Concrete Products

JUL 2012

Concrete Products covers the issues that attract producers of ready mixed and manufactured concrete focusing on equipment and material technology, market development and management topics.

Issue link: http://concrete.epubxp.com/i/75186

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 7 of 83

GUEST EDITORIAL BY STEPHEN SZOKE IGCC short on resiliency, core and shell requirements The 2012 edition of the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) provides specific criteria for building design and construc- tion that are suitable or even favorable for the use of concrete, concrete products and masonry. However, the IGCC is remiss in that it does not adequately encourage or require the building core and shell to be ad- equately resilient to achieve good sustain- able building design. For the most part, the code does not ad- dress the need of a stronger, more durable, more robust and longer-lasting building core and shell as a prerequisite to adding green features such as low-flow plumbing fixtures or energy efficienct lighting, ap- pliances and equipment. The latter are typ- ically swapped out multiple times over the life of a building, providing many opportu- nities for improvement, yet the core and shell are rarely upgraded. Priorities may have been misplaced and this is especially true in disaster-prone areas, found virtually anywhere in the United States. When disaster occurs, if the building cores and shells are not adequately resilient, the property loss tends to be very high. Re- gardless of whether plumbing fixtures, light- ing, equipment, or appliances are conventional or high-efficiency, if they be- come irreparable or contaminated during dis- asters, they are landfill-bound along with other building components and contents. Further, there will be increased costs for de- sign, purchase, construction, and installation of high-efficiency components, equipment, appliances and systems. History has demon- strated that these cost increases drive owners toward more Type V construction. This was experienced with the adoption of energy con- servation codes in the 1980s and 1990s. The more onerous prescriptive thermal re- sistance insulation requirements, which did not adequately account for the benefits of thermal mass, placed a hardship on con- crete and masonry interests and discour- aged designers from selecting more energy efficient building designs that utilize pas- sive solar, natural ventilation, peak load re- duction and shifting, plus radiant systems to optimize efficiency and comfort. This was compounded by the increased design and construction costs for all build- ing types, thus encouraging more owners to accept the Type V construction—the minimum type legally permitted by the building code. The trend toward more Type V construction was to offset the initial cost increases associated with the mandatory energy conservation measures. Minimum code has become the standard of practice in the United States for the de- sign and construction of buildings, other than owner-occupied, -designed and -built. Without the needed criteria for enhanced resilience, these additional costs will drive builders and developers to more extensive use of Type V construction, placing com- munities at an increased risk when disas- ters occur. In addition, the less robust Type V construction tends to be less durable and has long-term impacts on community resi- dents, businesses, and revenue. The 2012 IGCC also does not adequately Adapted from "IGCC: Pearl or Peril? An overview of the potential impacts on the use of concrete, concrete products, and masonry" by Stephen Szoke, P.E. FACI, LEED/AP, Portland Cement Association– Director, Codes and Standards 6 | JULY 2012 reward optimized density. A high-rise con- dominium built to the International Build- ing Code and referenced codes and standards will tend to be far more energy efficient per dwelling unit than mid-rise construction designed and built in accor- dance with the IGCC. In addition, the occu- pants in the high-rise building will be provided with Type I, the most robust type of construction, while those in the mid-rise building will likely be provided with a lesser type of construction, potentially Type V. Jurisdictions adopting the IGCC should also consider criteria for enhanced re- siliency. Like the green building design and construction features, they add to initial project costs, but will provide significant long-term benefits to the community and minimize losses, recovery time, emergency response, and disposal of damaged building materials and contents when disasters occur. Jurisdictions interested in integrating a level of enhanced resilience may do so by adopting Appendix E as a further modifica- tion to the IGCC. Its requirements are founded on the basic concepts of the Na- tional Institute of Building Sciences and Sustainable Building Industries Council Whole Building Design Guidelines and the specific criteria endorsed by the Institute for Business and Home Safety. The overall ap- proach of the Whole Building Design Guide- lines is to integrate Accessibility, Historic Preservation, Aesthetics, Productivity, Cost- Effectiveness, Security and Safety, Function- ality and Operability, and Sustainability. Appendix E is a compilation of recom- mended code criteria developed by the Portland Cement Association (PCA), and is not currently part of the IGCC. During the scoping sessions for the IGCC, it was deter- mined that enhanced resilience would not be considered. PCA submitted code change proposals during the code development hearings, but the criteria were again de- nied. State and local jurisdictions are con- sidering criteria for enhanced resilience. The state of Georgia is developing criteria for one- and two-family dwellings under a grant from HUD. On last repost, their cri- teria were being modeled after the Appen- dix E criteria developed by PCA. Specific requirements are based on rec- ommendations endorsed by the Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS), the national association representing insurance interests and supporting material-neutral solutions to achieve enhanced resilience for better buildings. Building cores and shells that are more robust, durable, and disaster resistant with long design service lives are clearly more sustainable. Less energy and materials are required for routine mainte- nance, repairs, and removal and replace- ment of components. Any jurisdiction considering the adoption of the IGCC with the intention of obtaining more sustainable buildings in their commu- nities should also consider including Appen- dix E, especially if the jurisdiction is in a disaster prone area, whether it be hail storm, wind storm, tornado, flood, earthquake, snow storm, terrorism, or accidental catastrophe. WWW.CONCRETEPRODUCTS.COM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Concrete Products - JUL 2012