green building standards Archives

Understanding LEED for Green Metal Buildings

Posted on May 21, 2019 by MBCI

Designing and constructing sustainable buildings has become a mainstream expectation of most building owners. Whether for reduced energy costs, higher returns on investment, or as an organizational philosophy, “green” building solutions are in demand. Perhaps the best known and most often cited program to achieve these goals is the US Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) LEED^® rating system. While some may think that green buildings are more complicated and costly to build, that is not actually the case. This is especially true when metal building materials are used. In fact, metal buildings are an ideal and economical way to pursue sustainability goals and LEED certification. How? We break it down as follows:

The LEED^® Program

The LEED program has been in use since 1998 and is now used worldwide. It is a voluntary, point-based rating system that allows for independent review and certification at different levels. These levels include Certified (40-49 points), Silver (50-59 points), Gold (60-79 points), or Platinum (80 or more points). Since it allows for choices in which points are pursued, innovation and flexibility are entirely possible as long as specific performance criteria are met. It also encourages collaborative and integrative design, construction and operation of the building.

Points are organized into six basic categories, many of which can be addressed through metal building design and construction, as summarized below.

Location and Transportation: Metal buildings can be manufactured and delivered to virtually any location. That means they can support LEED criteria for being located near neighborhoods with diverse uses, available mass transit, bicycle trails, or other sustainable amenities. Metal building parking areas can also be designed to promote sustainable practices for green vehicles and reduced pavement. This all contributes toward obtaining LEED eligibility.

Sustainable Sites: Adding a building to any site will certainly impact the natural environment already there. Delivering portions of a pre-engineered metal building package in a sequence to arrive as needed means that the staging area on-site can be minimized—reducing site impacts. Additionally, using a “cool metal roof” has been shown to reduce “heat island” effects on the surrounding site and also qualify for LEED.

Water Efficiency: Any design that reduces or eliminates the need for irrigation of plantings and other outdoor water uses is preferred. Incorporating metal roofing with gutters and downspouts, as is commonly done on metal buildings, allows opportunities to capture rainwater for irrigation or other uses. It also helps control water run-off from the roof and assists with good storm water control.

Energy and Atmosphere: Metal buildings can truly shine in this category. Creating a well-insulated and air-sealed building enclosure is the most important and cost-effective step in creating an energy conserving building. A variety of insulation methods for metal building roof and wall systems are used to achieve this. Typically, metal building construction uses one or more layers of fiberglass insulation and liners combined with sealant and air barriers. Alternatively, insulated metal panels (IMPs) provide all of these layers in a single manufactured sandwich panel with impressive performance. Windows, skylights and translucent roof panels can provide natural daylight, allowing electric lighting to be dimmed or turned off. For buildings seeking to generate their own electricity, standing-seam metal roofing provides an ideal opportunity for the simplified installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. Metal roofs generally provide a sustainable service life in excess of 40 years. This means they can outlast the PV array, thus avoiding costly roof replacements during most PV array lifespans.

Materials and Resources: Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) are recognized by LEED as the most effective means to holistically assess the impacts that materials and processes have on the environment and on people. Fortunately, the Metal Building Manufacturer’s Association (MBMA) has collaborated with the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute and UL Environment to develop an industry-wide life cycle assessment report. There is also an Athena Impact Estimator that can help with providing LEED documentation. Metal buildings support exceptional environmental performance through the significant use of recycled steel and the reduced need for energy intensive concrete due to lighter weight buildings.

Indoor Environmental Quality: Most people spend much more time indoors than outside, which impacts human health. Therefore, LEED promotes or requires using materials that don’t contain or emit harmful substances. It also promotes design options for natural daylight, exterior views and acoustical control to promote psychological and emotional well-being. Metal buildings are routinely designed to readily incorporate components that help achieve these indoor qualities.

In addition, some LEED points are available for demonstrating innovation and addressing priorities within a geographic region.

Considering the qualities listed above, metal buildings clearly provide a prime opportunity to pursue LEED certification at any level. To find out more about the LEED rating system, visit https://new.usgbc.org/leed. To find out more about successfully designing and constructing metal buildings pursuing LEED certification, contact your local MBCI representative.

Reducing Peak Demand Costs with Cool Metal Roofs

Posted on May 9, 2017 by Candy McNamee

Among the many benefits offered by cool roofs—including a decrease in urban heat island effect or increased roof system longevity—perhaps the most significant is a reduction in peak demand energy usage which directly affects building expenses.

Peak demand is the highest point in the day at which a building draws electrical consumption. A facility’s monthly utility rates are largely determined by the power usage level at this time, so anything that can be done to drive usage down will significantly reduce utility costs. As evidenced by their test values, cool roofs are an effective way to decrease air conditioning loads during peak demand times.

Cool roof values are expressed in terms of solar reflectance and thermal emissivity. The combination of these values is used to determine how hot a surface will become by its ability to reflect solar energy and radiate heat away from itself. Cool roofsare capable of reflecting solar heat away from a building by more than 70 percent. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that ENERGY STAR® qualified roofing products can lower roof surface temperatures by up to 50°F.

According to Jeff Steuben, executive director, and Carolyn Richter, communications manager, Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC), in a recent Florida Roofing article, “Building occupants can experience improved comfort as compared to a conventional dark roof, as the building’s interior is subject to less thermal flux and stays cooler during warm seasons,” and, “Reduced indoor temperatures lead to energy savings from reduced cooling energy loads.”

Along these lines, contractors can also access a CRRC-provided listing of cool roof rebates, codes and voluntary cool roof programs at: www.coolroofs.org/resources/rebates-and-codes.

Cool Roofing Longevity

In addition to energy efficiency, cool metal roofs are known for extended durability and longevity, with most products offering a 40-year finish warranty.

In fact, a well-noted extensive study, Natural Exposure Testing in California, conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, found that pre-painted metal roofing maintained higher levels of reflectance, over a three-year period, due to its ability to shed particulate matter, as compared to conventional roofing materials. Further, pre-painted metal roofing has been found to retain 95 percent of its initial solar reflectance over this same three-year period.
Increasing performance and energy savings, solar reflective pigments in cool metal roofs offer higher total solar reflectance and thermal emittance, even in darker colors. With cool roof technology, the ability for the roof to store heat and radiate that heat into the building after sundown is dramatically reduced.

Heitmann Residence featuring a Cool Metal Roof

Cool metal roofs are proven to deliver environmental and performance benefits, of which the most significant to building owners is their contribution to the bottom line. Although savings will vary based upon geography, materials and insulation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that reflective roofs can save up to 40 percent of a building’s cooling energy costs.

When utilizing the U.S. Department of Energy’s Cool Roof Peak Calculator, contractors will discover that the total value of energy savings offered by a cool roof averages more than $1,000 annually in most climate zones for a typical commercial building. Furthermore, this applies to both cool roofing installed over both existing roof insulation and new insulation.

Proven Strategy

As established by documented study and significant heat build-up reduction levels, cool roofs are a proven strategy for supporting longer lasting roofs, reducing both utility costs and decreasing a building’s environmental footprint as Steuben and Richter conclude, “cool roofs are one of the most effective ways to obtain energy savings and environmental rewards through building envelope design and re-roofing projects.”

Beauty and Braun: The Benefits of Mixing Insulated Metal Panels with Single-Skin Panels in Commercial Design

Posted on November 30, 2016 by Joe Moore

Commercial projects aren’t one size fits all. By bringing in metal panel products to suit the individual need, designers and architects can provide custom solutions for a variety of applications. Single-skin metal panels and insulated metal panels (IMPs), if used correctly, can together add both aesthetic and functional value to your projects.

While IMPs can provide superior performance with regard to water control, air control, vapor control and thermal control, you may sometimes find your project requires—from an aesthetic perspective—the greater range of choices available in single-skin profiles. Let’s spend a little time looking at some of the reasons behind the growing trend of specifying a combination of insulated metal and single-skin panels.

Benefits of Insulated Metal Panels

Insulated metal panels are lightweight, composite exterior wall and roof panels that have metal skins and an insulating foam core. Their much-touted benefits include:

Superior insulating properties
Excellent spanning capabilities
Insulation and cladding all in one, which often equates to a shorter installation time and cost savings

Benefits of Single Skin

Single-skin panels, on the other hand, with their expansive array of colors, textures and profiles, may have more sophisticated aesthetics. They can be used on their own or in combination with IMPs. It should be noted, too, that single-skin panels can—in their own right (as long as the necessary insulation is incorporated) —satisfy technical and code requirements, depending on the application.

Beyond aesthetics, when it comes to design options, single-skin products offer a wide range of metal roof systems, including standing seam roof panel, curved, and even through-fastened systems. As for wall systems, those may include concealed fastened panels, interior wall and liner panels, and even canopies and soffits, not to mention exposed fastened systems. Therefore, you have a wide range of not only aesthetics options but VE (Value Engineering) options as well.

Why Mix?

So, in what situations might the designer or architect choose to combine the two panel types? Let’s examine a couple of specific scenarios related to the automotive or self-storage worlds as a means of illustration. In both of these types of applications, it is not uncommon for the designer to recognize the importance of wanting to keep the “look” of the building consistent with branding or to bring in other design elements.

The Coalville Wastewater Treatment Facility in Logan, Utah combines the insulated CFR panel with the single-skin Artison L-12 panel.

Single-skin panels can be used as a rain screen system in the front of the building or over the office area, and would provide the greater number of design options. In the rest of the building, designers can take advantage of the strength, durability and insulation benefits of IMPs. Although you could use one or the other for these examples, the advantage of mixing the two would be achieving a certain look afforded by the profiles of single-skin, while still adhering to stringent building codes and reducing installation time—which is the practical part of using IMPs.

Focus on HPCI IMP Systems

One great example of a current trend we’re seeing at MBCI is the use of the HPCI-barrier IMP system, along with single-skin panels. The High Performance Continuous Insulation (HPCI) system is a single system that is a practical and effective replacement for the numerous barrier components found in traditional building envelopes.

The HPCI Insulated Metal Panel is quick and easy to install and provides an economical solution to conventional air, water, thermal and vapor control without sacrificing thermal efficiency.

A big benefit to using the HPCI system is that the barrier wall is already in place. In terms of schedule, the HPCI barrier system is typically installed by contractors who are also installing the single-skin system, eliminating the need for multiple work crews, and thereby minimizing construction debris and reducing the likelihood of improper installation. With a general lead time of four to six weeks for the HPCI and a week or two for the single-skin, the installation goes fairly quickly. Therefore, it appeals as the best of all worlds—a single system meeting air, water, thermal and vapor codes (ex.: IBC 2016, NSTA fire standards) plus the design flexibility of a single-skin rain screen product. (Note: The HPCI panel must be separated from the interior of the building by an approved thermal barrier of 0.5″ (12.7mm) gypsum wallboard to meet IBC requirements.)

Bottom line, HPCI design features and benefits include the following:

• Provides air, water, thermal and vapor barrier in one step
• Allows you to use multiple façade options while maintaining thermal efficiency
• Easy and fast installation, with reduced construction and labor costs

Conclusion

As designers, architects and owners are getting smarter about a “fewer steps, smarter dollars” concept and an increased awareness of applicable codes and standards, not to mention lifecycle costs, the trend towards maximizing the strengths of available systems will continue to grow. Whether the right choice is an IMP system, single-skin or some combination, the possibilities are virtually endless.

Calculating Cool Roof Energy Savings

Posted on September 20, 2016March 29, 2022 by Candy McNamee

Whether it’s providing waterproofing, reducing thermal expansion and contraction, or supplying chemical and damage protection, cool metal roofing has much to offer. Of course, the most substantial benefit is the energy savings gleaned from reduced rooftop heat levels driving down air conditioning loads. In fact, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s heat island group projects a whopping $1 billion reduction in cooling costs if cool roofs were to be implemented on a nationwide basis.

To assist architects in determining the kinds of energy savings that can be expected from cool metal roofing, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has parlayed the data it gathered from a three-year evaluation of metal roofing products into a whole building energy savings calculator.

In addition to energy efficiency, cool metal roofs are known for extended durability and longevity.

Cool Roof Calculator

This calculator is called, simply enough, the Cool Roof Calculator. The easy-to-use tool is described as a quick way to compare overall energy costs and savings for a variety of roof and building conditions. Unlike some energy modeling calculators, which are limited to steep slope residential roofs with attics, ORNL’s tool models the typical low slope commercial roof with insulation placed directly over the deck and under the roofing membrane.

To calculate approximate energy savings offered by a cool metal roof, architects are instructed to input the building’s location, proposed roof R-value, roof reflectance and emittance, base energy costs, equipment efficiencies, electrical demand charges and duration.

While experts suggest that it may be difficult to accurately predict the base use and peak demand without detailed construction and cost information, tools such as the ORNL’s cool roof calculator can be a useful way to gather helpful performance estimations for a variety of building types and locations.

Attempting to do just that, the calculator outputs a number of values to offer an approximate estimate of potential energy savings, broken down into cooling energy savings—a calculation of air conditioning savings from base use and peak demand reductions—and cooling season demand savings, an estimate of the peak demand charge reduction enabled by enhanced roof reflectivity.

Accessible at http://rsc.ornl.gov, users can also compare the energy performance offered by a cool roof vs. a conventional black roof.

“It’s a nice tool to give people a feel for where a cool roof would actually help them and have the greatest impact in terms of energy use,” relates Robert A. Zabcik, PE, LEED AP BD+C, director, research and development, NCI Group Inc., Houston, in a Metal Construction News article.

Roof Reflectance Baseline

Roof reflectance and emittance, requirements and options, can be found in energy codes such as IECC, ASHRAE 90.1, California Title 24, and other local codes. Requirements may vary based on roof slope and climate zone, and may allow for either aged or initial solar reflectance, thermal emittance and/or SRI.

Fortunately, MBCI continues to stay current with individual testing and also maintains third-party tested and verified product listings through entities such as the Cool Roof Rating Council, and the U.S. EPA’s ENERGY STAR®.

Part III – Transparency Plus Consensus: A Win-Win for Everyone

Posted on September 30, 2015 by MBCI

It has been a long time since my last blog on this subject. This is not only because I’ve been busy but also because the landscape of green building programs in general has changed significantly since Part II, and I wanted to wait to see how things shook out before I wrote something that might be immediately outdated. If you remember, we left off in Part II talking about how LEED, the most popular green building program in the US, has not been developed through an ANSI accredited consensus process. Furthermore, the resulting lack of transparency was dubiously ironic given that LEED demands a high level of transparency from building product manufacturers min the latest version of their program, LEED v4.

We also discussed the related but more general movement for manufacturers to fully disclose all of the ingredients in their products to a third party who then compares that list to lists of known hazardous substances and disclose any matches on a product label or public disclosure for all to see. This movement has been fueled by several large architecture firms sending letters to building product manufacturers threatening to stop specifying their products unless they participate. Although most manufactures agree that there is merit to disclosure and are anxious to participate in a fair program, they have not been privy to discussions regarding the logistics of such a program nor have they been allowed to participate in any kind of a standard development governing the disclosure process. This makes manufacturers reluctant to participate, given their vulnerability in such a situation. This risk is leveraged by the fact that currently the only standards that dictate the rules of such a program are under the control of consortiums who have little to no scientific expertise and, frankly, have not been friendly to the building products industry in the past.

I also mentioned that there are alternative programs to LEED that have been developed through a valid consensus process. Specifically, the International Green Construction Code (IgCC), ASHRAE 189.1 and Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings (also known as Green Globes) are ANSI standards that outline the relevant requirements for anyone to view. However, the USGBC marketing machine and resulting popularity of LEED prevented wide use of these standards. Thus, they remained largely unutilized. That is until this year, when the USGBC, IgCC and ASHRAE signed a Memorandum of Understanding, promising to work together and create a favorable consensus by eliminating duplication of provisions and assigning an area of responsibility for each group to maintain separately.

Although no documents have yet to be created, it appears that the administration and enforcement provisions of the new standard will come from the IgCC, and the technical content will come from ASHRAE 189.1, both of which are consensus based. Meanwhile, LEED will require compliance with 189.1 as a prerequisite to an upcoming interim version of LEED. This approach allows an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to adopt the IgCC as a minimum standard of construction; dropping any reference to LEED they might currently have as minimum project requirements for all buildings. This leaves LEED to evolve as a completely voluntary program going forward and push the envelope of green building, which is their core mission. Meanwhile, Green Globes remains ANSI accredited and still exists as a commercial competitor to LEED. This environment should result in a more user friendly application process, the lack of which been a ubiquitous criticism of LEED for years, because Green Globes is much more user-oriented.

So, it appears that the most popular green building programs are poised to move in the
direction of a true consensus, which is fantastic news for everyone involved. However, the creation and development of disclosure programs, which will not be in the initial technical requirements provided by ASHRAE 189.1, remains largely a one-sided affair with no seat for manufacturers at the table. Besides the contentious nature of the subject in general, there are major philosophical questions that have to be addressed before Health Product Declarations (HPDs), or any type of disclosure in general, can be brought into the main stream. That subject is beyond the scope of this blog, but I encourage you to read a very good article on the trappings of HPDs called “Disclosure: The Newest Dimension of Green Building” by Jim Hoff.

The good news is that there may be a viable alternative to HPDs on the horizon. ASTM has a current open work item to develop a true consensus based standard guiding the issuance of a Product Transparency Declaration (PTD), which has much the same intent as an HPD. As discussed in Part I, the development of ASTM standards is a highly transparent process that allows everyone, including manufacturers, to come to the table. I encourage every designer to join ASTM and get involved in this process, especially those firms who participated in the letter writing campaign, and forgo HPDs until PTDs are available.

Yes, it will take a little longer; the reality that the development of consensus based standards takes time. But just like the development of the laws that govern this country, there is far too much risk involved in getting it wrong. Instead, having these standards developed by a consensus-based process is the only way the finished product will be truly useful and meaningful.

All Those Sustainability Acronyms Mean Something, Right?

Posted on July 7, 2015 by Brad Johnson

By now I’m sure you’ve heard about PCRs, LCAs, and EPDs. Simply put, a PCR is a set of product category rules; an LCA is a life cycle analysis; and an EPD is an environmental product disclosure. But what do they mean and what’s the purpose of it all? In the broadest sense, these are mechanisms used for the sustainability movement. The most granular is the EPD, which is a product-based discussion (i.e., disclosure) of the environmental effects caused by a specific product or product type. Architects and building designers use EPDs to compare products in order to select the most environmentally friendly products to be used in environmentally friendly buildings.

Developing an EPD can only happen after the creation of a set of product category rules (PCR). A PCR sets the rules for creating LCAs and EPDs. An example of a PCR is “Product Category Rules for Preparing an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Product Group: Insulated Metal Panels & Metal Composite Panels, and Metal Cladding: Roof and Wall Panels,” which was developed by UL through the efforts of the Metal Construction Association (MCA).

Only after a PCR is developed can a verifiable LCA or EPD be developed. An LCmA and EPD are similar but different. An LCA uses industry-average data, and an EPD is specific to a product or product type. For example, “LCA of Metal Construction Association Production Processes, Metal Roof and Wall Panel Products” provides industry-average information about the environmental aspects of three key products: steel insulated metal panels, aluminum metal composite material panels, and steel roll-formed claddings. This LCA is based on 24-gauge material.

EPDs are typically more product specific. (An EPD is typically based on an LCA, so most often LCAs are developed prior to EPDs.) For example, the EPD titled “Roll Formed Steel Panels For Roof and Walls” provides similar environmental data as an LCA, but includes information about 29-, 26-, 24-, 22-, 20- and 18-gauge materials. This provides additional product specific information that can be used by designers when an industry average is not adequate. And importantly, more LEED points are garnered from a product-specific EPD than an LCA because of the specificity. LEED is certainly a driver of this!

LCAs and EPDs used in the roof industry are often focused on cradle-to-gate analysis, and exclude the use phase and end-of-life phase. Ideally, an LCA or EPD should include the use and end-of-life phases so architects and designers have a complete cradle-to-grave analysis. Without the use phase, designers are allowed to freely select the service life of a metal roofing product, for better or worse, without industry guidance. And, the advantages gained through metal recycling at the end of life are also omitted from MCA’s LCA.

It’s all about standardized disclosure of environmentally based product data.

Learn more about MBCI’s LCA, EPDs and other sustainability efforts, here.

Code Requirements for Cool Roofs with Climate Zone Specifics

Posted on June 8, 2015 by Brad Johnson

There is still a lot of discussion—some agreeable and some not so agreeable—about the necessary color of our rooftops. One side of the discussion revolves around keeping the surfaces of our built environment “cool,” so there’s a movement to make all rooftops “cool” by making them white, or at least light-colored. Those on the other side of the discussion claim that cool roofs are necessary to reduce a building’s energy use. Cool roofs can be a really good idea, but let’s not mix up the reasons why cool roofs matter—are we cooling the urban areas (that is, reducing urban heat islands), or are we saving energy costs for individual buildings?
h
The average building height in the United States is less than two stories, but “white roofs” are mostly desired in dense, urban areas…and how many buildings here are less than two stories? Tall buildings are typically found in dense, urban areas, with shorter buildings dominating the fringe urban areas. In the suburbs and rural areas, one- and two-story buildings are more the norm. So we have a mix of building heights in the United States, but the conflict is that the “cool roof” focus is often where the tallest buildings exist.

And unfortunately, a cool roof on a 20-story building isn’t going to reduce its energy use, especially if the code-required amount of insulation exists on that roof. Rather, reducing energy use of a 20-story building hinges on the energy efficiency of the 20-story-tall walls—R-value of walls, percentage of windows, and solar blocking eaves, just to name a few items. Conversely, the energy efficiency of a one-story big-box store comes down to its roof. And for these buildings, roof color definitely can make a difference. However, our building codes don’t differentiate based on building proportions, but only on geographic location—and that’s problematic. But as designers, we can improve on the code requirements.

The 2015 International Energy Conservation Code provides specific information about cool roofs, which are required to be installed in Climate Zones 1, 2, and 3 on low-slope roofs (<2:12) directly above cooled conditioned spaces. There are two ways to prescriptively comply with this requirement: use roofs that have a 3-year-aged solar reflectance of 0.55 and a 3-year-aged emittance of 0.75. Notice that initial (i.e., new) reflectance and emittance are not specified; long-term values are more important. The second method to comply is to have a 3-year aged solar reflectance index (SRI) of 64. SRI is a calculated value based on reflectivity and emittance. It’s important to understand why a cool roof is desired and to make appropriate design decisions.

To locate metal roof products that meet the IECC requirements, go to http://coolroofs.org/products/results and use the search function to narrow your results or view our finishes’ SRI ratings on our Cool Metal Roofing page.

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 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.

The LEED® Program