Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ...
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ...

Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ... Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ...

scnz.org
10.07.2015 Views

- 78 -The Green Star NZ office design v 1.2 tool was developed for the design stage of officebuildings to evaluate the environmental initiatives and/or potential environmental impacts ofcommercial office base building designs.In Green Star, credits are awarded for certain activities. For example 1 point is awarded whereit can be demonstrated that the percentage of all steel in the design has a post-consumerrecycled content great than 60 % by mass, and 2 points for 90 % by mass. If the material costof steel represents less than 1 % of the project’s total contract value then this credit would be“not applicable”. Similarly 2 points are awarded where it is demonstrated that all timber andcomposite timber products are either post-consumer re-used timber or FSC certified timber ora combination thereof. In other categories points are awarded for land use, IEQ, transport etc(Figure 6.18).Figure 6.18: Green Star methodology (NZGBC 2008)All points are then weighted and summarised into a single score, where materials have acontribution of 10 % to the total score whereas energy has a contribution of 25 %. For allweightings see Table 6.12.Table 6.12: Weightings in Green Star toolManagement 10 %Indoor Environmental Quality 20 %Energy 25 %Transport 10 %Water 10 %Materials 10 %Land Use and Ecology 10 %Emissions 5 %100 %6.4.3 Research Approach for ComparisonDue to the differences in the scope of both tools, the comparison was restricted to thoseaspects which are taken into account in both tools, i.e. material use and energy use. Allfeatures of the buildings that are not strictly material or energy use related were therefore

- 79 -assumed to be identical for the four different building designs - Concrete, Steel, Timber andTimberPlus.Two scenarios were assessed in Green Star. A base scenario which took into account thedominant ‘core’ materials only, i.e. timber, steel and concrete only and a recycling scenariowhich is similar to the reutilisation scenario in the LCA study. Both Green Star scenarios areshown in Table 6.13. The justification for the credits is explained in section 6.4.3.1 for theGreen Star base scenario and in section 6.4.3.2 for the Green Star recycling scenario.6.4.3.1 Green Star Base ScenarioThe Green Star Base scenario took only the core materials of each building type into account,i.e. no points for concrete or steel were awarded in the Timber building. Otherwise the Timberbuilding would score credits for either steel or concrete whereas the intention was to analysethe credits awarded for the core materials of each building option only.Timber building• Not applicable (N/A) was ticked for recycled steel content and concrete contentrespectively although, according to the Green Star methodology N/A can only beticked if the material cost for steel or concrete respectively is less than 1 % of theproject’s total contract value.• Sustainable timber (FSC certified) was chosen for the timber option of the building.• Operational energy figure specific to the Timber building were included (73kWh/m 2 /yr metered electricity and 15 kWh/m 2 /yr metered natural gas).• All other assumptions were identical to the Timber, Steel and Concrete building.TimberPlus building• The amount of timber used cannot be accounted for in Green Star. The results for theTimberPlus building were therefore identical with the Timber building.• Operational energy figures specific to the TimberPlus building were included(70 kWh/m 2 /yr metered electricity and 16 kWh/m 2 /yr metered natural gas).• All other assumptions were identical to the TimberPlus, Steel and Concrete building.Concrete building• Recycled concrete was assumed for the Concrete building. The N/A option was tickedfor Steel and Timber respectively.• Operational energy figure specific to the Concrete building were included(68 kWh/m 2 /yr metered electricity and 16 kWh/m 2 /yr metered natural gas).• All other assumptions were the same as for Steel and Timber.Steel building• Recycled steel was assumed for the Steel building. The N/A option was ticked forConcrete and Timber respectively.• Operational energy figure specific to the Steel building were included (70 kWh/m 2 /yrmetered electricity and 16 kWh/m 2 /yr metered natural gas).• All other assumptions were the same as for Concrete and Timber.

- 79 -assumed to be identical for the four different building designs - Concrete, Steel, Timber andTimberPlus.Two scenarios were assessed in Green Star. A base scenario which took into account thedominant ‘core’ materials only, i.e. timber, steel and concrete only and a recycling scenariowhich is similar to the reutilisation scenario in the LCA study. Both Green Star scenarios areshown in Table 6.13. The justification for the credits is explained in section 6.4.3.1 for theGreen Star base scenario and in section 6.4.3.2 for the Green Star recycling scenario.6.4.3.1 Green Star Base ScenarioThe Green Star Base scenario took only the core materials <strong>of</strong> each building type into account,i.e. no points for concrete or steel were awarded in the Timber building. Otherwise the Timberbuilding would score credits for either steel or concrete whereas the intention was to analysethe credits awarded for the core materials <strong>of</strong> each building option only.Timber building• Not applicable (N/A) was ticked for recycled steel content and concrete contentrespectively although, according to the Green Star methodology N/A can only beticked if the material cost for steel or concrete respectively is less than 1 % <strong>of</strong> theproject’s total contract value.• Sustainable timber (FSC certified) was chosen for the timber option <strong>of</strong> the building.• Operational energy figure specific to the Timber building were included (73kWh/m 2 /yr metered electricity and 15 kWh/m 2 /yr metered natural gas).• All other assumptions were identical to the Timber, Steel and Concrete building.TimberPlus building• The amount <strong>of</strong> timber used cannot be accounted for in Green Star. The results for theTimberPlus building were therefore identical with the Timber building.• Operational energy figures specific to the TimberPlus building were included(70 kWh/m 2 /yr metered electricity and 16 kWh/m 2 /yr metered natural gas).• All other assumptions were identical to the TimberPlus, Steel and Concrete building.Concrete building• Recycled concrete was assumed for the Concrete building. The N/A option was tickedfor Steel and Timber respectively.• Operational energy figure specific to the Concrete building were included(68 kWh/m 2 /yr metered electricity and 16 kWh/m 2 /yr metered natural gas).• All other assumptions were the same as for Steel and Timber.Steel building• Recycled steel was assumed for the Steel building. The N/A option was ticked forConcrete and Timber respectively.• Operational energy figure specific to the Steel building were included (70 kWh/m 2 /yrmetered electricity and 16 kWh/m 2 /yr metered natural gas).• All other assumptions were the same as for Concrete and Timber.

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!