AIA Architectural Billings Index In Positive Territory For Second Consecutive Month

After showing struggling business conditions for most of 2011, the Architecture Billings Index (ABI) has now reached positive terrain in consecutive months. As a leading economic indicator of construction activity, the ABI reflects the approximate nine to twelve month lag time between architecture billings and construction spending. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) reported the December ABI score was 52.0, following the exact same mark in November. This score reflects an overall increase in demand for design services (any score above 50 indicates an increase in billings). The new projects inquiry index was 64.0, down just a point from a reading of 65.0 the previous month.


“We saw nearly identical conditions in November and December of 2010 only to see momentum sputter and billings fall into negative territory as we moved through 2011, so it’s too early to be sure that we are in a full recovery mode,” said AIA Chief Economist, Kermit Baker, PhD, Hon. AIA. “Nevertheless, this is very good news for the design and construction industry and it’s entirely possible conditions will slowly continue to improve as the year progresses.”


Key December ABI highlights:
• Regional averages: South (54.2), Midwest (53.1), Northeast (52.6), West (45.1)
• Sector index breakdown: multi-family residential (54.3), commercial / industrial (54.1), institutional (51.3), mixed practice (44.5)
• Project inquiries index: 64.0


The regional and sector categories are calculated as a 3-month moving average, whereas the index and inquiries are monthly numbers.

Source: DesignAndBuildWithMetal.com newsletter

 

 

GSA Finds Green-Building Practices Pay Off

By: Katie Weeks

To examine whether green buildings deliver their promised performance, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) conducted a study of 22 representative buildings from the administration’s portfolio. Each building was evaluated on its environmental performance, financial metrics, and occupant satisfaction. The overall results show that on average, GSA’s green buildings use less energy and water, have lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, cost less to maintain, and have more-satisfied occupants.

Of the 22 buildings in the study, 12 previously had their performance assessed in 2007. All buildings in the study incorporated sustainable design, and 16 were LEED-NC certified or registered. The study was conducted in two phases and results were compared to both industry and GSA baselines. In the first phase, which was completed in 2008, the GSA developed a repeatable, post-occupancy evaluation methodology that was piloted across the 12 buildings mentioned above. In the second phase of the larger study, the first 12 buildings were reexamined and 10 additional buildings were added to the sample. Data in the study is primarily from 2008 through mid to late 2009, and addresses Energy Use Intensity (EUI), energy cost, CO2 emissions, maintenance costs, occupant satisfaction, and water use.

Key findings include:

• The buildings in the study use 25 percent less energy compared to national averages, tracking at 66kBtu per square foot versus 88kBtu per square foot. In addition, the GSA’s LEED Gold–certified buildings in the study have a 27 percent lower energy use (52kBtu per square foot).

• The buildings in the study have aggregate operating costs that are 19 percent lower than national averages, at $1.60 per square foot, rather than $1.98 per square foot.

• The buildings in the study have a 27 percent higher occupant satisfaction rate.

• The buildings in the study have 36percent fewer CO2 emissions than the national average.

The full white paper can be viewed and downloaded at gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/Green_Building_Performance.pdf

Source: Eco-Structure eNewsletter

  

 

November Construction Slides 11 Percent

At a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $417.6 billion, new construction starts in November dropped 11% from October’s elevated pace, according to McGraw-Hill Construction, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies. Nonresidential building retreated after being boosted in October by the start of a massive manufacturing plant, and nonbuilding construction showed electric utilities pulling back from the brisk pace of recent months. Meanwhile, residential building in November registered moderate growth, helped by further strengthening for multifamily housing. During the first eleven months of 2011, total construction on an unadjusted basis was reported at $390.5 billion, down 2% from the same period a year ago.

The November statistics lowered the Dodge Index to 88 (2000=100), compared to the reading of 99 for October. For the January-November period of 2011, the Dodge Index averaged 90, essentially the same as its full year average of 91 in 2010 and 90 in 2009. “The strong volume in October, with total construction starts climbing 12%, was not likely to be sustained given the fact that much of the lift came from the start of several unusually large projects,” stated Robert A. Murray, vice president of economic affairs for McGraw-Hill Construction. “In November, activity returned close to its average pace so far in 2011, which is essentially the same as what was being reported during the previous two years. The picture for construction starts in a broad sense continues to be stability at a low level, with renewed expansion not yet taking hold. By individual project types, however, there has been a varied pattern during 2011. Year-to-date gains have been reported for multifamily housing, manufacturing plants, electric power plants, and even some commercial building types, but this has been offset by further weakening for single family housing, institutional building, and public works.”

Nonresidential building in November fell 20% to $142.4 billion (annual rate), following its 36% surge in the previous month. The largest decline was reported for the manufacturing plant category, which plunged 72% from October which included $3.0 billion for work on the Adam’s Fork coal-to gasoline facility in West Virginia. If the Adam’s Fork project is excluded from the October statistics, then the manufacturing plant category in November would be up 140%, nonresidential building would be steady, and total construction would be down a more moderate 4%. The manufacturing plant category in November did feature several large projects, such as a $500 million pipe manufacturing plant in Texas, although not to the same extent as what took place in October. For commercial building, office construction in November retreated 26% from October, which had been supported by the start of a $285 million office building in New York NY. At the same time, the office category in November did include the start of such projects as a $150 million renovation of a corporate headquarters in Plainsboro NJ and a $79 million FBI office building in San Diego CA. Stores and warehouses weakened in November, with respective declines of 9% and 16%, while hotel construction was flat.

The institutional categories showed mixed behavior in November. Healthcare facilities jumped 41%, aided by the November start of a $613 million replacement hospital for the Veterans Administration in Aurora CO and a $200 million hospital addition in Fullerton CA. The educational building category, down just 1%, was essentially steady in November, and was helped by the start of two university-related science buildings – a $254
million facility in Washington DC and a $185 million facility in Portland OR. The smaller institutional categories in November reported decreased activity, with churches down 27%; transportation terminals down 31%; recreation-related projects down 33%; and public buildings, down 38%.

For the first eleven months of 2011, nonresidential building came in 4% below a year ago. The institutional sector fell 12%, with weaker activity for educational buildings, down 12%; churches, down 15%; recreation-related projects, down 20%; public buildings, down 21%; and transportation terminals, down 26%. Healthcare facilities during the first eleven months of 2011 rose 4%, running counter to the downward trend for the other
institutional project types. Commercial building during the first eleven months of 2011 increased 6%, helped by gains for hotels, up 43%; and warehouses, up 10%; while only slight declines were reported for stores, down 1%; and offices, down 2%. The manufacturing plant category in the first eleven months of 2011 jumped 51%, helped by the start of several very large projects over the course of the year.

Nonbuilding construction, at $137.0 billion (annual rate) in November, dropped 14% from the previous month. The electric utility category retreated 34% from its exceptional October amount, although the pace in November was still quite high by recent standards – 34% above the average monthly rate during 2010. The noteworthy electric utility projects in November were $1.0 billion for work on a nuclear facility in South Carolina, $1.0 billion for a solar farm in California, and $300 million for a wind farm in Iowa. For the public works categories, steep declines in November were reported for water supply systems, down 25%; and sewers, down 43%, while river/harbor development managed to rise 24% from a lackluster October. Highway construction in November slipped 4%, although bridge construction climbed 29%, reflecting the start of a $587 million bridge project in the state of Washington. The “miscellaneous” public works category, which includes such diverse project types as site work, mass transit, pipelines, and outdoor sports stadiums, grew 11% in November with the help of a $250 million upgrade to a football stadium in the state of Washington.

During the January-November period of 2011, nonbuilding construction was down 2% from the same period a year ago. For transportation-related public works, highways slipped 3% year-to-date while bridge construction fell 15%. For the environmental public works categories, declines were reported for river/harbor development, down 2%; sewer construction, down 7%; and water supply construction, down 17%. The “miscellaneous”
public works category plunged 47% year-to-date, due to a sharply reduced amount of new pipeline starts. On the plus side, electric utility construction has soared during 2011, climbing 72% year-to-date, and has already achieved a new annual high in current dollar terms.

Residential building in November advanced 4% to $138.2 billion (annual rate). Like recent months, multifamily housing provided the upward momentum, rising 25%. Large multifamily projects that reached groundbreaking in November included a $173 million apartment building in San Francisco CA and a $150 million apartment building in New York NY, as the push continues to come from apartment projects (as opposed to condominiums). Single family housing in November retreated 1%, settling back after the modest improvement of the previous month, as this category continues to struggle to achieve any upward traction.

During the first eleven months of 2011, residential building was reported to be steady with its dollar amount for the same period a year ago. Multifamily housing was up 17%, as the result of this year-to-date performance by geography – the West, up 33%; the South Atlantic, up 27%; the Northeast, up 19%; the South Central, up 10%; and the Midwest, down 1%. The top five metropolitan areas in terms of the dollar amount of multifamily starts were – New York NY, up 26%; Washington DC, up 56%; Boston MA, up 35%; Dallas-Ft. Worth TX, up 140%; and Chicago IL, up 20%. The large percentage increase for multifamily housing in the West was helped by gains in such metropolitan areas as Seattle WA, up 139%; Los Angeles CA, up 61%; and San Francisco CA, up 41%. Single family housing in the January-November period of 2011 was down 3%, as the result of this performance by geography – the South Atlantic, up 1%; the South Central, down 2%; the West, down 3%; the Midwest, down 6%; and the Northeast, down 12%.

The 2% decline for total construction starts at the national level during the first eleven months of 2011 was reflected in a mixed performance at the five region level. Year-to-date declines for total construction were shown by three regions – the South Central, down 4%; the Northeast, down 11%; and the Midwest, down 12%. Year-to-date gains were shown by two regions – the South Atlantic, up 5%; and the West, up 10%, with
particularly large increases for new electric utility starts helping the total construction amount for each region.

Source: McGraw-Hill Construction

 

 LEED Update

Since 2010, the U.S. Green Building Council has been working on the next iteration of the LEED green-building rating system, dubbed LEED 2012.Eco-structure recently spoke with Scot Horst, USGBC senior vice president, LEED, about the last stages of system development.

What would you say are the top goals of this update and how does it compare to the 2009 update?

The top goal is continual improvement. In LEED 2009, what we did were more-structural changes. What we were doing was trying to get smarter about how we lay the system. What you see in 2012 are some more of the technical updates. We know that there are examples of buildings with a net-zero impact in certain areas and the question is how to get buildings to that point and beyond, to where buildings are producing more energy than they use, cleaning the water, and making people healthier. We have a road map of how we want the rating system to do that. These updates are the next step on that road map.

This evolution seems to tie into one of the notable modifications to the system, which is the addition of three credit categories: Integrative Process, Location and Transportation, and Performance.

There are two things happening here. One is that we know there are things that have worked in different rating systems, like in LEED for Neighborhood Development where we have credits that have taught us about where buildings are and how people get to and from them. The Location and Transportation section is an outgrowth of that knowledge, to bring that to the rest of the rating systems and LEED in general. We learned a lot from the monitoring-performance requirements in LEED 2009, where we said that if you don’t know how your building is performing, how can it possibly be a green building? The Performance category is a growth of that and the next step to what we hope will be a complete performance system.

The second thing is that, when you look at this rating system, you can look at it like it is code development and you’re just updating a document. But you can also look at it from the future, which is how I spend most of my time. How do we look back from a future goal and pull the rating system toward a vision that’s not just an update of the past? The other category, Integrative Process, is one of three challenging ones because we know you can do a LEED building without doing the process the right way. The question is: Can we write credits that will encourage people to consider an integrative design process in a better way so that they see that green features don’t work when they’re just additives? The only way you can do this right is if you are properly sizing systems. That means the design professionals, building occupants, and management professionals need to work together in a much better way.

Monitoring building performance continues to be a struggle for the industry. Proposed performance prerequisites address water and energy use; and projects will have to report data to the USGBC. How will this data be collected?

One of the key things that will be happening over the next year—and this isn’t just connected to LEED 2012—is that we’re making the entire system a recertifi- cation system. There’s a huge value in saying you’re going to design and construct something, there are things you need to do, and we’ll verify the building. Now we all agree that’s not good enough, especially in this market where there is less new construction and the real focus is on existing buildings. We want your connection to LEED to become a relationship that keeps making connections from the beginning of design to occupant satisfaction. The recertifi- cation that happens in LEED Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance will be part of the whole system. What we want to do is build out the ability to reflect the performance data and automate that as much as possible. Have you seen the work we’re doing on LEED Automation and connecting third-party applications to LEED Online? Our goal is to leverage the market to build tools that will help us automate performance information so that recertification becomes easier. It would give us a really robust way of dealing with this. It’s something we need so badly. It’s an exciting time because it feels like we can really play an important role here.

Is the Building Performance Partnership that was announced in 2010 being tied into this initiative?

That program was initiated to help us learn what we needed to do to get people involved and to find out what the big challenges are and how we start to address them. The goal is that the BPP program goes away and becomes part of the recertification program. You can look at that as a voluntary program right now where we give you a report card based on your energy data, what you said you were doing, or what you said you were going to do. We want to build those out so that they’re automated and we want to build out performance indicators. It’s a way of becoming an outcome-based system instead of an input-based system. Right now we write credits, ask you for input, and tell you whether you achieved the credit. We haven’t focused on the outcomes as much, and that’s what this
performance work is about.

Will this impact buildings that already have LEED certification?

We’re going to focus on providing value to the date on the plaque. We aren’t going to take plaques off of walls or decertify anyone. If someone has a LEED plaque from 2003, we won’t take it off , but it’s like a Zagat review. If you go to a restaurant and the last time it was reviewed by Zagat was in 2003, you probably won’t think that’s the best place to have dinner. With our new logo and plaque, we’ll be featuring the certification date more than we did.

The proposed updates also include modifications to the Materials & Resources section, with the addition of three credits: Avoidance of chemicals of concern in building materials; responsible sourcing of raw materials; and use of products with environmental product declarations. What drove the development of these additions?

The Materials section needs to be seen as a whole. It’s a big update, as these credits have been pretty much the same since they were fi rst conceived. We’re trying to help people understand how to optimize materials based on alternatives. It’s different from saying there are good materials and bad materials. We’re saying there are trade-off s that occur when you choose materials and we want to help you understand those trade-off s so you can optimize your decisions.

We’re using life-cycle assessment (LCA) to do that. LCA is a way of saying, “Here are impacts that happen when you make this choice.” You’ll see that concrete impacts carbon, and steel impacts water, and then can decide—and this is not scientific—which matters more, carbon or water. We want to get people thinking at a higher level about materials. We’re trying to increase the use of environmental product declarations and move the market to this next level of transparency. Now, there are things that LCA doesn’t do well, such as measuring toxicity, health impacts, or the impact of material extraction on ecosystems. That’s what those credits are about. The responsible sourcing of [raw] materials credit is recognizing that when we take things out of the Earth, we don’t have good ways of measuring that impact. We’re working hard on the chemicals of concern credit because we know it’s not right to just have a big list. There are missing pieces in the LCA approach and we need to address them through other credits, with this specifically looking at the missing piece of health impacts due to toxicity.

If you look at buildings right now, people say it’s energy that matters, but what you miss is that a huge percentage of all the toxic materials in our environment are from the manufacture of materials that go into buildings. We want to address that. It’s tough because there are no easy ways to do that.

What is the LEED 2012 timeline now?

We expect at some point, probably early January, for a third public comment to be open. And then hopefully we will close everything and do a ballot.

Is late 2012 still the goal for releasing the system?

Yes.

Additional information on the proposed system updates and the third public comment period, as well as a video of the LEED 2012 master session from the 2011 Greenbuild International Conference and Expo are online at usgbc.org.

Source: Eco-Structure Nov/Dec 2011

 MCA Leads Roof Efficiency Study with U.S. Department of Defense

Supported by the Glenview, Ill.–based Metal Construction Association, a team of MCA members, contractors, and manufacturers have developed a new retrofit roofing concept that merges existing technologies into an integrated metal roof system that can improve energy efficiency and lower energy demands in buildings. The team also includes members of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) has awarded MCA a grant for a 20-month project demonstrating the performance of this integrated retrofit system that will be installed on a DoD building at an Air Force base in Texas. Preparations for the installation now are in progress. When it is complete and the building is instrumented, the system will be monitored for its impact on energy use, water use, and overall savings.

The holistically designed metal retrofit roofing system creates an air space by adding structural subframing atop the existing roof. A new cool metal roof then is installed over the assembly. Within the air space, the installation will include high-performance insulation, solar water heating, and solar thermal air cooling. The surface of the retrofitted roof enables solar-generated electricity and rainwater collection systems to be installed on top of the new metal roof. The DoD project will provide substantiated research data and cost savings that meet or exceed the DoD’s stated directive to reduce energy consumption in all forms. A mock-up of the integrated system also will be displayed at Metalcon International, Oct. 11–13 at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta. Visit www.metalconstruction.org.

Source: Metalmag, September 2011

 Retro Retro Retro - Hear All About IT!

By Scott Kriner

Who isn’t a retro music fan?  Retro was the name given to a hodge-podge of music that included psychedelic tunes from the 1960s, punk rock from the 70s and 80s and even an outgrowth of new wave music from the 90s.  But not all music from those times is considered retro.  Most retro music has the distinct sound using computers, synthesizers and a unique electronic instrument called the Theremin.  
 
Retro music has a strong following today.  We’ve all been to a wedding reception where at least one retro tune is played for those who want to attempt to dance to the music. Today’s retro music includes many varieties and ranges from experimental art music to electronic dance music.  Perhaps you’ll recognize these Retro bands by the names of “Are These My Pants”, “Crosseyed Chickens”, “Gang Green”, “Pregnant Men” and “Zombies Under Stress”.  If you didn’t see your favorite retro band listed there, check out many others on ‘The Canonical List of Weird Band Names – the Peculiar and the Profane'.
 
The term “retro” comes from the Latin prefix, retro , meaning “backwards” or “in past times”.  It implies a movement toward the past instead of progress toward the future.  In addition to specific music genre, “retro” describes certain types of art, fashion, cars and even sports.  But even in the building construction industry, retro has a distinct contribution to make – retrofit.  And this construction technique is anything but moving toward the past.
 
The retrofit portion of the building construction industry is the fastest growing segment. In today’s weak economy with homeowners and building owners staying in their structures longer, the need to retrofit or revamp the building has become very popular.  Even in the green segment of the construction market, sustainable retrofitting of buildings is expected to shine.  Market research by McGraw Hill Construction has found that 86% of commercial building owners expect the green retrofit market to grow, and half expect it to increase 20% or more over the next three years.  The research also showed that 70% of owners who had engaged in green retrofit or renovation activities are planning to continue to do so for over 15% of future renovation projects, with 24% of owners planning to do so on over 60% of future projects.
 
Metal construction is playing a large role in the success of green retrofitting of buildings.  Installing a metal roof over existing roofs of any kind is just one example of retrofit in commercial or residential construction.  A metal roof retrofit project can introduce additional energy efficiency improvements, allow for solar thermal heating/cooling through air flow, and introduce alternative energy systems for on-site production.  Retrofitting walls with a metal wall system can also introduce some surprising energy efficient improvements, as well as improving the aesthetics of the wall.

Source: MCA September newsletter

 Something Old, Something New

Metal Retrofits Reinvigorate Existing Buildings

By Jim Schneider

As the nation’s building stock ages and a tight economy limits new construction, there is great potential in retrofit projects. Particularly with government, institutional and education buildings, where long-term operational quality and durability are of vital importance, owners and communities seek solutions to get the most possible use out of their structures.

Metal roof and wall systems are well-suited to retrofit projects and can add many years to the life of an existing building. That said, metal retrofits aren’t necessarily the ideal choice for every job. If a project has a short window for its return on investment, for example, the owner often will incline toward a more inexpensive roof system in spite of the fact that the roof will have to be replaced in 10 or 15 years. For those looking at a 20-, 30- or 50-year investment, however, a long-lasting metal retrofit makes a great deal of sense.

“Our retrofit customer is someone who is looking at the long-term benefits of the project,” says Mark Lawson, vice president of sales for Bossier City, La.-based McElroy Metal Inc. “There is a higher cost going in, but over the long term, metal is a very beneficial product. It has tremendous energy efficiency, it’s recyclable and the owner gets an upgrade in curb appeal. We’ve had architects tell us that appearance is one of the reasons they’ll choose metal for roof retrofits on schools. Schools are looking for energy savings, but when you put a steep metal roof on the building, the aesthetics are beautiful. People in the community feel their tax money is being spent on something that looks great when they take their kids to school.”

One of the reasons school and institutional buildings are so well-suited to metal roof retrofits is that they often have concrete, brick or concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall systems that are designed to last 60 or 70 years. Rather than constantly replacing a less durable roof system several times within that lifespan, it often makes sense to invest in a single retrofit installation that will carry through the performance life of the building. “When the wall systems are looking pretty but the roof is beginning to fail and the building has leaks all over the place, you really have to examine your choices,” Lawson explains. “If you have to put on a new roof, you have to decide whether to get the financial backing for a steep slope metal roof that gives all the beauty and performance you need or to just put a less attractive flat roof back down.”

Up On the Roof

The metal construction industry has been taking on retrofits for some time, and has made the process increasingly efficient. “In the early 1990s, most of the retrofits we were involved with were made out of light-gauge trusses assembled out of galvanized members. You build a form on the ground and it lay it out, build a truss in place and set it up on the roof,” recalls C. Wayne Fulmer, president of Lexington, S.C.-based I&E Specialties Inc., a metal roofing contractor. “In the past decade, most of the retrofits we’ve been involved with have been post-purlin retrofits. Now we build in place on the roof instead of pre-assembling the system in the parking lot and setting it up onto the building. This allows greater versatility.”

Maintain on the Brain

Though durability and long life is one of the major advantages of a metal roof retrofit, it is important to remember there is a difference between low maintenance and no maintenance. “I think the main misconception people have is that a metal roof is maintenance free, when it is not,” explains C. Wayne Fulmer, president of I&E Specialties Inc., Lexington, S.C. “When someone installs a flat roof, in the first year they have money in the budget to maintain it and take care of leaks. People will put up a metal roof and not touch it for five years.”

Metal roofs do require some care, however. “The roof should be checked well after every season change,” Fulmer points out. “Because of the expansion and contraction in a metal roof, fasteners will back themselves out. Maintenance is needed on gutter laps, the gutters need to be cleaned out and downspouts should be flowing well. When there are exhaust fans on the roof, you’ll get some vibration that can break seals so you need to keep an eye on that. Many people also don’t realize that the acid in pine straw is detrimental to finishes and should be kept off the roof. And in coastal areas, where salt is an issue, it’s good to wash the roof twice per year. There is maintenance involved.”
 
“What you’re doing on a retrofit is building 5- and 10-foot grids,” Lawson explains. “A local engineer will review the structural stability of the existing building and provide as-built drawings. We then select one of four designs, which are used to start the structure. A base shoe or base zee angle is fastened into the existing roof. A high point and low point are picked on a run from eave to ridge and eave to rake. That is set using strings as a method and the rest of it is basically stick built. Generally, 20-foot pieces of 16-, 14- or 12-gauge red iron structural zee or cee are used as sub-structural elements. We use cees for columns and zees for purlins. Typically, a clip will be used as a connection point from the column to the purlin or sometimes four self-drillers are put right into the existing column. It’s something like building the skeleton of a mini storage facility.”

The existing roof often is able to stay on underneath the retrofit metal roof system unless weight is an issue, in which case it must be removed. For example, if the old roof is saturated with water or near failure, it may have to be taken off. If it is a ballasted system with gravel, the rock has to be vacuumed off. “As a general rule, what you vacuum off in gravel is more weight than you’ll add with the retrofit,” Fulmer says. “Usually you’re OK on live loads and dead loads. Most buildings that have a flat roof are very structurally designed in the first place because of the amount of weight up there, so it usually isn’t a problem.”

Water is another consideration. “Probably the most difficult job is to put a retrofit roof on a foam roof because that foam roof is nothing but a great big sponge,” Fulmer says. “We had a building we were retrofitting and, even though it hadn’t rained in two weeks, when we started drilling through the foam to put our base clips down, water started dumping out of the foam and drained into the building through the screws. Water is the number one enemy when doing a retrofit roof. You have to prevent water from getting into the building.”

According to Fulmer, a TPO roof offers the best scenario for a metal roof retrofit. “TPO is really easy, mainly for the fact you don’t have to worry about waterproofing it,” he explains. “As you’re framing it, it’s easier to keep the building dry. You don’t have to vacuum the rock off it, it’s a more level surface to deal with and it tends to drain better when it rains. And usually with a TPO-style roof, you don’t have to worry about there being coal tar pitch up there. If you’re dealing with a coal tar pitch roof, it’ll eat you alive.”

No Interruption

One of the great advantages to metal roof retrofits is that the building often can remain in operation while the work is done. “There is no interruption,” Lawson asserts. “Most schools like to do these projects when the kids aren’t there, so you’ll see a tremendous buildup in May and June, but in most commercial, industrial or institutional buildings, buildings stay open. As long as there is appropriate safety for entrance and exits, there shouldn’t be any problems.”

“That is part of the beauty of retrofit,” Fulmer echoes. “We’ve done a number of schools and nobody moves out. The only problem you have is noise. Sometimes you have to work around the owner to minimize noise.”

While the installation may only take a few weeks, the benefits of retrofit metal roof will last decades. Along with being made up of highly recycled and recyclable materials, a retrofit roof also adds a good deal of energy efficiency to a building and will save on heating and cooling loads in the long run. “In many instances, owners are putting in additional insulation and using the added attic space to provide better R-values for the entire building,” Lawson says. “You also get reflectivity from the metal panels, which really helps.”

Source: Metalmag June 2011

 Marketing and Technical Activities Keep IMPs at the Leading Edge

From the July Metal Construction Association newsletter

The Insulated Metal Panel (IMP) Council grew from a targeted advertising program into a marketing initiative and now supports a full agenda of technical activities. In its 5-year history, the program enhanced manufacturers’ efforts to properly place IMP products at the forefront of commercial construction, with superior continuous insulation and air/moisture barrier protection for all types of commercial wall and roof construction applications.


The council's work has provided easy-to-use information to educate architects, owners, developers, code officials, codes and standard writers, and specification professionals through a variety of mediums. In 2008, the initial advertising program was updated and expanded with new advertising concepts and a broader reach of media, including online advertisements. A separate website served as an information center for online inquiries and responses to electronic and print advertisements. The program helped increase the online presence of IMPs in advertisements from 80% to 60%; the online responses continue to increase. Editorial placements providing more in-depth technical information supplemented the advertisements.


As the program captured more attention, the council tracked growth through regular market share research and decided 2 years ago to add a technical component to support and strengthen the IMP’s market presence.


“Continuous insulation is becoming more of a factor in energy efficiency, and IMP Council members recognize the importance of providing technical support to this program. More manufacturers are also offering IMPs, so we are encouraging them to join us in the work of the council, particularly in our work with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE). Many technical areas that are vital to our success are now in progress; this also broadens our appeal for more members,” said IMP Council Co-chair Doug Pickens, who heads up the marketing effort.


IMP Council Co-chair Ron Park, who leads the charge on the council's technical programs, notes the importance of the technical work. “These technical activities are really the building blocks for our market to grow. They will help show how IMPs compete against other construction materials. We know that once IMPs are compared to other assemblies, the performance of IMPs will prove to be superior.”

Some of the technical projects that are currently underway are targeted to ASHRAE and code work.


The IMP Council introduced a Continuous Maintenance Proposal to the Building Envelope Sub-Committee of ASHRAE 90.1 at its June meeting. IMPs are poorly represented in the 90.1 Energy Standard. The council has worked to create a table of R-values per inch for IMP panels of various thicknesses and proposed modified language for the standard and a definition of IMP. The ability of IMPs to act as continuous insulation and an air barrier is important to include.


As part of this effort, the IMP Council also approved a proposal from Morrison Hershfield to conduct 3-D thermal image modeling of two common IMP panel orientations. The results of that work will be added to other ASHRAE-funded research by the laboratory for information to use in a cost/performance study. That study will be instrumental in determining which products and what characteristics of those products are included in future versions of ASHRAE 90.1.


A related effort is underway to properly position IMPs in the Joint Appendices of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Part 6, Title 24. The council is working with the California Energy Commission to provide them with the proper R-values to include in the document.


Updates on the IMP program and its code and technical activities will be discussed at the upcoming MCA Semi-Annual Meeting. For more details of this council’s work, log into the Members Only council and committee reports section of the MCA website.


Source: MCA newsletter July 2011

 Metal Roofing and Solar Systems

Determining the best combination

By Scott Kriner,Tim Polega and Jason Watts

As energy costs rise and resources dwindle, renewable energy systems-particularly photovoltaics (PVS)-are being chosen as a viable long-term solution to reduce costs and reliance on fossil fuels.

Today, this technology of capturing and converting light energy from the sun into electricity is the fastest growing of all renewable energy technologies. In fact, according to Washington, D.C.-based Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development, the production of PV’s has nearly doubled every two years since 2002. As the price of silicon has lowered, and manufacturing for photovoltaics has become more efficient, costs have dropped, and systems have improved in performance and return on investment (ROI). The factors involved in determining a responsible ROI include:
 -total turnkey cost of the system being installed;
 -projected electricity output;
 -incentives and values of sale of electricity;
 -operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses;
 -projected inflation rate, cost of capital, and expected increase of electricity cost from the utility; and
 -the system owner’s tax rates.

Challenges still remain, however, in understanding the steps in choosing the best combination of roof and solar systems for each building owner’s needs. These might include meeting more stringent energy efficiency codes, decreasing dependence on limited resources by using renewable energy sources, or finding long-term solutions to reducing utility costs.


While improvements in PV technology have made systems more feasible and economical, many owners have also realized the benefit of pairing their new PV system with one of the oldest and most durable roofing materials-metal.

Value
Metal roofing has several benefits as a platform for renewable energy systems, with durability at the top of the list. Metal roof systems can also be installed to use above-sheathing ventilation. This natural convective cooling technique helps keep PV systems mounted to metal roofing cooler, thereby preventing premature degradation of the efficiency. Crystalline PV modules attached to standing-seam roofing are offset from the metal roof surface, which causes shadowing to lower the metal roof surface temperature and allows air to flow under the modules.

Both cooling effects act to prevent early deterioration of the PV systems. Metal roofing is also available in many “cool” colors that act to lower the surface temperature of the roof. Again, this can aid in preventing heat induced premature degradation of the PV Systems.

Life expectancy is metal’s greatest value; these roofs often exceed the life of the PV system. Having a metal roof that meets or exceeds the 25-year life of most solar panels provides tremendous financial savings. Metal also offers the benefit of having low maintenance needs. The minimum slope of a metal roof system that requires virtually no maintenance is five percent in heavy rain areas, and 10 percent in moderate rain areas. (In dry areas, such as the southwest United States, roofs must be washed.)

A new metal roof, or one applied as a retrofit over another system, is currently in the $54 to $108 per square meter ($5 to $10 per square foot) range, and a PV installation is in the $324 to $540 square meter ($30 to $50 dollars a square foot) range, before incentives are applied. However, other costs may come into play. For example, to make any repairs or fulfill maintenance needs on a roof, the solar system may need to be removed and reinstalled. This would cost from $54 to $108 per square meter. Additionally, one would need to calculate what would be lost in system generation during the downtime. Those costs could be significant, depending on the building location and the market, so the low maintenance needs of metal roofing can make a huge difference.

Many PV system designers laud metal for being one of the few roofing types that offer longevity and ease of installation. Although other material types may have a lower purchase cost, metal roofing’s durability and low maintenance provide a better value over the long term. The lifecycle cost of both the roof and solar components must be calculated when evaluating all components in the system.

Jim Bush, chair of the Metal Construction. Association’s (MCA’s) Roofing Council, says metal roofing’s greatest value is the ability to obtain the true-life benefit of the PV product.

“Metal can provide a substrate or roof covering that has a life span equal to or greater than the solar product itself, which is a 20-to 25-year range,” he said. “Most other roofing materials do not provide that. If a roofing material wears out sooner than the PV system, the building owner has to remove the PV system, remove and replace the existing roof, and reinstalled the PV system, incurring added costs as well as downtime.”

Metal roofing also adds other value to PV systems. The roof can be installed to a pitch that maximizes the sun’s angle in a given location to help optimize the solar system’s output on a direct mount. Since metal roofing can be installed to a slope or pitch (membrane roofing is not normally done this way), its existing angle can be used for PV installations with no added cost of racking to create an angle on a flat roof.

Standing-seam roofing allows PVs to be installed without penetrations in the roof surface. Although some conventional flat roofs may use a fully ballasted system without penetrating the roof, in a 145- to 161-km/h (90- to 100-mph) wind area it would weigh 22 to 29.4 kg/m² (4.5 to 6lb/sf). Further, concerns over the movement and high wind performance would remain. Therefore, they are not a frequently used way of attaching PV systems to conventional roofs.

Metal roofs with a pre-painted, factory-applied cool coating help reduce heat buildup. If laminated PV is applied to a cool roof, there is a slight cooling penalty by covering the roof with a surface that has an effective solar reflectance of 30 percent. However, the area not covered by photovoltaics helps to lower heat gain, thereby lowering the load induced on the electricity of the PV. When a crystalline PV system is added to a pre-painted metal roof, the shading, air flow, and cool nature of the roof itself can help in the efficiency and durability of the PV modules themselves.


Process
In determining whether a PV system is feasible, the building owner must decide what benefits are desirable. In this process, it should also be decided who will own the PV system and apply for any incentives or grants related to it. The PV industry is heavily driven by federal, state, and local incentives; the ability of the PV system to fit these programs is determined by the system owner’s location.

These incentives and energy credits for selling back power vary by area. This factor is as important to the total financial evaluation as the cost of the PV system itself. In fact, only about 20 percent of this evaluation focuses on the benefits of different systems-the rest involves how to get a system to work (which means evaluating building orientation), how much electricity can be generated on the roof, and at what cost.

If there is not much usable space on the roof, the decision would have to be made whether to retrofit the roof to create enough space to accommodate a larger PV system. If the architect or owner does not want to change the roof, a wall system that can incorporate renewable energy technology may be a viable option. The efficiency, however, would be less than with a roof, since a horizontal surface is not always exposed to sunlight throughout the day.

A logical process for project evaluation follows these seven steps.
First
Before any type of PV system is considered, it is wise for a building owner to first reduce the building’s energy consumption as much as possible. By doing so, the impact of the PV system will be greatly enhanced and the ROI is improved as well.

Second
The building owner should have the roof structure analyzed by a structural engineer to determine its ability to support the system. Crystalline modules weigh about 14.7 kg/m (3 lb/sf). If the roof cannot take the weight of the crystalline system that fits the owner’s needs, then thin-film laminated should be considered, as they weigh about 4.9 lg/m² (1 lb/sf).

It is important to understand laminates are one product line among the many thin-film offerings. Some thin-film products, such as cells in hard glass panels, weigh almost as much as crystalline panels.

Another consideration is whether the panels will need to tilt toward the sun or can be laid flat. In either case, both offer access and clearance for inspection or repair. Laminated PV is directly adhered to the metal panel and becomes integrated with the roof. Crystalline PV, on the other hand, is mounted atop the standing seams, allowing for roof inspection without removal of the photovoltaics. For roof repair, the PV would likely need to be removed, depending on the nature of the repairs.

Third
In deciding on the roof deck material, it is critically important to think about the durability or the life expectancy of the selected roofing material. The owner should consider something that has low maintenance, long life, and can take a decent amount of foot traffic during the installation phase. After installation, foot traffic should be minor because maintenance on the PV system is minimal. It needs about two annual inspections, which should be performed by the owner or by a third party hired by the owner.

Fourth
The building owner should ask whether the manufacturer of available systems can stand behind the warranty or has a subsidiary that can do so. As PV panels typically have a 25-year warranty, it is important to know supplier will be around to support this. Warranties and documented or substantiated average service life of the roof system are equally important.

Fifth
The owner or project manager should check installer qualifications and use them appropriately. It is important only those qualified to work on roofs do so, and those qualified to perform electrical work do so. Wherever the PV system touches the roof, the roofer has primary responsibility so the warranty is not voided.

For this phase of the project, it is important to contact the roofing material manufacturer to determine what impact the PV system would have on the warranty. In some cases, temporary protection may be required, but these needs are typically minimal on low-slope metal roofs and with steep-slope metal roofs it is not an issue. In either case, the affect on the ROI would be less than a year.

Some roofing requires extra protection when paired with a PV system. In the case of teal roofs, for example, if the building owner gets a non-penetrating clamp that is accepted or approved by a metal manufacturer, the PV system will have little or no impact on the roof warranty. However, not all manufacturers will accept non-penetrating clamps.

As for wind uplift concerns, at this time, calculations for code compliance for uplift can run, but have not yet been independently tested. The best course of action is to deal with individual manufacturers on these issues.

If the crystalline is specified, it is important the metal roof installer also become the connector because it is critical the location of the clamps be directly above the seam clip and the metal roofing contractor knows exactly where all the clips are located.

When directly adhered thin-film laminate is chosen, the building owner will need to check with the manufacturer about the warranties on field installation compared to factory installation, since some laminate products may have an impact on the metal roof warranty where they directly connect to the roofing material. Likewise, it can be important to the thin-film laminate materials’ warranty that the product’s manufacturer approves the metal substrate.

Sixth
Due to the extent of their integration, the owner or architect should evaluate specifications for both the roof systems and solar systems ahead of time. The question frequently arises whether PV specs should be part of the roofing or electrical specification, or have their own.

If the photovoltaic system is being bid as an alternate and the specifier wants a specific PV system integrator, it is better to make the specifications their own section. If the preference is for a system integrated with the rest of the buildings, then splitting the electrical and roof portions into their own specs would seem to be the best idea.

As the PV industry matures, specifications will be split between the roof and the electrical just as any other construction and solar industries are doing it differently, but over time it seems PV systems will be considered more of a “constriction” item.

The architect or project manager occasionally wants a specialized company to install the whole system, or instead desires the primary roofing and electrical contractors to do it all. The contractors should do the installations as they become more comfortable with the PV technology.

Seventh
It is important that proper commissioning procedure be established ahead of time and followed. Most of this revolves around the performance of the inverter and manufacturer having certain requirements and procedures. Additionally, large electrical wires should be checked with a megger to ensure they have not been nicked or scratched since that could cause a fire at some point. The installer should offer training to the owner on how to maintain the system. Further, the installer should provide a maintenance folder or procedure manual for the owner’s use.

Normal electrical building permits are required for a PV installation. A utility interconnect agreement and a renewable energy credit application are also required. Programs vary by area and are specific to each state. The best way to find alternative funding and incentives is to check on the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE).

Options
Crystalline panels and thin-film laminates are viable options that should be evaluated. Costs are relatively close on both and each offers certain features and benefits that may or may not fit the owner’s needs. Since the industry is still in infancy, and products are constantly changing, it is vital to weigh the long-term established companies and the new ones from a financial standpoint as to whether the PV manufacturer will be around over the long term.

The best PV system needs to be determined based on the application. Many crystalline systems are used over existing roofing. The applicator of the crystalline system should evaluate how the roof was installed and the load it can handle. A metal roof typically can accommodate crystalline panels placed over it so both an architectural and a structural metal roof system must be evaluated. In a structural system, for example, the roof panels might be standing 4.6m (15 ft) between purlins.

With crystalline panels, there is the possibility of added weight, design, and aesthetic problems, and a need for custom drawings during the system design. In some cases, these systems may void roofing warranty if the roof is penetrated during installation and a leak ensues. Using a standing-seam metal roof avoids these problems.

If a non-roofing contractor penetrates the roof, it automatically voids the manufacturer’s warranty’ therefore, the roofing manufacturer needs to be involved at the start and can provide all details needed.  Further, in any leak situation, a third party should be called in for a thorough inspection.

Thin-film laminates now come in standard system sizes and are designed for quick turnaround of specifications, architectural drawings, and one-line electrical drawings. Typically, a complete equipment schedule is also part of the package.

If factory-applied laminates are used, the installation can be simplified because a roofing contractor certified by the PV provider can install the standing-seam metal roof with the photovoltaics integrated into it. An electrician completes the installation by connecting the PC to the system components and the building’s service panel.

Today’s thin-film PV laminates could generate as much power as traditional crystalline panels in the right environment. Each project should be evaluated to determine the best PV panel for that project based on the goals the building owner is trying to achieve. Thin-film PV cells have the ability to produce power in low light and partial shading, meaning the laminates begin generating power earlier in the morning and keep generating it later in the day. However, a thin-film PV laminate may also need more square feet of roof area, where a higher efficiency crystalline panel may produce more power in less square feet.

Some owners may worry about technology advances making today’s solar system obsolete. However, it is better not to worry about the next five years, and instead install a system now and gain the value of having this technology to save on resources. Additionally, PVs have been around for 30 years and non-crystallines have not changed much in 20 years. The changes are all in other areas, such as the inverter and smart grid, which are both easy to upgrade in a system that has been installed and operating for a while.

Standing-seam metal roofing manufacturers using a renewable energy system analysis program can provide an accurate ROI calculator to help in the planning process. Many manufacturers provide this and none of them charge for it.

Using rooftop PV systems will allow a building that is seeking Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification to achieve points in Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Credit 2, Onsite Renewable Energy. Choosing metal roofing as the platform for a PV system can also help a building acquire a point in:
  -Sustainable Suites (SS) Credit 7.2, Heat Island Effect; Roofs;
  -Material and Resources (MR) Credit 4, Recycled Content; and 
  -Credit 2, Construction Waste Management.
SS. Credit 7.2 encourages use of roofing material compliant with solar reflective index (SRI) values. For a low-slope roof, SRI must be greater than or equal to 78. For a steep-slope roof, SRI must be 29 or greater for 75 percent of the roof. The SRI is a unitless value that is calculated using ASTM E 1980, Standard Practice for Calculating Solar Reflectance Index of Horizontal and Low-sloped Opaque Surfaces. It takes into account the solar reflectance, thermal emittance, and wind speed (e.g. convective cooling) to determine a value that gives an indication of the roof surface’s temperature.

Funding
Building owners have several ways to fund a renewable energy system. The four main ways are to pay cash, secure a bank loan, obtain a line of credit, or lease the system through programs such as a power purchase agreement (PPA).

A complete financial analysis on the project begins with the motivation for installing the system and expectations for its performance. If the primary motivation is to be more energy efficient, cost may not be as important. However, looking strictly at upfront costs may not be good since overall costs and internal rate of return (ROR), which equates to the rate of interest on the investment, are affected by several factors, such as:
  -system performance;
  -rate structures;
  -rebates;
  -module selection;
  -racking solutions; and
  -roofing material.
Cost parameters include installation and operating expenses, revenues, and borrowing prices. Government subsidies and incentives, along with the local electricity rate and potential savings, will help calculate the ROR on the investment.

In a PPA agreement, the developer or other third-party entity funds the renewable system and sells the energy to the building owner at a reduced rate. Sometimes in a PPA, the developer owns the power system and guarantees a certain cost of power to the building owner. This method can also finance some or part of the roof system.

 

In some cases, schools and non-profit organizations have been able to afford a renewable energy system through careful material selection, reliance on rebates, and donations from foundations. For example, an elementary school in rural Nevada faced budget cuts and teacher layoffs. The school administrators thought they couldn’t afford a renewable energy system even though it is what they needed to reduce costs. Their supplier, however, figured out a way to do it by having it paid almost entirely by rebates from utilities and raising the balance through donations. After two months of system operation, the school had reduced its utility expenses enough to hire back two of the teachers.

The project included a new metal roof installed using non-penetrating clamps, which nearly halved the cost of racking and reduced labor time by 25 percent. This saved enough on installation expense to add a second solar array for the school at no additional cost.

Installation
The benefits of combining standing-seam metal roofs with PV systems also flow into the installation process. Thin-film laminates are integrated onto the metal panel system typically at the factory level. How the laminates are applied, and any liabilities for the application, are important to meeting requirements provided by the laminate manufacturer.

When using laminated thin-film PV on an existing roof, the roof may need to be cleaned or prepared before application since certain heat ranges and techniques are needed for proper adhesion.

Requirements for putting the PV system down properly can come from the manufacturer’s recommendations or a roof consultant. Both crystalline and laminate systems have final hook-up and wiring needs.


Making it work
The perceived complexes of choosing the right system are outweighed by the long-term benefits to building owners. As PV technology continues to improve, and is more easily understood, the decision process is also becoming easier. However, one thing remains constant-the long-term value of pairing any metal roofing with any type of commercially viable PV system.

Source: The Construction Specifier June 2011