PAGE 1

USING HARD COST DATA ON RESOUR CE CONSUMPTION TO MEASURE GREEN BUILDING PERFORMANCE By ERIC MEISTER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005 

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Eric Meister 

PAGE 3

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................v ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of Problem...................................................................................................1 Objective of Study........................................................................................................2 Hypothesis....................................................................................................................3 Overview....................................................................................................................... 3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................4 Cost Analysis................................................................................................................9 Additional Benefits of Sustainable Design.................................................................11 Justification.................................................................................................................1 3 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................15 Parameters...................................................................................................................15 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis............................................................................................16 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................18 Rinker Hall Sustainable Design..................................................................................22 Direct Resource Consumption Comparison...............................................................24 Summary Analysis......................................................................................................37 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis............................................................................................39 5 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................45 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................49 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................51 

PAGE 4

iv LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Cost and Related Saving s on Two Prototype Buildings..........................................14 4-1 Building Properties...................................................................................................18 4-2 Rinker Hall Day-lighting Premium..........................................................................22 4-3 Rinker Hall Energy Premium...................................................................................23 4-4 Rinker Hall Rainwate r-Harvesting Premium...........................................................23 4-5 Chilled Water C onsumption (Kth)...........................................................................25 4-6 Associated Costs for Chilled Water.........................................................................25 4-7 Electricity Usage (KWh)..........................................................................................26 4-8 Associated Costs for Electricity...............................................................................26 4-9 Steam Consumption (Klbs)......................................................................................27 4-10 Associated Costs for Steam Consumption...............................................................27 4-11 Water Consumption (Kgal)......................................................................................28 4-12 Associated Costs for Water Consumption...............................................................28 4-13 Total Utility Consumption Costs..............................................................................29 4-14 Chilled Water C onsumption (Kth)...........................................................................32 4-15 Associated Costs for Chilled Water.........................................................................32 4-16 Electricity Consumption(Kwh)................................................................................33 4-17 Associated Costs for Electricity...............................................................................33 4-18 Steam Consumption (Klbs)......................................................................................34 4-19 Associated Costs for Steam Consumption...............................................................34 

PAGE 5

v 4-20 Water Consumption (Kgal)......................................................................................35 4-21 Associated Costs for Water Consumption...............................................................35 4-22 Total Utility Consumption Costs for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall.....................36 4-23 Total Annual Values by Square Footage..................................................................38 4-24 Total Annual Values by Square Footag e Adjusted for Hours of Operation............38 

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Rinker Hall Space Breakdown.................................................................................19 4-2 Anderson Hall Space Breakdown............................................................................19 4-3 Frazier Rogers Hall Space Breakdown....................................................................20 4-4 Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) For Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall.......................25 4-5 Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall............................26 4-6 Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall...................................27 4-7 Water Consumption (Kgal) fo r Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall...................................28 4-8 Total Utility Cost for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall..................................................29 4-9 Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall....................32 4-10 Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall........................33 4-11 Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall...............................34 4-12 Water Consumption (Kgal) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall...............................35 4-13 Total Annual Utility Cost fo r Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall.................................36 4-14 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Frazier Rogers Hall..........................40 4-15 Life Cycle-Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Anderson Hall..................................42 4-16 Graphical Display of Li fe-Cycle Cost Analysis.......................................................44 

PAGE 7

vii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Bu ilding Construction USING HARD COST DATA ON RESOUR CE CONSUMPTION TO MEASURE GREEN BUILDING PERFORMANCE By Eric Meister May 2005 Chair: Charles Kibert Major Department: Building Construction In the rapidly expanding built environment, designers, owners, and constructors alike are making strides to conserve natural el ements and to plan with sustainable intent. Although efforts are increasing at an exponential rate, the overa ll thrust of sustainable design is still in its infancy. As with a ny innovative movement, sustainable design has many skeptics. Many developers require consider able justification before they are willing to spend between 2 and 5 percent in additi onal construction costs. The goal of those involved with sustainable ideals is to de velop designs and structures that do the convincing by themselves, through ground-breaki ng increases in building efficiency and overall effectiveness. This study evaluated one such effort at M. E. Rinker Sr. Hall on the University of Florida(UF) campus. Although numerous initiatives were carried out to earn a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ) Gold Certifica tion, this study will examine the steps taken to reduce resource cons umption limited to chilled water, potable 

PAGE 8

viii water, steam, and electricity. Our results provid ed feedback to the UF, and also provided concrete evidence for future initiatives at the UF and other educational institutions. By collecting and analyzing resource-cons umption data, this study analyzed the performance of M.E. Rinker Sr. Hall compar ed to two similar structures on the UF campus; James N. Anderson Hall, and Frazier Rogers Hall. After qualifying data through Gainesville, FL climate analysis, and build ing characteristics, we conducted a head-tohead comparison of consumption and associat ed costs to present the first look into resource usage. Next, a life-cycle cost an alysis produced current dollar amounts for a 20-year projected life of the resource consum ption of each building to evaluate cost savings and pay-back for the Rinker Hall Sust ainable Initiative. Final results laid the foundation for a future, more comprehensive study analyzing tangible consumption and performance costs, and also intangible positiv e results of the sustainable design efforts for Rinker Hall. 

PAGE 9

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Green Building Movement is a relatively young phenomenon in the construction world. New methods and materi als are making the idea of sustainable construction more believable every day. As more and more green buildings are constructed, builders and designers are begi nning to develop more effective techniques for producing savings in both energy and mate rials usage. The push behind sustainable design and green building lies nested heavily in environmental concerns; however, pitching revolutionary ideas to owners and builders based only on environmental protection would have proven quite difficult. While effects such as resource conservation, pollutant reduction, and revitalization of nature are bragging rights for sustainable innovations, so too is the financial performance of green buildings. Statement of Problem At the design phase of sustainable constr uction, designers begin to make selections regarding materials, systems, processes a nd other major component s. These choices are driven simultaneously by both conservation and financial factors. De signers must attempt to balance the added construc tion costs of implementing sust ainable technologies with the assumed life-cycle cost savings from the improved performance of the building. Because of the relatively young nature of green construction, these design-phase estimates of cost vs. savings are merely predictions, and are not necessarily reliable. As a perspective owner, it is difficult to decide whether to add costs to your project for sustainable design when there is no guara ntee of building performance. Different 

PAGE 10

2 projects use different systems and different le vels of integration of these systems within their sustainable designs, making it diffi cult to compare two projects under like conditions. Therefore, designers can face di fficulty in explaining the feasibility of proposed designs, and in convincing perspec tive developers. This poses an escalating problem as the population continues to grow and resource consumption continues to increase drastically. Sustainable design is becoming essential to preserving the human environment, and measures must be taken to help push green thinking to a much higher priority level in the de sign-development process. Objective of Study Our objective was to validate the use of hard cost data on resource consumption evaluate green building performance. We di d this by producing a lif e-cycle-cost based, direct-cost economic model comparing perf ormance of a green building on the UF campus to the performance of two additional, code-compliant structures. Buildings used for comparison will be a fully functioning LEED certified building, (Rinker Hall), and two additional structures, (one code-comp liant structure completed in 2001, Frazier Rogers Hall; and one older building re-fur bished for 2002, Anderson Hall). All three buildings are very similar in total amount of conditioned space, type of use, years of use, and environmental exposure. These similarities account for the control of the experiment, allowing true representation of green build ing performance in the Gainesville, FL environment. The study examined consumpti on of the 4 highest-use utilities for the buildings: electricity, steam, water, and chille d water. Our aim was to evaluate the actual difference in building performance brought fort h by the sustainable design efforts for Rinker Hall. These findings will then be presented along with hard-cost data for the 

PAGE 11

3 buildings in an attempt to evaluate the curr ent status of sustainable efforts in central Florida higher education facilities. Hypothesis The true performance of Rinker Hall is the item in question in the study. The $7 million, 47,270-square-foot building was desi gned to use half the electricity and an even smaller fraction of the water of other buildings its size. While it would be difficult to measure the effects of all the su stainable-design efforts in Rinker Hall, this study tested whether a life-cycle costing analysis of hard-cost, resource consumption data can effectively demonstrate the greenness of the structure as compared to similar structures on the University of Florida Campus. Overview This study was intended to effectivel y model the annual financial impacts on resource usage of the sustainable design of Ri nker Hall. Author Hal R. Varian details the steps used to explain the rati onal behind an effective model as follows: 1. the model must address who makes the choices involved. 2. What constraints do the decision makers face. 3. What interaction exists. 4. What inform ation is being processed and what is being predicted. 5. What adjusts to assu re consistency ( Varien, 1997). 

PAGE 12

4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Our literature review explored the grow ing momentum of sustainable design and green building in todays construction industr y. Sustainable design is defined as Design that seeks to create spaces where materials, energy and water are used efficiently and where the impact on the natural environment is minimized (Means 2004). While sustainable design extends far beyond physical structures, the built environment is perhaps the largest component of sustainability. At its current state, sustainable design is a young phenomenon of which the defining pa rameters are constantly changing. Designers are learning with each sustai nable undertaking, and through the occasional mishap that one who accepts an opportuni ty to design a project without clearly understanding the concepts and costs invol ved places the ownernot to mention the A/Es reputation and economic stability at risk (Wyatt, 2004, p.33) Adding to the problem is the vast amount of information available on the topic of sustainability; some of which is useful, most of which is not (Wyatt, 2004). Despite what is believed by many professionals, sustainable design is not achieved by simply amassing green products under one roof, but is achieved through a much more systematic approach that deals with not only bricks and mortar, but the entire envi ronment, life cycle, and performance of the project. Once the designer has a grasp of the intent of the sustai nable design at hand, he or she must look closely at several factors. These factors are common to any type of construction design, but have additional implica tions for green buildings. For example, in 

PAGE 13

5 any type of project, the designer must choose the building service syst ems to be installed. In sustainable design numerous factors are a dded to the checklist th at otherwise wouldnt exist. The same is true for material sel ection, building orientation, and various other components. Another major component in the decision making process is the climate and environment in which the structure will be put into place. Todays green designers realize that any approach must improve quality, such as better control of temperature, humidity, lighting effectiveness and i ndoor air (Macaluso,2002, p.199). For example, when designing for solar gain in a particul ar climate, measures must be taken to adequately design for avoidance of excessive overheating in the summer while still maximizing potential gains during the colder winter months. Effective sustainable designs are unique to each individual project because the needs of each project are uni que in themselves. Individua l owners ideas, material availabilities, environmental impacts, and num erous other factors give each project an individual identity. With this identity comes diff erent critical factors for design. When designing a particular structur e for natural lighting, for exam ple, numerous factors come to mind. Relative heating, cooling and light ing requirements and potential heat gains from people, equipment, lighting and the sun ha ve to be examined in relation to building form, orientation, occupancy patterns, and envi ronmental requirements in order to ensure that the full picture emerges prior to maki ng major design decisions. Overall, designers must keep one simple fact in mind, a solu tion that produces one successful commercial building cannot automatically be a pplied to another (McElroy, 1999). In order to help regulate the green bu ilding process, the United States Green Building Council has established the Leadersh ip in Energy and Environmental Design 

PAGE 14

6 (LEED) green building rating system. Members of the U.S. Green Building Council representing all segments of the buildi ng industry developed LEED and continue to contribute to its evolution. Ba sed on well-founded scientific standards, LEED emphasizes state of the art strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality (USGBC, 2005). The LEED system was created to Define "green building" by establishi ng a common standard of measurement Promote integrated, whole-building design practices Recognize environmental leadersh ip in the building industry Stimulate green competition Raise consumer awareness of green building benefits Transform the building market Before the LEED system, energy-consumption designs were guided by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerat ing, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHREA) Standard 90.1. The 90.1 code is a set of re quirements for energy efficient design of commercial buildings intended to promote th e application of co st effective design practices and technologies that minimize ener gy consumption without sacrificing either the comfort or the productivity of the o ccupants (US Dept. of Energy, 2004). While ASHREA guidelines promote the same ideas as LEED, they are less stringent, and center only on space conditioning. As one might expect, analyzing these a dded considerations also included an element of added costs. In any case, the im plementation of new tec hnologies will add to price tag of a project. Perspective owners of ten shy away from new methods or ideas due to fear of unanticipated costs or problems, but recent history is beginning to show that such concerns are less of a reality with sustainable design. A co mmon misconception in the construction field deals with the additional cost of the added design effort, time, and 

PAGE 15

7 materials required to achieve sustainable re sults. Some common figures overestimate the cost increase to be as high as 30%. In act uality, a properly implement ed design effort can achieve a certified or silver rating under the LEED system w ith as little as 2.5 to 4% increase in costs (Tuchman 2004). Some even believe that improvement to the point of little or no cost increase can be achievable in the near future. A 2003 study of thirty-three green buildi ngs from throughout the United States compared their up-front design costs with conventional design costs for identical structures. The average price increase was surprisingly slightly less than 2%,($3 to $5/sf). The majority of this cost is due to the increased architectural and engineering design time, modeling costs, and time neces sary to integrate sustainable building practices into projects (Kats 2003, p. 3). One must realize that no true standard exists for which factors are taken into account in th is type of analysis. The 1.82% average cost premium for Gold certified structures is very likely an underestimate of the added design effort and materials costs required to achieve that level. It is at the discretion of the study as to which items and factors are included in the cost premium, making such comparisons simply ball-park figures ra ther than true evidence. In any pre-construction situ ation, building costs should be analyzed including not only up-front costs, but also future costs th at occur over the lifetime of the facility, system, or component (Macaluso, 2002). This is perhaps the most important point that a sustainable designer can stress to a perspectiv e owner. Detailed analys is of projected life cycle costs are required to illustrate that th e increases in efficiency of the building can eventually outweigh the up-front increase in construction costs. It is also important for the designer to carefully research each produc t or system before making this statement 

PAGE 16

8 however, as it is true in so me cases that a green product can have both a higher up-front cost and a higher operating cost. In this case, it is the job of the desi gner to show that the unique advantages of the product outweigh both le vels of cost increase. In somewhat rare cases, products are available that not only run more efficiently, but also cost less during construction, such as demand heaters in place of central hot water heaters, or smaller, more efficient chillers. These situations ar e the designers dream, and can effortlessly convince a prospective owner. According to the USGBC, high performance green buildings (USGBC, 2003) Recover higher first costs, if any. Using integrated design can reduce first costs and higher costs for tech nology and controls. Are designed for cost-effectiveness. Added building efficien cy produces savings in the 20% to 50% range as well as savi ngs in building maintenance, landscaping, water, and wastewater cost s. Integrated planning in cluding site orientation, technology implementation and materials se lection are the factors behind these savings. Boost employee productivity. Employers can realize significant bottom line savings through increased worker productiv ity. Simple investments in increased daylight, pleasant views, better sound control, and other features can reduce absenteeism, improve health and incr ease worker concentration/efficiency. Enhance health and well-being. High performance buildings offer healthier and more pleasing surroundings for their i nhabitants. As results are becoming quantifiable, the improved indoor environmen ts offered within green buildings are being used as recruiting tools for employers. Reduce liability. Focusing on the elimination of sick buildings and specific problems such as mold can reduce claims and litigation. Insurance companies are rumored to be investigating implementation of lower premiums for high performance buildings. Create value for tenants. Improved building efficiency and lowered operating costs can lead to decreased tenant tur nover. Savings averaging $.50/sf per year greatly increase the likelihood of increased rental periods. Increase property value. LEED and Energy Star buildings which operate more efficiently and maintain high tenant capacity are more desirable for purchase. Also, the more efficient building frees up additi onal cash flow for outside investment 

PAGE 17

9 during ownership. These features ass assume d value to a high performance building and increase demand. Take advantage of incentive programs. Many states and private organizations offer financial and regulatory incentives fo r the development of green buildings. Government tax credits and private loan f unds are effectively assisting developers of high performance projects. The number of these programs is likely to grow and may include, among other possibilities, reduced approval times, reduced permit fees, and lower property taxes. Benefit your community.  Properties that take advantag e of brownfield and other infill redevelopment, while offering proxim ity to mass transit, walking, biking and shopping/daycare services have an automatic advantage in the race to attract top talent. Though reducing congestion and pollution, and providi ng economic benefit to local transit, high performance bu ildings and their companies are being welcomed into community after community. Achieve more predictable results. Green building delivery us e best of classin order to reduce uncertainty and risk and delivery the final project at the level promised. Through interactive design, lif e cycle analysis and energy modeling, designers are able to focus on the partic ular needs of an individual site and building. These practices help to minimize surprises and errors during construction, and to ensure the delivery of the high quality level promised to customers. Despite the convincing nature of the cu rrent body of knowledge, owners may still be asking themselves, why build green? The industry has yet another answer other than long term cost savings. Aside from the obvi ous hurdles and often higher initial costs, there are some compelling, albeit long term financial advantages to building green. For example, a green building shows that the ow ner will spend more to invest in nature, quality, and innovation (Macalu so, 2002, p.199.) At the current stage of the sustainable world, any major green project is marquee, a nd is essentially free press for any owner. Cost Analysis Unknown to most; construction activity, including both new construction and renovation, accounts for the nations largest manuf acturing sector. With a contribution to the U.S. economy of approximately $1.009 tr illion, Construction accounts for over 15% of the Gross Domestic Product. Costs of c onstruction can be broken down into 3 major 

PAGE 18

10 categories, investment related costs, operati onal costs, and personnel costs. Contrary to popular belief, when viewed over a 30 year period, initial buildi ng costs (investment) account for only two percent of the total co st, and operations and maintenance costs amount to six percent. The remaining 92 per cent consists of pers onnel costs. While the names are quite self-explanatory, the methods by which they are calculated differ greatly. Investment related costs are in curred during the construction phase of the project, often with a large lump sum, and additional periodi c payments. Operational costs are constant throughout the life of the buildi ng, and are incurred on a period ic basis as well. During the design phase, after materials and systems ar e selected and priced, projected values for operational costs are then estimated and insert ed along side the investment related costs to develop the projected life cycle costs analys is for the project. Take n a step further, an analysis can be carried out using simply c ode compliant materials and systems and laid out along side the sustainable design. The tw o will then be analyzed, to determine the payback period for the additional investment costs of the sustainable design. If the payback period ends early enough within th e lifecycle to prod uce profit during the buildings life, and the initial cost increase is a feasible undertaki ng for the owner, the designer should then push for the sustainable option. Other systems used to help justify costing are the Initial Rate of Return (IRR), the net savings, and the Savings to Investment Ratio (S IR) (Fuller, 2002). There are of course some difficulties in just ifying the cost of su stainability, a major example of which lies within the less tangibl e results of sustainable design. How do you put a price on clean air and clean water? What ultimately is the price of human life, and how do we value the avoidan ce of its loss (Lippiat, 2002, p.267)? An owner who is 

PAGE 19

11 willing to invest in sustainable design should al so have a vested interest in its cause. By owning a piece of the sustainable built environmen t, said owner is doing their part to help preserve the environment for future generati ons. Some have begun to investigate how this side of green building can be financially rewarding as well. Insurance companies as well as government agencies and utility co mpanies have begun looking seriously into providing benefits to certified green buildi ngs. Such moves could help to completely offset the added costs of sustainable design. A nother difficulty lies in the reliability of the future cost estimates. It is estimated that a properly designed green building can produce a 20 year net benefit of betw een $50 and $70 per square foot This equates to over ten times the additional cost associated with such efforts (Kats, 2003). Future energy and environmental costs simply cannot be predic ted accurately due to unknown factors that are beyond a true measure of control. Als o, standard periods of comparison between code-compliant construction and sustainable construction should ideally be lengthened by several years to better display the longevity of sustainable design in order to see the true financial gains (Pitts, 2004). Additional Benefits of Sustainable Design Aside from the financial implications previously mentioned, green buildings provide many additional potential benefits. These may include waste reduction, lowered maintenance needs, improved public per ception, and high indoor environmental quality(IEQ).These types of gains are more di fficult to quantify, yet still factor heavily into the overall effectiven ess of building design. Of all the intangible factors, IEQ provides perhaps the heaviest influence on the overall success of a design. Humans spend approximately 90% of their time indoors, exposing themselves to concentrations of t oxins typically 10 to 100 times higher than in 

PAGE 20

12 the outdoor environment. Health and producti vity costs associated with poor indoor environment have been roughly estimated to be as high as hundreds of billions of dollars per year. (Kats, 2003) Thousands of studi es, articles and reports have proven a correlation between high indoor environmental qu ality and reductions in occupant illness and employee absenteeism, as well as increases in general productivity. Numerous characteristics of green buildi ngs contribute greatly to improved IEQ. LEED certified buildings implement less toxi c materials found in many high frequencyof-use items such as low-emitting adhesives & sealants, paints, carpets, and composite wood products. Also, improved thermal comfort, ventilation, and HVAC efficiency are staples of the sustainable design effort. These two efforts, combined with CO2 monitoring vastly improve breathable air qualit y and lessen the risk of airborne toxins or contaminates such as mold or fungi. In a ddition to lowered health risks from improved breathable air, IEQ also incr eases significantly through natural lighting efforts. LEED accredited buildings implement modern dayli ght harvesting techniques, natural shading, and glare control to reproduce a comfortable, natural environment. These efforts to reproduce natural environments are centered upon multiple goals, the most important being occupant productivity. Green buildings are designed to be healthier and more enjoyable working environments. Workplace qu alities that improve the environment of knowledge workers may also reduce stress and l ead to longer lives for multi-disciplinary teams (Kats, 2003, p.6). The design initiatives mentioned above have been positively linked to increases in productivity by numerous sources. Increases in occupant control of ventilation, lighting and temperature have provided measured be nefit from 0.5% up to 34%, with average 

PAGE 21

13 measured workforce productivity gains of 7.1% from lighting control, 1.8% with ventilation control, and 1.2% with thermal control ( Kats, 2003, p.6). It is estimated, at the low end, that a 1% productivity and health gain can be awarded to LEED certified and Si lver rated buildings, and a 1.5% gain added to Gold and Platinum rated structures. For each 1% increas e in productivity, equal to approximately 5 minutes per work day, an increase of $600 to $700 per employee per year, or $3/SF per year can be realized. Taking this into account and applying a 5% di scount rate over a 20 year period, the present va lue of productivity benefits is about $35/SF for LEED certified and Silver rated buildings, and $55/SF for Gold and Platinum (Kats, 2003). Justification Recent literature shows that sustainable design and green buildings are rapidly gaining momentum in society. At its current state, the movement has now reached the maturity level to provide sufficient data to produce actual results in comparison to standard construction. For example, the U.S. Department of Energys Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and the Nationa l Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) compared the costs and related savings of su stainable efforts on 2 pr ototype buildings. A base two-story, 20,000 square foot building with a cost of $2.4 million dollars and meeting the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 was modeled using two energy simulation programs, DOE-2.1e a nd Energy-10, and compared to a high performance building that added $47,210 in cons truction costs, or about 2% for its energy saving features(Kibert 2005, p.488). Results of this comparison, shown below in Table 2.1, are quite noteworthy as the realized a nnual performance gain nearly equals the additional up-front cost in the first year alone. 

PAGE 22

14 Table 2-1. Cost and Related Sa vings on Two Prototype Buildings Feature Added Cost Annual Savings Energy efficiency measures $38,000 $4,300 Commissioning $4,200 $1,300 Natural landscaping, storm-water management $5,600 $3,600 Raised floors, movable walls 0 $35,000 Waterless urinals ($590) $330 Total $47,210 $44,530 (Kibert 2005) The above case thoroughly illustrates the convincing nature of the emerging results of such comparisons. Again one must pay atten tion to the apparent bias in the data. For example, item #4, Raised floors and moveable walls carries a $0 co st premium, and a $35,000 annual savings. This is the driving fact or behind the incred ible result of the study. While the actual materials in the floor s and walls may have not added additional cost, common sense would say that added design effort, increased deck heights to accommodate ceiling heights after raised floor s, and mechanisms to allow for movable walls would indeed add cost to the structure. Regardless, results st ill show a realized annual savings due to sustai nable design efforts. Even though results should not be held as 100% accurate, perspective owners and builders typically will rely more heavily upon such recorded studies over theoretical design values. Such comparisons are vital tool s in the push to expand sustainable efforts to all realms of construction. Even more impor tant is the need to localize such data to prove to perspective owners and builders that similar efforts will be fruitful for their respective projects as well. Data can, and s hould be made available for sustainable design results based on particular location/climate, building type/size, and intended use. 

PAGE 23

15 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiven ess of the sustainable design of Rinker Hall through life-cycle cost analysis of annual resource consumption hard cost data. The two-fold aim of the study was 1.To establish a methodology for measuring building greenness through use of hard cost data. and 2. To use a life-cycle cost analysis of collected building performance data from three similar structures on the campus to display improvements in buildi ng efficiency through sustainable design efforts. The steps taken to carry out the aforementioned tasks are as follows A literature review was carried out on the history of green building and the associated economics. This was done with a two fold purpose; to determine the authenticity of the proposed study, and to gain increased knowle dge of the topic. The required parameters to be analyzed were determined. Proper sources were identified from which to gather data. Data were collected for Rinker Hall, Anderson Hall, and Frazier-Rogers Hall. A building Life-cycle cost analysis was run on each of the three buildings consumption of four major utilities; water, steam, chilled water and electricity. A final conclusion was reached based on the produced result. Parameters The characteristics which determine environm ental attributes for the University of Florida were determined through collecting data on monthly average temperature, humidity, precipitation, and heati ng degree day calculations. This data helps to justify the building comparison for use in similar clim ates. This particular study centers upon the 

PAGE 24

16 mechanical systems performance analysis and therefore took into account consumption data for four major resources; water, steam, chilled water, and electricity. Consumption data was acquired through assistance from th e University Florida Energy Office. While these four utilities do not repr esent a truly complete buildi ng analysis, they provide an accurate representation of performance effici ency. The results were then qualified based on average hours of building operation, a nd total horsepower of each buildings mechanical systems. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis The life-cycle costing analysis is a quantifiable determination of true cost of ownership, calculated within a standard Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. The purpose of life-cycle costing is to analy ze costs over a realized life of a building, and translate those costs into current do llars. Contrary to simply aver aging costs and realizing annual expenditures, a life-cycle costing system w ill adjust for inflation and escalation, and allow for more accurate decision making by ta king future factors into account. This particular life-cycle costing system will directly compare Rinker Hall with each additional building through separate analys is for each. Either Anderson, or Frazier Rogers Hall will serve as the control portion of the comparison, while Rinker Hall will be presented as the variable. The added costs fo r the sustainable initiatives in the Rinker Hall mechanical systems will be carried in th e up-front cost portion of the life-cycle spreadsheet for Rinker, while the other bui ldings will show zero up-front cost. The annual total for each individual utility is then entered for each respective building as the annual costs. The sum of these costs over a 20 ye ar period is adjusted for such factors as price escalation, inflation, and di scount rate, then presented in equivalent current dollars 

PAGE 25

17 for comparison sake. This comparison will then give the present day total value of each mechanical system and allow for the real ization of savings ove r the 20 year period. 

PAGE 26

18 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In order to accumulate the appropriate data for the life cycle comparison, three different classifications of construction were chosen within the same building genre; higher education classroom/admi nistration. The three structures chosen are as follows: Table 4-1. Building Properties Rinker Hall Anderson Hall Frazier Rogers Hall Year Completed 2002 2002 2001 Building SF 48,906 47,757 53,543 Total Horsepower *193 96.64 *165 *Building horsepower for Rinker Hall and Frazier Rogers Hall is variable, ratings are for peak horsepower and actual operating power may be quite lower. For this study, the term Building Horsepower refers to the tota l base horsepower associated with the mechanical systems hous ed within each stru cture. These systems include air handling units, fans, water pumps, and hot water heating units. 

PAGE 27

19 A Rinker Hall Total GSF: 48,906 Classroom: 7,030 Teaching lab: 8,810 Office/Computer: 13,017 Campus Support: 370 Non-Assignable: 18,902 B C D Figure 4-1. Rinker Hall Space Breakdown (clo ckwise from left) A Space breakdown table. B Building Front C Large Cl assroom D Faculty office corridor A Anderson Hall Total GSF: 46,950 Classroom: 4,796 Study: 500 Office/Computer: 15,823 Other Assignable: 145 Non-Assignable: 18,160 B C D Figure 4-2. Anderson Hall Space Breakdown (c lockwise from left) A. Space breakdown table. B. Building Front C. Typical Cl assroom D. Faculty office corridor 

PAGE 28

20 A Frazier Rogers Hall Total GSF: 57,577 Classroom: 2,436 Research laboratory: 25,180 Office/Computer: 11,210 Other Assignable: 34 Non-Assignable: 15,776 B C D Figure 4-3. Frazier Rogers Hall Space Br eakdown. (clockwise from left) A.Space breakdown table B. Building Front C. F aculty office corridor D. Research laboratory In order to effectively provide perspe ctive owners/builders with an accurate prediction of how their projec t will perform, a true clim ate analysis should precede analyzed results in order to qualify such pr edictions. This study us ed buildings located on the University of Florida campus, located in Gainesville, FL. The National Climate Data Center(NCDC) produced the following climate de scription. Gainesville lies in the north central part of the Florida pe ninsula, almost midway betwee n the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The terrain is fairly level with several nearby lakes to the east and south. Due to its centralized locati on, maritime influences are somewhat less than they would be along coastlines at th e same latitude. Maximum temperatures in summer average slightly more than 90F. From June to September, the number of days when temperatures exceed 89 F is 84 on av erage. Record high temperatures are in 

PAGE 29

21 excess of 100F. Minimum temperatures in wi nter average a little more than 44F. The average number of days per year when temp eratures are freezing or below is 18. Record lows occur in the teens. Low temperatures are a consequence of cold winds from the north or nighttime radiational cooling of th e ground in contact with rather calm air. Rainfall is appreciable in every month but is most abundant from showers and thunderstorms in summer. The average num ber of thunderstorm hours yearly is approximately 160. In winter, large-scale cycl one and frontal activity is responsible for some of the precipitation. Monthly averag e values range from about 2 inches in November to about 8 inches in August. Snowfall is practically unknown (NCDC 2005). Another indication of climatic factors on de sign is the calculation of degree days. Although used more-often for resi dential design, degree-day data can also be used to help qualify the impact of the Gainesville c limate on the following study. Degree day calculations are quite simple to understand. The base idea is that any time the outside temperature is above or below a base-line te mperature (in this case, 65 F), the building must be heated or cooled to maintain a comfortable interior environment. Varying methods for calculating the total number of degree days exist, with some considering a 24 hour period above or below the baseline to be 1 degree day, and others counting that same period as 24. This study will consider 24 hours above or below the threshold to be 24 degree days. Gainesville FL averages 1081 de gree days (heating) per year. This means that buildings may need to be heated for approximately 1081 hours in a given year depending on interior comfort needs of occupant s. In comparison, cooler climates such as Washington DC average over 4,000 degree days annually, and mountain climates such as Colorado Springs average nearly 7,000. In the ho t summer months in Gainesville Florida, 

PAGE 30

22 temperatures are above a 65 degree baseline for approximately 3,600 hours in an average year. These figures are not taken directly into account in the following comparisons, however, should be taken into account as a m easure of climatic impact on the structures, especially by readers unfamiliar with the Gainesville climate. Rinker Hall Sustainable Design The construction of Rinker Hall marked th e first LEED Gold certified educational facility in the state of Florida. Numerous initiatives were taken in the design of the building to curb resource consumption, prom ote high levels of indoor air quality, and preserve the natural environment. The majo rity of building materials used in its construction were recycled or can someday be re-cycled for use in another building. As would hold true with any added design features added costs were also realized. In total, the added cost to achieve Gold certi fication was approximately $655,500, which is equal to a cost premium of between 9 and 10%. Tables 4-2 to 4-4 show the added construction costs for Rinker Hall. Table 4-2. Rinker Hall Day-lighting Premium DAY-LIGHTING PREMIUM Div. 5 Atrium stairs, railings $15,000 Div.9 Level 5 finish, reflective tile, atrium lightwells $45,000 Div. 8 Skylights, max. window SF, drafstops, interior lites $80,000 Div. 10 Daylighting Louvers $150,000 Div. 15 Smoke exhaust fa ns, ductwork $20,000 Div. 16 Pendant fixtures, conduit routing $60,000 Total Day-lighting Premium $370,000 

PAGE 31

23 Table 4-3. Rinker Hall Energy Premium ENERGY PREMIUM Div. 7 Energy Star TPO roof No Effect Div.8 Thermally-broken curtainwall, insulated/low-e glass, insulclad, operable windows $75,000 Div. 7,9 High-performance wall (metal panels, insulation, wood strips) $80,000 Div.15 Enthalpy wheel, fans, controls $58,000 Div. 16 Dimming $20,000 Total Energy Premium $233,000 Table 4-4. Rinker Hall Rain water-Harvesting Premium RAINWATER-HARVESTING PREMIUM Div. 3 Concrete (walls, slab) $12,000 Div. 7 Waterproofing (bentonite, tank lining) $2,500 Div 15 Plumbing (pumps, additional domestic piping) $38,000 Total Rainwater-Harvesting Premium $52,500 In addition to the above, Rinker Hall inco rporates low-flow fixtures, electronic faucets, and waterless urinals in the restr ooms. Each waterless urinal alone saves an estimated 40,000 gallons of water per year. Dimming (table 4-3) above refers to the photo-cell and motion sensor regu lation systems which provides ar tificial light within the structure only when it is needed, and at variab le levels. The result of these efforts was a predicted savings of fifty percent over ASHRAE 90.1. Rinker Hall also incorporated numerous ot her additions in order to achieve LEED certification. These included such measures as low e/low voc paints at a $5 per gallon premium, a radon protection system for $8,950, agriboard (strawboard) at $200 per sheet, and HPDE in lieu of PVC at a 20% cost incr ease. These measures were important in the design of Rinker Hall, and in achieving LEED Gold level, however, they have been ignored in this study due to the fact that they address soft cost concerns such as indoor 

PAGE 32

24 environmental quality, and have little to no impact on the mechanical systems and the resource consumption levels addressed in this comparison. Direct Resource Consumption Comparison To evaluate the effectiveness of these uni que features over the life cycle of Rinker Hall, building resource consumption data was collected in cooperation with the University of Florida Energy Office. The data is presented below in the form of direct building-to-building comparisons per re source between 1. Rinker Hall and FrazierRogers Hall, and 2. Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall. Data presented below was produced by the UF Energy Office for the complete calendar year of 2004. 

PAGE 33

25 Table 4-5. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 18.8 20.5 13.8 17.1 16.0 21.1 18.0 24.1 21.9 19.5 18.3 23.3 Frazier 16.9 13.5 26.6 30.0 54.0 75.6 83.2 91.9 84.2 64.6 42.5 33.1 Difference 1.9 7.0 -12.8 -12.9 -37.9 -54.4 -65.1 -67.7 -62.3 -45.1 -24.2-9.8 Frazier Vs. Rinker0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKth Frazier Rinker Figure 4-4. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) For Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-6. Associated Costs for Chilled Water Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $1,535 $1,674 $1,125 $1,396 $1,309 $1,724 $1,613 $2,158 $1,962 $1,744 $1,641$2,081 Frazier $1,381 $1,104 $2,170 $2,450 $4,406 $6,169 $7,444 $8,221 $7,539 $5,780 $3,804$2,959 

PAGE 34

26 Table 4-7. Electricity Usage (KWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 33,920 34,435 37,464 45,778 43,113 38,907 40,426 40,998 39,440 43,818 41,10340,302 Frazier 70,342 71,920 75,059 79,640 79,094 79,156 74,793 81,059 75,231 81,254 77,13369,440 Difference 36,422 37,485 37,595 33,862 35,981 40,249 34,368 40,062 35,791 37,436 36,03029,138 Frazier Vs. Rinker0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKWh Frazier Rinker Figure 4-5. Electricity Consumption(KW h) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-8. Associated Costs for Electricity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $2,083 $2,114 $2,300 $2,811 $2,647 $2,389 $2,862 $2,903 $2,792 $3,102 $2,910$2,853 Frazier $4,319 $4,416 $4,609 $4,890 $4,856 $4,860 $5,295 $5,739 $5,326 $5,753 $5,461$4,916 

PAGE 35

27 Table 4-9. Steam Consumption (Klbs) Frazier Vs. Rinker0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKlbs Frazier Rinker Figure 4-6. Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-10. Associated Co sts for Steam Consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $361 $293 $432 $317 $171 $131 $114 $134 $119 $152 $303$639 Frazier $444 $348 $347 $301 $244 $217 $280 $331 $301 $319 $372$554 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 61.1 49.5 73.1 53.6 28.9 22.2 16.6 19.5 17.3 22.1 44.293.0 Frazier 75.2 58.9 58.7 51.0 41.3 36.7 40.8 48.2 43.8 46.5 54.280.6 Difference -14 -9 14 3 -12 -14 -24 -29 -27 -24 -10 12 

PAGE 36

28 Table 4-11. Water Consumption (Kgal) Frazier Vs. Rinker0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKgal Frazier Rinker Figure 4-7. Water Consumption (Kgal) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-12. Associated Co sts for Water Consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $7 $13 $8 $14 $6 $5 $5 $5 $5 $3 $8$2 Frazier $93 $198 $96 $396 $110 $110 $227 $230 $115 $172 $167$0* *Due to meter malfunction, data not available Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 7.4 13.2 7.9 14.2 6.1 5.1 5.3 5.0 4.7 2.7 8.31.9 Frazier 93.9 200.0 96.9 400.0 110.7 111.1 226.8 229.6 115.4 172.2 166.70.0 Difference -87 -187 -89 -386 -105 -106 -221 -225 -111 -170 -158 2 

PAGE 37

29 Table 4-13. Total Utility Consumption Costs Frazier Rogers Vs. Rinker$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthCost Rinker Frazier Rogers Figure 4-8. Total Util ity Cost for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $3,986 $4,094 $3,865 $4,538 $4,133 $4,249 $4,594 $5,200 $4,878 $5,001 $4,863 $5,575 Frazier $6,237 $6,066 $7,221 $8,037 $9,616 $11,356 $13,246 $14,521 $13,282 $12,025 $9,804 $8,430 Difference $2,251 $1,972 $3,356 $3,499 $5,483 $7,107 $8,652 $9,321 $8,404 $7,024 $4,941 $2,854 

PAGE 38

30 Conclusion As noted in table 4-1, both building size, usage, and horsepowe r are very similar between Rinker Hall and Frazier Rogers Ha ll. In fact, Rinker Halls systems actually incorporate approximately twen ty-eight horsepower more th an Frazier Rogers Hall, a seventeen percent increase. Systems within each building function on schedules based on occupancy. The University Engineering and Performance Department regulates hours of operation to control comfort leve ls during the hours of the day in which the building is in use. For Rinker Hall, The HVAC system is operational from10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays, and from 6:30 am until 11:00 pm on weekdays. Frazier Hall varies operation schedules by area, with ad ministrative areas operating from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, and laboratory areas operating from 5:30am until 11:30pm. Both areas are operational from 10:00am until 2: 00pm on weekends and holidays. Averaging hours of operation based on assigned square f ootage for Frazier Rogers Hall gives an approximate equivalent total of 82 hours of operation per week, approximately 10 percent lower than Rinker Halls 90.5 hours per week. Figure 4-5 details the overwhelming differe nce in utility costs in favor of Rinker Hall. Frazier Rogers Hall accrues $119,840 in utility charges over one calendar year, more than double the $54,975 for Rinker Ha ll. While Frazier Rogers Hall utility consumption varies drastically over the course of the year in question, it is clear that Rinker Hall maintains a steady consumption rate throughout even the brutal central Florida summer months. In particular, the dr astic spike experienced by Frazier Rogers Hall in August, the month with highest heat and humidity index of the year, is almost non-existent for Rinker Hall. The presence of additional research laboratory space can be blamed for a portion of the added consumpti on for Frazier Rogers Hall, but the overall 

PAGE 39

31 similarities in building size and systems l ead to the high-performance design of Rinker Hall accounting for the majority of the difference. 

PAGE 40

32Table 4-14. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) Anderson Vs. Rinker0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKth Anderson Rinker Figure 4-9. Chilled Water Consumption (K th) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-15. Associated Costs for Chilled Water Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $1,535 $1,674 $1,125 $1,396 $1,309 $1,724 $1,613 $2,158 $1,962 $1,744 $1,641$2,081 Anderson $841 $1,102 $1,266 $1,576 $1,627 $2,177 $2,081 $2,561 $2,573 $2,302 $1,852$1,448 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 18.8 20.5 13.8 17.1 16.0 21.1 18.0 24.1 21.9 19.5 18.323.3 Anderson 10.3 13.5 15.5 19.3 19.9 26.7 23.3 28.6 28.8 25.7 20.716.2 Difference 8.5 7.0 -1.7 -2.2 -3.9 -5.6 -5.2 -4.5 -6.8 -6.2 -2.4 7.1 

PAGE 41

33Table 4-16. Electricity Consumption(Kwh) Anderson Vs. Rinker0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKWh Anderson Rinker Figure 4-10. Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-17. Associated Costs for Electricity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $2,083 $2,114 $2,300 $2,811 $2,647 $2,389 $2,862 $2,903 $2,792 $3,102 $2,910$2,853 Anderson $2,121 $2,123 $2,162 $2,233 $2,121 $2,172 $2,565 $2,916 $2,601 $2,772 $2,754$2,428 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 33,920 34,435 37,464 45,778 43,113 38,907 40,426 40,998 39,440 43,818 41,103 40,302 Anderson 34,543 34,580 35,216 36,364 34,543 35,378 36,236 41,190 36,730 39,152 38,897 34,289 Difference -623 -145 2,248 9,414 8,570 3,529 4,190 -192 2,709 4,666 2,207 6,013 

PAGE 42

34 Table 4-18. Steam Consumption (Klbs) Anderson Vs. Rinker0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKlbs Anderson Rinker Figure 4-11. Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-19. Associated Co sts for Steam Consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $361 $293 $432 $317 $171 $131 $114 $134 $119 $152 $303$639 Anderson $489 $468 $308 $209 $98 $85 $77 $115 $103 $140 $199$727 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 61.1 49.5 73.1 53.6 28.9 22.2 16.6 19.5 17.3 22.1 44.293.0 Anderson 82.7 79.2 52.0 35.4 16.6 14.4 11.3 16.7 15.0 20.4 29.0105.8 Difference -22 -30 21 18 12 8 5 3 2 2 15 -13 

PAGE 43

35 Table 4-20. Water Consumption (Kgal) Anderson Vs. Rinker0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKgal Anderson Rinker Figure 4-12. Water Consumption (Kga l) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-21. Associated Co sts for Water Consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $7 $13 $8 $14 $6 $5 $5 $5 $5 $3 $8 $2 Anderson $43 $94 $46 $50 $45 $64 $55 $58 $52 $70 $56 $44 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 7.4 13.2 7.9 14.2 6.1 5.1 5.3 5.0 4.7 2.7 8.31.9 Anderson 43.4 94.9 46.1 50.5 45.6 64.6 55.1 58.5 52.3 70.1 55.744.5 Difference -36 -82 -38 -36 -40 -59 -50 -54 -48 -67 -47 -43 

PAGE 44

36 Table 4-22. Total Utility Consumption Costs for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall Anderson Vs. Rinker$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthCost Rinker Anderson Figure 4-13. Total Annual Utility Cost for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $3,986 $4,094 $3,865 $4,538 $4,133 $4,249 $4,594 $5,200 $4,878 $5,001 $4,863 $5,575 Anderson $3,494 $3,788 $3,781 $4,068 $3,891 $4,499 $4,779 $5,650 $5,329 $5,285 $4,860 $4,646 Difference $492 $306 $84 $470 $242 -$250 -$184 -$451 -$451 -$284 $2 $929 

PAGE 45

37 Conclusion At first glance, one may be surprised to find that at $54,070 Anderson Halls total cost of utilities was nearly two percen t lower than Rinker Halls $54,975 for the year 2004. However, several key determining factors must be taken into account in order to accurately qualify the numbers presented fi gure 4-13. First is total building horsepower. The two structures are within three percen t of one another in total building square footage, while the building hor sepower for Rinker Hall is do uble that of Anderson Hall. Similar to the above comparison with Frazier Hall, these results show that Rinker hall performs considerably more efficiently ba sed on horsepower levels than does Anderson Hall. Second is total classroom area and st udent traffic. Anderson Hall houses eight general purpose classrooms, while Rinker Ha ll contains six classrooms, six student laboratories, and one large auditorium. As noted above, Rinker Hall operates from 6:30am until 11:00pm, on weekdays while Anderson is operational 7:00am until 8:00pm. Both buildings are operational for four hours per day on weekends and holidays. Therefore, Anderson Halls 73 hours of operation per week is nearly 25 percent lo wer than Rinkers 90.5 hours and should more than offset the two percent difference in annual utilities between the two buildings. One should also note that during the harsh Florid a summer months of June-September, Rinker Hall ran more efficiently than Anderson despit e the extensively larger systems at work within the structure. Summary Analysis The above data for each comparison was consolidated into total energy values and is presented in table 4-23 

PAGE 46

38 Table 4-23. Total Annual Va lues by Square Footage Cost BTU (all) Gal. KWh. (elec.) Rinker Hall $1.19 80,761.8 1.1 8.0 Frazier Rogers $2.93 148,689.8 28.6 13.0 Anderson Hall $1.18 77,350.1 10.4 7.0 Cost represents the total cost for U tility consumption divided by total building square footage. BTU calculations ta ke into account the total annual energy consumption in BTUs including Chilled Water, Steam, and Electricity. Gal. represents total gallons of potable water consumed annua lly divided by building square footage. The KWh column represents the annual electr ical consumption per square foot with electricity being the only resource taken into account. In consistency with earlier results, Frazier Rogers hall is highly inefficient in comparison to the othe r two structures, and Anderson Hall narrowly edges Rinker Hall by $.01 per square foot. By modifying to take into account the hour s of operation differences between the 3 structures, an approximation can be made on a theoretically more accurate level. However, results are merely theoretical as the added hours to Anderson Hall and Frazier Rogers Hall would not be during peak build ing load hours. Theref ore, Table 4-24 is adjusted to the average hours of ope ration per week for Rinker Hall, 90.5. Table 4-24. Total Annual Values by Square Footage Adjusted for Hours of Operation Cost BTU (all) Gal. KWh. (elec.) Rinker Hall $1.19 80,761.8 1.1 8.0 Frazier Rogers $3.07 156,124.3 30.3 13.7 Anderson Hall $1.48 96,687.6 13 8.75 As is visible in figure 4-24, th is theoretical comparison skews results heavily in Rinker Halls favor. Anderson Ha ll operates on a uniform schedule and was adjusted directly by a 25% increase in consumption to match Rinker Halls hours of operation. Frazier Rogers Hall was modified base d on square footages of usage type, with 

PAGE 47

39 an overall average increase in operation of approximately 5%. Although these values cannot be held as factual or completely accu rate, they serve as an effective tool for displaying the added efficiency of Rinker Halls operations. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis In order to analyze the above data, a life-cycle costing system was used to document predicted future expenses over a tw enty year projected life and value them in terms of current dollar amounts. In order to do so, recommendations were taken from the National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook #135 Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Pr ogram. An actual discount rate of 3% was applied based on Department Of Ener gy(DOE) recommendations, and adjusted for long-term inflation of 1.75%. The resulting nom inal discount rate applied was equal to 4.8%. Individual resource prices were subjecte d to an averaged pri ce escalation rate of two percent per year ove r the twenty year life cycle. For each of the two comparisons, Rinker Hall was presented as the alternativ e, with the sustainable design premiums shown as initial costs, while both Anderson and Frazier Roge rs Hall carried zero initial cost due to their conventional code complia nt designs. Presented in Microsoft Excel format, results are shown in figures 4-14 and 4-15 below. 

PAGE 48

40 Sustainable Design Comparison Subject: Utility Consumption Description: Project Life Cycle = 20 Years Discount Rate = 4.80% Year Completed: 2001Year Completed: 2002 Present Time = Jan-05 Square Footag e 53,543Square Footag e 46,530 INITIAL COSTSQuantit y UMUnit PriceEst.PWEst.PW Construction Costs A. Daylighting Premium 1LS$0.00 00370,000370,000 B. Energy Premium 1LS$0.00 00233,000233,000 C. Water Conservation 1LS$0.00 0052,50052,500 D. ______________________ ______ _____$0.00 __________0__________0 Total Initial Cost 0655,500 Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. 1)(655,500) ANNUAL COSTS Description Escl. % PWA A. Chilled Water2.000% 15.234 $53,425 $813,889 $19,692 $299,992 B. Water2.000% 15.234 $2,087 31,794 $81 1,234 C. Steam2.000% 15.234 $4,060 61,851 $3,166 48,232 D. Electricity2.000% 15.234 $60,441 920,772 $31,767 483,946 E. Waste Water Fees2.000% 15.234 $3,965 60,408 $154 2,345 Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)$1,888,714$835,748 Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)$1,888,714$1,491,248 Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) $397,466 Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. 1) PP Factor11.10 Years Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized)0.0789148,996 Per Year117,641 Per Year **University Facilities Management does not charge Wastewater to buildings; however, UF Physical Plant division has established a wastwater processing fee of $1.90/kgalRinker Hall Frazier-Rogers Hall Figure 4-14. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Frazier Rogers Hall 

PAGE 49

41 Figure 4-14 shows results leaning heavily in favor of Rinker Hall. With the present worth of annual costs of $835,748, Rinker operates at approximately forty-four percent of the total cost of Frazier Rogers Halls $1,888,714 (in current dollars). As shown above, in direct comparison with Frazier Rogers Hall, the life cycle model predicts that by simply accounting for resource savings, a payback for the Rinker Hall sustainable design premium can be realized in just over eleven years. Over the twenty year projected life represented above, Rinker Hall will not only pa yback the additional up front expense, but will generate a savings of $397,466. Using th e ratio of total (of annual) operations savings versus original cost, the Savings to Investment Ratio (S.I.R) for the above comparison is calculated at 1.606. In terms of costs per square footage over the 20 year life, utility costs for Rinker Hall are $17.96/sf, while Frazier Rogers Hall costs $35.27/sf. Although there is considerably more research la boratory space in Fraz ier Rogers Hall, its total energy consumption should be consider ed similar to that of an ASHREA 90.1 compliant version of Rinker Hall. Therefore, during the period between realized pay-back in year eleven and the end of the twenty year life, Rinker Hall will be operating at a profit in comparison to Frazier Rogers Hall. 

PAGE 50

42 Sustainable Design Comparison Subject: Utility Consumption Description: Project Life Cycle = 20 Years Discount Rate = 4.80% Year Completed2002Year Completed: 2002 Present Time = Jan-05 Square Footag e 47,757Square Footag e 46,530 INITIAL COSTSQuantit y UMUnit PriceEst.PWEst.PW Construction Costs A. Daylighting Premium 1LS$0.00 00370,000370,000 B. Energy Premium 1LS$0.00 __________0233,000233,000 C. Water Conservation 1LS$0.00 __________052,50052,500 D. ______________________ ______ _____$0.00 __________0__________0 Total Initial Cost 0655,500 Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) (655,500) ANNUAL COSTS Description Escl. % PWA A. Chilled Water2.000% 15.234 $21,072 $321,016 $19,692 $299,992 B. Water2.000% 15.234 $677 10,314 $81 1,234 C. Steam2.000% 15.234 $2,603 39,655 $3,166 48,232 D. Electricity2.000% 15.234 $28,019 426,848 $31,767 483,946 E. Waste Water**2.000% 15.234 $1,286 19,596 $154 2,345 F. ______________________0.000% 12.676 __________ 00 Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)$817,428$835,748 Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)$817,428$1,491,248 Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) ($673,821) Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized) PP Factor0.078964,485 Per Year117,641 Per Year **University Facilities Management does not charge Wastewater to buildings; however, UF Physical Plant division has established a wastwater processing fee of $1.90/kgalRinker Hall Anderson Hall Figure 4-15. Life Cycle-Cost Analys is for Rinker Hall vs. Anderson Hall 

PAGE 51

43 Anderson Hall is predominately an admi nistration building which caters to a smaller population traffic level than Rinker Ha ll, and contains no research or teaching laboratory space. As shown in Table 4-1, total building horsepower for Anderson hall is approximately half of the peak ratings for Ri nker. These qualifications give insight into the results shown in Figure 415. Over the 20 year life-cyc le presented above, Anderson Hall utility costs total out to $817,428, a pproximately 2.2% below Rinker Halls $835,748. Due to this difference, expected payb ack period cannot be calculated as the model would never make up for the initial up-front costs and the gap would increase annually. The S.I.R. for the above comparis on is -.028, showing a theoretical negative return on investment. When related to square footage, Anderson Hall costs are equal to $17.12/sf over the twenty year life span, $.84/ sf lower than that of Rinker Hall. In following traditional LCC methods of thought Anderson Hall would prove to be the more cost efficient building, however the abov e qualifications still le nd credibility to the design efforts present in Rinker Hall. Results are still quite profound and in favor of Rinker when the complete facts behind the complexity of building systems are taken into account.

PAGE 52

44 Figure 4-16. Graphical Display of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis The total Life-Cycle cost for resources in Frazier Rogers Hall easily exceeds the combination of the cost premiums and the annual operational costs for Rinker Hall. When viewing the bar representation of Anderson Hall, resource costs appear to be almost equal to the graphical display for Rinker Hall. 

PAGE 53

45 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Sustainable design for Green building is without a doubt the wa y of the future. High performance structures and systems are gaining momentum with each successive implementation. This study showed an exam ple of how clearly and easily the positive results of sustainable design efforts can be re alized. The brief existence of the structures studied in the preceding pages allows for a la rger than normal margin of error for the realized results due to quirk s not having been completely worked out of the systems in question, especially in the more complex Rinker Hall. At this point, outlying data cannot yet be determined due to lack of data population size; however, portions of the collected build ing consumption data show potential for outlying points, such as unexplained spikes in chilled water c onsumption during the coldest months of the year, or highly fluctuating steam c onsumption. These irregularities, as well as the cost similarities between Ri nker Hall and Anderson Hall give rise to many assumptions; first and foremost being the ex istence of minor flaws in the design of Rinker Hall. As is often the case in comm ercial construction, despite the impressive performance of the building, the mechanical sy stem in Rinker Hall may in fact be over designed. For example, why does Rinker Hall require a 50% increase in available building horsepower over the equally sized Anderson Hall? Perhaps a lesser powered structure could still produce the same efficient output at an even lower cost. In Reference to Hal Variens criteria for an effective model, 1. The model must address who makes the choices involved : Perspective owners are making the decision as 

PAGE 54

46 to whether or not they will assume the adde d construction costs to achieve a sustainable design. 2. What constraints do the decision makers face? Again, decision makers must determine if long-run cost savings will out weigh the initial up-front investment in sustainability 3. What interaction exists? Designers with a vested interest in sustainability should be on board from the be ginning of the design phase in order to ensure the most efficient usage of gree n building technologies and strategies. 4. What information is being processed and what is being predicted? At the design phase, theoretical values are being processed to pr edict life-cycle savings In the case of the Rinker Hall model above, actual annual costs are used to provide evidence that the savings do exist. 5. What adjusts to assure consistency? Adjustments for building horsepower, and total hours of operation can be made in order to allow for even more consistency. The stated hypothesis of the thesis poses the question of whether or not hard cost data on resource consumption can be used to accurately evaluate green building performance. Through taking into account all applicable cost s and modification factors to establish a methodology for compar ison, the previous study show ed that hard cost data can in fact be a reliable predictor of buildi ng performance. The fact that hard cost data alone nearly pays back the up-front expenditure s before taking into account other factors such as soft cost savings, community/environm ental implications, and others proves that substantial improvement in resource consumpti on hard costs are an effective display of the greenness of a hi gh performance building. Through conducting the literature review, it became apparent that there is a lack of extensive data on actual perf ormance for sustainable, high performance buildings. This is 

PAGE 55

47 due not only to the lack of available data, but also to lack of known methods for both accumulation and analysis. The previous study merely took a conservative look into the financial gains of sustainable construction e fforts for higher educational facilities under one particular set of conditions. By obtaini ng and evaluating resource consumption data and related costs, quantifiable evidence was pr oduced to help justif y the realized gain from sustainable design. These resource cost s or hard-costs are easy to obtain, and provide for simple direct comparisons betw een sustainable and conventional structures. In order to create a true evaluation of the pos itive effects of sustainable design initiatives, less tangible, or soft cost da ta must also be included. These costs include such items as in door environmental quality, consumer satisfaction, student/faculty e fficiency, and several others These types of data are difficult to obtain, and even more difficult to assign direct costs/sa vings. Further research into methods of quantifying soft cost factor s for sustainable construction will pave the way for production of substantially more co mprehensive economic performance models. Hard cost data alone has proven to be very convincing when combined with theoretical values for soft cost data. True results for so ft cost savings will pr ove once and for all the necessity of sustainable efforts in the built environment. In order to carry out a dditional studies regarding si milar data, or expanding upon the above data, several courses of action can be recommended. First, the organizer of the study should establish a list of contacts from the start. Thes e contacts should cover every aspect of the study. In the above case it was necessary to have c ontacts at several departments within the University of Florida, as well as within the actual field of study. Secondly, upon collecting data, use digression as to which are relevant to the particular 

PAGE 56

48 analysis. For example, any data relating to soft costs, or aesthetics for the structures in the preceding study was discounted from the results as it had no impact on the variables of the study. Finally, organizers of future studies must understand that historical data available on similar topics is not regulated, and may very well be skewed in favor of the intentions of the study. As shown by table 4-24, theoretical numbers can quickly sway results in either direction. 

PAGE 57

49 LIST OF REFERENCES Building Energy Codes Program US Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy http://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck/89_compliance_manual.stm Fuller PhD., Sieglinde K. Economic Analysis and Green Building Green Building: Project Pl anning and Cost Estimating: A Practical Guide for Constructing Sustainable Buildings Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002 Fuller, Sieglinde K., Peterson, Stephen R. National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook #135 1995 Edition Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program United States Department of Commerce, February 1996 GETTING TO GREEN: How to Get LEED Certified Gold Level M. E. Rinker, Sr. Hall Rinker School of Building Constr uction, University of Florida Gottfried, David A Blueprint for Green Building Economics Found in Industry and Environment v26 n 2-3 April/September 2003 p 20-21 Kats, Gregory H. Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002 Published for Massachusetts Technology Co llaborative, 2003. Available online at the Capital E website, http://www.cap-e.com/ Kibert, Charles J. 2005. Sustainable Constr uction: Green Building Design and Delivery New York: John Wiley & Sons. LEED: Building Green. Everyone Profits. Copyright 2005. US Green Building Council www.USGBC.org/displaypa ge.aspx?categoryID=19 Lippiat, Barbara C. Evaluating Products Over their Life-Cycle Found in Green Building: Project Planni ng and Cost Estimating: A Practical Guide for Constructing Sustainable Buildings Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002 

PAGE 58

50 Making the Business Case for High Performance Green Buildings, U.S. Green Building Council(USGBC). 2003. Available for download at http://www.usgbc.org/ Macaluso, Joseph CCC. Economic Incentives and Funding Sources Found in Green Building: Project Planni ng and Cost Estimating: A Practical Guide for Constructing Sustainable Buildings Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002 McElroy, Lori Technical Factors in the Design of Commercial Buildings Sustainable Architecture : Second Edition Edwards, Brian Published: Architectural Press, 1999 Pitts, Adrian Planning and Design for Sustainability and Profit Published: Architectual Press 2004. R.S.Means Online Construction Dictionary http://rsmeans.com/dictionary/index.asp 2004 Reed Business Information Shultz. Laura L, Rushing, Amy S., Fuller, Sieglinde K. Annual Supplement to NIST Handbook #135 Energy Price Indices and Disc ount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis April-2004 United States Department of Commerce, February 2004 Wyatt, David J. Look Before Leaping into Green Design Found in Construction Specifier v57 n 6 June 2004 p32-34. 

PAGE 59

51 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Eric Meister received a B achelor of Science in Busi ness Administration (with a concentration in management) from the Wa rrington College of Business Administration at the University of Florida in Spring 2003. His interest in environmentally sustainable design was spawned through course work at the University of Florida taken in effort to earn his Master of Scienc e in Building Construction.