Green Shelters for Green Students:
An Analysis of the University of Kansas’s Current Design Standards with
Recommendations for Additional Green Building Practices.
By
Michael Draper, Ryan Walsh, Patrick Kelly, Lucas Kirchhoff, Martin Farrell
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A.) Purpose and Goals
B.) University Energy Use
C.) Materials and Resources
II. Materials
A.) University Background
B.) ASHRAE & LEED
C.) Other Universities
III. Results
I. Introduction
A.) Purpose and Goals
Our project is to create recommendations for the university’s building and construction
standards in order to create more sustainable buildings. Buildings constitute a large percent of
our university’s energy consumption, so by reducing their energy needs we could significantly
lower energy expenses and save the school money. This issue can easily be addressed by
identifying possible improvements early in the construction process. Therefore, we are hoping to
add standards and requirements for new campus constructions.
B.) Energy
The use of coal is Kansas’s primary fuel source. Coal-fired power plants supply about
three-fourths of the Kansas electricity market, and the single-unit Wolf Creek nuclear plant in
Burlington supplies almost all of the remainder.1 Westar is the current power plant that supplies
85% of KU’s campus electricity. While the reaming 15% comes from KU’s west campus which
is produced through a distribution system that is owned and operated by Kansas University.2
Westar has three power plants across Kansas that use coal as their fuel source. The power plant
KU receives its electricity from is Westar’s Lawrence Power Plant. The coal this plant receives is
from Arch Coal, Inc based out of Wyoming.3
The use of coal as a fuel source undoubting results in greenhouse gas emissions. One
500-MW coal-fired power plant produces approximately 3 million tons/year of carbon dioxide
(CO2).4 The Lawrence coal fire power plant produces 770 MW a year. 5 According to Cap-KU
52% of the GHG emissions come from purchased electricity as seen in Figure 1. This compared
to 44% seen at similar institutions.6
1 U.S. Energy Information Administration 2 Javier Ahumada, Michael Dinkel, Larry Waldron, and Andrew Wilson “Alternative Energy Proposal for the University of Kansas” 3 Westar 2008 Annual Report 4 Coal and Climate Change Facts 5 Westar 2008 Annual Report 6 Cap-KU
Figure-1 Greenhouse gas emission percentages of the University of Kansas
Breaking down the purchased electricity an estimated 29% is used for lighting another
48% for ventilation, cooling, water heating, and space heating. Based on this analysis 77% of
purchased electricity accounts for 40.04% of GHG emissions are associated with electrical use in
building system. 7This is shown in Table 1.
Table-1 Electrical use compared to GHG emissions in percentages.
7 Cap-KU
Based on these alarming statistics, it is crucial for the university to adopted higher
building performance standards to lessen or mitigate the environmental impacts of our energy
consumption at the university.
LEED Energy Criteria
A review of 60 LEED buildings compared to conventional buildings found that on
average green buildings were 25-30% more energy efficient, lower electricity peak consumption,
and were more likely to be able to generate renewable energy on site.8 Depending on the level
of certification the energy efficiency level changes this is seen in figure 2.
On average, green buildings are 28% more efficient than conventional buildings and
generate 2% of their power on-site from photovoltaices (PV). (See Figure 2.) The financial
benefits of 30% reduced consumption at an electricity price of $0.08/kWh are about $0.30/ft2/yr,
with a 20-year NPV of over $5/ft, equal to or more than the average additional cost associated
with building green.9
C.) Materials and Resources
The materials and resources used in constructing new buildings are of major importance
when considering energy efficient, sustainable, and green building practices. Regional materials,
8 Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits 9 Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits
stronger materials, fewer materials, and a reuse of materials all should be emphasized in green
building design and construction.
Many of our new buildings built in our community use materials that must be harvested,
extracted, or produced a great distance away from the University of Kansas. In a globalized
economy, it is not uncommon to have lumber and other building materials shipped abroad. We
encourage the use of locally collected and transported materials that save green house gas
emissions generated in transportation, while also providing a boost to our local economy. Our
oldest buildings on campus, for instance, are made of limestone. Limestone is one of the most
abundant resources in our area, and is much stronger than wood. In fact, the Great Pyramids of
Giza were built mostly of low-grade limestone for the core and fine white limestone as the outer
casing. 10In addition to using local materials, the University of Kansas sits in the central part of
the nation, allowing a comfortable radius for materials to be shipped from halfway across the
country in any direction.11 If local and regional materials within a 500 mile radius cannot be
used, as required by LEED’s Material and Resources category12, then there is no reason why
nationally domestic materials cannot at least be obtained and used for construction in new
buildings.
When looking at the maps below, we can conclude that because of the limited forest
resources in our immediate region, local harvested wood is not an option. However, there is
some urban wood waste that can be used in nearby Johnson County, Wichita, and Kansas City,
MO.13
10 Winston, Alan. “Building Materials of the Pyramids Builders” Tour Egypt., 2010 11 Scott McVey, April 2010 12 Everblue Energy. “Materials and Resources” USBGC LEED Study Guide and PowerPoint Slides. 2009. 13 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) “Biomass Resources of the United States”
The quality of our materials is very important in considering green building. Stronger,
high quality materials may cost more money up front, but they are likely to last much longer than
the cheaper, mass-produced materials many American designers and builders decide upon. We
believe that if we build buildings to last hundreds of years, rather than 50 years, more money will
be saved in the long term. The new buildings will be more resistant to high winds, warping,
erosion, and other weather-related events that may increase with climate change. Regardless of
climate change and its effects, cheaper materials wear out faster and must be replaced more
frequently. The poor materials and design used to build much of our infrastructure during the
Cold War era is already showing signs of failure. The Minnesota bridge collapse is a prime
example of a relatively young bridge failing because of poor design and materials.14
Using fewer materials may very well offset much of the cost that comes from using stronger
materials. Many of the extra materials used in the interior of our buildings and in our ceilings are
unnecessary. Often times these materials are used to fulfill a desire for an aesthetic interior
design and may or may not be attractive to its occupants. Using more materials not only requires
greater pressure for extraction, but it also increases the amount of GHG emissions via
transportation, continually rising the cost of the material both monetarily and environmentally.
Carpeting is one particular material that can be reduced or eliminated. The glue and toxic fumes
from installation are known to have a significant, negative health effect on the indoor air quality
and on those who are installing it.15 By eliminating this material the university can decrease
potential health lawsuits that could rise from users and installers.
The reuse and recycling of materials from older buildings should also be applied
whenever possible. It is extremely wasteful to deconstruct a building and send the remains to a
landfill while buying new supplies to use in the construction of a new building. We strongly
encourage using older materials in the new construction of a building if at all possible. This will
save the unnecessary transportation pollution and cost of new materials, allowing the designers
and builders to spend more money on reusing materials or at least recycling them for the use of
another builder or company.16 Even waste products can be used as a strong building material.
Cenocell, for instance, is made from left over coal ash and can be used to replace concrete. It can
withstand pressures of up to 7,000 pounds per cubic inch.17 This could count as both a reuse of
materials, use of stronger materials, and use of a local material. The nearby Westar coal power
14 CNN. “NTSB: Design flaw led to Minnesota bridge collapse” 15 Scott McVey April 2010 16 Scott McVey April 2010 17 Physorg.com. “Strong, lightweight green material could replace concrete, but contains no cement” 25 November
2008.
plant may be an environmental blight in many ways, but we could take advantage of its waste,
coal ash, as a strong building material to substitute for concrete.
III. Materials
A.) University Building Process
Design and Construction Management starts out the process of a building project by
creating a building program, a high level basic description of what the University wants
including the function of the building, how it will be used, number of classrooms and so on.
Tom Warchter, current Assistant Director of Planning & Programming, is responsible for
working with the department which the building will serve in order to write the program. He
listens to their needs pertaining to a future building, consults the university Master Plan and then
writes a program. The building program is thus, mostly a description of functions the building
users expect. Not all building programs are the same but each will included very brief
descriptions of building requirements, site requirements, a description of building spaces, the
project budget and schedule, funding, operation and maintenance, design for energy
conservation, design standards and code requirements. This is by no means a total report of
mandatory elements (that will be given later); it is an introduction to the projects needs. For the
most part, the program does not exceed fifteen pages.
Figure 1 shows two pages from the program created from a current building project at Edwards Campus. The highlighted section is the “Design for Energy Conservation”. While it is does not give specific instruction, it does rise the point that energy conservation is an aspect of design which KU will seek.
Figure 1
It is vital for additional thought of sustainability to also be included in the initial program
of the project. A section similar to “Design for Energy Conservation” ought to be added into
each project’s program to insure attempts for sustainable design that does not harm, pollute or
disrupt the environment in a major way. Below is a sample of what the section would potentially
cover.
“Design for Sustainability
The University of Kansas is committed to designing and constructing design for
environment facilities by means of implementing aspects of environmentally-friendly
design to create a sustainable structure. Firms will take into consideration the
processing and manufacturing of building products, materials innovation and
disposal/recyclables. These firms and their consultants shall initiate a design process
and provide ways to incorporate practices which emit minimal CO2 emissions during
construction and life of the building.
During the design phases of the project special attention shall be given to materials,
energy consumption, reuse/refurbishment, product lifetime and life cycle assessment. It
is vital to eliminate negative environmental impact.
It is also expected that the consultants review green building guides, ASHRAE, the
International Green Construction Code and LEED certification criteria and make evident
during the schematic design process.”
The program written by Design and Construction Management is then sent to competing
design firms who will reply with their ideas and design concepts. Once a design firm is chosen
by Design and Construction Management the project will move into a long phase of schematic
design work. This is the most crucial phase of the entire process because this is the time when
various parties are able to voice their needs, opinions and desires. Throughout a number of
meetings, specific department members of the university will meet with the architects and
engineers to discuss specific aspects necessary for the design. For example, at this time Scott
McVey, university energy conservationist, will explain KU’s energy efficient expectations and
modeling guidelines for the project. Architects and engineers use these guidelines to create a
number of sketches to be potentially incorporated in the overall design.
By adding a “Design for Sustainability” section, schematic designs for future projects
would consider the university’s sustainable effort by displaying designs that are feasible and
ones that may be excessive. Having building designs that use state-of-the-art systems, materials
and features will showcase all possibilities even if it they are not economically viable so that
university officials will at least be informed of them. This will help influence the project at hand
and future projects to becoming more sustainable.
Additionally, according to Scott McVey it would be helpful to have a specialist on green
building design techniques and systems to assist the Design and Construction Management team.
The specialist would assist during the schematic design phase and offer expertise on the subject.
He/she should be very knowledgeable about ASHRAE standards, LEED certification and the
International Green Council Code. He/she would also be responsible for writing a guide to green
building for the university to consult during the design process.
A Guide to Green Building
A guide to green building is a tool to help architects, designers and owners create high
performing, energy-efficient buildings. The guide’s primary purpose is to stimulate discussion on
the building and its relationship to the environment, addresses the benefits of green design, and
displays a desire for performance goals. Furthermore, a green building guide will stimulate
conversations regarding sustainable building techniques during the schematic design phase in
which each party of the design team is present to formulate a final design. The guide itself would
contain questions to ask regarding day lighting, energy goals, building envelop and local
material. If created, its use should be mandatory during the schematic design process and
enforced by requiring a check list, signed by each party, of applicable discussions to be
submitted to the Green Building Specialist and project financer. Reference the State of
Vermont’s “High Performance Design Guide” for an example.
University Current Standards
In regards to energy use, the university’s Design and Construction Management has
adopted the goal to reach 30% better efficiency than ASHRAE 90.1. This means that not only
will new buildings meet the standards of 90.1, but they will exceed predicted savings by 30%. In
order to verify this, Scott McVey asks for energy modeling documentation to be submitted after
each design phase but it is not mandatory, it is a guideline to follow showing compliance.
Mandatory standards addressing energy efficiency that are in place are as follows:
� Insulation: Buildings need well-insulated walls, “preferably beyond minimum industry
standards”. A specific standard of a minimum of 2.0 pounds per cubic foot for Expanded
Polystyrene (Division 7, p. 2)
� Doors & Windows: General standards for use of thermal-break frames, double-pane
insulating glass, and tinted low-E coatings on windows are included (Division 8).
� Mechanical: General standards for mechanical systems (mainly HVAC) with a list of
operational guidelines to be used “in completing projects with opportunities for energy
conservation” (Division 15, p. 17). Appendix 15.1 for this section requires buildings to be
connected to the Building Automated Control System (BACS).
� Electrical: Energy conservation is referenced with regard to the use of energy efficient
lighting and motion sensors (Division 26)
It is easy to identify the lack of a formal standard that insures sustainable practice, energy
efficient systems and a concern for the environment.
B.) ASHRAE & LEED
LEED
The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) was created in 1993 as a non-profit
membership based organization in order to provide leadership in more innovative and
environmentally sustainable building practices. The USGBC has over 18,000 members—which
are companies and organizations—throughout the building industry. According to U.S. Green
Building Council, the programs USGBC provide have three distinguishing characteristics in that
they are committee-based, member-driven, and consensus–focused. Cooperative changes
throughout the building industry are obtained by a committee based structure that includes a
wide variety of input from the many members. This enables a forum for many different
organizations to come together and create cooperative solutions for new building standards. The
open membership aspect of USGBC is important in that it allows balance and helps carry out
programs and activities. 18 It also enables the USGBC to target issues and conduct an annual
review that allows the USBBC to “set policy, revise strategies, and devise work plans based on
members’ needs.” 19 The consensus-focused aspect of the USGBC allows it to settle differences
in the building industry and work together with a variety of industry members to green buildings
and in the most efficient manor and at the lowest cost. 20
Soon after formation, the USGBC began to create a system to measure “green buildings”
or buildings that were built and operated in a way that reduced energy use and had a commitment
18 U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009. 19 U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009. 20 U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009.
to a more environmentally sustainable future. A committee was created that included architects,
environmentalists, building owners, real-estate agents, lawyers and other industry
representatives. This committee took the many factors within each profession into account and
soon created a system to both define and measure green buildings. This system known as
LEED—for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design—was launched in 1998 and has
been updated almost annually ever since. These updates have evolved LEED from a simple
rating system for existing buildings into many different rating systems throughout the building
industry within many different sectors and scopes. The specific LEED rating system we are
interested in for this project, however, is LEED for New Construction. 21
According to USGBC, all LEED rating systems are “voluntary, consensus-based, and
market driven….based on existing and proven technology, they evaluate environmental
performance from a whole building perspective over a building’s lifecycle, providing a definitive
standard for what constitutes a green building in design, construction, and operation.” 22 The
LEED rating system for New Construction is divided into 5 separate environmental categories.
These include: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and
Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. In addition to this a 6th category, Innovation in
Design, is included to address other categories not listed in the 5 main categories. Within each
category, there are specific construction practices, building design measures, and building
operation practices that are worth a certain amount of points. Each individual category has its
own final point value which depends on the sustainable measures and practices currently
available. 23
The LEED for New Construction 2009 rating system has 100 base points possible with
10 bonus points allotted for points in Innovation in Design and regional bonus points that take
local factors into account. Each credit is worth at least one point without fractions and are always
positive numbers. Every project that wishes to utilize the LEED rating system have to use the
exact same scorecard. The point system is weighted by the potential positive environmental
impacts and benefits for humans for each individual credit. These weights are defined by the
21 U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009. 22 U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009. 23 U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s TRACI environmental impact categories. 24 This
system takes into account the human or environmental “effect on the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of the building, such as greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel use,
toxins and carcinogens, air and water pollutants, indoor environmental conditions.” 25
The most important aspect to know about LEED is that it is a certification that aims to show how
sustainable a building is constructed and operated. LEED for New Construction is divided, based
on the amount of points a building obtains, into 4 certifications. These include: Certified 40-49
points, Silver 50-59 points, Gold 60-79 points, and Platinum 80 and above. If a building achieves
one of these ratings, a formal letter of certification is obtained for that building. 26
ASHRAE
The environmental impact of building design, construction and operations is enormous; it
is responsible for 39% or CO2 emissions, 40% energy consumption, 13% water consumption
and 15% of GDP per year (ASHRAE Journal).
Due to rising costs for energy, the university’s primary concern for new building
constructions is concentrated on energy. There for, the term “sustainable” in respect to
environmental preservation is not on the university’s radar, according to Scott McVey, university
energy conservationist and utility manager. If the university would like to grow with the
emerging green building movement and lower energy use, establishing a much-needed baseline
of building regulations and standards which are useable and enforceable will be vital. Standards
such as these have already been created by various firms, but the most respected guidelines are
written by ASHRAE.
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
ASHRAE, was founded in 1894 with the mission of “advancing heating, ventilation, air
conditioning and refrigeration to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world through
research, standards writing, publishing and continuing education” (website). This society is
organized into Regions, Chapters and Student Branches which share knowledge and findings
24 U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009. 25 U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009. 26 U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009.
with on another. Primarily, ASHRAE publishes resources used for referencing when design,
purchasing and installing energy systems in a buildings. Often times, the ASHRAE standards
and guidelines relating to HVAC systems are immersed into state and agency building codes
creating mandatory standards which the building must adhere to. The developers of ASHRAE
work closely with the International Code Council (ICC), the US Green Building Council
(USGB) (developers of LEED) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES)
to develop their standards.
LEED differs greatly from building standards and codes. LEED is a voluntary
certification system, acting as third-party verification that a building or community was designed
and built using strategies to improve performance of all metrics; energy savings, water
efficiency, CO2 emissions reductions, improved indoor environmental quality and stewardship
of resources and sensitivity to their impacts (www.usgbc.org). It would be false to say “we
would like to build to LEED standards…” because the standards do not exist. Instead, following
standards or strict codes prioritizing green building, such as ASHRAE, would allow one to
become LEED certified.
On a monthly basis, ASHRAE publishes a journal to continually educate their members
and the public about new ideas, problems or technologies possible for energy saving design
systems. Most importantly, the society creates standards that are periodically reviewed, revised
and published resulting in up to date standards that are achievable with current technologies.
Below is a graph which shows how annual revisions have resulted in continual energy savings.
Therefore it is vital that KU continually adopts the newest publication of standard 90.1.
ASHRAE provides building standards which can be adopted as codes. These guidelines
focus on minimizing energy use. Constructing a building to code is the worst building one can
make; it meets the bare requirements for energy efficiency to be economically feasible. In order
to reach any goals for greater efficiency or lessening the environmental footprint, a building must
obtain goals or standards higher than minimal building codes. ASHRAE provides these
guidelines to insure high performance buildings.
ASHRAE Standards
• Standard 62.1 (2007) sets the baseline for indoor air quality standards.
• Standard 90.1 (2007) provides standards for minimum energy-efficient for new buildings
& systems and new portions of buildings. It includes criteria for determining compliance
with the standard and provisions that apply to the building envelope (heating and cooling
systems), water heating, electric power distribution, electric motors and belt drives and
lighting. 90.1 is LEED’s baseline for energy efficiency, in order to gain LEED points a
building must go beyond this criteria.
• Standard 189.1 (2009) is a set of technically rigorous requirements, which covers criteria
including water use efficiency, indoor environmental quality, energy efficiency, materials
and resource use, and the building’s impact on its site and its community. Standard 189.1
was written by experts representing all areas of the building industry who contributed
tens of thousands of man hours. Developed in a little over three years, the standard
underwent four public reviews in which some 2,500 comments were received.
• On the forefront is the IGCC, International Green Construction Code, launched on March
11, 2010 by the International Cod Council (ICC), ASHRAE, U.S Green Building Council
(USGBC) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES). This code
broadens and strengthens building codes to accelerate high performance green building
construction in the country. It addresses site development and land use, material resource
conservation and efficiency, energy conservation/efficiency/atmospheric quality, water
resource, indoor environment quality, operating/maintenance, sustainability measures and
more. The code can be integrated with existing codes as an overlay, or incorporated as
the comprehensive green building code.
C.) Other Universities
In order to effectively weigh the progress that KU has made in improving building and
construction efficiency and sustainability, eight other Universities were chosen, and the policies
and practices were analyzed and compared. For the best results that closely coincide with KU,
similar campus size was necessary, as most of the universities are part of the Big 12.
Additionally, schools which have an environment similar to the University of Kansas (i.e.
temperature and humidity) were also considered, and if a university was thought to be too
dissimilar, it was omitted from the comparison. Individual areas of interest when assessing a
school’s building and construction included items such as whether or not there is a formal green
building policy, LEED Certification and Energy-Star Labeled, energy efficient technologies, and
diversion of waste from landfills.
University of Kansas
The University of Kansas has several green policies and practices instilled, but as one
will see, there is much room for improvement upon these current procedures. One recent
installation is the new formal green building policy that KU has adopted. This would be the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Energy Efficient Design of New Buildings (Except Low Rise
Residential buildings) as a minimum guideline. It is also expected that new buildings must
improve 30% upon these standards in the future. KU does not have any LEED-certified buildings
on campus nor do they plan to in the near future, so this may be one area of concern. They do,
however, use several energy efficient technologies such as lighting retrofits (T8 bulbs in 82% of
the buildings) and several other mechanical retrofits. The water saving practices comprise of
process water ECM’s and replacement of bathroom sinks, showers, and toilets (Flushometer
Retrofit). The specific percentage of the institution’s non-hazardous construction and demolition
waste diverted from landfills is unavailable, but it is noted that cardboard packaging, asphalt, and
concrete were ultimately diverted. Overall, the University of Kansas received a grade of a “D”
on their green building practices (grade is based on a normal 4.0 scale, “Green Report Card”).
Below are brief assessments of a few comparable schools, with a focus on only the most
important aspects of that school’s green building policy and practice.
University of Missouri
The University of Missouri has formal green building policies which include renovation
of campus buildings (thirty-four campus buildings have been identified for renovation); while
adding no significant operating cost (minimum increase). It has plans for future buildings to be
cognizant of sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources,
and indoor environmental quality. It was noted that the university would not strive to seek
certification through the USGBC (LEED process), but that the building designs would achieve
an equivalent; in special cases, LEED certification may be a possibility if the budget is in line.
Two buildings on campus are Energy Star labeled (totaling 131,703 sq. ft.), and HVAC systems
have been controlled in 80% of campus buildings, as well as LED replacements and daylight
sensors. Low flow design reduces water use and all build renovations have water conservation
fixtures. Green Report Card Score: “C”.
University of Iowa
The University of Iowa’s formal green building policy includes a plan that all new
buildings and major renovations will meet or exceed the U.S. Green Building Council’s
guidelines for silver level LEED certification. No buildings currently are LEED-certified, but
seven buildings in the process of design, construction, or renovation are scheduled to at least
meet LEED-Silver certification. Aside from that piece of information, not much else is stated
about the current situation on campus; Green Report Card Score: “C”.
University of Nebraska
The University of Nebraska has one LEED certified building on campus (38,315 sq. ft.),
and nine buildings which meet LEED criteria but are not certified (848,974 sq. ft.). The number
of buildings that meet LEED-EB renovation and retrofit criteria but are not certified totals twelve
(1,322,995 sq. ft.), so although they are not certified, they still meet the standards by which
LEED is based upon. Some schools decide that it is not necessary to have the LEED certification
in order to be just as energy friendly, and this does not negate their progress towards becoming
green. Also, LED and T8s are used to reduce overall energy consumption, and closed loop water
systems reduce total annual water consumption by 1,280 acre feet annually. The final Green
Report Card Score: “B”. In addition, 70% of the construction and demolition waste produced is
diverted from landfills.
Kansas State University
Kansas State University received an “F” for their green building score, and it is apparent
because they have no formal policy regarding green building construction and design. The only
real data on their green building efforts says that T8 bulbs replaced the old T12s, and old AC
units were being replaced. The student union has motion sensor lighting in all the bathrooms, but
that seems to be a standard in most schools. What KSU needs is some formal policy to force
these changes to come about. If there is no policy, there will be little incentive and push to meet
standards and reach goals.
University of Colorado
The only school to receive an “A” for their green building assessment is the University of
Colorado, Boulder. Their formal green building policy is that all new buildings and renovations
must meet LEED gold standards, and plan to upgrade to what is called a “LEED Gold-plus”
standard (LEED Gold + 40% over ASHRAE 90.1 in E&A). They currently have five LEED
certified buildings on campus (one silver and four gold), which combined comprise of about
800,000 square feet. Eleven other buildings meet the criteria but are not yet certified (1,011,959
sq. ft. Gold-level). Some of these may even meet LEED-platinum but it is too early to tell. About
75% of construction and demolition waste is diverted and normal energy and water saving
techniques are used. This was the best model school for what is possible at other universities, and
they are a prime example of a school’s ability to meet goals and set high standards.
Oklahoma State University
Oklahoma State’s formal policy states that they will reach the highest level of
certification possible, meet Energy Star designation and adopted the Oklahoma HB3394 High
Performance Green Building policy. This prefers the highest standard available, focusing on
achievable goals with realistic criteria. Ten buildings are currently Energy Star labeled,
combining a total of 802,453 sq. ft., and energy saving technology incorporates meeting energy
star while exceeding ASHRAE energy standards with. It should be noted that not many water
conservation techniques are in practice yet, and 0% of waste is diverted from landfills, however a
goal of 50% waste diversion is set for all future major new construction and renovation projects.
Iowa State University
Iowa State University, like CU, set goals for all new and major projects to be LEED
certified at the Gold level. This formal policy gets ISU a score of a “B”, and though only one
building is currently LEED certified, three meet LEED criteria and all new construction will
become LEED-gold certified. In addition, LED lamps are installed all over campus, and various
water saving technologies are in place. They divert about 85% of their waste from landfills, and
relative to the other schools compared in this study, are relatively high on the scale.
University of Oklahoma
The last school observed is the University of Oklahoma. Like Kansas State University,
they have no formal policy in place, but apparently have declared intent and are trying to make
progress to a formal one. This led them to receive a “D” on their report card for building policy
design and construction, and these numbers are surely due to their lack of policy. Also, most of
the numbers that each category looked at were missing or unavailable. If the university would
monitor their levels and energy, that is one of the first steps in developing a policy. To simply
say that a policy is in the process of being investigated means that this school, along with KSU,
is behind relative to most of the other schools investigated.
In summary, KU scores relatively low in the area of green building standards and
practices. Though the university has adopted a new formal green building policy, this is but the
first step and improvement is always a possibility. Simply put, the schools that set the highest
standards (while they may have more adequate sources of money allocated to the process) are the
ones that receive the highest marks. The University of Colorado and Iowa State University are
prime examples of making sure future projects are as environmentally safe and sustainable as
possible, and they both show that they can set the bar by making all new major projects not only
to LEED standards, but going above and beyond and announcing that LEED-Gold certified
buildings will be customary. This is a pleasant notion to think that while some universities of
equal size have no policy whatsoever instilled, others are looking to the future and paving the
way for these types of standards to be expected and routine. As one may observe, the two lowest
grades given to the schools in analysis were those who had no formal policy and little to no data
regarding environmental factors of building construction and operation. The University of
Kansas is on its way towards raising the bar of building standards, however, KU must observe
how high that bar has already been set by several schools. Whatever policies and practices are
put into place, the university must continually push forward if we want to be viewed as a leader
and an ever-greening university.27
27 Greenreport.com
Figure 2: University Sustainability at Nine Universities (grades are based on a 4.0 scale)
Case Studies
Two case studies that implemented ASHRAE 90.1 + 30% energy efficiency were
conducted in similar zones (meaning that they had comparable environments to KU - zone 4)
were Knightdale High School in North Carolina, and Third Creek Elementary, also in NC.
Respectively, the Knightdale project cost a total of $26.5 million (281,000 sq ft.) and Third
Creek cost $8.7 million (92,000 sq ft.), but the cost of the two schools was $95/ft sq. for both.
Similarities in the projects include day-lighting in the main entry, commons and media center,
south facing classrooms to control direct sunlight and reduce solar heat gain, and heated/cooled
with a four pipe chilled and hot water system. Energy demand was lowered through energy
efficient equipment and design, and extensive day-lighting. Third Creek Elementary consolidated
and replaced two aging schools, and was the first K-12 school to earn a LEED v2.0 Gold
Certification from the USGBC. Other light energy saving techniques include dimmable lighting,
building orientation, skylights and exterior shading and exterior parking lot lighting. HVAC
equipment, condensed boilers, and natural ventilation also provided the school with additional
savings, allowing the Knightdale High School to currently operate at 54.4kBtu per square foot.
Third Creek Elementary employs lighting control (T8’s and occupancy sensors), HVAC
condensed boilers, a cooling tower, and energy recovery ventilators, in addition to using Energy
Star computers, totaling an energy use of a 59.8kBtu/ft sq-yr. Energy modeling also shows a
reduction in annual energy costs of 25% over ASHRAE 90.1 in 1999, and each year since has
had an energy reduction, bringing a 33% decline in 2005.28
III. Results
Below is a table of our recommendations for implementing sustainable design and green building practices.
Recommendation Description Cost Benefit
Green Building Specialist
An architect/engineer specialized in green design and systems
$65,000-80,000 annually
Increases environmental design and systems lowering
energy costs and carbon footprint
Green Building Guide
To be used during schematic design phase; a simple
document regarding questions to ask and
issues to address with respect to the building and the
environment
Task for DCM Increases
consideration of sustainable design
Use alternative cement
Cenocell (made from coal ash waste) and permeable concrete
should be adopted as a primary building
material
Material- $50/cubic yard
Permeable surfaces alleviate storm-water
runoff, increase drainage and reuse material. Both have
high strength and are light weight.
Continually renew ASHRAE Standards
Renew university standards parallel to updated ASHRAE
publications
$119 every 3 years
Progresses university standards with
available technology and knowledge
Occupancy Sensors
Electronic sensors controlling lights
and/or climate control of a given space.
$20-200 each Eliminates energy
waste within individual rooms
Individual Building Energy Evidence
Show building users the energy usage and
cost $0
Influence energy conservation
mentality
Added section to Building Program
"Design for Sustainability"
$0 Early ideology for sustainable design
28 “Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings; Achieving 30% Energy Savings Toward a Net Zero Energy Building”. Copyright 2008 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Monitor building
Continue to monitor building systems
every 3 years after construction to insure
it is performing to standards.
Student work
Assurance that the building is meeting the performance
requirements it was intended to meet
Below are mandatory sections of the International Green Construction Code that we suggest the University of Kansas adopt as building standards.
Mandatory Standards to be
added
Below is a list of sections from the International Green Construction Code
Material and Waste Management
Section 502: Construction material and waste management plan, post construction waste recycling, storage of lamps, batteries and electronics
Material Selection Section 503: Material selection and properties, material selection,
environmental stewardship
Building Electrical Power and Lighting
Systems
Section 609: Interior light reduction controls, exterior light reduction, exterior lighting and signage signage shutoff, automatic daylight controls, plug load controls, transformer efficiency, voltage drop in feeders, voltage drop in branch circuits, exterior lighting, verification of lamps and ballasts
HVAC Systems Section 803: Construction phase requirements (Duct openings, indoor air quality, ductless system or filter), isolation of pollutant sources, ductless
system and filters
Day-lighting Section 808: Day-lighting of building spaces, side-lighting, top-lighting,
daylight simulation
Bibliography Books/Magazines/other W. Corman, J. Long, J. Modig, D. Riat, and J. Louis. 2001. Design and Construction Standards. University Press of Kansas.
University Department of Design and Construction Management (PDF) http://www.dcm.ku.edu/standards/design/files/KU-DesignStandards.pdf
USGBC. 2009. LEED New construction and major renovations. U.S. Green Building Council Inc. U.S. Green Building Council. 2005. LEED-NC for new Construction. Reference Guide ASHRAE Journal, March 2010, Vol. 52, No. 3 “Climate Action Plan for KU” “International Green Construction Code; public version 1.0”. The American Institute of Architects. Copyright 2010 International Code Council, inc. Publication: March 2010 “Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings; Achieving 30% Energy Savings Toward a Net Zero Energy Building”. Copyright 2008 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Javier Ahumada, Michael Dinkel, Larry Waldron, and Andrew Wilson “Alternative Energy Proposal for the University of Kansas” (2007) U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009. Everblue Energy. “Materials and Resources” USBGC LEED Study Guide and PowerPoint Slides. 2009. Websites National Institute of Building Science; Whole Building Design Guide http://www.wbdg.org/design/index.php Accessed February 10, 2010 Passive Solar Design http://passivesolar.sustainablesources.com/#Define Accessed March 10, 2010
Green Associate Training http://www.everblueenergy.com/ Attended February 16, 18, 23, 25, 2010 US Green Building council (website) http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=124 Accessed: March 4th, 2010 LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Rating System (PDF) http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5546 Accessed: April 19th, 2010 National Institute of Building Science; Whole Building Design Guide http://www.wbdg.org/design/index.php Accessed: April 25th, 2010 Hartford's St. Paul Travelers Campus Achieves Energy Star Designation http://thesop.org/story/press_releases/2006/10/07/hartfords-st-paul-travelers-campus-achieves-energy-star-designation.php Accessed: March 10th, 2010 The College Sustainability Report Card http://www.greenreportcard.org Accessed: March 16th, 2010 Energy Star Building Design Profile: Thornburg Campus http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_bldg_design.project_thornburg Accessed: March 20th, 2010 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) “Biomass Resources of the United States” http://www.nrel.gov/ Accessed: April 13th, 2010
Physorg.com. “Strong, lightweight green material could replace concrete, but contains no cement” 25 November 2008. http://www.physorg.com/news146851488.html Accessed: April 6th, 2010
Winston, Alan. “Building Materials of the Pyramids Builders” Tour Egypt. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/material.htm 2010. Accessed: April 24th, 2010 CNN. “NTSB: Design flaw led to Minnesota bridge collapse” CNN.com/US. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/14/bridge.collapse/index.html 2008 Accessed: March 23th, 2010
Westar 2008 Annual Report, http://phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzMwODgyfENoaWxkSUQ9MzEyODEwfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1 Accessed: April 24th, 2010 Coal and Climate Change Facts, http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfm Accessed: April 20th, 2010 U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=KS Accessed: April 8th, 2010 Interviews Scott McVey, Energy Conservation and Utility Manager, April 9 and May 1, 2010 Jeff Severin, Director of Center for Sustainability, April 7, 2010 Wayne Kirchhoff, Landscape Architect and LEED certified, February 10, 2010
