The Hidden Risks of Green Buildings: Why Building Problems are Likely David Odom
The great irony of building green is that the very concepts that are intended to enhance a building's performance over its lifetime are many of the same things that make a building highly susceptible to significant moisture & mold problems during its first few years of operation.
Improved energy conservation, increased ventilation rates, and the use of innovative products are some of the things that make buildings green. Coincidentally, they are also some of the things that make buildings susceptible to moisture problems, mold formation, and long-term durability concerns.
While LEED certified buildings have many positive benefits, there is also strong evidence to suggest a direct correlation between new products/innovative design and building failures. Simply put—departing from the “tried and true” often means increasing the risk of building failure, with the risk dramatically increasing in demanding climates.
The proliferation of new products and innovative building approaches are so dramatically changing the design and construction industry that we believe it will virtually guarantee an increase in building problems. Although we suspect that some of these failures will be catastrophic, we also strongly believe that all of them are predictable and avoidable.
For the green building movement to continue to prosper it is incumbent on all stakeholders to adeptly implement these projects in a manner that avoids significant building failures while simultaneously achieving good building performance. This will sometimes require placing climatic differences and known building science concepts ahead of green building approaches.
This presentation will discuss four green concepts that should be addressed if building failures are to be reduced: 1). the selective use of innovative products, 2). IEQ procedures that may actually increase problems, 3). increased ventilation rates, and 4). the current building commissioning model which may need to be significantly altered.
Risk Management: What do I want on my SAT’s?
Wayne Dunn, Developments, Inc.
Since entering this industry in 1991, I have repeatedly heard the argument: Why Should I pay extra for Commissioning? Am I not getting this anyway?
In response, I would often ask why colleges care what we get on our SAT’s. Why do we even have, take or need SAT’s? Aren’t we paying for a good education already? Shouldn’t a High School Diploma be enough? If not, if we must have an SAT, then why should anyone have to study? Why is the Huntington Learning Center SAT training program a multi-million dollar industry?
What do you think your building will get on its SAT’s? Do you care? Think of the LEED requirement for enhanced commissioning like asking the applicant to ensure his building gets an SAT score of about 1,500 out of 2,400. The mission behind the quality assurance program known as commissioning is to make every test a waste of time—strive for 2,400 out of 2,400. That is because the cost of failing, remediation and repeating a test profile is enormous—it certainly isn’t in anyone’s budget to rip apart a wall, re-insulate that wall and restore it to a complete condition.
So we must decide—do we test or trust? How should we invest in test preparation or do we hope—is hope our strategy? This paper will examine how to profile design and construction risk then discuss options related to developing scope for a commissioning program that manages this risk.
|