to buildings have some type of requirement that aims to reduce or eliminate the use of ingredients that could possibly be harmful to building occupants. In many instances, these same NGOs offer third-party listing programs that a building manufacturer can join and have their products declared as meeting the requirements. Many people see this as a conflict of interest since an NGO, typically funded through donations, is in a position to act as a gatekeeper, allowing in only those companies or industries that support the NGO financially or align themselves with the NGO’s agenda.

But there is a deeper, more disturbing aspect: Although the list itself may start out as a publicly accepted and scientifically based enumeration of toxic ingredients, NGOs often add other substances that are not known, or in some cases, even suspected, to be toxic in order to dissuade architects from specifying certain products or deploying certain construction methods. Quite often, the NGO will develop the red list in closed discussion forums where manufacturers have no ability to provide evidence to substantiate that their products are indeed safe. At best, a manufacturer can ask the NGO to consider exceptions or modifications. But ultimately, a manufacturer has no assurance that their case has been adequately considered because they are not allowed to attend the forum. Sadly, this is what passes for transparency in green construction more often than not lately.

This lack of due process came to a head in 2013, when members of congress began to express concern that LEED, the green building program used by the military and the General Services Administration, was not an ANSI-based standard. In response, the GSA formally announced that they would take public comment on the subject and decided nine months later that they would continue to specify LEED but other ANSI-based programs would be considered going forward as well. Meanwhile, the military announced that they were developing their own standard, distancing themselves from LEED. This quelled the discussion for a while and allowed other, even hotter subjects like healthcare to take the spotlight. But concern lives on that the lack of transparency in the development of LEED and similar programs is leading the public down a dangerous, politics-as-usual road.

However, the news is not all bad. There are several organizations that use an ANSI-based process to develop and maintain their programs so that the requirements can readily be incorporated into public policy. ASHRAE, ICC, and a newcomer in the U.S., The Green Building Initiative, have all invested the tremendous amount of time and effort it takes to develop their standards in an ANSI-based public forum, and their respective programs offer a building owner or code official a great alternative to vague voluntary programs subject to interpretation by self-proclaimed experts. We will explore several of those options in our next blog.

Metal Roofs & Walls a Big Plus When It Comes to Net Zero Energy

Posted on April 14, 2015 by Amy Crenan

Kickapoo Tribe Government & Community Building features MBCI’s CF Architectural Insulated Metal Panel

Are you familiar with “Net Zero Energy?” No, it’s not that sense of power you got from using that early dial-up Internet browser of the 1990’s (The company, by the way, is still in existence, and comes up in searches for the term Net Zero. Who knew?). The Net Zero Energy I’m speaking of is the enviable, sustainable state achieved when the creation and use of energy within the same building system are equal.

Though achievable, the cost and capacity for producing energy within a building system is greater than that of creating energy efficiency in one. The good news is that metal roofing and ,a href=”http://www.mbci.com/products/wall-products/”>wall panels are extremely useful on both sides of the equation.

On the energy efficiency side, insulated metal panels (IMPs) provide roof and wall systems with the thermal and radiative performance needed for sustainable design. Insulated wall and roof panels provide continuous insulation and eliminate thermal bridges. As building and energy codes become increasingly more stringent, insulated metal panels are an ideal choice for thermally efficient building envelopes.

Baker Hughes features MBCI’s CF Mesa Insulated Metal Panels

On the other side of the equation, a common method of generating energy is through the use of photovoltaics (PVs), and metal roofs provide the best possible surface to host a photovoltaic (PV) array. Solar photovoltaic systems and solar water heating systems can be installed on a metal roof, penetration-free, resulting in high performance with minimal risk. Both the use of IMPs and the installation of PVs on metal roofs can be used with proper designs to maximize building energy efficiency.

Of course, metal roofing, known to last 40 years or longer, is the only type of roof that can be expected to outlive the PV system mounted on it, which results in virtually zero maintenance and a very low in-place cost for the roof and PV system together. A sustainability win, a durability win, and, of course, an aesthetic win. The result is anything but a zero sum game.

Find out more about MBCI’s Insulated Metal Panels

Part 1 – The Importance of Consensus in Building Standards

Posted on March 3, 2015 by MBCI

Most people understand the purpose of a building code: To ensure the safety of the occupants and to establish the minimum accepted performance level of the building and its systems. Fewer people understand that because building codes are adopted into law by a governing body, technically referred to as an Authority Having Jurisdiction or AHJ, they are an in fact an extension of the law or ordinance that brings them into effect. Knowing that, you should not be surprised to learn that like laws, building codes in America can’t just be arbitrarily made up by somebody having the authority and know-how to do so. Instead, they must have gone through some type of consensus process in which all affected entities or their representatives have the opportunity to participate. This concept, called Due Process of Law, is central to many governmental charters such as the Magna Carta and The Constitution of the United States of America and is designed to ensure that a person’s individual rights are not unfairly taken away.

Under the US Constitution, laws are written by Congress and interpreted by judges. Members of Congress are elected by their constituents and judges are either appointed by elected officials or elected themselves. Similarly, building codes are written by consensus bodies, like the International Code Council or ICC, and interpreted by Building Officials, who are generally appointed by elected officials. The code development process used by ICC is one where any interested member of the public can participate and is guaranteed a forum to propose changes and comment on the proposed changes submitted by others using a system governed by Roberts Rules of Order. After discussion and debate, the code committee votes on the individual proposals and those that pass are incorporated into the code, guaranteeing due process. (Actually, it’s quite a bit more complicated than this but for purposes of this blog, let’s just leave it at that.)

However, building codes commonly do not actually spell out all of the requirements for buildings and building systems. More and more, the code will delegate low-level detailed requirements to a different type of document called a standard, and then brings the requirements contained within by referencing the standard in the code by name. Likewise, these standards then must also be developed through a consensus process administered by an adequate standard development body. But because all standard development bodies are structured a little differently, it is not realistic to mandate that consensus process directly. Instead, another independent body called The American National Standards Institute or ANSI, certifies standard development bodies as having a sufficient consensus processes to be deemed as meeting the incorporating code requirements for due process. Examples of these bodies are the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) who develop ASCE 7, the document that determines the minimum load requirements for buildings; the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) a group widely known for developing material and testing specifications for general use; and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), who develops ASHRAE 90.1, the document that spells out the minimum building energy efficiency requirements. If you are an architect or engineer, all of these acronyms should sound very familiar to you.

Another acronym that you are probably familiar with is LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It is developed and maintained by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) and is the premier green building program in the world. Interestingly though, the development landscape changes drastically when it comes to green construction programs like LEED. You see, the USGBC is not an ANSI accredited standard developer and thus LEED is not an actual official standard, hence the use of the word “program”. How then is it possible that USGBC can have so much say in how buildings, particularly publicly owned buildings, get built? The answer is that they get around this limitation by structuring LEED as a voluntary program and then lobbying the potential owners of buildings, like the US and state governments, into using their program by executive order rather than legislating the requirement directly. If you’ve watched TV at all in the last year, particularly with respect to immigration reform, you know how controversial this approach can be. Nevertheless, it is perfectly legal in this context.

This really has not been a significant issue to date because LEED does have a consensus process (albeit not an ANSI accredited one) and LEED credit requirements have been fairly uncontroversial in past versions. However, LEED v4, the latest generation of the wildly popular green building program, changed all of that by adding credits that are less about design and functionality of the building and more about transparency with respect to building product ingredients to ensure occupant health and comfort. Let’s be clear: Most reasonable people, including building product manufacturers, don’t have a problem with increased transparency and want more occupant comfort and health. But it is how LEED defines “transparency” in version 4 has many people up in arms and they point to the hypocrisy of developing a definition to the word “transparency” during a closed-door meeting with no manufacturers at the table as what is wrong with green building as it exists today. My next blog will explore that concept further.

Building in the Public Eye

Posted on December 5, 2014 by Amy Crenan

Government spending is always under scrutiny. I currently live in a construction zone (prime real estate, I know), and I catch myself judging the new road plan, project timeframe, resting construction workers, etc. This very same principle can be applied to the construction of public buildings. It’s important to be efficient with your costs and timeframe. It wasn’t until I joined the metal panel manufacturing industry that I realized how much they can help contractors and facility owners with both.

DCTA Take for instance the Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA) in Denton, Texas. Their operations were expanding so rapidly that they were in need of new facilities to house their growing fleet of buses. As a provider of mass transportation, DCTA was already focused on reducing fuel costs and eliminating carbon dioxide emissions. Rightfully so, they were environmentally conscious and wanted their new facility to reflect the same. To help achieve this sustainability, Huitt-Zollars Architectural Firm selected insulated metal wall panels, single skin metal roof panels and soffit panels.

DCTA’s new facilities consisted of two offices and a maintenance and fueling building and used over 5,000 square feet of metal panels. MBCI supplied 1,300 square feet of CF Architectural insulated metal wall panels in Stucco White, 1,200 square feet of 7.2 exposed fastening panels in Silver Metallic and 2,500 square feet of FW-120 concealed fastening panels in Snow White.

MBCI’s CF Architectural insulated metal wall panel provides the durability of metal while its non-CFC foamed-in-place polyurethane core delivers the energy savings of DCTA insulation. The panel can achieve an R-value up to 8.5 per inch of panel thickness. Additionally, since the panel and insulation are manufactured together and delivered as one piece, it reduces installation time.

The 7.2 Panel and FW-120 concealed fastening panels have been tested by a certified independent laboratory in accordance with ASTM test procedures for Air Infiltration and Water Penetration. The test results show the FW-120 panels have no air leakage at 1.57 PSF and no water penetration through the panel joints at 6.24 PSF differential pressures. The 7.2 Panel’s DCTA test results show no air leakage at 6.24 PSF and no water penetration at 13.24 PSF. Furthermore, the symmetrical rib of the 7.2 Panel offers excellent spanning and cantilever capabilities.

Using metal panels increases energy efficiency while reducing energy and maintenance costs, driving a building design’s success and making you and taxpayers happy!