Article: Daily Commercial News - Are carbon neutral steel big box stores possible?

(rendering of a 6,000 sq. ft. retail carbon neutral steel building system from the CN-SBS research project)

The Daily Commercial News recently published an article discussing the possibility of designing and constructing a carbon neutral big box retail store using a steel building system. This article references heavily our Carbon Neutral Steel Building System Research Project (CN-SBS).

Check out the article here for a general overview of this project and go to our CN-SBS website for all of the details. This is a multi-year research project with many partners including the University of Waterloo, Enermodal Engineering (now MMM Group) and Whiting Design. 

(rendering of a 10,000 sq. ft. retail carbon neutral steel building system from the CN-SBS research project)

Cas d'étude: L’acier prépeint coloré ajoute un élément visuel intéressant à une école de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador

Projet: Carbonear Academy

Carbonear, Terre-Neuve et Labrador

La Carbonear Academy, qui a la capacité d’accueillir 470 élèves de la maternelle à la 8e année, a ouvert ses portes en septembre 2013. Même si elle venait tout juste d’être construite, un nombre d’élèves supérieur aux attentes a obligé la province à dépenser 2 millions de dollars supplémentaires pour la construction de quatre salles de cours de plus, laquelle a été achevée au début de l’année. Cette école remplace l’école primaire Davis Elementary, vieille de 60 ans.

L’utilisation de l’acier a permis à l’architecte d’ajouter un élément visuel intéressant à l’aide de revêtement mural aux couleurs primaires vives. « Nous avons utilisé de l’acier, car nous étions soumis aux exigences du propriétaire. Les principales préoccupations étaient la durabilité, la résistance aux intempéries et l’entretien minime », déclare l’architecte Greg Snow de Gibbons Snow Architects Inc. « L’acier permet l’utilisation d’une grande variété de profils et de couleurs. Nous avons utilisé des couleurs vives et différentes textures pour ajouter un élément intéressant. »

Son emplacement présentait quelques défis pour l’équipe, dit Snow, « Elle est construite dans le flanc d’une colline. Si nous avions reculé davantage, l’excavation serait devenue très coûteuse », explique-t-il. « C’est un long site très étroit. Nous avons utilisé des blocs de couleur, ce qui crée une rupture dans la façade et lui donne un élément visuel intéressant. Pour certaines sections autour des fenêtres, nous avons utilisé des profils ondulés ordinaires pour créer une rupture dans la façade. »

L’école mesure 137 m (450 pieds) de long, renfermant un espace utilisable de 5 110 m2 (55 000 pi ca). Construite à l’aide d’acier de construction et munie de murs en maçonnerie et de revêtements muraux en acier galvanisé prépeint, elle est faite pour durer. « C’est un monument très visible. Il instaure un sens de permanence dans la collectivité », déclare Snow. L’école a été construite selon les normes les plus sévères en matière d’efficacité et d’environnement, et l’architecte a pu tirer profit de certains éléments verts de l’école de façon à engager les élèves et à leur enseigner la réduction de consommation d’énergie. Les personnes qui ont visité le complexe ont été impressionnées par l’extérieur coloré, le stationnement et les voies d’accès habilement conçus, les salles de classe spacieuses et le gymnase d’une certaine ampleur.

« Nous avons incorporé un logiciel interactif lié aux systèmes du bâtiment afin de permettre aux élèves d’observer les systèmes mécaniques et électriques de l’école en temps réel. Ils peuvent constater l’utilisation d’énergie et la comparer à celle d’autres écoles », dit Snow. « Certains professeurs s’intéressent beaucoup à la possibilité de l’utiliser comme outil d’enseignement de la réduction de consommation d’énergie. » Les caractéristiques éco-énergétiques du bâtiment comprennent l’éclairage à haute efficacité muni de capteurs de lumière du jour, ainsi que le chauffage et le refroidissement géothermiques.

Un long panneau d’alliage de couleur jaune a été utilisé pour l’auvent devant le bâtiment afin d’ajouter un élément visuel intéressant supplémentaire et une protection contre les intempéries. À l’intérieur de l’école, la couleur jaune a encore une fois été utilisée pour les escaliers en métal ondulé. « Le hall et l’entrée constituent un véritable point central du bâtiment », déclare Snow. « Nous avons utilisé certaines couleurs personnalisées. »

ÉQUIPE DE CONCEPTION ET DE CONSTRUCTION
ARCHITECTE : Gibbons + Snow Architects Inc.
ENTREPRENEUR GÉNÉRAL : Marco Group
ENTREPRENEUR DE PAREMENT MÉTALLIQUE : Hampton Building Systems Inc.
FOURNISSEUR DE PAREMENT MÉTALLIQUE : Agway Metals Inc. 
ENTREPRENEUR DE CHARPENTES MÉTALLIQUES LÉGÈRES ET DE CLOISONS SÈCHES : CAD Construction
FOURNISSEUR DE CHARPENTES MÉTALLIQUES LÉGÈRES : Imperial Group
PHOTOGRAPHIE : Stephen Sheppard

Cliquez pour télécharger le cas d'étude #85-14: L’acier prépeint coloré ajoute un élément visuel intéressant à une école de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador

Project Profile: Colourful prepainted steel adds visual interest to new school in Newfoundland and Labrador

Project: Carbonear Academy

Location: Cabonear, Newfoundland

The Carbonear Academy, which has the capacity for 470 students from Kindergarten to Grade 8, opened for classes in September 2013. Although just completed, a higher than expected number of students forced the Province to spend an additional $2 million on the construction of four additional classrooms which were completed early this year. The school replaces the 60-year-old Davis Elementary School.

Using steel allowed the architect to add visual interest to the school with horizontal cladding in bright primary colours. “We used steel because we were driven by the owner’s requirements. The main concerns were durability, weather-ability and low maintenance,” says architect Greg Snow of Gibbons Snow Architects Inc. “With steel there are a wide variety of profiles and colours you can use. We used bright colours and different textures to add interest.”

The school’s location posed a bit of a challenge for the crew, Snow says, “It is built into the side of a hill. If we had gone back any farther, the excavation would have become very expensive,” he explains. “It’s a very narrow, long site. We used blocks of colour, which breaks up the elevation and gives it a visual interest. For some sections around the windows, we used regular corrugated profiles to break up the elevation.”

The building is 137m (450 ft.) long and has 5,110m2 (55,000 sq. ft.) of useable space inside. Constructed of structural steel, with pre-painted galvanized steel cladding and masonry walls, it was built to last. “It is a very visible landmark and it has a sense of permanence in the community,” says Snow. The school has been built to the highest possible efficiency and environmental standards and the architect was able to take advantage of some of the school’s green elements in a way that will engage students and teach them about energy consumption. Visitors touring the complex were very impressed by the colourful exterior, neatly designed access lanes and parking, the spacious classrooms and sizeable gymnasium.

“We incorporated interactive computer software tied into the building’s systems so students can see the mechanical and electrical systems of the school in real time. They can see the energy usage and compare it to other schools.” Snow says. “Some of the teachers are quite interested in using it as a teaching tool for energy consumption.” The building’s energy conscious features include higher efficiency lights with daylight sensors and geo-exchange heating and cooling.

A long yellow composite panel was used for the canopy in front of the building to add further visual interest and some weather protection. Inside the school, the yellow colour was again used for the corrugated metal stairs. “The lobby and entrance area are a real focal point for the building,” says Snow. “We used some custom colours.”

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TEAM 

ARCHITECT: Gibbons + Snow Architects Inc. 

GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Marco Group 

STEEL SIDING CONTRACTOR: Hampton Building Systems Inc. 

STEEL SIDING SUPPLER: Agway Metals Inc. 

LIGHT STEEL FRAMING/ DRYWALL CONTRACTOR: CAD Construction 

LIGHT STEEL FRAMING SUPPLIER: Imperial Manufacturing Group 

PHOTOGRAPHY: Stephen Sheppard

Click to download Case Study #85-14: Colourful prepainted steel adds visual interest to new school in Newfoundland and Labrador

Autres moyens de prouver la conformité avec le Code national de l’énergie pour les bâtiments 2011

Figure 1: Système de bâtiment en acier de vente au détail

Le Code national de l’énergie pour les bâtiments (CNEB) a été publié à l’automne de 2011. Il s’agit d’un modèle de code national qui peut être adopté par les provinces et les territoires dans la mesure où il répond à leurs besoins. À l’heure actuelle, cinq provinces ont adopté des règlements sur la conservation de l’énergie. Le CNEB s’applique à la construction de nouveaux édifices qui sont tenus de respecter les dispositions de la Section 3 du Code national du bâtiment du Canada ou du Code du bâtiment provincial applicable.

Il est possible de rendre la conception des immeubles conforme au CNEB 2011 de quatre façons : 

1. La méthode normative (section 3.2) par laquelle les assemblages et les composants doivent satisfaire aux exigences minimales de rendement prescrites. 
2. La méthode de remplacement simple (sous-section 3.3.3) par laquelle certains ensembles ou composants peuvent ne pas satisfaire aux exigences de rendement prescrites, tandis que d’autres ensembles ou composants dépassent les exigences de rendement prescrites, de façon telle que le rendement global de l’immeuble ne consommera pas plus d’énergie. 
3. La méthode de remplacement détaillée (sous-section 3.3.4) par laquelle un modèle informatisé est utilisé pour établir une cible énergétique de référence pour l’enveloppe du bâtiment. Certains composants sont approuvés pour un rendement moins écoénergétiques à la condition qu’il puisse être démontré que l’enveloppe du bâtiment ne transférera pas plus d’énergie que la quantité indiquée par la cible énergétique de l’enveloppe du bâtiment. 
4. La méthode du rendement (section 3.4) selon laquelle la méthode de remplacement est étendue pour inclure l’équipement à l’intérieur de l’immeuble (c’est-à-dire les ventilateurs, les appareils électroménagers, les ascenseurs, etc.) et un modèle informatisé sont utilisés pour s’assurer que assemblages de construction, les composants et l’équipement en agrégat ne consommeront pas plus d’énergie que la quantité indiquée par la cible énergétique de l’enveloppe du bâtiment.

La méthode normative permet une transmission thermique globale maximale pour les murs, le toit, les portes et les fenêtres du bâtiment. L’avantage de la méthode normative c’est qu’elle est très facile à appliquer; toutefois, elle impose parfois l’obligation de satisfaire aux objectifs du code de l’énergie relativement à l’enveloppe du bâtiment. Cela peut résulter en une conception trop poussée de l’isolant des murs et du toit. Avec un peu plus d’efforts, une solution plus rentable pourrait être obtenue en appliquant les autres options du CNEB : la méthode de remplacement simple ou la méthode du rendement. 

Exemple de la méthode de remplacement simple 

La méthode de remplacement simple démontre que la somme des aires des ensembles verticaux (ou horizontaux) de l’enveloppe du bâtiment multipliée par leur transmission thermique globale ne dépasse pas celle des assemblages de construction correspondants du bâtiment de référence. Le bâtiment de référence utilisé pour la méthode de remplacement simple est le même que l’on utilise pour la méthode normative. Si certains composants sont plus éco-énergétiques que ceux préconisés dans la méthode normative, il est permis de prendre en compte ce gain de rendement dans le calcul du remplacement. 

Le choix de la méthode de remplacement simple peut présenter un avantage économique considérable pour les murs en tôles d’acier isolées et les structures de toit. Les données indiquées dans le Tableau 1 résument les calculs effectués pour trois villes au Canada avec deux configurations différentes de construction qui seraient semblables à l’immeuble à commerces de détail illustré à la figure 1. Ces calculs sont pour la surface des murs, mais un processus similaire peut être utilisé pour le toit. 

Les étapes pour utiliser la méthode de remplacement simple sont les suivantes :

• La ligne 1 énumère les degrés-jours de chauffage (DJC) qui proviennent des données climatiques pour l’emplacement spécifique. Les données climatiques indiquées à l’Annexe C du Code national du bâtiment du Canada peuvent être utilisées à moins que l’autorité locale ne requière d’autres valeurs. Le CNBC 2010 a été utilisé dans cet exemple. 
• Les facteurs U maximums de la ligne 2 pour les murs proviennent du Tableau 3.2.3.1 du CNEB et dépendent des DJC. 
• Les facteurs U maximums de la ligne 3 pour la fenestration proviennent du Tableau 3.2.2.3 du CNEB. Remarque : les facteurs U maximums pour les portes sont les mêmes que pour la fenestration. Ces valeurs dépendent également du DJC.
• Le rapport de l’aire maximale totale acceptable de la fenestration et des portes verticales avec l’aire de mur brute (RFPM) est déterminé conformément à l’article 3.2.1.4. Pour des DJC inférieurs à 4000, le RFPM maximal = 40 %. Pour des DJC entre 4000 et 7000, le RFPM maximal = (2 000 - 0,2 x DJC)/3000. Pour des DJC de plus de 7000, le RFPM minimal = 20 %.
• En effectuant le calcul de remplacement simple de l’article 3.3.3.2, le facteur U maximal pour le bâtiment de référence du CNEB se calcule comme suit et illustré à la ligne 5 : Max U (bât. réf.) = (1 - Max_RFPM)(Max Umur) + (MAX_RFPM)(max UFen) 
• Le RFPM à la ligne 6 est le rapport pour le bâtiment proposé. Dans cet exemple deux rapports sont sélectionnés : 8 % et 20 % 
• La valeur Max U (mur) à la ligne 7 est calculée comme suit : Max U (mur) = [(Max U (bât. réf.) - (RFPM)(Max Ufen)]/ (1 - RFPM) 
• Les valeurs R indiquées aux lignes 8 et 9 sont des conversions du facteur U de la ligne 7. 
• Les valeurs R indiquées à la ligne 10 sont tirées du Tableau 3.2.2.2 pour le CNEB et elles représentent les exigences normatives pour les murs opaques du bâtiment. 

Les avantages de la méthode de remplacement simple sont démontrés dans la comparaison des lignes 9 et 10 du Tableau 1. Il convient de noter que les valeurs R minimales admissibles indiquées à la ligne 9 sont bien en deçà des valeurs R communément appliquées dans les ensembles muraux en tôles d’acier isolées.

La méthode du rendement 

La méthode du rendement fait appel à la modélisation énergétique pour comparer la consommation d’énergie annuelle d’une conception proposée par rapport à celle d’un bâtiment « de référence », qui possède la même taille et la même forme que celles de la conception proposée, mais qui est peu compatible avec le code de l’énergie dans tous les autres aspects. La méthode du rendement permet de rendre un projet conforme au code de l’énergie par le remplacement de certains systèmes moins performants, comme l’enveloppe de l’immeuble, par des systèmes plus performants comme de l’équipement mécanique ou un éclairage plus efficace. L’objectif de la méthode du rendement est de permettre l’adaptabilité à une plus grande flexibilité en matière de conception. 

La société Morrison-Hershfield a été mandatée par l’ICTAB pour entreprendre la modélisation d’un système de bâtiment en acier à commerces de détail semblable à celui illustré à la figure 1. Le modèle énergétique a été développé à l’aide du programme EnergyPlus v8.4 et il a pris en compte les variables suivantes : 

• Trois zones climatiques (4, 6 et 7A) 
• Deux systèmes de CVCA 
• Économies d’éclairage : De 0 à 45 % de la base de référence du CNEB. 
• Valeurs de vitrage : U-0,5 à U-0,25 
• Valeurs R des murs et du toit : R-10 à R-40 
• RFPM de 8 % et 20 % 
• Facteur F de la dalle : R-10 à R-7,5 

Compte tenu du nombre de variables, un total de 20 736 différentes options ont été analysées représentant différentes combinaisons. Les résultats ont été présentés de façon graphiquement similaire au résultat illustré à la figure 2. Ces courbes illustrent diverses options qui seraient conformes aux exigences du code énergétique. Par exemple, le fait de comparer la ligne rouge avec la ligne jaune indique la manière dont le code peut être respecté avec des murs à R15 et R20 respectivement. Des courbes similaires peuvent être générées en fonction d’autres variables. Le rapport de Morrison-Hershfield est disponible sur le site Web de l’ICTAB à http://cssbi.ca/fr/produits/systemes-de-batimenten-acier. La principale conclusion de cette étude a été de faire la démonstration qu’il existe une grande variété d’options pour répondre aux exigences du code de l’énergie, et que la solution la plus rentable n’est pas simplement d’ajouter plus d’isolant dans les murs et dans la structure de toit. 

Ressources additionnelles 

Il existe un certain nombre de ressources disponibles pour prouver la conformité avec les codes de l’énergie y compris les suivantes : 

• Logiciel de modélisation énergétique CAN-QUEST http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/buildings/eenb/16600 
• Logiciel de conformité commerciale COMcheck
  https://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck 
• Guide de l’utilisateur - Code national de l’énergie pour les bâtiments 2011 http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fra/publications/centre_codes/2014_guide_utilisateur_cneb2011.html 
• Norme ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings https://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/bookstore/standard-90-1

Cliquez pour télécharger Quelques mots sur la tôle d'acier #47: Autres moyens de prouver la conformité avec leCode national de l’énergie pour les bâtiments 2011

Alternative Means of Proving Compliance with the National Energy Code for Buildings 2011

Figure 1: Retail Steel Building System

The National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) was published in the fall of 2011. It is a National Model Code that can be adopted by the Provinces and Territories to the extent it meets their needs. At the present time five provinces have adopted some energy conservation regulations. The NECB applies to the construction of new buildings that are required to meet the provisions of Part 3 of the National Building Code of Canada, or the applicable Provincial Building Code.

There are four paths through which building designs may comply with NECB 2011: 

1. The Prescriptive Path (Section 3.2) in which assemblies and components must meet minimum prescribed performance requirements.
2. The Simple Trade-off Path (Sub-Section 3.3.3) in which certain assemblies or components may not meet the prescribed performance requirements, while other assemblies or components exceed the prescribed performance requirements, such that the overall performance of the building will not use more energy. 
3. The Detailed Trade-off Path (Sub-Section 3.3.4) in which a computer model is used to establish a reference building envelope energy target. Some components are permitted to be less energy efficient provided it can be demonstrated the building envelope will not transfer more energy than the building envelope energy target. 
4. The Performance Path (Section 3.4) in which the Trade-Off methodology is extended to include equipment inside the building, (i.e. fans, appliances, elevators, etc.) and a computer model is used to determine that the building assemblies, components and equipment in aggregate, will not use more energy than the reference building envelope energy target.

The Prescriptive Path provides maximum overall thermal transmittance for the building walls, roof, fenestration and doors. The advantage of the Prescriptive Path is that it is very easy to use; however, it often places the full burden for meeting the energy code targets on the building envelope. This can result in the insulated wall and roof assemblies being over-designed. With a little additional work a more cost-efficient solution can be obtained by using the other NECB options; the Simple Trade-off Path or the Performance Path. 

Example of the Simple Trade-Off Path 

The Simple Trade-off Path demonstrates that the sum of the areas of vertical (or horizontal) assemblies of the building envelope multiplied by their respective overall thermal transmittance is not more than the corresponding assemblies in the reference building. The reference building for the Simple Tradeoff Path is the same building used with the Prescriptive Path. If certain components are more energy efficient than those prescribed in the Prescriptive Path, the trade-off calculation is permitted to take this increased performance into account. Taking advantage of the Simple Trade-off Path can provide a significant cost advantage for insulated sheet steel wall and roof assemblies. The data given in Table 1 summarizes the calculations for three cities in Canada with two different building configurations that would be similar to the retail building shown in Figure 1. These calculations are for the wall area, but a similar process can be used for the roof.

The steps for using the simple trade-off method are as follows:

• Line 1 lists the Heating Degree Days (HDD) that comes from the climatic data for the specific location. The climatic data in Appendix C of the National Building Code of Canada can be used unless the local jurisdiction requires other values. NBCC 2010 has been used in this example. 
• The maximum U-factors in Line 2 for the walls come from Table 3.2.3.1 in NECB and depend on the HDD. 
• The maximum U-factors in Line 3 for the fenestration come from Table 3.2.2.3 in NECB. Note that the maximum U-factors for doors are the same as for the fenestration. These values also depend on the HDD. 
• The maximum allowable total vertical fenestration and door area to gross wall area ratio (FDWR) is determined in accordance with Article 3.2.1.4. For HDD less than 4000, the maximum FDWR = 40%. For HDD between 4000 and 7000, FDWR = (2000-0.2xHDD)/3000. For HDD over 7000, the minimum FDWR = 20%. 
• Using the simple trade-off calculation from Article 3.3.3.2, the maximum U-factor for the NECB reference building is calculated as follows and given in Line 5: Max U (ref. bldg.) = (1-Max_FDWR)(Max Uwall) + (Max_FDWR)(Max UFen) 
• The FDWR in Line 6 is the ratio for the proposed building. In this example two ratios are selected: 8% and 20%. 
• The Max U (Wall) given in Line 7 is calculated as follows: Max U (Wall) = [(Max U (ref. bldg.)- (FDWR)(Max Ufen)]/ (1-FDWR) 
• The R-values given in Lines 8 and 9 are conversions for the U-factor from Line 7. 
• The R-values given in Line 10 are taken from Table 3.2.2.2 for the NECB and are the prescriptive requirements for opaque building walls. 

The benefits of the Simple Trade-off Path are demonstrated in the comparison of Lines 9 and 10 in Table 1. It is worth noting that the minimum allowable R-values shown in Line 9 are well below the R-values commonly used in insulated sheet steel wall assemblies.

The Performance Path

The Performance Path uses the energy modeling to compare the annual energy use of a proposed design against that of a “baseline” building, which has the same size and shape as the proposed design, but is minimally compliant with the energy code in all other aspects. The Performance Path allows for a project to be complaint with the energy code by trading off lower performing systems, such as the building envelop, with higher performing systems, such as higher efficiency mechanical equipment or lighting. The goal of the Performance Path is to allow compliance with greater design flexibility. 

The CSSBI commissioned Morrison-Hershfield to undertake Performance Path modeling of a retail steel building system similar to the one shown in Figure 1. The energy model was developed using EnergyPlus v8.4 and considered the following variables: 

• Three climate zones (4, 6 and 7A) 
• Two HVAC systems 
• Lighting savings: 0% to 45% of NECB baseline 
• Glazing values: U-0.5 to U-0.25 
• Wall and roof R-values: R-10 to R-40 
• FDWR of 8% and 20% 
• Slab F-Factor: R-10 to R-7.5 

Given the number of variables, a total of 20,736 different options were analyzed representing different combinations. The results were presented graphically similar to the output shown in Figure 2. These curves illustrate various options that would comply with the energy code. For example, comparing the red line to the yellow line shows how the code can be met with an R15 and R20 wall respectively. Similar curves can be generated based on other variables. The report from Morrison-Hershfield is available on the CSSBI web site at www.cssbi.ca/products/steel-building-systems. The principal conclusion from this study was the demonstration that there are a wide variety of options for meeting the energy code requirements, and the most cost-effective solution is not to simply add more insulation in the wall and roof assemblies.

Additional Resources 

There are a number of resources available to prove compliance with the energy codes including the following: 

• CAN-QUEST energy modeling software http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/buildings/eenb/16600 
• COMcheck commercial compliance software https://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck 
• Users Guide – National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings 2011
  http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/publications/codes_centre/2014_user_guide_necb2011.html 
• ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings https://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/bookstore/standard-90-1

Click to download Fact Sheet #47: Alternative Means of Proving Compliance with the National Energy Code for Buildings 2011

Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute Releases Industry-Wide Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Roll Formed Steel Panels

CAMBRIDGE, ON - The Canadian Sheet Steel Building Institute (CSSBI) released the first industry-wide Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Roll Formed Steel Panels manufactured in Canada. The EPD quantifies the “cradle-to-gate” with options. Therefore, the life cycle stages taken into account include raw materials supply, transportation, the North American manufacturing of hot dip galvanized coils, paint coil coating, panel roll forming and end of life recycling. Based on a peer-reviewed life cycle assessment (LCA), this EPD is a transparent tool that can help achieve credits required for building certification within LEED® v4 and other green building rating programs.

This is the first industry-wide assessment of the life cycle environmental impacts of roll formed steel panels. The panels are roll formed from Galvanized (100% zinc) or Galvalume (55% aluminum, 45% zinc) coated steel that may be painted using a continuous coil coating process. A variety of profiles are available for steel roofing, decking and cladding applications. Roll formed panels may be used in residential, agricultural, industrial, commercial and institutional building construction.

The EPD is available for download at http://www.cssbi.ca/resources

As an association, the CSSBI and its members recognize that sustainable construction is an important and essential part of our world’s long-term ecological and economical prosperity. This EPD and other research on the topic of sustainability demonstrates that roll formed steel panels for building applications can play a significant role in any sustainable project.

The CSSBI is Canada’s foremost authority on sheet steel, its products, and its many applications. The CSSBI is an industry association responsible for the development and dissemination of industry standards. A source for technical information and resources, the CSSBI provides expert guidance to the general public and sheet steel manufacturers alike. For more information, visit http://www.cssbi.ca or follow us on Twitter @CSSBI.

Click here to download the Environmental Product Declaration Roll Formed Steel Panels.

Daily Commercial News Article - Does LEED v4 provide a better deal for steel?

Daily Commercial News published an article on February 11, 2016 titled Does LEED v4 provide a better deal for steel? which details the sections and credits in the newest version of LEED v4 for New Construction and Major Renovations and the ways that steel can earn points towards certification.

From the article, 

Under LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations (v4), there are five MR credits available for many steel products, for a total possible 13 LEED points:

• Building life-cycle impact reduction (up to five points) 

• Building product disclosure and optimization — environmental product declarations (up to two points) 

• Building product disclosure and optimization — sourcing of raw materials (up to two points) 

• Building product disclosure and optimization — material ingredients (up to two points) 

• Construction and demolition waste management (up to two points).

 The CSSBI is in the process of finalizing its industry average Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for steel roofing, cladding and decking products and it will be available early 2016.

Mark Thimons, vice-president of the Steel Recycling Institute also mentions in the article that steel can play a role in credits relating to recycled content and urban heat-island effect.

Click to read the full article and learn about the ways steel and LEED v4 can work together for a more sustainable built environment.

Which is the more sustainable building material - wood or steel? MYTH #4

Photo courtesy of SCS Global Services 

According to certain “studies,” wood claims a smaller environmental footprint than any other major building material. However, a closer look at the facts reveals some significant inconsistencies with that claim.

This is our FINAL week featuring a myth about the sustainability of wood vs. steel. See here for the past 3 myths -  #1, #2 and #3. We really hope you enjoyed this series. You can check out our Sustainability Section for more information on sheet steel products and how they can contribute to your next sustainable building project.

MYTH: All wood construction products are certified as being sustainably harvested.

REALITY: The majority of forests in the U.S. do not meet the wood industry’s own sustainable harvesting standards. 

• Eighty-one percent of forests in the United States are not certified, 11 percent are Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI®)-certified, and seven percent are Forest Stewardship Council (FSC®)-certified.(1) The sustainable harvest certification provided by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative has often been challenged as to whether it reaches the required threshold of sustainable forestry. SFI was created in 1994 by the paper and timber industry. A report on SFI by ForestEthics concludes in part: 

                 - “SFI is funded, promoted and staffed by the very paper and
                   timber industry interests it claims to evaluate.”(2) 

                 - “Of SFI’s 543 audits, up to the time of the report’s issuance,
                    there were no major noncompliance issues related to soil
                    erosion, clear-cut procedures, watershed issues, or chemical
                    usage.”(3) 

                 - “SFI-certified logging practices are having a disastrous impact
                    on North American forests.”(4) 

• In actuality, only seven percent of the forestland in the United States reaches the threshold of being considered sustainably managed.

If you want to learn about the other myths, you can download the Steel Market Development Institute's Fact Sheet to learn more.

(1) “Forest Certification Around the World: Georgia-Pacific, Sustainable Forestry and Certification,” Georgia-Pacific, 2014. 

(2) “SFI: Certified Greenwash – Inside the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s Deceptive Eco-Label,” a report by ForestEthics, November 2010, p. 2. 

(3) “SFI: Certified Greenwash – Inside the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s Deceptive Eco-Label,” a report by ForestEthics, November 2010, p. 9. 

(4) “SFI: Certified Greenwash – Inside the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s Deceptive Eco-Label,” a report by ForestEthics, November 2010, p. 11.

Which is the more sustainable building material - wood or steel? MYTH #3

According to certain “studies,” wood claims a smaller environmental footprint than any other major building material. However, a closer look at the facts reveals some significant inconsistencies with that claim.

This is week 3 of 4 where we will feature a myth about the sustainability of wood vs. steel. See here for past 2 myths #1 and #2.

MYTH: Wood is more sustainable than steel because wood construction products store carbon. 

REALITY: Carbon storage for construction products is temporary, only shifting impacts to future generations. 

• Carbon is sequestered in the fiber of trees, but that does not mean that wood buildings become large reservoirs of carbon that is stored indefinitely. Upon harvesting, the unused root and leaf systems immediately return their CO2 to the atmosphere by decay. For wood products, the reality is that carbon storage is also temporary and it is released back into the atmosphere at the end of the wood building’s life either by the demolition and subsequent decay of the wood or by incineration. 
• Ann Ingerson of The Wilderness Society states: “As a result of wood waste and decomposition, the carbon stored long-term in harvested wood products may be a small proportion of that originally stored in the standing trees―across the United States, approximately 1 percent may remain in products in use and 13 percent in landfills at 100 years post-harvest.”(1)

If you want to learn about the other myths, you can download the Steel Market Development Institute's Fact Sheet to learn more.

(1) Ingerson, Ann, “Carbon Storage Potential of Harvested Wood: Summary and Policy Implications,” The Wilderness Society, October 23, 2010, p. 1.

Which is the more sustainable building material - wood or steel? MYTH #2

Photo Credit: “Turning Up the Heat: Global Warming and the Degradation of Canada’s Boreal Forest”, Greenpeace Canada, March, 2008. 

According to certain “studies,” wood claims a smaller environmental footprint than any other major building material. However, a closer look at the facts reveals some significant inconsistencies with that claim.

This is week 2 of 4 where we will feature a new myth about the sustainability of wood vs. steel. See here for last week's myth #1.

MYTH: Wood is more sustainable than steel because it is a renewable building resource. 

REALITY: Being renewable is not the same as being sustainable.

• The wood industry claims that for every tree cut down, one or more new trees are planted. However, the claim does not take into account that it will take decades before those saplings mature. In the meantime, the forest is depleted of the oxygen, water storage and filtration, wildlife habitat, global cooling, and other benefits provided by the mature tree.(1)
• Trees are often harvested by clear-cutting, leaving large gaps in the forestland that also impact the plants and animal species left behind.

If you want to learn what the other myths will be, you can download the Steel Market Development Institute's Fact Sheet to learn more.

(1) “Understanding Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for Wood (Current Problems and Future Possibilities),” The Sierra Club Forest Certification and Green Building Team, September 24, 2013.

Which is the more sustainable building material - wood or steel? MYTH #1

According to certain “studies,” wood claims a smaller environmental footprint than any other major building material. However, a closer look at the facts reveals some significant inconsistencies with that claim.

Each week for the next 4 weeks we will feature a new myth about the sustainability of wood vs. steel.

MYTH: Studies demonstrate that wood is a more sustainable material than steel. 

REALITY: The most-cited study contained numerous incorrect assumptions about steel, and it omitted wood impacts.

• A study cited often by the wood industry was published by the Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) and is based on outdated information. For example, it made incorrect assumptions about the quantity of steel needed for its comparisons.
• Wood is typically a single-use material. At the end of its life, a building’s wood frame is typically landfilled or incinerated. This returns any stored carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere as either carbon dioxide or methane, shifting greenhouse gas burdens to future generations. 
• In comparison, steel is the world’s most recycled material. Steel construction products have a recycling rate of more than 90 percent, meaning that at the end of a steel building’s life, more than 90 percent of its steel is recycled into another steel product, using significantly less energy than was necessary to create the original product. A material that can be recycled continually over centuries with no loss in quality and that lowers the burden on future generations is the very definition of sustainability!

If you just can't wait to see what the other myths will be, you can download the Steel Market Development Institute's Fact Sheet to learn more.

Project Profile: Vale Health and Wellness Centre

Steel Building System Meets Unique Design Requirements

Vale Health and Wellness Centre - Port Colborne, Ontario

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TEAM

Architects: MacLennan, Jaunkalns, Miller Architects (MJMA) 

General Contractors: Aquicon Construction 

Structural Engineer: Blackwell Structural Engineers 

Landscape Architect: PMA Landscape Architects Ltd. 

Steel Building Supplier: Steelway Building Systems 

The Port Colborne Vale Health and Wellness Centre is an expression of artistic design made possible by the use of steel as its main component. A custom-designed, pre-engineered steel building, VALE, as it is known, is a 13,000m2 (145,000 sq. ft.) multi-use facility that includes two NHL size rinks, a walking/ jogging track for all season use, six outdoor bocce courts and, through partnership with the YMCA of Niagara, an aquatic centre with a 25m (82 ft.) lap pool, leisure pool, gymnasium and fitness area.

“Steel was always considered as the primary structure,” explains Robert Allen, MacLennan, Jaunkalns Miller Architects, “as the principle program elements – arenas, gym and aquatics – all require long spans. The building design is unique in that the pre-engineered long span frames are used throughout the building. They have been carefully designed in order to create soaring interior spaces with plentiful natural light.”

The building features sloped sidewalls, skewed end walls and the primary exterior cladding element consists of sheet steel panels. “All roof and wall cladding is prepainted Galvalume AZ150, coloured QC18783 Bright White,” notes Bryan Hernandez, Sales Manager, Steelway Building Systems. The walls are .76mm (.0299”), struc seal wall cladding, AZM150 Galvalume substrate. The roof is .61mm (.0239”), RTL-24 profile roof panels, AZM150 Galvalume substrate and the roof liner is storm seal profile .61mm (.0239”), AZM150 Galvalume substrate. According to Bryan, the building consists of 871,577 kg (1,921,500 lbs.) of steel. 

“Steel was chosen due to its economy as well as its ease and speed of erection,” emphasizes Robert Allen, adding that the recycled content of the steel was a contributing factor in the building being recognized with LEED NC 2009 recycled content credits 4.1 and 4.2. Ben McDermott, Port Colborne YMCA Centre Manager has been enthusiastic about the new facility, located on Elizabeth Street in Port Colborne, since it opened in February 2013. Noting that it offers around 300 hours of programming per week to people of all ages and abilities, Ben emphasizes, “What the Centre brings to the City of Port Colborne is the gift of health. We want communities to be healthy, vibrant and we are here for the long term. This is a fully accessible charitable organization – no one is turned away.” 

VALE offers many benefits to the City of Port Colborne by continuing the YMCA’s tradition of helping to strengthen families, building volunteerism and charitable giving and increasing health and wellness.

Click to download the Project Profile for Vale Health and Wellness Centre in Port Colborne, Ontario.

New Publication - Serviceability Design Criteria for Low Rise Steel Building Systems

Serviceability is an important aspect of design. It is only eclipsed by design for strength which is paramount. Design for serviceability addresses the performance of the structure with respect to its use, its interaction with non-structural elements and maintenance.

According to NBC 2010, Part 4, Structural Design, Sentence 4.1.3.4. (1), a building and its structural components shall be checked for serviceability limit states (SLS) as defined in Clause 4.1.3.1. (1)(a) under the effect of service loads for serviceability criteria specified or recommended in Articles 4.1.3.5. and 4.1.3.6. and in the standards listed in Section 4.3.

The National Building Code lists four areas of consideration when sizing structural members for serviceability limit states (SLS):

1. the intended use of the building or member;
2. limiting damage to non-structural members made of materials whose physical properties are known at the time of design;
3. limiting damage to the structure itself;
4. creep, shrinkage, temperature changes and pre-stress.

Download our CSSBI B15B-15 Serviceability Design Criteria for Low Rise Steel Building Systems to learn more about how to design for serviceability using a steel building system.