Decoding the green construction codes

Engineers should understand the difference between IgCC and ASHRAE 189.1 energy compliance code provisions.

09/18/2012


Voluntary green building rating systems such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program have had significant impacts on the building industry. Some jurisdictions have attempted to make LEED certification a requirement for new buildings but have encountered a need for a code compliance path to document performance. The USGBC assisted in the development of both the ICC International Green Construction Code (IgCC) and ASHRAE 189.1, Standard for the Design of High-Performance, Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, to fill this void.

Both codes focus on the five categories of sustainability addressed in LEED New Construction: Site Sustainability, Water Use Efficiency, Energy Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Materials and Resources. Furthermore, both codes include an additional section regarding Operation and Maintenance.

The IgCC and Standard 189.1 are not guides or ratings systems. They are written in mandatory code language and intended for adoption and enforcement by the local and state level. In earlier versions of IgCC, ASHRAE 189.1 was a “jurisdictional compliance option,” meaning the local authority must choose between 189.1 and IgCC. With IgCC 2012, a building may now choose to comply with its standard requirements or those of 189.1.

Several major differences within the energy efficiency sections differentiate the two codes. With all energy units converted to Btus, IgCC is based on source energy use, while ASHRAE 189.1 is based on site energy cost. Just as energy cost and energy consumption are two completely different metrics, so are site and source energy. Different energy-saving measures will apply to a project, depending whether site energy cost or source energy use is the applicable metric. A model executed according to the calculations of one code cannot easily be compared to the other. A section of the IgCC also requires that the person performing the energy simulation be a professional engineer or architect in the state where the project is being constructed; ASHRAE 189.1 currently does not have a similar requirement.

Both codes contain comparable requirement categories in other sections, but with notable differences. The following table summarizes the key differences between ASHRAE 189.1 and IgCC 2012:

The IgCC has more detailed requirements for building energy metering and demand response, while ASHRAE 189.1 provides more detailed sections on fan power and demand controlled ventilation. If a project requires compliance with IgCC, there is always the option of using either IgCC or ASHRAE 189.1. For projects pursuing LEED certification, the energy model will compare energy cost. Overall, using ASHRAE 189.1 as a compliance path can minimize modeling time and increase cost-based savings.

 


Bridgette Baugher is an energy engineer with Southland Industries. Her career focus is on improving energy efficiency in new and existing buildings through the use of analysis and auditing tools. She served on the Center for the Built Environment’s Livable Buildings Jury in 2009 and 2010.   



No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Engineering Leaders Under 40 program identifies and gives recognition to young engineers who...
The true cost of lubrication: Three keys to consider when evaluating oils; Plant Engineering Lubrication Guide; 11 ways to protect bearing assets; Is lubrication part of your KPIs?
Contract maintenance: 5 ways to keep things humming while keeping an eye on costs; Pneumatic systems; Energy monitoring; The sixth 'S' is safety
Transport your data: Supply chain information critical to operational excellence; High-voltage faults; Portable cooling; Safety automation isn't automatic
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Maintaining low data center PUE; Using eco mode in UPS systems; Commissioning electrical and power systems; Exploring dc power distribution alternatives
Synchronizing industrial Ethernet networks; Selecting protocol conversion gateways; Integrating HMIs with PLCs and PACs
Why manufacturers need to see energy in a different light: Current approaches to energy management yield quick savings, but leave plant managers searching for ways of improving on those early gains.

Annual Salary Survey

Participate in the 2013 Salary Survey

In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.

Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.

2012 Salary Survey Analysis

2012 Salary Survey Results

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.