Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- Creators: Arizona State University
- Creators: Brown, Nicholas
Description
Since its launch by the US Green Building Council (USGBC), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification has been postured as the "gold standard" for environmentally conscious, sustainable building design, construction and operations. However, as a "living measurement", one which requires ongoing evaluation and reporting of attainment and compliance with LEED certification requirements, there is none. Once awarded, LEED certification does not have a required reporting component to effectively track continued adherence to LEED standards. In addition, there is no expiry tied to the certification; once obtained, a LEED certification rating is presumed to be a valid representation of project certification status. Therefore, LEED lacks a requirement to demonstrate environmental impact of construction materials and building systems over the entire life of the project. Consequently, LEED certification is merely a label rather than a true representation of ongoing adherence to program performance requirements over time. Without continued monitoring and reporting of building design and construction features, and in the absence of recertification requirements, LEED is, in reality, a gold star rather than a gold standard. This thesis examines the lack of required ongoing monitoring, reporting, or recertification requirements following the award by the USGBC of LEED certification; compares LEED with other international programs which do have ongoing reporting or recertification requirements; demonstrates the need and benefit of ongoing reporting or recertification requirements; and explores possible methods for implementation of mandatory reporting requirements within the program.
ContributorsCarpenter, Anne Therese (Author) / Olson, Larry (Thesis advisor) / Hild, Nicholas (Committee member) / Brown, Albert (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
The intent of this research is to determine if cool roofs lead to increased energy use in the U.S. and if so, in what climates. Directed by the LEED environmental building rating system, cool roofs are increasingly specified in an attempt to mitigate urban heat island effect. A typical single story retail building was simulated using eQUEST energy software across seven different climatic zones in the U.S.. Two roof types are varied, one with a low solar reflectance index of 30 (typical bituminous roof), and a roof with SRI of 90 (high performing membrane roof). The model also varied the perimeter / core fraction, internal loads, and schedule of operations. The data suggests a certain point at which a high SRI roofing finish results in energy penalties over the course of the year in climate zones which are heating driven. Climate zones 5 and above appear to be the flipping point, beyond which the application of a high SRI roof creates sufficient heating penalties to outweigh the cooling energy benefits.
ContributorsLee, John (Author) / Bryan, Harvey (Thesis advisor) / Marlin, Marlin (Committee member) / Ramalingam, Muthukumar (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
As the student union on Arizona State University’s main Tempe campus, the MU should be a model of building sustainability. After a fire engulfed the MU’s second floor in 2007, the building underwent major renovations and achieved LEED v2.0: Commercial Interiors (LEED CI) Gold certification. Since then, more up-to-date building certification programs have been established, including the Green Globes (GG) green building rating system and a more recent version of LEED that suits the MU’s situation—Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance (LEED EB:OM). This paper performs a cost-benefit analysis of these rating systems, specifically looking at 1) national recognition, 2) ease of use, 3) amount of resources needed to invest, 4) length of time of the certification process, 5) certification fees and costs, 6) pre-requisites and system structure of point allotment, and 7) flexibility of the systems. A review of the previous LEED CI certification of the MU addresses 1) solar panel installation and renewable energy achievements, 2) improvement of indoor air quality, 3) application of sustainable construction practices, 4) missed opportunities since renovations were not performed on the entire building, 5) water efficiency scoring, and 6) lack of significant Energy & Atmosphere improvements. A proposal for the university to consider LEED EB:OM certification for the Memorial Union will be presented, analyzing the points already secured by campus-wide programs and policies, credits that are possible with minimal funding, and elaborating on opportunities already planned for completion, including 1) the Power Parasol project, 2) “Zero Waste by 2015” and “Carbon Neutrality” programs and goals, and 3) plans for alternative transportation methods through the Tempe Campus Access Management Plan. In conclusion, my recommendation to pursue LEED EB:OM and achieve Silver level will be presented. With the majority of LEED points already secured and several on the horizon, certifying the MU under LEED EB:OM will set an example and increase the amount of existing buildings on campus to pursue LEED certification. University-wide policies on green cleaning, sustainable purchasing, alternative energy sources, carbon neutrality, and LEED for Multiple Buildings all contribute to simplifying the LEED certification process for ASU buildings campus-wide.
ContributorsHeppner, Mary Catherine (Author) / Brown, Nicholas (Thesis director) / Martin, Thomas (Committee member) / Bogart, Brooke (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Letters and Sciences (Contributor) / T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (Contributor)
Created2013-05