Tobacco Documents Online

Paper to be presented at A/A Symposium: Designing Healthy Buildings November '92 Meetln8 Design and Construction of a Facility for Research and Demonstration of Healthy Building Concepts Robert P. Schubert, Julie Seelen, James E. Woods, Sanjay Arora Indoor Environment Program, College of Architecture, Virginia Tech 206 West Washington Street Blacksburg, VA 24061-0547 Figure 1 Axonometric of the Research and Demonstration Facility N ~ N v1 R. P. Schubert is Associate Professor of Architecture; J. Seelen is Research Associate; J. E. ~ Woods, Ph.D. is William E. Jamerson Professor of Building Construction; S. Arora is Ph.D. Candidate in the Environmental Design and Planning Program; indoor Environment Program, ~ College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg Virginia. ~

INTRODUCTION The term healthy buildings has evolved as a counter-reaction to the phenomenon of sick build'ing syndrome. In this context health is defined as not merely the absence of disease or infirmity but as a state of total physical, mental and social well-being (WHO 1946). The interest in designing and maintaining healthy buildings has grown In recent years because of a greater demand to respond to occupant complaints of dissatisfaction with their task environments and the realization that worker productivity can be correlated to healthy buildings (Woods, 1989). Poor indoor air quality (IAQ) has often been identified as an Important factor related to building degradation (Arora and Woods, 1992). Our experience .with diagnostic Investigation and mitigation, and with litigation of problem buildings has led us to believe that major deficiencies exist within the building procurement process and that there is inadequate accountability for the performance of the buildings. In this paper the Research and Demonstration Facility (RDF) at Virginia Tech is discussed. Phase I of this facility has been completed and Phase II is now in the procurement process. Phase II is the focus of this paper and Is used to illustrate our approach to assuring the performance of the end product as a healthy building. In the course of this discussion, we identify the impacts that budget, review, construction and commissioning processes, and occupancy at substantial completion have on assuring occupants' health and well-being over the buiiding's life- time. The authors acknowledge the significant impact that design decisions have on the health of the building (Levin 1991), but these will not be discussed in this paper, rathar, the paper identifies some areas that influence healthy buildings that are not extensively covered in the literature. HEALTHY BUILDING CONCEPTS The fundamental objectives of indoor environmental control are twofold: to prevent or minimize occupant exposures that can be deleterious; and to provide for the comfort and well-being of the occupants. For acceptable control, both objectives must be achieved, simultaneously. As a response to problem buildings, the concept of the total quality of the building Is emerging. In a broad sense, quality is the ability of a product or service to meet the expectations of the customers / users (Ackerman et al. 1987). A similar sentiment was expressed at the conclusion of the Healthy Buildings '88 conference: "The healthy building is not just free from building- related illness and discomfort but Indeed promotes well-being and health. Besides being non- hazardous, the salient features of the healthy building include thermal comfort, pleasant air quality, illumination and acoustical characteristics, support of social needs and productivity, and distinguished aesthetic qualities. These features should be maintainable over the building life- time. The occupant should feel confidence in the building and its operation, be able to comprehend the systems and design, and be given a fair chance to control the systems" IN (Berglund et al. 1991). Predominantly, structural integrity of the buildings has been the primary concern of all N specifications and performance measures. If healthy buildings are to be designed and operated, ~ 2

the scope of performance criteria should be widened to focus on the user as the starting point of design. To qualify as a healthy building, three sets of criteria should be met (Woods, 1988):. o human response o system performance o service factors Human response may be considered acceptable when there are no known dinicai signs of. Building Related Illness (BRI) and the frequencies of Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) symptoms, if any, are significantly below 20 percent, and a substantial majority (80% or more) of the occupants express satisfaction with their environments. Acceptable system performance requires compliance with environmental criteria (e.g.; ASHRAE 55-1989, ASHRAE 62-1989), balanced air distribution, and design for easy maintenance. Service factors should assure continued acceptable performance of the systems through structured preventive maintenance programs, documentation on complaints and symptoms, and documentation of the remedial measures. RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY The Research and Demonstration Facility grew out of the need to investigate building related issues at full-scale. Innovative building concepts, processes, and products cannot be introduced into the commercial market without proper testing and evaluation. Building representation and simulation. either through the use of computers or physical modeling can only partially inform the design process. The full-scale research and demonstration facility has been designed to bridge the gap between laboratory studies and field studies for investigations related to the evaluation and influence of indoor environments on human responses. The intent of this facility is twofold: (a) to investigate systems that control the thermal, lighting, air quality and acoustic indoor environment and satisfy the criteria qualifying a healthy building; (b) to demonstrate innovative building systems. The primary focus of the current research is indoor air quality, initially studied through evaluations and comparisons of different HVAC systems, I.e., variable air volume, vertical displacement and cold air distribution. Four specific factors will be examined: (a) ventilation effectiveness (air distribution) in occupied spaces, (b) system air cleaning and dilution effectiveness, (c) energy efficiency and (d) cost effectiveness. Human response and analytical measurements will be recorded and analyzed to verify that the criteria for human response and system performance are indeed met. This two-phase, 11,000 square foot project is located at the Virginia Tech campus. The architect of the project is Albert J. Davis, Associate Professor at the College of Architecture of Virginia Tech in cooperation with William Galloway and Robert P. Schubert. Because the work that will be done at RDF represents an on-going research agenda evolving over time, the building has to respond as a dynamic and reconfigurable research laboratory. Therefore, a column-supported space frame with a masonry infill at the perimeter that allows for the expansion or reconfiguration of the enclosure system was chosen. The space frame, spanning both phases of construction, provides for an interstitial space accommodating duct runs, mechanical equipment, lighting 3

systems, and data communication equipment. For Phase I, a research agenda was developed to investigate the application of new and previously untested products and construction assemblies directed towards concrete masonry products and construction integration and was funded by the National Concrete Masonry Association, the Center for Innovative Technology, and Philip Morris. This Phase of the facility, now being completed, has 7,000 square feet of conditioned space and includes a fifty-person ciassroom,_a ten-person office area, and a twelve- person studio. The research agenda for the Phase II inciudes a comparison between a variable air volume (VAV) system serving one area and a vertical displacement system serving the other. This Phase, currently under construction, is funded by Philip Morris USA and has 4000 square feet including conditioned office space, a mechanical room, and an instrumentation room. The office space consists of two visually Identical 700 square feet open plan areas separated by a conference room. Each of these offices will be equipped with a different method of air delivery to evaluate and compare the performance of the two systems. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES The Phase II construction has provided us with an opportunity to monitor closely all phases of the procurement process from a healthy building perspective and to look at the impacts that conceptual design, design deveiopment, construction and commissioning, building occupancy, and operation and maintenance have on indoor air quality. The building is designed using the criteria for human response, system performance, and service factors. These criteria include, in addition to the codes and regulations of the State of Virginia, some existing standards and guidelines, for example, ASHRAE 55-1989: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, ASHRAE 62-1989: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, and ASHRAE 1-1989: Guideline for Commissioning of HVAC Systems. Issues related to the budget, the building review process, the implications of occupancy at substantial completion, and the commissioning process are discussed here. Impacts of the budget on IAQ The majority of building projects come with a defined budget. Both the architect and engineer design with this budget in mind. If the budget is overrun, the design must be modified to achieve the project budget. Although cost savings are case specific, some general trends do apply. If cost savings are to be realized in the mechanical system, what usually results is an inferior HVAC system, smaller ductwork, a lower degree of environmental control, no commissioning of the systems, and deletion of components not required by code. These savings can result in insufficient amount of outside air provided to the occupied space thereby effecting human response; less control of ventilation systems thereby effecting system performance; inadequate operation and maintenance due to lack of understanding of the system and inadequate training of the operations staff thereby effecting service factors. The impact of these engineering savings for IAQ can be substantial if the criteria to qualify for healthy buildings are not taken into consideration. If cost savings are to be realized in the architectural design, typical savings might result in choosing materials of inferior quality and construction methods that might affect the durability of the building. 4

As the budget for RDF Phase II was overrun, design changes were made. Since IAQ was a research issue and the HVAC system was part of that research, no cost savings were possible In this division. Because of the phased construction of this project, Phase II was to be compatitile with Phase I. Therefore major architecturai components, i.e. space frame and the masonry walls could not be changed. Compromises were made In the architectural design and the engineering design to get the project within budget, without compromising the IAQ or the architectural Intent. Instead the strategy to reduce cost focused on those Items that were non-mandatory or redundant. For example, a roof hatch provided in Phase I would suffice for roof accessibiiity allowing it to be deleted from the Phase II construction. Additional cost savings were realized through changes in materials used for the interior walls and the roof. It was anticipated that a good preventive maintenance program would compensate for the loss of durability Inherent to these new materials. We do recognize that some savings realized in construction cost reductions may transfer to a later point in time, either through Increased maintenance or a reduced service life. For example, the roof system was modified by repiadng the masonry ballast system with a mechanically fastened membrane. Without the roof ballast the membrane becomes more susceptible to UV degradation which may reduce its service life. Review process The review process described below is specific to the RDF Phase II, but the objectives of review can still be generalized for other buildings. A review should include three components: (a) verification of compliance with existing standards, codes, and regulations; ' (b) review of the architecture program for compliance with the three sets of criteria for healthy buildings; (c) review of the bid documents for compliance with the architecture program. The RDF Phase II was reviewed by three groups, none of these reviews included all three components. Because the Research and Demonstration Facility is a State building, the design, drawings and specifications were made in compliance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual. These documents were reviewed by the Indoor Environment Program (IEP) research team, the University Facilities Planning and Construction group, and the Division of Engineering and Buildings for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The IEP research team reviewed the project with an emphasis on the requirements of the research agenda and to verify that the criteria for human response, system performance, and service factors could be met with the design. Safety data sheets of materials known for high emission rates were reviewed as available; the amount of outdoor air for both the variable air volume system and the vertical displacement system were checked for compliance with the standards for all occupied operation conditions; the control sequence and the commissioning process were thoroughly reviewed and reiterated until they complied with the criteria. It was not the intent of the research group to verify the documents for compliance with Virginia State regulations. The university review included three major objectives: (a) Compliance With the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual and Building Codes; (b) Compliance with University requirements, which include testing procedures, conformity with University systems, and custodial necessities; and, (c) Checking for possible IAQ problems. The University has had indoor air quality problems in 5

several buildings, and therefore has developed a checklist as a guide to avoid occurrence of the same problems in new buildings. For example, to reduce contamination, return air plenums or lining inside ductwork are not generally allowed in any new construction or renovation. The Department of Engineering and Buildings of the State of Virginia divides the review process into six categories: architectural, mechanical, electrical, civiVstructurai, fire/safety, cost analytical. Each category is reviewed for: (a) Compliance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual; (b) Compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (i.e., BOCA), induding the handicapped standards; (c) Cost in relation to building size and use; (d) Ciarity of drawings and specifications; and, (e) Common sense, e.g., location of items for accessibility, preventing vandalism. Currently, the State review process does not specifically consider Indoor air quality. However, as a result of our discussions with the Department during the review process, the State is now considering to address IAQ related issues as part of the review process. Substantial completion As defined by the Commonwealth of Virginia: "Partial or substantial completion is reached when the building is sufficiently complete for the use it was designed for" (Commonwealth of Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual, 1988 and all subsequent revisions). The interpretation of this definition reflects that life/safety issues and handicapped standards have to be satisfied, the building has to be operational, i.e., systems have to be up and running. For substantially complete buiidings or parts of buildings, the remaining work Is listed as unfinished. This unfinished work, together with identified defects, are itemized on the "punch list". The punch list may include processes that generate contaminants that, if the building Is occupied at this stage, may result in occupant exposure to unacceptable concentration levels. Partially complete buildings (e.g., partial completion is reached when construction is based on a shell-core approach with subsequent fit- out), may lead to similar problems. in addition, partial completion can give rise to 1AQ problems when contaminants generated in the part under construction enter the air in the finished and occupied part. In an office building In California e.g., where the HVAC system was not able to isolate the fit-out areas from occupied spaces, air in the occupied office areas was contaminated, causing several people to be put on permanent medical disability while others were sensitized (Arora and Woods, 1992). The current interpretation of the definition of partial and substantial completion does not address the health risks for the occupants when buildings are occupied at this stage. The contaminants that tead to occupant exposure in these situations originate from three sources: o emission rates from materials o emission rates from finishing construction processes o construction processes In non-occupied parts that contaminate the air in occupied spaces In addition, concentration of contaminants can rise to harmful levels when the system is not tested and balanced and equipment to control the HVAC system is not calibrated. This may result in an insufficient amount of outdoor air to ventilate the occupied spaces and ineffective distribution of the air thereby not sufficiently diluting the contaminants in the space. If the building is occupied after substantial completion is reached, the criteria for human response, system performance, and service factors (especially documentation of complaints and remedying measures) snouid be met at that stage as well as later on in the life of the building. N ~ N tll ~ m ~ N 6

Phase 11 of the Research and Demonstration Facility is still under construction and substantial completion was not reached at the time of publishing. Because of the importance of this problem, concentration profiles of gas, vapor, and particulates will be measured in Phase II as substantial completion is approached, occurs, and during the period after substantial completion is reached, to assess the problems that might occur when a building Is occupied at this stage. Commissioning Process The purpose of the commissioning process, as defined in the Commonwealth of Virginia Capital Outlay Manual is: o to document clearly the design Intent o to verify that the system installation and performance is in accordance with the plans and specifications and design intent o to train the owner's operators so that they fully understand the design intent and the operation and maintenance requirements of the equipment provided to accomplish that end, and to provide them with all necessary technical information required for a complete understanding of the system The commissioning process helps to provide assurance of healthy Indoor environments by verification of the system performance criteria. Moreover it helps to realize economic benefits through reduced change orders, quicker soiutions to problems arising during design and construction, and to lower operating and maintenance costs. The definition soggests that commissioning is a one-time activity to be performed prior to occupancy in the building. Such an approach does not provide assurance that the building will continue to remain healthy. Since the occupancy loads, in typical commercial buildings for instance, change every two to three years, our contention is that a recommissioning should be carried out whenever changes occur either in the loads in the space or in the building systems. ASHRAE takes a more comprehensive view of commissioning in that it suggests that the process begins with the pre-design phase and continues through design, construction, acceptance and post-occupancy phases of the building (ASHRAE 1989). There is, however, no industry consensus on the Identification of a commissioning authority. The task requires a complete understanding of the performance criteria and design intent as well as of the building systems as installed. While the designers of the building and/or systems are suitable candidates to perform the task (Sterling 1989, Wheeler 1991), another school of thought recommends that an independent person/group be appointed as the commissioning authority to allow for an independent evaluation of the service systems as designed and installed. This provides an opportunity for the architects and engineers to expand the range of services they offer and at the same time monitor and assure acceptable performance of the building over its life-time. For the RDF, a commissioning process has been instituted. In an attempt to identify the monetary value assigned by the contractors to the commissioning process, the bidders were asked to provide this as an add alternate item. As the mechanical system is a critical component of this test facility, the designers of the system have been retained as the commissioning authority. The cost effectiveness of this commissioning process including the cost for the commissioning authority and the mechanical contractors are now being analyzed. N N r CA ~ ao Cj 7

CONCLUSIONS The three sets of criteria: human response, system performance, and service factors, are to be met at all times during the procurement process to ensure a heaithy building. The RDF Phase FI was designed with these criteria, the savings to get In budget were made without compromising . the criteria, and the review process by the research group inciuded screening the design for compliance with the-criteria. With the completion of this facility we anticipate having the capability to evaluate the implications of occupying a building that Is only substantial complete, and to examine the impact of commissioning on construction, operation, and maintenance. Once the building is completed, it will serve as a tool In the evaluation and demonstration of control strategies that improve the indoor environment. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to recognize the following people and organizations for their contributions: Albert J. Davis, William Galloway, Charles W. Steger (College of Architecture and Urban Studies), John G. Kuykendall, Kenneth W. Baker, Steven P. Warren, Virgil F. Decker (Facilities Planning and Construction, Virginia Tech), John J. Harmon (H.C.Yu and Associates), Bjame W. Olesen (Indoor Environment Program), Philip Morris USA, National Concrete Masonry Association, Center for Innovative Technology. ' REFERENCES Ackerman, RB, RJ Coleman, E Leger, and JC MacDorman. 1987. Process quality management and improvement guidelines. Indiana: AT&T Bell Laboratories Publication Center. Arora S and JE Woods. 1992. Assuring Building Performance: Redefining professional roles and responsibilities. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of C/8 W82: Future Studies in Construction, Construction beyond 2000. 1992, Espoo, Finland. ASHRAE. 1989. ASHRAE 1-1989: Guideline for Commissioning of HVAC Systems. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. ASHRAE. 1989. ASHRAE Standard 55-1989: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. ASHRAE. 1989. ASHRAE Standard 62-1989: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Berglund, B, T Undvall, I Samuelsson, and J Sundell. 1991. "Prescriptions for healthy buildings". Healthy Buildings '88. Vol.4: Conclusions and recommendations for healthier buildings (Bergiund, B and T Lindvall eds.). Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research. pp. 5-14. 8

BOCA. 1990. The BOCA National Building Code / 1990. Country Club Hills: Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. 11 th edition. Commonwealth of Virginia. 1988. Commonwealth of Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual / and all revisions thereto. Virginia. Levin, H. 1991. "Critical Building Design Factors for Indoor Air Quality and Climate: Current Status and Predicted Trends". Indoor Air. Copenhagen (Denmark): Vol.1, No.1, pp.79-92. Sterling, E.M. 1989. "Designing healthy buildings - The architects role in the commissioning process". ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 95, Part 1. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. pp.895-899. Wheeler, A. E. 1991. "Construction and Renovation for Healthy Buildings". Post Conference Proceedings of lAQ 91: Healthy Buildings. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. pp. 6-9 WHO. 1946. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Official Record, WHO, 2, p.100. Woods, JE. 1988. "Recent developments for heating, cooling and ventilating buildings: Trends for assuring healthy buildings". Healthy Buildings '88. Vol.1: State of the art reviews (Bergiund, B and T Undvall eds.). Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research. pp. 99-109. Woods, JE. 1989. "Cost avoidance In owning and operating buildings". Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews. No. 4, pp 753-770. I N ~ N M+ tA ~ ~ 9 CA