Defining Competence for Energy Simulation Aided Design

The back page author of this weeks ENR magazine contemplated the level of licensure required for the engineering trade relative to the public perception thereof. Skill acquisition ranges anywhere from the “novice,” who blindly follows the rules set out for them, to the “expert,” who has enough experience to intuitively perceive what needs to be done and sets about doing it. In the middle is the “competent performer,” who knows the rules, and chooses a solution path which addresses the major elements, but does not try to account for all discrete elements. The author, Jon Schmidt, suggests that given the complexity of construction work today, the minimum level of licensure should perhaps be set higher to the “proficient performer” who simply sees what has to be done and does it.

Flying Car - Ingenious

I might offer an additional perspective that questions the very expectations of the engineering function. Does the word engineer stem from the low Latin of ingeniarus, referring to an “ingenious” person, one who invents? Or does was it derived from engine, as applied to engine operator, a “do-er.” This is an important distinction, and one currently debated in engineering education.

This particular paradigm “hiccup” has been cited by more than one project attempting to implement integrated project management. In the most progressive of big rooms, design, engineering and estimating are all done "real time."   The engineering expertise needed is not for a person who already has determined what needs to be done and doggedly pursues the doing of it, but for one who knows how to explore the possible solutions given the project parameters. It requires a mastery of the basic rules, experience of what has worked (or not) in the past, and a bit of that “ingenuity” to explore new options.

In a similar accreditation discussion for energy simulation aided design, the International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA) has rallied the call for an ASHRAE Standard, to “define minimum requirements for providing energy design assistance using building energy simulation and analysis.” This builds on the previous work of defining a Building Energy Modeling Professional (BEMP) certification. Certainly, this effort is to be commended, since this new energy modeling field was a bit of a rodeo, with the public having no way to differentiate between a cowboy and a clown. But beyond the point of competence to pass the exam, how does one encourage the necessary ingenuity to support innovative solutions? For this is the area with the design and construction which has the most room for innovation with the greatest influence on the environmental impact of the construction industry.  How can one recruit and foster the skills for ingenuity.

One solution employed by this group has been to develop a very active list-serv and discussion page. There might also be lessons learned from the old apprenticeship programs, by differentiating the certifications by levels of mastery. A mentorship phase is common in architecture, and increasingly required in licensure for contractors. Given the relatively few members in this energy modeling field, mentorship groups might be established through the internet, with a stated expectation of sharing case studies and collaborating on solutions.

This new standard (209) will apply to new commercial buildings or major renovations. At this point, the committee is looking for members. Residential of three stories or fewer, (essentially those covered under the IRC) are not covered by this effort, and indeed energy modeling for residential is still very scarce. It is caught between the services of the full fledged, 4 year college accredited energy engineers, who work on the higher paying commercial construction jobs, and the energy auditors who are more likely to come from the field. In between is the need for “Energy Simulation Aided Design” for the residential market. Calling for competence…

Energy Consumption – Playing with Numbers

Numbers are a funny thing. We tend to believe “facts” when backed by numbers, but I have found that quite often there is a story behind the numbers which might entirely put false the claims. Take “per capita” energy consumption.

One way to look at this per capita consumption would be to isolate as best possible the energy consumption for the building sector, and set benchmarks to drive this down. But that alone may not tell the full story. What if we have a carbon neutral house, but have plunked it out in the country so that even a trip to the grocery store to pick up a loaf of bread requires a 20 minute trip in the car? And then there is the great question of consumption vs carbon footprint. If a property is an energy hog, but feeds itself entirely from non-CO2 producing on-site renewables – is that still a bad thing?

Another interesting approach is the all-inclusive energy per capita. This acknowledges that the people in the country are part of the transportation costs, and the industry costs. Not account for the adjustment for import/ exports, this does preclude the “not my problem” attitude. For example,
take a look at a list of countries by energy consumption per capita.

Hah - we see that the US/ Canada are 8 down on the list. At the top is Qatar, with almost 3 times the consumption per capita of the US. But wait… foreigners make up ¾ of their population , using energy while they are there, so really the energy cost “per citizen” is now down to the level of most of the European nations. This is probably the same for the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait - other countries which are high on the list. Netherland Antilles and Trinidad have similar issues with tourist energy consumption far outstripping those of the counted capital.

That leaves Iceland, whose energy consumption per capita in Iceland is very high, largely due to several aluminum smelters, which consume about two-thirds of all electricity created in the country. On the other hand, Iceland gets about 80 percent of its primary energy from renewable resources, and the government's stated goal is to become both a carbon-free and oil-free country. Back to our pondering about consumption vs footprint.

And then there is Luxembourg, which has a much higher energy consumption than the EU average. But on closer inspection, we find that oil accounts for about 60% of thatnumber, with 90% of the oil used in the transport sector. Why? Because Luxembourg is at a crossroads in Europe, and has lower energy taxes in order to sell more to travelers. So they are in a quandary, not wanting to sabotage their great revenue stream by increasing taxes, but needing to produce a “green” policy. Apparently there is a proposed solution in increasing the biofuel content of the gas sold.

Renewable energy resources currently provide about 16% of Canada's total primary energy supply, and 12.8 % in the US (not included nuclear). But playing with the numbers finally gets down to the sheer numbers of consumers, the multiplier. Luxembourg has a half a million people, Iceland less than that. Canada has 24 Million and the US is over 308 Million.

Does that mean we need to reduce our consumption down to that of Bangladesh? No, but it is worth noting the citizens of Germany, Austria and Switzerland consume roughly half of what we do in North America. This includes all energy sectors, and certainly Germany has plenty of industry. And certainly these citizens enjoy a hiqh quality of life.

They are just numbers, but ones which might challenge or inspire us. Numbers which tell a story, and the whole world is listening.

1st International Green Building Code – or Communism?

After a few false starts, the International Code Council (this being the code writing body for the US…) finally prevailed with the new Int’l Green Construction Code, to be available in Spring 2012. Already there is press about the great leadership of the US in setting the example of providing such a code. Hoorah for us! I think…It often baffles Europeans how we can have codes which are not really law, until the governing code bodies, either statewide or by individual jurisdiction, vote that code into law. Of course this is after they made modifications in the codes to suit them. And.. the local AHJ is still lord of his own domain.

Is it really appropriate to set “green construction” out as yet another “code,” when we already have the IECC (energy code) and IRC/ IBC (building code). The ICC body was assembled in 2000 to simplify and consolidate the three existing regional building codes. The scope was originally “life-safety,” but already in the 2003 version, the purpose was enlarged to also include the public’s health and general welfare, through various attributes including energy conservation. ? Wouldn’t sustainability fall under the public’s general welfare? But I do understand that this was the most expedient way for the AIA and ASHRAE to promote the 2030 Carbon Neutral Goal. Now if we could just get AHJ’s to adopt and enforce it.

What I find interesting is the comments which some readers left concerning this new Green Code. “This is communism, plain and simple. Our Freedom is history…” At least this gentleman has his Freedom of Speech. But for the sake of discussion... Communism, as experienced in the Soviet Union, tended to produce some of the worst built buildings, which were almost immediately in disrepair and certainly not energy efficient. And, let’s not forget that this code can be voted in by the local AHJ’s, who are hired by the free citizens of the municipality or state… So NOT communism.

Based on this gentlemen’s last name, he is of German origin. Had his forefather’s not immigrated, he could be living in one of the growing number of communities throughout Germany who have mandated very aggressive energy efficiency standards. Indeed, in many of the countries of Europe, many of the new requirements in the IgCC have long been enforced codes. Such as not being able to build a new big box store on a greenfield while there are existing empty big boxes, or recycling construction waste, or controlling toxicity on materials.

In fact, he might notice that many of the greenest of “green” has not come from the US, but from overseas: Passivhaus, the Carbon Trust , or that the USGBC LEED’s highest ranking of Platinum would only score “very good” (second highest) on the BREEAM system used in the U.K. . Or that Life Cycle Analysis is much further developed in Europe, and the old British Empire countries than in the U.S.

I respect all the hard work of the AIA, ASHRAE and the ICC,  and in fact commiserate with the political realities they have to face, when trying to push forth what is truly good "for the public welfare."  But I write this as a reminder that the world is indeed many steps ahead of the US in this particular domain and urge us all to adopt the carbon-neutral 2030 goal, encourage our local AHJ’s to adopt this new Green Code and to make changes for it to be even more aggressive. For when 100% of the US is indeed actively engaged in trying to meet this green goal in both new construction and remodel, that will be something to be proud of.

Reprinted 1-10-2012 in GreenBuildingAdvisor.com

Reinventing Fire



Banner Bank Building

The Rocky Mountain Institute has been the bastion of research and innovation in seeking sustainable solutions for our energy needs. Their vision says it all: “a world thriving, verdant, and secure, for all, for ever.” You might remember the ground-breaking book: Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution which inspired more than one company to seek a new path to development and the built environment.

And now, RMI publishes what is to become yet another classic, Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era. Built on 30 years of research, Reinventing Fire is perhaps one of the most comprehensive reference books on all aspects of the energy economy. It starts with the hypothesis that the United States could stop using oil and coal by 2050, and presents the business case for this transformation. Amory Lovins et al do not presume to do so by freezing growth or presuming to halt population growth, as was the premise for the Bruntland report on sustainability, but accept that by  2050, the US is likely to have a 158% bigger economy. It should be acknowledged that the book is very US centric, and does not account for the uncertainties of global economies.  Yet, perhaps better to propose a roadmap which is within ones purview,  then adjust accordingly.

The goal is for 70%-bigger of US Buildings use 54% – 69% less energy by 2050, which is interesting to compare with the Net Zero goal for all new buildings and renovations by 2030 in the Architecture 2030 challenge. But where Architecture 2030 focuses on motivation, and policy, RMI takes more of an product and systems goal to developing energy targets. The text is peppered with examples, sample innovative products, and a smorgasborg of approaches to changing the current paradigm.

The conclusion of the building sector offered perhaps the most succinct insight in identifying six imperatives for change. These include the need to make energy use more transparent, and apply
transdisciplinary insight and entrepreneurship to retrofit existing buildings. Financing, policies and utility incentives were next on the list to support the change. And finally, but perhaps one of the hardest (emphasis mine) to overhaul how we train and educate how a building should be designed, built and maintained. In essence, re-inventing the built environment. 

An Auspicious Day for the Built Environment

At one moment in time this morning, it will be 11/11/11 11:11am. An auspicious day, a master number intensified through repetition. The double digit eleven is meant to enlighten us with inspiration and passion for our own future work, a growing community of mastery.

So today is a day for inspiration. For looking at the built environment with hope, and clarity. It is a day to recognize that the way to keep criticism from becoming cynicism it to make it the starting point, rather than a punctuation mark (Youngme Moon). To see what is good, and how we can build upon this and replicate it.

We celebrate the success at St. Olaf College in transforming the vision of sustainability into the green chemistry principles across the science curriculum, incorporating this programming into the new Regents Hall, into the team effort to deliver the building at 30% less cost (than industry comparable), and even surprising themselves with a 30% savings on actual energy costs – even for the high CFM laboratory of a science building. How? The project had a clearly stated vision, highly collaborative design and construction, targeted value, and measurable goals. Sounds so simple, yet so hard to capture into a process – which was truly the big innovation at the Regents Hall.

Today, we recognize the persistence and commitment it takes to make a change – such as the school reform in Mapleton, Colorado. Not only on the part of an amazing superintendent, but also a community of support, including the contractor who served on the school board and supported the effort over many years to get the grant and bond issue passed. And the new school? A highly collaborative effort has driven the design team in two key areas: 50% improved energy efficiency and enhanced learning environments. Innovative solutions come from the team, not only from a traditional core of designer and builder, but early and active input from all of the trades, the owners, the students, the teachers. It takes a village, not just to raise the child, but to create the best solution for the schools in which to educate the child.

And so today is an auspicious day. We acknowledge the challenges which face humanity, and accept the open and honest critique of our problems. We also look to these outstanding examples of transformation in of our communities of learning and the 21st century buildings which support their future. And if you missed this first round, you can always catch the next opportunity. This evening at 11:11 pm, or any moment which you choose as your own starting point. Every day is an auspicious day.

“Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” Warren Buffet

Durability - Elastic or Plastic?

In reading through the original Benyus book on Biomimicry, I was struck by the description of the “Heat, Beat, and Treat” approach taken by material resource scientists in synthesizing new materials. It seemed to me that this was not too dissimilar to our very relationship with the world around us. Western civilization, especially in the US, is very much organized around dominating the natural world. We dam waterways, extract resources, and essentially tromp around the world like a bull in a china shop. We begin to believe in our mythical prowess, and are thus stunned when a Katrina swoops in unharnessed, or when roadways collapse under earthquakes.

When Beijing started planning for the Olympics, they targeted an earthquake resistance of eight on the Richter scale. This is not surprising, given the density of China’s population, and the devastation of seismic activities in these centers. What is surprising was the deviation from the
traditional approach of construction, which tries to outmuscle the forces of a quake. Even though this approach has not always worked in the past, it still continues to dominate much of construction (and code) thinking.

For example, in the post-Kobe work, a typical approach to concrete construction is that a larger schedule rebar is better. Yet, some recent research done with shaker table testing suggests that seismic resistance is improved with a tighter weave of smaller diameter rebar. The tendency of the material to crack along the diagonal is thwarted, as the forces are redirected along the zig-zag pattern of rebar which dissipates the force. Similarly, there are examples in Peru of stone walls built by the Incas, who chose to NOT use mortar in order for the wall to be able to shift slightly and resettle without collapsing. New Zealanders, who have as many fault lines as sheep, have become proponents of a seismic design which is based on a plastic domain of behavior, i.e. the amount a building can shift and still remain intact, which allows the building to absorb and deflect seismic loads.

There is a natural precedence for a related approach, in the form of an abalone shell. It is actually comprised of stacked hexagons, which in this case are connected with a mortar of squishy polymer. This acts in the same manner of deflecting stresses, which is why abalone is twice as tough as any ceramic known to man. This is the same principle seen in soap bubbles, the inspiration for the “Water Cube” building in Beijing, and very much the same principle at play in the “Bird’s Nest.” It also throws our contemporary rectangular approach to building construction into complete disarray. Everything in nature is flexible, only humans are “square.” Or are we? Early human habitation was in the form of tipis, wigwams, hogans, roundhouses, igloos, yurts – none of them square. European castles are very often punctuated with turrets, juxtaposed wings, and pentagonal shapes. Freethinkers in the 70’s brought back dome houses, and starchitects rarely touch a right angle.

Our long-term relationship with nature will need to be rooted in our own “plasticity.” Do we wish to heat, beat, and treat the world around us into a box, stiff and resistant until it just breaks?. Or, are we willing to bend a little, take on different shapes, and weave a resilient network. Not only is this the way to durability in our built environment, but perhaps our own “durability” as we learn to find our own place in the world.

Biomimicry and the Construction Process

Great ideas often burst upon the scene before the world is quite ready for them, only to re-emerge after an incubation phase spent in the company of the innovative early adopters. And so it is with Biomimicry, first introduced by biologist Janine Benyus in 1997 and now organized under the auspices of the Biomimicry Institute . Yet if we look at man’s earliest shelters, which were nothing more than birds’ nests turned upside down, and then consider the Beijing Olmpic’s “Bird’s Nest” stadium, perhaps this movement is really a reconnection to nature.
Biomimicry is the conscious emulation of nature’s genius. Emulation is more than making a copy, rather it is the inspiration and the adoption of the core concepts into our own context. For this to happen, we need to stop, observe, and reflect. This allows us to make the connects which are so often at the basis of discovery. For example, plants use CO2 as a resource for growth. Could humans adapt their processes to consume CO2 instead of generating it? Yes. Enter Brent Constanz, who was inspired by the way corals make reefs from the calcium carbonate in seawaters to invent a process to make cement in a biomimetic fashion, which involves running power-plant exhaust through seawater. This both pre-empts the production of CO2 from Portland cement AND sequesters 90% of the CO2 from the power-plant emissions. A win/win for people and planet.

Or how about the inspiration from the “lotus effect,” the super high water repellence of the leaves of a lotus flower. Seen under a microscope, the shape of the leaf’s surface is such that water stays shaped in droplets, and thus rolls off the leaf, taking any dirt along with it. This discovery has been applied to airplane coatings, safety lighting, and in the StoCoat Lotusan paint for exterior building coatings.

Biomimicry is making some amazing inroads in the discovery of nature-tested forms, like the lotus, and processes like the coral reef. Yet the construction industry might yet have the greatest opportunity to learn from the biomimicry of the whole system. For example, the other aspect of the Calera Company’s CO2 to carbonate process is that is links the waste from one industry (power plants) to a resource within another industry. This is how the ecosystem works.

Myoculture - Phil Ross

This system’s approach might be within one area, such as a hybrid chiller/boiler system which captures the heat from one side of the process for re-use in the other. Or capturing the heat from waste water for incoming water preheat. It could be waste from local food sources (e.g. rice husks), which are grown to create insulation for buildings, and perhaps waste water from the building to feed into wetlands and grow rice. The system could refer the capturing of heat for greenhouses, to produce food for a restaurant, which provides compost for the vermiculture, which provides soil for the plants.

Biomimicry helps us to recognize nature as a model, a mentor, and a measure. It offers an enlightened opportunity to bring together technology and sustainability. Perhaps this time the world is ready.