The American Institute of Steel Contractors (AISC) has expressed concern over the recently published ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers) standard 189.1. The standard, developed jointly with the USGBC (US Green Building Council), purports to give regulations on the design of high performance green buildings.
AISC claims that the structural regulations will have a negative impact on the environment, are outside of the areas of expertise of either the USGBC and ASHRAE, and are biased towards the use of concrete over steel and other materials.
Here is a link to this month's issue of Modern Steel Construction that contains the article:
(Sorry I couldn't go directly to the article, but it is on Page 18)
It is very interesting to see one organization's regulations challenged by another party. I wholeheartedly agree that neither ASHRAE nor the USGBC have the expertise to regulate the design, specification or construction of the structure of buildings. The real danger is that if this standard is adopted in ANSI, it could quickly become part of building codes all around the country and compromise informed, true unbiased high performance green design.
i'm sure all this structural steel regulation has been triggered by the HdM bird's nest in Beijing. that thing is so over designed (structurally speaking) and a lot of the steel "structure" is purely architectural.
i mean that project has sucked up all the steel from the markets around the globe.
Did you even read the article, or my partial summary of it? As for your comment, the stadium may be less structurally efficient than some other stadiums, but I hardly think it is sucking up "all the steel from the markets around the globe."
The point of my post was to highlight that with LEED, and green design in general, we have a chance to effect real change on the built environment, but in attempting to do so, we can not just blindly follow random documents and regulations without considering the authors, their expertise, and the sources of their information.
The American Institute of Steel Contractors is the governing body through which all structural steel construction is regulated, both in design codes and construction methods. They should have a hand in the writing of any codes that regulate or recommend structural building materials, just as the ACI (American Concrete Insitute) all other material code writing organizations should also be included.
This is the equivalent of a group of Structural Engineers getting together and writing an architectural code with environmental reccomendations for flooring and carpet selections, it is not their expertise nor is their area of practice.
Sorry for all the acronyms everyone, I'm not trying impress, just trying to be clear about whom I'm referring.
There are several issues to face when looking at when determining what makes a project “green”
Embodied energy of concrete is extremely high (even w/ fly ash substitute) - but the thermal lag can be used to heat and cool a project, if done correctly, w/ minimal assistance from hvac (significant electrical savings).
Whereas that is pretty much impossible in a steel project (which potentially is less embodied energy as the steel can be recycled) unless massive amounts of insulation are used (varying degrees of embodied energy)
that you seem to be relying solely for information in a rag paid for by steel mill owners, leads me to believe you might be a rep for AISC, or am I way off?
Holz, you are off, but I can understand why you might think that, given my low number of comments. I'm not a Shill for the steel industry, though I do read Modern Steel Construction (it is free and pretty informative for structural engineers doing steel design). I'm not trying to push Steel over concrete, really. The point is simply that the AISC, ACI, American Society of Civil Engineers etc should be the ones recommending structural building materials and determining the criteria by which they should be judged.
Perhaps another example will help illustrate the point. I'll reverse the current scenario. What if a bunch of steel and concrete engineers got together, looked at all the models and technologies of different roof top chiller units, and decided that the lightest model is the most green technology. Structurally speaking, a lighter chiller requires a lighter support structure and a lighter structure means less material and less energy consumed, thus more green.
But of course we both know this is absurd logic and that the AISC and ACI do not have the expertise to recommend roof top chiller units and do not understand the environmental impact of different technologies.
well i do agree that AIA or USGBC have no authority to dictate structural design codes.
the real issue will arise ONLY if ANSI incorporates these design guidelines. and frankly i don't think ANSI will make any new regulations recommended by "architectural" organizations unless they themselves ratify them. and if they do, i guess they are rightly needed.
as for design of chillers goes, they are designed and recommended by engineers and HVAC consultants (also engineers, generally mechanical).
i think the engineers understand the environmental impact of technologies way better than architects. its actually ridiculous to even compare the technical know-how of an engineer to that of an architect.
and yes, the steel supply was at shortage. many current projects are forced to rely on concrete for their structural needs ( the Museum Plaza project for eg has all is exterior mullions designed in concrete since steel contractors had simply refused to make a commitment to supply the required quantity of steel)
Jun 14, 08 1:51 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
AISC Challengs ASHRAE, USGBC on high performance green design code.
The American Institute of Steel Contractors (AISC) has expressed concern over the recently published ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers) standard 189.1. The standard, developed jointly with the USGBC (US Green Building Council), purports to give regulations on the design of high performance green buildings.
AISC claims that the structural regulations will have a negative impact on the environment, are outside of the areas of expertise of either the USGBC and ASHRAE, and are biased towards the use of concrete over steel and other materials.
Here is a link to this month's issue of Modern Steel Construction that contains the article:
http://redigitaleditions.com/ActiveMagazine/getBook.asp?Path=BDC/2008/06/03&BookCollection=BDC&ReaderStyle=WithPDF
(Sorry I couldn't go directly to the article, but it is on Page 18)
It is very interesting to see one organization's regulations challenged by another party. I wholeheartedly agree that neither ASHRAE nor the USGBC have the expertise to regulate the design, specification or construction of the structure of buildings. The real danger is that if this standard is adopted in ANSI, it could quickly become part of building codes all around the country and compromise informed, true unbiased high performance green design.
i'm sure all this structural steel regulation has been triggered by the HdM bird's nest in Beijing. that thing is so over designed (structurally speaking) and a lot of the steel "structure" is purely architectural.
i mean that project has sucked up all the steel from the markets around the globe.
I don't know where to begin with that one...
Did you even read the article, or my partial summary of it? As for your comment, the stadium may be less structurally efficient than some other stadiums, but I hardly think it is sucking up "all the steel from the markets around the globe."
The point of my post was to highlight that with LEED, and green design in general, we have a chance to effect real change on the built environment, but in attempting to do so, we can not just blindly follow random documents and regulations without considering the authors, their expertise, and the sources of their information.
The American Institute of Steel Contractors is the governing body through which all structural steel construction is regulated, both in design codes and construction methods. They should have a hand in the writing of any codes that regulate or recommend structural building materials, just as the ACI (American Concrete Insitute) all other material code writing organizations should also be included.
This is the equivalent of a group of Structural Engineers getting together and writing an architectural code with environmental reccomendations for flooring and carpet selections, it is not their expertise nor is their area of practice.
Sorry for all the acronyms everyone, I'm not trying impress, just trying to be clear about whom I'm referring.
There are several issues to face when looking at when determining what makes a project “green”
Embodied energy of concrete is extremely high (even w/ fly ash substitute) - but the thermal lag can be used to heat and cool a project, if done correctly, w/ minimal assistance from hvac (significant electrical savings).
Whereas that is pretty much impossible in a steel project (which potentially is less embodied energy as the steel can be recycled) unless massive amounts of insulation are used (varying degrees of embodied energy)
that you seem to be relying solely for information in a rag paid for by steel mill owners, leads me to believe you might be a rep for AISC, or am I way off?
Holz, you are off, but I can understand why you might think that, given my low number of comments. I'm not a Shill for the steel industry, though I do read Modern Steel Construction (it is free and pretty informative for structural engineers doing steel design). I'm not trying to push Steel over concrete, really. The point is simply that the AISC, ACI, American Society of Civil Engineers etc should be the ones recommending structural building materials and determining the criteria by which they should be judged.
Perhaps another example will help illustrate the point. I'll reverse the current scenario. What if a bunch of steel and concrete engineers got together, looked at all the models and technologies of different roof top chiller units, and decided that the lightest model is the most green technology. Structurally speaking, a lighter chiller requires a lighter support structure and a lighter structure means less material and less energy consumed, thus more green.
But of course we both know this is absurd logic and that the AISC and ACI do not have the expertise to recommend roof top chiller units and do not understand the environmental impact of different technologies.
Does that make sense?
well i do agree that AIA or USGBC have no authority to dictate structural design codes.
the real issue will arise ONLY if ANSI incorporates these design guidelines. and frankly i don't think ANSI will make any new regulations recommended by "architectural" organizations unless they themselves ratify them. and if they do, i guess they are rightly needed.
as for design of chillers goes, they are designed and recommended by engineers and HVAC consultants (also engineers, generally mechanical).
i think the engineers understand the environmental impact of technologies way better than architects. its actually ridiculous to even compare the technical know-how of an engineer to that of an architect.
and yes, the steel supply was at shortage. many current projects are forced to rely on concrete for their structural needs ( the Museum Plaza project for eg has all is exterior mullions designed in concrete since steel contractors had simply refused to make a commitment to supply the required quantity of steel)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.