The Sustainable Practice of Reusing Buildings:

Challenges in California
David W. Cocke, SE and Kaitlin Drisko, Architect

Presentation Outline
Philosophy: Building Reuse as Sustainability what is the challenge? Metrics and Calculations
Embodied Energy Seismic Risk as a Life Cycle Consideration

Structural Engineers Role Case Studies Approach Details Some New ideas

From Wikipedia:
Structural engineers inspect, analyze, design, plan, and research structural components and structural systems. Their work takes account mainly of technical, economic and environmental concerns, but they may also consider aesthetic and social factors.

Philosophy
New Buildings VS Existing Buildings
Someone elses construction Alter the project needs to match the existing configuration & system Major credits for conservation Archaic structural systems Must understand the existing structure to utilize in combination with new strengthening Blank slate Set the configuration & the structural system to match the project goals Strive for LEED credits Well codified structural systems Can design by cookbook

The Challenge
How (or why?) do we justify saving an historic building, especially in California?

Philosophy Preservation & Sustainability

Typical Building Life Cycle
Design Construction Operation Abandon or Demolition New Construction

Every 50 Years +

Is this Sustainable?

Philosophy Preservation & Sustainability

Definition of Sustainability
Sustainability is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs -1987 UN Bruntland Comission Three aspects of Sustainability: Environmental* Social Economic
*Current focus of Engineers, LEED

Credit: National Trust White Paper

Building Reuse as Environmental Sustainability

Philosophy Preservation & Sustainability

The greenest building is the one already built - Carl Elefante, AIA Embodied Energy
Approx 16% of total energy approx 65 years to pay back Large scale recycling

Life Cycle Analysis

Toxic releases to water, resource extraction, manufacturing, outweigh pollution releases associated with building operations Athena Institute

Philosophy Preservation & Sustainability

Building Reuse as Environmental Sustainability (cont)
Sprawl
Preservation encourages revitalization rather than developing urban fringe
Average Annual Energy Use (BTU/sf)* Pre 1920 1920-1945 1946-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2003 80,127 90,234 80,198 90,976 94,968 100,077 88,834 79,703

Waste Generation
Average waste from demolishing a building is 155 #/sf

Operating efficiency
Historic buildings are not Energy Hogs

*US EPA, 2003

Philosophy Preservation & Sustainability

Building Reuse as Economic Sustainability
Spurs economic development Preservation creates more jobs than new construction (dollar for dollar) Historic buildings draw skilled workers Older buildings friendly to small businesses

Philosophy Preservation & Sustainability

Building Reuse as Social Sustainability
Maintain Cultural Ecosystems
Demolishing distinctive neighborhoods to replace them with uniform 21st century settlements is analogous to cutting down rain forests for monocrop farming -John Keen, Professor

Preserve a Sense of Place, Well Being Social capital

Preservation encourages social interaction; civic engagement

Metrics
LEED Rating System
Until now, LEED awarded building reuse the same as new material specification and bike racks
1 point for maintaining 75% structure (MR-1.1), or 1 point for using 50% FSC wood (MR-7), or 1 point for bike racks and showers (SS-4.2)

LEED until now

Metrics
Favors Existing Building sites

New building materials

Metrics
LEED Rating System
LEED 2009
2 points maintaining 75% structure Increased points for Existing Building Sites based on life cycle analysis Alternative compliance for Embodied Energy Proposed for Materials & Resources Credits Still no specific points for Preservation metrics, maybe LEED 2011 Social values Cultural Heritage Sense of Place

LEED 2009

Metrics
26 5 6 3 2 14

Favors Existing Building Sites more than LEED 2.2

New building materials

Embodied Energy of Materials and Construction Per Square Foot of Construction

Source: www.TheGreenestBuilding.org Building Type MBTU/sq.ft. Residential Single Family 700 Residential 2-4 Family 630 Residential Garden Apartment 650 Residential High Rise 740 Hotel/Motel 1130 Dormitories 1430 Industrial Buildings 970 Office Buildings 1640 Warehouses 560 Garages/Service Stations 770 Building Type MBTU/sq.ft. Stores/Restaurants 940 Religious Buildings 1260 Educational 1390 Hospital Buildings 1720 Other Nonfarm Buildings 1450 Amusement, Social & Rec.1380 Misc Nonresidential Bldg 1100 Laboratories 2070 Libraries, Museums, etc. 1740

Demolition Energy is that "needed to raze, load, and haul away construction materials."

Embodied Energy Calculation

Metrics

Or roughly 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline!

Metrics
Additional Metrics with Building Reuse
By 2030, U.S. will replace 82 Billion SF of buildings(1/3 of current amountBrookings Institute)
Can many of these be reused instead?

National Trusts Sustainable Preservation Coalition to incorporate Preservation Metrics into LEED 2011 Alternative compliance path for Life Cycle / Embodied Energy analyses

Life Cycle Costs Expected Seismic Performance

What is the expected cost in energy due to future earthquakes? & how can we estimate? One idea:
Probable Maximum Loss (PML) used by the lending & insurance industries Estimates repair costs to a building due to EQ damage during a given time period (based on site seismicity, building characteristics, period of study, bell curve)

Life Cycle Costs Expected Seismic Performance

Example Building: Embodied energy = 56,500,000 MBTUs
In the as-is condition, we estimate a Median PML value of 20% for a 50 year period. Estimate energy for repairs at 11,300,000 MBTUs Reduce the Median PML to 10%, Estimate energy for repairs at 5,650,000 MBTUs

Raise Performance Objective and reduce future energy lost to EQ damage!

Owner/Developers Strategy
Historic Building
Needs a good investment Likes historic architecture Needs marketable property Considerations:

Photo of downtown riverside

Asks realtor: Can building be marketable? Asks architect: Can building be usable? Asks MEP: Can building be efficient? Asks Structural Engineer: Can building be safe? (Often the deal-breaker!)

Structural Engineers Role in Sustainability

Through LEED: specify materials fly ash, certified wood, etc. small impact Conserve energy through Preservation significant impact

Structural Engineers Role

with Existing Buildings
Easy: Does NOT meet code Easy: Not FEASIBLE to retrofit

(Feasible - capable of being done with means at hand

and circumstances as they are)

But, we should consider that: Desired performance objective may be lower than current code Time is a factor when measuring Seismic Risk Performance of existing structure might be better than expected, although more difficult to determine by analysis Life cycle cost vs. benefits of seismic performance can be significant

Structural Engineers Strategy

Seismic Retrofit by:
Adding new strengthening & rigidity to protect the brittle materials (shear walls, braces, etc.) Or Adding new elements to supplement the existing (new connections, etc.) Or Protect by changing dynamic response (base isolation, etc.)

Structural Engineers Strategy

Long-term strategies for Seismic Retrofit: Stabilize first when retrofit is not immediately feasible Retrofit by priorities when full retrofit is not immediately feasible falling hazards & exits are top priority Be surgical when possible

Codes & Standards

Secretary of Interiors Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings
Protects historic buildings

California Historical Building Code

Sets strengthening objectives Provides waivers to other code requirements Is intentionally broad and not prescriptive

Codes & Standards

California Historical Building Code
Draft language for 2009 CHBC: The intent of the CHBC is to encourage the preservation of qualified historical buildings or properties while providing a minimum Building Performance Objective of Collapse Prevention by providing some margin against either partial or total structural collapse such that the overall risk of life-threatening injury as a result of structural damage is low.

Codes & Standards

To achieve the Performance Objective of Collapse Prevention, use published standards ASCE 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings
Uses a tiered approach starting with a checklist based on structure type & gets more detailed with each Tier Emphasizes quality not quantity

Damage Range and Damage Index

Earthquake Damage States & Performance Levels

Negligible 10 No damage, continuous service.

Fully service, facility operates and functions Operational Continuous after earthquake. Negligible structural and
nonstructural damage. Most operations and functions can resume immediately. Repair is required to restore some services. Damage is light. Operational non-essential Structure is safe for occupancy immediately after earthquake. Essential operations are protected, non-essential operations are disrupted. Damage is moderate. Selected building systems, features or contents may be protected from damage. Life-safety is generally protected. Structure is damaged, but remains stable. Falling hazards remain secure. Structural collapse prevented. Nonstructural elements may fall. Structural damage is severe, but collapse is prevented. Nonstructural elements fall. Portions of primary structural system collapse.

9 8

Current Code
5 4

Moderate

Light

Life-Safe

Severe

CHBC

Near Near Collapse Collapse

3 Complete 2

Collapse Collapse
Complete structural collapse

Case Studies
Renovation University of Redlands Memorial Chapel Stabilization / Restoration Harada House, Riverside Retrofit / Renovation Riverside Metropolitan Museum Adaptive Re-use First Christian Church of Rialto Adaptive Re-use MacGowan Residence

University of Redlands
Requested a seismic study of building inventory Performed brief review of all buildings Rated buildings by seismic vulnerability Considered long-term plan for each building Measured long-term plan against risk Formulated a plan to upgrade all identified buildings over time

Memorial Chapel

Deficiencies
Very tall heavy concrete walls Roof diaphragm was inadequate to brace tall concrete walls Some discontinuous walls Inadequate load paths for balcony loads to structure Potential falling hazards organ grilles, ceiling, bell tower, cornice, columns, frieze, others

Embodied Energy Calculation To Replace: 80,000 sf concrete building

Embodied Energy loss = Demo = New Building Energy = Replace Total Energy = 100,800,000 MBTUs 960,000 MBTUs 100,800,000 MBTUs 202,560,000 MBTUs 10,080,000 MBTUs

Renovate Energy (~10%) =

Net Energy Savings =

192,480,000 MBTUs

Structural Fix
Add limited shotcrete to strengthen walls where needed Add complete roof diaphragm with steel rods and plates above ceiling Add concrete shear walls in limited locations Strengthen bell tower Add strongbacks to tall walls Anchor potential falling hazards

Memorial Chapel
New bracing at front elevation

New steel diaphragm in attic

Memorial Chapel
Before

After

Memorial Chapel
Before

After

Harada House

National Register property Lemon Street, Riverside, CA

Project Goals & Limitations

Protect the contents and the building! Need to Stabilize to prevent further decay! City-owned Extremely limited budget Very Important Historically from all perspectives (architecture probably least) Make suitable for museum use

Harada House

Harada House
Deficiencies Immediate Concerns: Flexibility of structure leads to damage of plaster Unstable north retaining wall Decayed first floor framing

Deficiencies Immediate Concerns: Brick Stem walls around foundations Unreinforced Brick Chimneys Falling Hazards Termites Unstable Garage Framing

Harada House

Immediate Concerns

Immediate Concerns

Harada House

Deficiencies Long-Term Concerns: Protection of interior plaster

Inadequate Seismic Rigidity, Resistance and Toughness Settlement of Foundations

Long-Term Concerns: (continued)

Deteriorating Unreinforced Brick Foundations No anchors of walls to foundations No lateral bracing of cripple walls Flexible and weak walls with wood clapboard siding of poor condition Increase stiffness to protect plaster Areas of decayed floor framing No roof diaphragm bracing Inadequate roof-to-wall anchors

Embodied Energy Calculation To Replace: 1,500 sf wood frame building

Embodied Energy loss = Demo = New Building Energy = Replace Total Energy = 1,050,000 MBTUs 4,650 MBTUs 1,050,000 MBTUs 2,104,650 MBTUs 210,000 MBTUs

Renovate Energy (~20%) =

Net Energy Savings =

1,894,650 MBTUs

Harada House
Matched identified deficiencies to Projects goals
Develop mitigation measures & list by priority

Developed mitigation to achieve project goals accounting for limitations

Use limited available budget to Stabilize, then acquire funds for the long-term preservation

Harada House
Long-Term Preservation Funding for re-roofing was available so, While we added a new roof Added new plywood to form new diaphragm Completed load path from roof and ceiling to walls Added framing & straps for future chimneys

Harada House
Whats next? Better drainage New/repaired foundations Shear walls Foundation anchors Reconstructed chimneys Repaired floor framing

Riverside Metropolitan Museum

Riverside Metropolitan Museum

Two-story structure with a full basement, built in 1912 Unreinforced masonry walls Roof consists of concrete roof & ceiling slabs spanning to steel beams, supported by steel trusses Two-story tall atrium at the south side surrounded by concrete floor slab at the north, east, & west sides Several structural modifications and additions:
1928 Addition at the south side of the building Late 1950s infill of atrium space for additional second floor 1967 Addition at the east of 1928 Addition.

Riverside Metropolitan Museum

Deterioration of Wood
Visible signs of decay at numerous locations along the roof eaves/cornice Interior wood members and framing show no signs of deterioration

Excessive Shear Stress in Lateral Force Resisting System URM walls and floor diaphragms No Wall Anchorage Wood Ledgers in cross-grain bending

Damaged Wood Eaves

Riverside Metropolitan Museum

Inadequate transfer to Shear Walls Proportions
Excessive height-to-thickness ratios to resist out-of-plane seismic loads Main building is okay, the second story wall is very close to the limit

Unblocked Diaphragms Connections

Wall anchors and beam/girder/truss supports

Brick Column in Basement

Falling Hazard HCT walls Main Entrance Opening

Masonry Arches at Main Entrance

Embodied Energy Calculation To Replace: ~30,000 sf brick, concrete and wood framed building
Embodied Energy loss = Demo = New Building Energy = Replace Total Energy = 52,200,000 MBTUs 465,000 MBTUs 52,200,000 MBTUs 104,865,000 MBTUs 10,440,000 MBTUs

Renovate Energy (~20%) =

Net Energy Savings =

94,425,000 MBTUs

Riverside Metropolitan Museum

Riverside Metropolitan Museum

Riverside Metropolitan Museum

First Christian Church Rialto

One-story structure with a high gable roof, mezzanine and full basement, constructed in 1906-7. 2x6 Wood-framed with 1x diagonal sheathing and wood shingles Roof consists of wood scissor trusses at 24 on-center.

First Christian Church Rialto

No significant structural deficiencies with the gravity load carrying system Primary ridge and eaves of the gable roof are straight and true without apparent sag or sway White painted shingles appear to be original and remain aligned

First Christian Church Rialto

Anchor foundation sills Brace chimney where it extends above roof framing Fasten wood posts to slab and foundations Provide full depth blocking between roof rafters to improve shear transfer

First Christian Church Rialto

The primary structure framing and foundation system appears sound and capable of accommodating gravity forces from code prescribed dead and live loads
From the structural engineers assessment by Simpson Gumpertz & Heger

Embodied Energy Calculation To Replace: ~5,800 sf wood framed building

Embodied Energy loss = Demo: New Building Energy = Replace Total Energy = 7,424,000 MBTUs 174,000 MBTUs 7,424,000 MBTUs 15,022,000 MBTUs 742,400 MBTUs

Renovate Energy (~10%) =

Net Energy Savings =

14,279,600 MBTUs

First Christian Church Rialto

Additional seismic enhancements would provide better seismic performance, however would be very invasive requiring removal of exterior or interior finishes to install plywood sheathing

First Christian Church Rialto

MacGowan Residence Los Angeles

Three-story structure with a high gable roof and full basement, constructed in 1912. 17,000sf residence filled with original decorative details Finding the best fit

 Main ground floor rooms are large enough to accommodate classes and events

1930s

Before

Before

Foaad Farah

After

After

Main ground floor rooms are large enough to accommodate classes and events
Before Before

After

After

 Modifications for exiting and egress are required to accommodate a change in use and increased occupancy

Window converted to exit door

Exit stair added

Enclosure added at back stair

Before

Before

Before

After

After

After

New lifesafety systems and are required

Before

Penetration made from Above

After

Wood Flooring Stored and Tracked

Installation done from above

 Existing spaces are adapted to new uses

Before

Proposed Section

After

Exterior fire lane and access systems are added

Before

Proposed Landscape Rendering

Fire Lane just prior to landscaping

After

Embodied Energy Calculation To Replace: ~17,000 sf wood framed building

Embodied Energy loss = Demo: New Building Energy = Replace Total Energy = 20,400,000 MBTUs 52,700 MBTUs 20,400,000 MBTUs 40,852,700 MBTUs 4,080,000 MBTUs

Renovate Energy (~20%) =

Net Energy Savings =

36,772,700 MBTUs

One of the most sustainable things we can do as a society is to promote the use and rere-use of existing buildings, places, and their attendant infrastructures. Indeed, it is quite encouraging that, in recent decades, the percentage of new architectural work done on existing buildings has steadily increased.
From Veneration To Reclamation by Daniel Bluestone, Director, Historic Preservation Program, University of Virginia, Charlottesville

Some New Ideas

1. Consider Preservation as Sustainability
Make retrofit attractive to owners & developers
Promote Tax Credits (similar to Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program) Provide message to Owners & Developers

Buildings can be saved if you want to save them (and willing to invest)

Some New Ideas

2. Understand ALL of the costs and benefits
Consider Embodied Energy Consider Life Cycle/Seismic Risk analysis Consider other aspects of Sustainability & Preservation, i.e. Environmental, Social, Economic benefits

Some New Ideas

3. Work with Structural Engineers that are experienced with saving buildings.
Dont ask the Structural Engineer to state whether it is feasible; instead ask what it will take to fix the building, then estimate the costs. (We are doing our best to convince our colleagues to change their thinking also!)

And Finally... 4. Fix LEED Scoring

Existing 50,000 SF Example Warehouse
Net energy savings of 113,021,000 MBTUs to retrofit & reuse versus teardown & rebuild Equivalent to 1,000,000 gal gas saved! This only receives 1 or 2 credits in LEED!

Fix LEED Scoring

If 100 people all ride 10 miles / day, it will take 100 years to save the same amount of energy!