|
SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO INDUSTRIALIZED BUILDING
By
DANA SCOTT HAUKOOS
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ABSTRACT...................................................iv
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION...........................................1
Industrialized Building and Sustainability ............. 1
What is Sustainability?................................1
Focus of This Study....................................8
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE...................................9
Historical Overview....................................9
Industrialized Housing Today..........................74
3 EMERGY ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.....83
Introduction .......................................... 83
Methods ............................................... 84
Wood Products.........................................85
Steel Products........................................94
Concrete Products.....................................99
Flat Glass Products..................................101
Discussion of Results.................................101
4 COMPARISONS OF FIRST COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
ALTERNATIVES VIA EMERGY ANALYSIS...................107
Introduction.........................................107
Methods .............................................. 107
Results..............................................118
Discussion of Results................................122
5 INDUSTRIALIZED BUILDING AND SUSTAINABILITY:.........126
Introduction.........................................126
Indices for Sustainability...........................126
Other Issues.........................................129
Summary and Conclusions .............................131
GLOSSARY..................................................134
li
APPENDICES
A EMERGY EVALUATION CALCULATIONS FOR BUILDING
MATERIALS IN CHAPTER 3............................13 5
B MASS PER GIVEN UNIT FOR VARIOUS BUILDING
MATERIALS.........................................183
C DETAIL MATERIAL AND COST ESTIMATES FOR DESIGN
PROPOSAL ONE......................................187
D DETAIL MATERIAL AND COST ESTIMATES FOR DESIGN
PROPOSAL TWO......................................216
E DETAIL MATERIAL AND COST ESTIMATES FOR DESIGN
PROPOSAL THREE....................................245
REFERENCES................................................271
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................275
iii
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies
SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO INDUSTRIALIZED BUILDING
By
Dana Scott Haukoos August, 199 5
Chairman: Ira Winarsky
Major Department: Architecture
While the concept of sustainable architecture is broadly understood in general terms, a comprehensive quantitative measure is more difficult to define. This study proposes a basis for one such analytical methodology based on the theory of ecological energetics known as eMergy (spelled with an "M") analysis. The goal is to develop a method by which the sustainability of various approaches to architecture can be compared, and to look at industrialized building from this perspective.
EMergy analysis involves determining the total amount of energy of a single type that is required to produce a given amount of material. This result is called the eMergy per unit mass. EMergy evaluation of several commonly used building
iv
materials are presented, including wood, steel, concrete, and glass products. This data, combined with conventional cost estimating techniques, is used to estimate first costs both in terms of monetary and eMergy units. A case study is presented which compares a residential design of three alternative construction materials and methods; two alternatives represent conventional construction approaches and the third represents an industrialized approach.
EMergy analysis is shown to provide a means of analytically comparing diverse inputs to the building process (materials, fuels, human services, etc.) based upon a common metric. It can fully accommodate the concept of life-cycle assessment, including issues of reuse, recycling, and renewable resources.
v
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Industrialized Building and Sustainability
Industrialized building and its cousin modern architecture claim efficiency and economy among their founding principles. From an ecological perspective, however, much of their legacy is anything but efficient and economical. Some would go as far to say that the model of industrialized construction is the antithesis of sustainable architecture. This study asks the question "to what extent ^ are the methods, materials, philosophy, and aesthetics of industrialized building compatible with the growing contemporary concerns for restructuring society around the popular concept of sustainability?" To address this question, however, requires a working definition of what sustainability is and a method by which it might be measured. That is the second major issue this study will address.
What is Sustainability?
On one hand the general idea of what the concept is all about is simple--a process (of building, in this case) which can be sustained for an indefinite period. This "implies a limitation on the degree and rate of human impact such that
1
2
the natural carrying capacity of the earth's ecosystems can be perpetually maintained" (Thayer, 1972, p.99). The analysis of sustainability, however, is a much less clearly understood problem. This study applies the theory of ecological energetics known as "eMergy analysis" in the process of developing and advancing quantitative measures of sustainability as applied to the analysis of architecture and the built environment.
Different Perspectives Based on Scale of Consideration
Different perspectives on the efficiency and economy of a building's design are a result of which factors have been considered in the analysis. In general terms, this is referred to as where one places the boundaries of the system to be analyzed. Early proponents of industrialized building were focused primarily on the aspects of mass production and the efficiencies of human labor that could result. They were interested in the "first costs" of a building. Often the design of these structures took little consideration of the climate in which they were placed, relying heavily instead on fossil fuels to produce a comfortable human environment. This attitude was economically practical as long as fossil fuels remained inexpensive, but with the energy shortages of the 1970s, a broadening of perspective began to emerge. The monetary cost of fossil fuels increased, providing an incentive to take into consideration a building's operating costs during its design.
3
At the same time, others took an even broader look at the consumption of energy. The concept of the "embodied energy" of materials took into account the fact that fossil fuels were utilized in all processes of the conversion of raw materials into products. The accounting techniques devised to measure these costs are known as life-cycle assessment (LCA) or resource and environmental profile analysis (REPA). Figure 1-1 illustrates this concept.
Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy
Reuse
Product Recycling
Figure 1-1. A System Diagram for Life-Cycle Assessment (AIA, 1992, Intro.V 2)
Since the beginnings of the energy shortages of the 1970's until today, the scope of concerns facing architects and builders has expanded even further. Confronted with the need to reduce energy consumption in the design of their buildings, many designers of the past two decades responded by developing "super-tight" buildings which minimized the
4
loss of energy by more carefully sealing each of the paths of potential infiltration of outside air. While this did reduce a significant source of energy loss, it also frequently had the unanticipated effect of what is called "sick building syndrome". The infiltration air had been providing fresh-air ventilation, which when restricted led to the build up of toxic gases due to off-gassing of many contemporary construction materials. Thus, designers have been forced to deal with new human health concerns in conjunction with their pursuit of energy efficiency.
Other concerns, arising out of a growing appreciation for the interrelationships between human activity and its effects on the biosphere, have enlarged the scale of concern still further. The health of not only immediate human inhabitants, but also of the global geobiosphere, has become an issue. Figure 1-2 illustrate one attempt to summarize this enlarged conceptual framework for sustainable construction.
The "Apples and Oranges" Problem
The preceding discussion has described four progressively broader perspectives, or scales of consideration, in an attempt to address the issue of sustainability. The first looks at first costs of a structure. The second includes operating costs, but still from a strictly monetary viewpoint. The third (Figure 1-1) goes beyond first costs and operating costs to include cumulative energy and resource costs as well as monetary *
B
costs (which are inherently cumulative). The fourth (Figure 1-2) goes further still by incorporating issues of human and ecosystem health.
Phase
* Resources
1. Conserve
2. Reuse
3. Renewable/Recyclable
4. Protect Nature
5. Non-Toxics
6. Quality
V
Principles
Figure 1-2. A Conceptual Model for Sustainable Construction (Kibert, 1994, p.11).
Today the second of these perspectives has supplanted the first in common practice of building design to the extent that operating costs are reflected within conventional monetary valuation. Other elements of the more holistic perspectives are occasionally considered, typically on an ad hoc basis. A major difficulty in analyzing sustainability is with the many "externalites" that must be considered. Externalities are those costs which lie beyond the realm of conventional economic evaluation. One of the major challenges in providing a working theory for sustainability
6
is the development of a system of evaluation which "internalizes" all of these so-called externalities.
What is sometimes offered to fill this analytical void are grading schemes, where various concerns are listed and rated on an relative scale within each category. These categories are sometimes related to one another with weighting factors, in an attempt develop an overall score for a given building design proposal. While these schemes no doubt provide a useful service in raising the relevant issues of environmental concern, they are none-the-less problematic. The assignment of weighting factors between categories is often done without the benefit of any underlying theoretical basis.
EMergy Analysis
EMergy analysis (spelled with an "M") is a theory and methodology developed by Howard Odum which provides unified system of valuation of natural and human economies. In this study, eMergy analysis is presented as the foundation for an analytical scheme to evaluate sustainability with regards to architecture. EMergy theory clearly asserts that money is a representation of only the human services required in bringing a commodity to market. This is obvious if one considers that nature is never "paid" for its services. Yet this is a concept that is often not clearly appreciated. This is related to the common misconception that human ingenuity and endeavor is the fundamental source of economic
7
value. Natural resources are in fact the fundamental source of economic wealth; human activity is the catalyst in the equation. Another major posit of eMergy theory is that nature does indeed have an economic system of its own, namely energy. EMergy recognizes different qualities of energy, and provides empirically-defined conversions, called transformities, between them. Furthermore, human economic activity is seen as a subsystem within the context of the larger natural economy, not as an independent or parallel system. Money is understood to represent a form of energy (namely human services), and with its appropriate quality (transformity) it can be evaluated on a common basis with other natural systems.
Solar energy is defined as the baseline level of energy quality and given a transformity of unity. The transformity of other types of energy represent a ratio of how much solar energy was directly and indirectly required in its production per unit of energy of the subject type. For example, one Joule of coal represents an investment by nature of 40,000 Joules of sunlight. Thus, coal is said to have a transformity of 40,000 solar emjoules per Joule (sej/J). Likewise, one US dollar in 1990 has been calculated to represent the equivalent of 1.6E+12 sej/$ (Odum, 1994b, p. 162) .
8
Focus of This Study
A complete evaluation of the sustainability of a proposed building design would address all of the issues outlined in Figure 1-2. EMergy analysis provides an unified basis for analytical evaluation of most (if not all) of the factors listed. This is discussed in further detail in Chapter 5.
This study begins with a literature review of industrialized building systems past and present. This provides a historical perspective on the on the concept of efficiency in building. Chapter 3 presents an eMergy analysis of various primary building materials. Chapter 4 presents three alternative residential design scenarios, which are analyzed in terms of first costs on an eMergy basis. Chapter 5 concludes the study by briefly describing the process by which eMergy analysis could be further applied to encompass operating cos:s and other considerations necessary in a more complete evaluation of sustainable design. It also relates these issues back to the relationship between sustainability and industrialized building.
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Historical Overview
The history of industrialized construction is closely related to the history of the Industrial Revolution in general, and to the roots of the Modern movement in architecture in particular. Its roots go back as far as the early seventeenth century when the Dorchester Company of England produced demountable wood panel houses for the English fishing fleet in Cape Ann, Massachusetts (Holeman, 1980, p.6). While most of the story of industrialized construction (systematic building) takes place in Britain, the United States, and Europe; Japan made an early important contribution in the form of the Japanese house.
The Japanese House
Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, Japan underwent a period of political isolation which resulted in a policy of conservation of resources including population, trade, and art. The architecture that developed during this time reflected these conditions in a spirit of economizing, rationing, and standardization. This Japanese architecture had a significant impact upon modern architecture of the
9
10
twentieth century, with a particularly strong influence on the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. It is of special interest today, because the environmental pressures Japan felt then mirror the growing recognition of global environmental strain today. This Japanese spirit for making the most of limited resources, and of creating an aesthetic of simplicity and efficiency, is one that much of the rest of the world would do well to emulate.
The floor plan of the Japanese house was based upon the organization of a number of Tatami mats. It was not a modular element, per se, but rather a part of a systematic approach to building. This mat, originally a portable element, is used to sit on, sleep on, and as a table. Made of rice-straw bound together with string, the mats are approximately 3' by 6', with a thickness of about two inches. The mat was originally designed to accommodate one man sleeping or two sitting. Room sizes are designed to accommodate a number of mats, with the constraint that corners of the mats are not allowed to touch. Figure 2-1 shows a number of Tatami arrangements. The most common size rooms are the six and eight mat rooms (9x12' and 12x12', respectively). Two different methods are used to relate the structure to the rooms: the 'maka-ma' uses a consecutive grid with the columns on gridline centers, while the 'kyo-ma' places a column-wide zone between room spaces. The heights of the room are also related by formula to the number of
11
mats, with different heights for an eight mat room, a six mat room, etc. _
4.5 MAT ROOM
6 MAT ROOM
3 MAT ROOMS
8 MAT ROOM
10 MAT ROOM
Figure 2-1. Room layouts based on Tatami mats (Russell, 1981, p.16) .
Another Japanese tradition that has gone on to be echoed in the theory of many industrialized building proponents is the idea of user participation in the building process. House building for the Japanese was not singled out as a special activity but seen as part of daily life in which any person can make their own house.
Early British "Pioneers of Prefabrication"
The British entrepreneurs of the early 1800's continued the practice of prefabricated housing for the market created by emigrants to the Americas, Australia, Africa, and the West Indies. The conditions which these colonists encountered
12
which encouraged the prefabricated housing solution included a shortage of skilled labor and a general lack of infrastructure for building construction, as well as a shortage of resources in some cases. Many settlers came with little more than a tent for shelter when first arriving in their new home. This left them vulnerable to the extremes of weather and to problems of theft. Those who came with prefabricated houses, ready for quick assembly upon arrival, were at a considerable advantage.
One of the more successful of the early models was the 'Manning Portable Colonial Cottage for Emigrants', marketed largely in Australia. It had several features that made it well adapted to the needs of its customers. First, it was specifically designed for mobility and ease of transportation. Manning designed it to "pack in a small compass" for shipping, and claimed "none of the pieces are heavier than a man or a boy could easily carry for several miles..." Second, it was designed for ease of erection. The only site work required was the building of the foundation and the assembly of components: "whoever can use a common bedwrench can put this cottage up." Third, it contained the essential qualities of industrialized construction, dimensional coordination and standardization: "every part of it being made exactly the same dimensions; that is, all the panels, posts, and plates, being respectively the same length, breadth, and thickness, no mistake or loss of time can occur in putting them together" (Herbert, 1978, pp.9-11).
13
Figure 2-2. Manning Portable Colonial Cottage for Emigrants, 1833. (A.) Frame (B.) Plan (C.) Detail of framing (Herbert, 1978, pp.10-11).
Figure 2-2 shows some of the details of Manning's design. The plan shows a 12' x 24 structure with two rooms 12' square each. It was a wooden post frame, members spaced at 3' intervals, which received standardized panels for
14
walls,doors, and windows. The Manning Cottage design was conceived of as a solution to the emigrant's need for "instant" temporary housing, at which it excelled. As a solution for permanent housing, however, it suffered from a problem that has often been the Achilles heel of the industrialized building climatic adaptation. As an Englishman, Manning was aware of the problems of cold and suggested installing a stove for heating. His single paneled walls, however, provided little insulation value. He showed even less recognition of the problems of heat, as experienced especially by settlers in Australia. "The 8-foot ceiling so cozy in England, created intolerable conditions when the external temperature soared to 100 degrees F, or more." (Herbert, 1978, p.23)
While Manning was advancing the concepts of industrialized building flexibility, ease of erection, mobility, standardization, interchangeability of components, and dimensional coordination he was still using a traditional material, timber, and the time-honored crafts of the carpenter and the shipwright. (Herbert, 1978) Some of his contemporaries, however, were beginning to look toward the new technology of iron construction in their development of prefabricated building. The first patent for the application of corrugated metal to building components was granted to Henry Palmer in 1829. The process of galvanization, patented in 1837, provided the material with its first effective protection from corrosion. A latter
15
patent, by John Spencer in 1844, greatly improved the manufacturing process of forming corrugated iron, making it available in greater quantities and lower cost.
Richard Walker purchased Palmer's patent and took on a pioneering role in its practical application. An advertisement by Walker from 1832 (Figure 2-3) shows a warehouse with barrel vaults of curved corrugated iron forming its roof. The use of corrugated iron for roofing solved a major problem; "...the roof had proved to be one of the intractable problems, not amenable to satisfactory solution using conventional materials..." (Herbert, 1978, p.35). The ability of this material span great distances economically was an advantage particularly to the construction of factories, warehouses, and other large industrial buildings. The application of prefabricated metal building systems predominantly to industrial buildings continues to this day.
Figure 2-3. Richard Walker, Warehouse, 1832 (Herbert, 1978, p.35) .
16
Walker also competed in the Australian emigrant market for portable buildings, and his sons, John and Richard carried on their father's business. By 1849, the California gold rush provided another significant, if short lived, market for their product. Edward T. Bellhouse was another British manufacturer of prefabricated iron buildings to participate in the California market, as well as American Peter Naylor of New York. Naylor "was perhaps the largest American manufacturer of prefabricated iron houses, shipping more than 500 houses to the West in one year" (Herbert, 1978, p.47).
With the demise of the California market, the British
returned to their traditional markets. Another firm
specializing in portable corrugated iron buildings for export
was that of Samuel Hemming. He produced residential and
commercial buildings, as well his most notable development,
the portable or temporary church. Not only did he offer a
wide variety of building type to fit various needs, but he
also began to show more sophisticated designs responsive to
the climatic conditions of his intended markets. A
contemporary account states:
The proprietor has himself been under tropical suns and in tropical rains; and his inventive genius provided for his son a house which should comprise portability, security, and be put up without any difficulty or trouble, by the most inexperienced hands .Mr. Hemming saw at once the capability of this principle of construction for adaptation to almost every conceivable want and climate... (Herbert, 1978, p.62).
While the claim of being adaptable "to almost every
conceivable want and climate' is definitely over-
17
enthusiastic, Hemming did offer "full glazed, half-glazed, louvered, and shuttered modular units, offering a wide variety of fenestration options" (Herbert, 1978, p.63) which were appropriate for his largely tropical market. Figure 2-4 shows some pages from the product catalog from Hemming's company.
One of the great works in the history of industrialized building was also born at the mid-century mark in Britain -the Crystal Palace by Sir Joseph Paxton. That subject will be discussed in greater detail in the next section. In 1854, Britain had yet another application for economical and quick-to assemble prefabricated structures the Crimean War. Isambard Brunei was in charge of some of the government1s initial designs for portable hospitals and tents. Brunei's father, Marc, was notable for his blockmill (for the manufacture of ship's pulleys), the first application of machine tools to mass production on a powered basis. Others including Hemming, Paxton and Charles D. Young also became involved in designing buildings for the war effort. The example of the British with prefabricated military buildings was later put use in the American Civil War where paneled prefabricated hospitals were used extensively (Herbert, 1978, p.96). The tradition of "Victorian prefabs" continued on through the late nineteenth century, notably in South Africa where settlers were lured by the discovery of diamonds (early 1870's) and gold (1880's).
18
EAST ISOIA V11.1. *
UHMMIKCTS PATENT IMPKOVBD IHJIITA1IIJR IIOl'SES.
mi wmmma. tun mt vmwma. mutol
Figure 2-4. Samuel Hemming's catalog, c.1854 (Herbert, 1978, pp.63-64).
19
Joseph Paxton and the Crystal Palace
Built in 1851, the Crystal Palace stands a landmark in the history of architecture. It was the first large scale building to be built using modular construction and prefabricated elements, and its list of innovations and accomplishments is no less impressive today than it was nearly a century and a half ago. The building was commissioned to house the first world's fair, The Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, in Hyde Park, London.
The building was to be temporary in nature, economical of materials and labor, simple in arrangement, capable of rapid erection, dismantling and expansion, illuminated entirely from the roof, built of fire-resistant materials and erected over an 18-acre site generally to a height of a single story (Kihlstedt, 1984, pp.132-33).
Its designer, Joseph Paxton, along with a staff, formulated the design eight days, and went on to build it in the unheard-of time of 39 weeks. It was dismantled in 1852 and re-erected at Sydenham Hill in 1854, where it stood until 1936 when it was accidentally destroyed by fire.
The building itself consisted of a steel and wooden structure clad in glass (Figure 2-5). Its dimensions were 1,848 feet by 408 ft, with an extension on the north side measuring 93 6 by 48 feet. Its central aisle was 72 feet wide by 66 feet high, and its vaulted transept was 72 feet wide by 108 feet high. It consisted of a series of hollow cast-iron columns joined by trussed girders that supported a roof made
20
of glass panes in a pleated, ridge-and furrow configuration. (Figure 2-6) The valleys of the roof were supported by gutters that collected the rainwater and delivered it through the hollow columns to underground drainage.
Figure 2-5. Paxton's Crystal Palace, c.1851 (Chadwick, 1961, p.130) .
Figure 2-6. Ridge and furrow roof of the Crystal Palace (Chadwick, 1961, p.127).
21
As an exemplar of the concept of industrialized construction, it is a tour de force:
1. designed to a 24 ft 0 in (7.32 m) structural and 8 ft
0 in (2.4m) cladding module (Figure 2-7)
2. components prefabricated, mass-produced and
standardized
3. dry assembly
4. many components interchangeable
5. rapid erection (39 weeks for 989,884 sq. ft (91,960
m) of floor space) and demountability
6. light steel structure with a weatherproof lightweight
skin, or curtain wall
7. the frame was its own scaffolding
8. the use of mechanized erection techniques, for
example the roof glazing wagon (Figure 2-8)
9. the designer, engineers and suppliers worked as one
organization. Paxton, Fox and Henderson (contractors and engineers) and Chance (glass supplier) between them controlled the companies working on the building (Russell, 1981, p.41)
Joseph Paxton was a farmer's son who since 1826 served as superintendent of gardens for the Duke of Devonshire. He worked as a gardener, a landscape gardener, and a landscape manager who also engaged in building design. This background played a crucial role in his development as a builder. Previous to his work on the Crystal Palace, Paxton had designed several greenhouses. It was in these projects where he developed his ridge and furrow glass roofing techniques and his familiarity with wood, glass and iron construction. Of perhaps even greater interest is the source of his inspiration for his roofing system, a lily by the name of Victoris regia (Figure 2-9):
22
Figure 2-7. Crystal Palace. (Left) Part of the south elevation showing cladding module of 8 ft (Right) Interior showing 24 ft structural module. Also shows the arch sections introduced to span existing trees; an early example of respect for site (Russell, 1981, p.41).
Figure 2-8. "Glazing wagons" utilized in roof construction (Russell, 1981, p.45).
23
This structural system, Paxton himself acknowledged, had been inspired by that of the plant which it was to house. The leaves of the great lily were formed of a flat upper surface supported by a series of webs like miniature cantilevers touching only intermittently; yet they would bear a considerable weight, as Paxton found when he put it to the practical test of placing his own daughter Annie, then seven, on one. (Chadwick, 1961, p. 101)
Figure 2-9. Victoris regia (A.) Paxton's daughter Annie on a leaf.(B.) The underside of a leaf at center, the inspiration of Paxton's roofing system (Chadwick, 1961, p.37).
Early American Contributions
While the British pioneered the ideas of portable prefabricated buildings and the application of corrugated iron, America was the primary scene of experimentation and development with other new building materials of the era -cast iron and steel. (The Crystal Palace just discussed is one very notable exception of British cast iron development.) Two key figures in the story of cast iron were both from New York; Daniel Badger and James Bogardus. Badger's factory produced parts for over 300 buildings in New York and throughout the United States between 1849 and 1877. Badger was unique among his peers in that he sold his products as
24
whole building concepts, systems of frame and skin. He manufactured his standardized components in New York and then shipped them to be assembled on site. Badger is also remembered for his finely illustrated product catalog. Bogardus is credited with the first all-iron building in the United States, his own factory built in New York City in 1849 (Figure 2-10). He would contract with various foundries and blacksmiths for the fabrication of building components and then supervise their assembly. Bogardus constructed several buildings on the East Coast from New York to Havana.
Figure 2-10. James Bogardus' cast iron factory (Russell, 1981, p.56).
25
In 1856, Henry Bessemer patented a new process for carbonizing iron to make steel. This was followed by methods for rolling and forming steel, and thus a revolutionary new building material was born. During the 1880's the development of steel-frame buildings was centered in the boom town of Chicago, Illinois. William le Baron Jenny was a key figure in the transformation from cast iron (First Leiter Building, 1879) to steel frame construction (Second Leiter Building, 1889/91). Steel-frame skeleton construction and the full story height 'Chicago window' became trademarks of the 'Chicago Construction'. Perhaps the largest personality of this Chicago style was Louis Sullivan. His Carson Pirie, Scott department store of 1899/1904 was "perhaps the most complete embodiment of what was to come" (Russell, 1981, p.64) with its emphasis on the grid of steel on its facades and vast glass area.
In 1908, Sears, Roebuck and Co. entered the prefabricated housing market through its nationwide mailorder business. With the establishment of their Modern Homes Division in 1911, the houses were marketed through a separate catalog complete with drawings, photographs, floor plans, detailed descriptions, and pricing. Home designs were offered in a variety of styles, sizes and price ranges. Stick frame construction was the rule; the company bought their own lumber mills in strategic locations to maintain cost-controlled supply sources. The homes came in packages of precut, numbered lumber and ancillary materials (nails,
26
paint, roofing, etc.) everything necessary for construction with the exception of masonry. Lighting fixtures and plumbing were popular options. Sears also introduced innovations including an early form of drywall in these homes. Financing was available directly through Sears based on their familiar time-payment plan. The decade of the 1920's, with its post-war optimism, was the heyday of the business. "The catalog grew thicker every year. By 192 6 it contained 144 pages, and quite a few of them in color. Over 100 different house models were featured..." (Snyder, 1985, p.44). The decline and eventual end of the venture was brought about by the Great Depression: not only did sales decline, but numerous foreclosures were required when mortgage payments ceased. By its end in 1937, Sears had sold over 100,00 mail-order homes.
Frank Llovd Wright
Out of the Chicago scene of the late nineteenth century, and out of Sullivan's office, came Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright was masterful in combining the values of his Arts and Crafts contemporaries with the ideas of the mechanized age. "He intended to imply not that the machine should be celebrated directly in mechanical analogies or images, but that industrialization be understood as a means to the larger end of providing a decent and uplifting environment for new patterns of life" (Curtis, 1983, p.78). Much of the inspiration for this synthesis can from his interest in
27
Japanese architecture. He admired its "refined proportions, the exquisite carpentry, the humble use of materials, and the subtle placement in nature. Moreover, this was an architecture which modulated space and charged it with a spiritual character: the opposite, in his mind, of the Renaissance tendency to put up walls around box-like closed rooms and to decorate them with ornament" (Curtis, 1983, p.78) .
From the late 1800's through roughly 1910, Wright developed a residential style which came to be called the 'Prairie House Type', which was perhaps his most influential contribution to modern architecture. Wright outlined his guiding principles as follows:
First. To reduce the number of parts of the house and the separate rooms to a minimum, and to make all come together as enclosed space so divided that light, air, and vista permeated the whole with a sense of unity.
Second. To associate the building as a whole with the site by extension and emphasis of all the planes parallel to the ground, but keeping the floors off the best parts of the site, thus leaving that better part for use in connection with the life of the house....
Third. To eliminate the room as box and the house as
another by making the walls enclosing screens the ceilings and floors and enclosing screens to flow into each other as one large enclosure of space, with inner subdivisions only. Make all house proportions more liberally human, with less wasted space in structure, and structure more appropriate to material, so the whole more livable...
Fourth. To get the unwholesome basement up out of the ground, entirely above it, as a low pedestal for the living-position of the home, making the foundation itself visible as a low masonry platform on which the building should stand.
Fifth. To harmonize all necessary openings to 'outside' or to 'inside' with good human proportions and make them occur naturally singly or as a series in the
28
scheme of the whole building. Usually they appeared as light screens instead of walls... there were to be no holes cut in walls as holes are cut in a box... Sixth. To eliminate combinations of different materials in favor of mono materials so far as possible; use no ornament that did not come out of the nature of the materials to make the whole building clearer and more expressive as a place to live in, and give the conception of the building appropriate revealing emphasis...
Seventh. To incorporate all heating, lighting, plumbing so that these system became constituent parts of the building itself. These service feature became architectural and in this attempt the ideal of an organic architecture was at work.
Eighth. To incorporate as organic architecture as far as possible furnishings, making them all one with the building and designing them in simple terms for machine work...
Ninth. Eliminate the decorator...
(Curtis, 1983, pp.80-81).
Figure 2-11 shows the plan from one of Wright's house from this period, the Willitts House of 1902. This illustration is from his Wasmuth Volumes, a portfolio of his work which became an important vehicle for his work to become known in Europe.
Of special interest here are his contributions in the
ideas of building systems and holistic architecture. Three
areas can addressed:
first, his attitudes to construction and materials and an interest in standardization; second, his approach to three-dimensional space in planning and its relation to dimensional grids; third his relation of the building to the site, and the manner in which he controlled the environment of his buildings both by this, and by mechanical means (Russell, 1981, p.77).
The Froebel toys given to Wright as a child by his
mother are known to have been instrumental in the first two
matters. They consisted of fundamental shapes cube,
cylinders, spheres and the toy structures were to be
29
carefully built, with a plan marked out first upon the floor. These toys have clear connection with Wright's attitudes to standardization and coordination and also his subtle use of square and tartan grids (Russell, 1981, p.78).
Figure 2-11. Plan of Wright's Ward Willitts House, Highland Park, 111, 1902 (Curtis, 1983, p.81).
30
Two examples of building systems by Wright include his concept for the American System Ready-cut prefabricated flats (1915) and the 'knitblock' system he used in some of his California houses of the 1920's. Wright also designed for prefabrication again much later with the Marshal Erdman Company in 1956. Shipping and assembling doubled the houses' costs, however, and they did not realize their goal of low-cost housing (Sergeant, 1984, p.146).
European system builders went on to pursue both standardization and dimensional grids, but they largely ignored his third and arguably most important contribution -his approach to the environmental quality of the building. It is his concept of the whole system holistic design -where environmental quality is integral, that is the rightful aim of systematic building design. And yet much of the history of modern architecture overlooks this:
To perfect a structural system which produces an uninhabitable building is only a partial system. Yet ihis is what many of the Europeans did. The latter learned many lessons from Wright, but it seems that often these were of the most superficial sort and we will find in the ensuing development of building systems that repeated attention was given merely to structure and fabric in very narrow terms indeed, usually ignoring che implication of climate, site, and internal comfort (Russell, 1981, p.83).
Europeans
While Wright strove to integrate technology with human needs in what he called organic architecture, the Europeans of the early twentieth century were fixated on what
31
came to be called the 'machine aesthetic'. Their goal was the creation of an architecture that was appropriate for their age the age of Frederick Winslow Taylor's work study methods and Henry Ford's phenomenally successful assembly line production. The leading vanguards of this new architecture were Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, and Mies van der Rohe.
One of Le Corbusier's earliest proposals for mass-produced housing was the Domino House concept of 1914 (Figure 2-12). This was envisioned as a way to respond to the problem of reconstruction following the First World War, which had just then begun. In his words, this concept "would result in a completely new method of construction: the windows would be attached to the structural frame, the doors would be fixed with their frames and lined up with wall panels to form partitions. Then the construction of the exterior walls could begin" (Russell, 1981, p.126). In the Domino house one can see the seeds of many of the ideas that would go on to become the fundamental elements of modern architecture and industrialized construction: standardization, component building, user participation, the flexibility allowed by the open framework, moveable partitions, freedom in the facade design. Le Corbusier later crystallized these concepts into what he called his 'Five Points of a New Architecture' :
1. the piloti, or vertical support,
2. the plan libre (free plan), allowing interior wall
placement independent of structural support (provided by the piloti),
32
3. the facade libre (free facade), also a result of the
piloti as support,
4. the fenetre en longueur (strip window), really a
subset of the free facade, and
5. the toit-jardin (roof garden), intended as a
replacement of the land lost underneath the structure. (Curtis, 1986, p.69)
Figure 2-12. Le Corbusier's Domino House concept, 1914 (Curtis, 1986, p.43).
While Le Corbusier's descriptions of his new architecture often talk about their environmental advantages, the rhetoric often did not match the reality. His strip windows, for example, were intended to provide superior daylighting over more traditional openings. Instead, they were often sources of problems in interior comfort, allowing overheating in hot conditions and thermal loss in cold weather. The flat roofs of the "international style" are notorious for problems with leaking in the rain (a problem that many of Wright's buildings shared). Even with his later
33
brise-soleil (sun breaker) Le Corbusier shows a type of band-aid approach to designing for climate. The concrete struts may have blocked the direct sunlight, but they themselves became solar heat sinks due to their thermal mass.
Despite its shortcomings in regards to holistic design, the importance of Le Corbusier's contribution to modern architecture is beyond doubt. His book Vers une Architecture --Towards an Architecture (frequently mistranslated "Towards a New Architecture")--is one of the most influential architectural books of this century. First published in Paris in 1923, it states in poetic form the ideas and theory behind his work; for example:
MASS-PRODUCTION HOUSES
A great epoch has begun. There exists a new spirit.
Industry, overwhelming us like a flood which rolls on toward its destined ends, has furnished us with new tools adapted to this epoch, animated by a new spirit.
Economic law inevitably governs our acts and thoughts.
The problem of the house is a problem of the epoch. The equilibrium of society today depends on it. Architecture has for its first duty, in this period of renewal, that of bringing the revision of values, a revision of the constituent elements of the house.
Mass-production is based on analysis and experimentation.
Industry on the grand scale must occupy itself with building and establish the elements of the house on a mass-production basis.
We must create the mass-production spirit. The spirit of constructing mass-production houses. The spirit of living in mass-production houses. The spirit of conceiving mass-production houses.
34
If we eliminate from our hearts and minds all dead concepts in regard to the house, and look at the question from a critical and objective point of view, we shall arrive at the "House-Machine", the mass-production house, healthy (and morally so too) and beautiful in the same way that the working tools and instruments which accompany our existence are beautiful.
Beautiful also with all the animation that the artist's sensibility can add to severe and pure functioning elements.
(Le Corbusier, 1931, pp.6-7)
While most schools of the period remained loyal to the beaux-arts tradition, Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus embraced the new design philosophies of the machine age. At the Bauhaus, the ideas of unity, wholeness and totality were a powerful force and these quasi-religious ideas became translated into architecture theory. Ironically, it is in their interpretation of these holistic concepts that the seeds of perhaps their greatest disservice to environmental design lay. For Gropius, the building itself was the whole. In this conception, the building was separated from its context -its specific locale and environment and viewed as an artifact in and of itself. "Accurately named the 'International Style', it had set aside the normal concern of the architect for the people and their differences, and for places and their differences and substituted the idealizations of machine technology" (Russell, 1981, p.137). From the perspective of a modern day systems theorist, the idea of the relations of parts to the whole is still a valid one, it is just that Gropius defined the "the whole" at a remarkably narrow scale. Today we recognize "the whole" as
35
the global scale of the earth's biosphere. In this context,
the proposition of the building, and indeed the architect, is
a vastly different one.
Nonetheless, the impact of Gropius and the Bauhaus on
the development of the modern machine aesthetic was
important. A series of projects at the Bauhaus examined the
implications of standardization and functionalism. Among
them were Gropius' Serial Houses of 1921, which had the goal
of combining maximum standardization with maximum
variability. Georg Muche in 1926 designed a prototype steel
house with flexible floor plan and potential for expansion.
Ludwig Hilberseimer in 1932 proposed a plan for the city of
Dessau that was very similar to the approach later adopted by
Levitt Brothers for their tract housing in the United States
(Figure 2-13). As with Le Corbusier, Gropius's rhetoric did
not match the reality that followed:
...Standardization of the building elements will result in new housing units and sections of cities having a uniform character. There is no danger of monotony, for if the basic requirement is fulfilled that only the building units are standardized the structures thereof will vary. Their "beauty" will be assured by properly used material and clear simple construction...(Russell, 1981, p.144).
Both Le Corbusier and Gropius during this period, "virtually excluded environmental comfort and services from their call for new attitudes to technology..." (Russell, 1981, p.145).
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe is another key figure of the modern movement associated with the Bauhaus (which he led in its final years before closing in 1933). Mies is noted for his concepts of modular anonymous space based on a meter grid
36
and the'separate of structure from space-making elements (i.e. walls). The Bauhaus model of a house style firmly equated several keywords into one interlinked concept: mechanization, standardization, dimensional coordination, mass production, efficiency, low cost working class housing.
Figure 2-13. Plan for Dessau, Ludwig Hilberseimer, 1932 (Russell, 1981, p.144).
Even today this list is often repeated as a model for cost-conscious housing. To this list, however, Gropius added one crucial factor the independence of the house from its site "The houses as designed are independent, coherent organisms not tied to any site, devised to fit the needs of modern
37
civilized man in any country, not even only Germany." (quoted in Russell, 1981, p.147). It is this idea that must be exorcised from the theory of industrialized housing.
Later in his career, Le Corbusier's work did evolve beyond his earlier mechanistic forms and became more interested in regional identity and connection with nature. Integral to this new focus was his development of a proportional system called the 'Modulor'. "The Modulor was more than a tool; it was a philosophical emblem of Le Corbusier's commitment to discovering an architectural order equivalent to that in natural creation" (Curtis, 1986, p.164). It was supposed to be 'a harmonic measure to the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and mechanics' (Curtis, 1986, p.163). Figure 2-14 illustrates the concept: a six foot man with his arm upraised is inserted into a square, which in turn is subdivided according to the Golden Section. Smaller dimensions are generated by the Fibonacci series (each number the sum of the previous two) .
Le Corbusier used the Modulor system in much of his post-war work. An important example is the Unite d' Habitation at Marseilles, where it was utilized to regulate the relationships between the large and small elements of the facade design. The Unite also contained Le Corbusier's other new devices, the brise-soleil and be ton-brut. As mentioned earlier, the brise soleil represented Le Corbusier's new awareness of (if not an altogether satisfactory response to) solar heat gain. The Unite itself became a prototype for
38
collective housing. "In retrospect one realizes that the Unite, along with Mies van der Rohe' s very different but nearly contemporary glass and steel towers, was one of the parent buildings of the post-war modern movement" (Curtis, 1986, p.163) .
Figure 2-14. Le Corbusier's Modular (Curtis, 1986, p.164).
Another European interested in industrialized housing was the French designer and metal fabricator Jean Prouve. Unlike Le Corbusier and Gropius, however, Prouve was strictly a pragmatist. One of his most interesting creations was his large moveable internal partitions with spring fixings, as used in the La Maison du Peuple. Another is the Free
39
University of Berlin. It uses all the rules of industrialized building: free facade, adjustable infill panels, etc.. In it, the concepts of growth, change, and indeterminacy are prominently displayed. Prouve did not considered himself an architect, instead being described as a 'self-styled constructeur' (Russell, 1981, p.158). Another significant figure in the history of industrialized architecture who did not arise from the architectural profession is the subject of the next section, the American R. Buckminster Fuller.
R. Buckminster Fuller
The ideas of Richard Buckminster Fuller form an important contribution to the field of industrialized building, for he approached the subject from a uniquely scientific and technological perspective. His first involvement in building construction was with his father-in-law; together they created the Stockade Building System. Between 1922 and 1927 they built 240 buildings using this system, which consisted of lightweight blocks made of straw and cement. It was during this time that he formulated his attitude to building:
That was when I really learned the building business, and the experience made me realize that craft building -in which each house is a pilot model for a design which never has any runs is an art which belongs in the middle ages. The decisions in craft-built undertakings are for the most part emotional and are based upon methodical ignorance (Russell, 1981, p.177).
40
In 1927, when as Fuller says, 'I resolve to do my own thinking' (Russell, 1981, p.175), he began to frame his ideas about the use of machine technology. The first fruits of this labor are seen in his so-called 4D houses, a 10-deck house design and the famous Dymaxion house. The 10 deck house featured a streamlined shield to bring the building's heat loss proportional to the air drag, which Fuller claimed could reduce heat losses to very little. The Dymaxion house was Fuller's first proposed solution for the problem of low-cost housing. It was inspired by his desire to create an extremely efficient dwelling that could be built quickly and inexpensively, with the intention of being mass produced for the retail price of $1500 (roughly the cost of a typical American automobile). The 4D house is a one-story hexagonal volume suspended from a central mast which also functioned as a service core (Figure 2-15). The design was completely futuristic, demanding materials and standards which at the time could not be met, and yet it did much to stir the public imagination.
One of the ideas to come out of the Dymaxion house was Fuller's mass-produced, self-contained bathroom. Twelve prototypes of the unit were produced in 1936, but it was never produced in quantity. The idea of the "plug-in" pod, however, has lived on. In the early 1940's Fuller developed the Dymaxion Dwelling Machine, or Wichita House as it came to be known.
41
Figure 2-15. Fuller's 4D Dymaxion house, 1927 (Ward, p.71)
42
In this design he put into practice his ideas for using shape to control cooling requirements. The building incorporated a ventilator which used natural external air flow and convection currents to keep the interior temperature comfortable even at outdoor temperatures of 100 degrees F
(Russell, 1981, p. 181). Two prototypes were built, but because of the massive tooling costs which in turn required a large continuous guaranteed market, the design was never mass-produced. One of concepts, however, has been realized in mass production.
After the Wichita House project, Fuller went on to invent the geodesic dome by devising a means for executing an enclosure that was simple and easily adaptable to prefabrication methods. The geodesic dome is a structure with an ability to span great distances with an economy of material, making it particularly applicable to large-scale buildings of many types. It combines the gravity-resisting shape of a solid dome shell with the economy of material of a three-way triangulated truss.
While Buckminster Fuller's work has been important in the area of industrialized building, most of it has never reached the mainstream of public acceptance. Perhaps Fuller's greatest contribution to architecture was not in the artifacts he produced, but in his "fundamental studies of a problem and his reformulating of possible directions"
(Russell, 1981, p.184).
43
More American Developments
Another American to play an influential role in the development of industrialized construction, particularly in the area of modular coordination, was Albert Farwell Bemis. Bemis put forward his ideas in a three volume work, The Evolving House, between 1933 and 193 6. Volume I is subtitled A History of the Home, while Volume II contains 'an analysis of current housing conditions and trends and comparisons with other industries' (Russell, 1981, p.185). It is Volume III, Rational Design, in which he puts forth his most lasting contribution the proposal of the 4 inch cubical module matrix (Figure 2-16). "Bemis saw his cubical module as the 'focus for standardization' and points out how all the parts of the house, whether factory made, or made on site, could relate to it" (Russell, 1981, p.191). Bemis' proposals for the use of this coordinating module were quickly taken up in the United States, and were subsequently adopted by Europe's proponents of component building in their metric equivalent (100 mm).
Following World War II, the United States government took an active interest in addressing a nationwide housing shortage, and provided funds for the development of factory built housing. One of the most publicized products of this program was the Lustron House, designed and manufactured by Carl Strandlund in 1946.
Figure 2-16. The 4 inch cubical module matrix: Albert Farwell Bemis, 1936 (Russell, 1981, pp.186-187)!
The house was made of prefabricated steel panels with a porcelain enamel finish. It had a steel stud structure with
45
the panels employing rubber gaskets and fiberglass insulation. Technically, the house had few problems, yet the project ended in failure. Lustron was given the Curtiss-Wright aircraft factory at Columbus, Ohio, and a series of government loans. Production began in 1949, only to close in 1950 after producing 5000 units due to marketing and political difficulties. Chief among these was the customer's requirement to pay the total $6000 amount up front due to financing difficulties. The failure of the Lustron Home project provided a valuable lesson for later building systems designer's--that the whole process of home provision, including financing, building regulations and other factors beyond the technical design of the structure itself, must be considered.
While the failure of the Lustron house brought about calls for the abandonment of the goal of mass-produced housing--'If Lustron doesn't work, let us forever quit talking about the mass-produced house': Senator Ralph Flanders (Russell, 1981, p.295)--the west coast designer-architect Charles Eames breathed new life into the idea of the industrialized vernacular with his Santa Monica house of 1949. Its simple form of rectangular units characterized an open system of off-the-shelf prefabricated components. Its materials of light metal structure and colored panels and glass invoked the image of a Mondrian painting, while its open plan allowed flexibilities in spatial organization and a continuum of lifestyle changes over time (Wilkes, 1988b,
46
p.10). It was also able to achieve the economic advantages of industrialized construction, so often proclaimed but often not realized. The successful combination of function and aesthetics of the Eames house won the admiration of the design community, and kept the dream of the machine aesthetic alive.
Carl Koch has been involved in a number of concepts for industrialized housing during his career, starting with his participation in the Lustron House Project. In 1947 he designed the Acorn House, which arrived on site with its floor, roof and walls folded against a central utilities core. Made of steel and timber construction, it was placed on a prepared foundation and then unfolded. His Techbuilt house of 1953 is perhaps his most famous work. The house is a two-story design constructed of stressed skin plywood panels on a 4-ft module (Figure 2-17). The basic exterior frame erection was accomplished in a two-day time period with two to four workers. The design also came with an instruction manual to allow for owner assembly. The Techbuilt house was unlike many earlier proposals for industrialized construction in that it did not strive for the machine aesthetic look. While the cathedral ceilings of the second floor were something of a new look, still it blended easily with existing architecture. This, along with its cost competitiveness, is probably the primary reason it was unlike many of its predecessors in another important way -commercial success. The product was franchised and its
47
market stretched across the United States and abroad; Techbuilt Homes is still in business today. Koch went on to concentrate his later work in prefabrication in the material of precast concrete with the Techcrete system.
Figure 2-17. Techbuilt House, Carl Koch, 1953 (Russell, 1981, p.596) .
In 1961, Konrad Wachsmann authored an influential document on industrialized building called The Turning Point of Building. Born in 1901, Wachsmann had a long history of involvement in the field. Starting out as a cabinetmaker and carpenter, he became the Chief Architect to Europe's largest prefabricator of timber components in Germany. After working with Le Corbusier for a period in France, he emigrated to the United States in 1941, where he joined Walter Gropius in designing the Packaged House System and founding the General
48
Panel Corporation. His Molibar Structure of 1944, featuring
a large space frame roof in tubular steel, was shown at the
Museum of Modern Art. In 1950 he became a Professor at the
Institute of Design at the Illinois Institute of Technology
(Russell, 1981, p.316).
In The Turning Point of Building, Wachsmann repeats many
of the familiar arguments in favor of industrialized
building. Nonetheless, "the very coherence of the Wachsmann
argument, has been tremendously influential both on building
systems and on architecture at large. The longspan, large
shed, flexible interior, environmentally controlled spaces of
Ehrenkrantz, Rogers and Foster all owe much to these
propositions" (ibid. 319). Wachsmann, perhaps more than
anyone else, popularized the space frame. He shows that long
before Fuller, Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated structural
systems based on the tetrahedron (Figure 2-18). Wachsmann's
most innovative contribution to the idea was his development
of the joint, which he described as 'a manifestation of
energy' (Figure 2-19).
While Wachsmann's work provided some new insights toward
the industrialized building that was to follow, it also
unfortunately repeated and even amplified the call to ignore
climatic design considerations in building:
While the production of synthetic building materials is already providing us with insulation capable of smoothing out local climatic conditions so effectively that it is useful in the face of both extreme heat and cold, complex mechanical air conditioning equipment is making it possible to ignore the degree of latitude, and the local climate in general, as a direct influence on construction. Mechanical equipment of this kind helps
49
to create autonomous space that manufactures its- own climate. Accordingly, no design need necessarily be determined by climatic conditions. The anonymous, universal room thus becomes a reality (Wachsmann, quoted in Russell, 1981, p.323).
Figure 2-18. Alexander Graham Bell and tetrahedral-based structures, c.1900 (Russell, 1981, p.320).
In retrospect, it is hard to comprehend how such 'anonymous, universal' spaces, devoid of any local character, were actually seen as a fervent goal. In his book, Wachsmann puts forth Paxton as one of his great inspirations, calling his
50
Crystal Palace a work of art. Yet he has, in the tradition of his mechanistic contemporaries, completely distorted many of the lessons of this predecessor. "For Paxton, each problem had a unique solution, each situation demanded a new response, which we might call holistic eclecticism" (Russell, 1981, p.320). At the same time, his deeper understanding of the importance of the joint quite ironically signals an unconscious, nascent move toward an 'ecological' philosophy. For an ecological viewpoint holds that it is the relationships between objects the connections, the joints -which are more important than the objects themselves.
Figure 2-19. Wachsmann's multi-way space frame joint, 1950's (Russell, 1981, p.324).
The School Component Systems Development (SCSD) system was proposed by Ezra Ehrenkrantz in 1961. The SCSD system was developed with the intent of supplying 22 school projects throughout 13 California public school systems, and was
51
funded in part by the Ford Foundation's Educational Facilities Laboratories. SCSD was different in concept from most of its predecessors in that it was designed as an open system comprising only about 50% of the total building. It consisted of four subsystems: structure, lighting and ceiling, partition, and mechanical. Each of these subsystems were put out to bid by independent manufacturing concerns. Beyond these components, the rest of the project was the task responsibility of the local project architect, who was free to adopt the building to the site, including the choice of external cladding materials.
The concept of the advantages of an open system marked an important shift in the mentality of systems designers. "Ehrenkrantz... showed that the mass production argument does not mean vast closed systems with guaranteed markets: indeed, the indications were that, in many ways, this was a disadvantage to develop" (Russell, 1981, p.530). The Educational Facilities Laboratory added this: "Basically it is a means of using the efficiency of modern industrial production to construct schools, while still avoiding standardized plans or monotonous repetition of either rooms or general appearance" (Russell, 1981, p.531).
Following in the footsteps of the SCSD system was Toronto's study for Educational Facilities (SEF) project. Their Metropolitan School Board had shown great interest in the SCSD system, and in 1965 approved the study, again with funding from the Educational Facilities Laboratory in New
52
York. Like SCSD, SEF was an open system plan, but it included 10 subsystems accounting for 75-85% of the building value as opposed to SCSD's 4 subsystems for 50%. The subsystems included: structure, HVAC, lighting-ceiling, interior partitions, vertical skin, plumbing, electric-electronic, caseworks-furniture, roofing, and interior finishing.
SEF is more notable for its development of a systems approach than its actual buildings. This approach included: "the academic and administrative programming; the interpretation of this programming into detailed performance specifications; the tendering procedures; the bid evaluation methods; the two-stage contractual system; and the management system for design, construction, and evaluation of the individual school projects" (Sullivan, 1980, p.95). The "dual-contract procedure" separated component manufacture from construction. "The SEF Project culminated in the first successful completely open building system in construction history generated in a single bid" (Sullivan, 1980, p.95).
At the 1967 Montreal World's Fair, Moshe Safdie showcased a housing concept called Habitat. Its basic system consisted of repetitive load-bearing reinforced concrete box modules forming a variety of house types (Figure 2-20) Its complex organization was designed to provide a multilevel neighborhood incorporating a variety of community facilities. Habitat was both admired for its aesthetic design qualities and criticized for its huge cost overrun problems.
53
Originally planned for 900 units, only 158 were constructed, with costs averaging between $80,000 and $100,000 per unit (Wilkes, 1988a, p.12). Safdie points out that the project scale reduction tripled the unit costs, and thus are not representative of what the technology is capable of. Habitat also featured prefabricated fiberglass bathroom modules and an innovative pedestrian street network incorporating mechanical distribution.
The Institutionalization of Industrial Building in Britain
Perhaps nowhere has the concept of industrialized building taken hold stronger than in Britain. The British were the originators of prefabricated buildings, as discussed
54
earlier, and following the second World War, the concept became largely institutionalized. In 1944, the government passed Housing Act, which created a temporary housing program that built 156,667 houses between 1945 and 1948. In overall terms, the program was not a great success; cost overruns and overstated benefits tended to give prefabrication a bad name. Yet lessons were learned and the ideal of mechanized building lived on.
The most famous of the housing concepts under this program were by a firm of designers called ARCON (Architectural Consultants), with Edric Neel, Rodney Thomas, and Raglan Squire as principals. One of their projects was the design of a kitchen/bathroom service core following the example of Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion bathroom. The rectangular unit contained kitchen appliances on one side and bathroom facilities on the opposite side. This original design was never mass-produced, but the concept was later incorporated into the ARCON house design. The ARCON house underwent a series of design changes before going into production in 1945. The ARCON Mark 5 house consisted of about 2 500 parts produced by 145 different manufacturers; 41,000 units were produced in the three years of the program. It "incorporated many ideas that only much later were to become standard practice in housing in Britain. Among these were ducted warm air heating, modular kitchen fittings, prefabricated electrical wiring harness, prefabricated floor and ceiling panels, and a high standard of insulation in
55
walls and ceilings" (Russell, 1981, p.243). Thus, here is an all too uncommon case where the environmental comfort of a prefabricated design actually exceeds that of the common vernacular of the time. The example of the ARCON Mark 5 house also points out another continuing problem in the area of prefabricated housing. Although the 'prefabs' were environmentally better than most houses of the time, they did not conform to the building regulations and were required to obtain a special wavier before being allowed to be built. This points out the problem of regulations that deal with the way things are made, rather than the standards to be achieved.
When the government decided to cease support of the temporary housing program, ARCON turned their attention to other projects. In the early 1950's they developed the ARCON tropical roof using a tubular truss and columns (Figure 2-21). It had a double roof to allow air circulation for cooling, and met the need for a lightweight, easily erected structure for large spans. In addition to their development work, ARCON also carried out research projects into specific problems. In research concerning component interchangeability, jointing, and dimensional coordination, Rodney Thomas' work led to the realization that the joint was much more important than the component.
While groups like ARCON were dealing with industrialized construction for housing following W.W.II, the Architect's Department at Hertfordshire was applying the idea to the need
56
for new school buildings. It proposed a method of building with the following principles (Russell, 1981, p.255):
1. rapid erection
2. economical, but not cheap, building
3. repair and maintenance costs comparable with those of
traditional building
4. a flexible system: this was not interpreted as the
ability to make frequent of rapid changes within the building envelope but much more it was seen as removing one of the main obstacles to planning freedom and allowing each building to be individually tailored to its site.
5. the schools produced should be 'pleasing to look at
and to work in'
Figure 2-21. Tropical Roof, ARCON architects, early 1950's (Russell, 1981, p.246).
A prototype was built at Cheshunt in 1946, consisting of a light pin-jointed steel frame, concrete roof panels laid dry, honeycomb partitions, and horizontal precast concrete units for the external walls. A key part of their philosophy
57
was the use of the planning 'grid. Initially, they utilized frame construction based on the bay system. This required a given range of spans, and allowed for expansion by adding more bays. This was later replaced with the two-way grid method, where columns could take any position on a regular grid, and have beam connections from any or all four sides. The two-way grid method was more flexible, which could be used in dealing with orientation and site problems (Figure 2-22). Another important change was from their initial 8 ft., 3 in. grid to one of 40 inches.
By 1956, Hertfordshire offered three structural systems with interchangeable components: brick, steel, and concrete. The 1949/50 program even included a timber-framed system which was a response to steel shortages. Thus they, unlike many of their fellow systems builders, were pragmatic rather than dogmatic about the use of "industrial materials". Two other aspects of their work which went against the grain of building systems dictums were relatively little bulk purchasing and the use of "wet" construction wherever it was considered sensible. Unlike the government's temporary housing program, the success of the Hertfordshire work did much to establish the credibility of the factory mass production ideal.
Industrialized construction continued to evolve in the education market with the creation of CLASP, the Consortium of Local Authorities Special Program, in 1957 (Figure 2-23).
58
ON THIS SITE A RECTANGULAR PLAN WITH GOOD ORIENTATION MEANS
THIS SECTION OR EXCESSIVE SITE WORKS
ON THIS SITE A RECTANGULAR PLAN TO GIVE GOOD ORIENTATION
THIS SECTION OR EXCESSIVE SITE WORKS
A RECTANGULAR PLAN WITH THE CONTOURS GIVES POOR ORIENTATION
THEREFORE SOME IRREGULAR PLAN FORM IS CALLED FOR
A RECTANGULAR PLAN WITH THE CONTOURS GIVES EAST WEST ORIENTATION
tr
THEREFORE A PLAN OF THIS TYPE IS NEEDED TO FULFILL CONDITIONS OF SUN AND SLOPE
Figure 2-22. Using system flexibility to deal with site problems (Russell, 1981, p.264).
They made their most important mark with the award of the 1960 Special Grand Prize at the Triennale di Milano for the
59
primary school erected there. The school aroused a great deal of interest from Europe in the British approach to school design and CLASP in particular. Actual cost reductions were a good part of the interest: "the 1948 cost per school place L320: the increased cost of materials would have made this L550 in 1960 (the year of the exhibition) whereas in fact the actual cost was L260..." (Russell, 1981, p.403) .
Figure 2-23. CLASP, 1957 onwards, dimensional system (Russell, 1981,
Isometric showing p.395) .
60
It is pointed out, however, that these comparisons may be misleading. A great deal of the cost savings was achieved through the use of multi-use spaces, thereby reducing the overall floor area considerably. Thus, prefabrication itself may not be the primary reason for the cost reduction, but rather the different approach to the design problem.
The success of CLASP began to change the climate into which the ideas of industrialized building were received. CLASP gradually developed throughout the 1960's and 70's to include buildings of many types, from health centers to community centers to universities (University of York). Yet, after years of system building, professional and public criticism persisted. In its Annual Report for 1975, CLASP reports:
Some elements of the construction industry criticize system building on the grounds that it is a short cut technology, a bureaucratic convenience, and a struggle to achieve the cheapest building regardless of cost and regardless of environmental consequences (Russell, 1981, p.413) .
Yet another method of system building was initiated in the War Office in 1961, but soon thereafter (1963) passed on to the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (MPBW) (Figure 2-24). Named after administrator David Nenk, the NENK concept was organized around eight criteria (Russell, 1981, p.420):
1. Dimensions of all spaces and thicknesses of walls,
partitions, floors, and roofs would be multiples of the basic module (M) which was 4 inches or 10 cm (approx.).
2. Submodular thickness would then be considered and
preferred sizes for components decided.
3. Structure based on the use of a space frame.
61
4. The carcassing of internal and external walls,
floors, and roofs would be considered independently of their finishes.
5. External walls and partitions would be in vertical
panels spanning between floors and ceilings.
6. External walls and partitions to be made up of two
independent leaves thus allowing differing combinations to achieve differing performance requirements.
7. Services to be housed in roofs and floors and in wall
cavities.
8. Dry construction to be used wherever practicable.
Figure 2-24. NENK system Isometric showing hypothetical assembly (Russell, 1981, p.419).
The use of a space frame was an attempt to escape the difficulties and span limitations imposed by the post and beam frame. It was a double layer flat grid space frame made up of prefabricated inverted tetrahedra. While Fuller's work with tetrahedra is no doubt the original inspiration for the
62
space frame, it was Konrad Wachsmann's work, showcased in his
1961 book The Turning Point of Building, that probably had
the most influence on designers of this period. The use of
the 4 inch module as the basic sizing and positioning
dimension grew out of a concern to separate the planning grid
from the structural grid. One interesting idea put forward
by the NENK team was that of the number trio: for example,
with only three panel widths of 5M, 6M, and 7M it was shown
to be possible to produce every modular dimension from 10M
upwards, in an increasing number of different ways. Thus the
idea of maximizing flexibility with a minimum of parts was in
some measure realized.
The decision to consider the finishing materials of the
walls, roof, and floor independently of the basic
construction is another interesting point:
At least there is a recognition here that the curious moralities of the machine age argument as it had applied to the use of materials, and the 'honest' expression of functions and means, were more a hindrance than a help if 'Industrialized Building' was to begin to match the choice and flexibility of conventional building and also to remain economically viable.... The attempt in NENK to offer the opportunity for the use of conventional materials and/or industrially produced materials can here be seen against the commonly held view that to be industrialized a system has certainly to look industrialized (Russell, 1981, p.425).
Documentation was also given considerable attention in the NENK system. "Each component and junction was drawn separately and given a discrete code number and all drawings were reduced to A3 size to form a basic manual for the method" (Russell, 1981, p.425).
63
A number of buildings were produced with the system, but inertia waned and when key supporters moved on (Iredale to work for Ehrenkrantz in the United States) it was gradually phased out. Even though the NENK system had begun the transformation from the idea of closed to open systems, it was not enough to achieve lasting success.
Along with all the other governmental agencies involved in industrialized building in Britain in the 1960's, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) also developed a system for housing starting in 1961. Based on the 1 ft. 8 in. planning grid developed by CLASP, it went by the name 5M. It used a steel frame with timber beams and a flat roof 'to give flexibility in the shapes of the houses', although in practice the variety of shapes produced was small. Early on the group experimented with using components developed for CLASP, only to discover that they were over-designed and thus to expensive for housing purposes. It also tried some unusual solutions for a lightweight party wall, including a design incorporating a lead curtain to assist in sound reduction.
In order to designers estimate costs, MHLG produced The 5-Minute Guide to Economic Design in 5M System Housing in 1966. This document contained a series of examples based on the simple logic that those designs with the fewest corners, and most square shape would be most economical. Similarly, for row housing, as the number of attached units went up, the per unit cost would drop. While these facts are no doubt
64
true, it overlooks the myriad of other factors that come into
play in the cost of good human design.
It is interesting to note that as the concerns of energy and conservation generally became more central to building design, much housing again acquired a style involving projections, steps, staggers and pitched roofs of all sorts. One set of rationalizations replaced another, and a different range of expressive forms has begun to emerge. This shows the dangers of assuming that humane environments arise merely from satisfying a narrow range of criteria (Russell, 1981, p.437).
The 5M program was officially terminated in 19 68, with little to claim in the way of accomplishments. In addition, the maintenance record for a number of the houses built with the system is poor. A problem with concrete panels infilling the steel frame breaking up and falling out is reported in a number of cases, with expensive repair bills, after little more than a decade of use.
Following closely behind the example set by CLASP, the Second Consortium of Local Authorities (SCOLA) was formed in 1962 with a set of goals much the same as those seen before: a kit-of-parts solution for various requirements, standardization for the benefit of quantity production, consolidated projects for bulk purchasing, and fast construction times. The member counties of SCOLA, however, was more widely spread over England. The SCOLA group developed yet another closed building system, and showed a curious disregard for learning from the experience of previous systems builders. In an even greater anomaly, one member county, Hampshire, applied the system to a
65
standardized whole plan for several of its school sites, thus undermining the basic concept of adaptability through a flexible system. To its credit, the SCOLA group further pushed the movement to a more open system framework, and made advances in the process of documentation and communication involved with such bureaucratic systems. Like many of the other system designs of its day, however, SCOLA schools have had a poor record in regard to maintenance and energy.
The concept of the local authority client sponsored consortia grew throughout the 1960's in England. By 1970 these consortia accounted for over half of the total school building program (Russell, 1981, p.518). By 1976, the list of consortia included the following (Russell, 1981, p.520):
ASC: Anglican Standing Conference
CLASP: Consortium of Local Authorities Special Program CLAW: Consortium Local Authorities Wales MACE: Metropolitan Architectural Consortium for Education
METHOD: Consortium for Method Building
ONWARD: Organization of North West Authorities for
Rationalized Design SCOLA: Second Consortium of Local Authorities SEAC: South Eastern Architects Collaboration
Each of these groups developed their own approach to systems
building, with very little interchangeability between them.
Over time, problems of maintenance, poor environmental
control, aesthetic disfavor, and a reduction in demand
brought about a gradual abandonment of these closed systems
approaches.
66
Operation Breakthrough
No doubt influenced by the adaptation of industrialized building by the British and other European governments, as well as the success of SCSD in California, the United States government undertook its largest involvement ever in prefabricated housing with Operation Breakthrough. Directed by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administrator George Romney in 1969, the program's objective was to 'improve the process of providing housing' (Wilkes, 1988a, p.12). Over 600 proposals were received, and in February 1970, 22 were accepted.
The evaluation criteria were divided into three groups: concepts, capacity, and plans. Concepts included system qualities of flexibility, efficient use of labor and materials, and schedule forecasting. Capacity involved strength of the built form and the proposer's financial profile. Plans looked at the goals for marketing and production. Of the 22 accepted proposals, ten were volumetric, nine were panel systems, and three were component-based. The primary materials of the systems were similarly varied: six were concrete, one metal, eight wood, two plastic, and five were of a composite material. Table 2-1 gives a brief overview of the 22 systems selected (Wilkes, 1988a, p.13).
Because of the unconventional nature of these experimental systems, new methods of evaluation were
Table 2-1. Operation Breakthrough Systems
PRODUCER
Alcoa Construction Systems, Inc.
Boise-Cascade Development
Building Systems International, Inc.
CAMCI, Inc.
Christiana Western Structures, Inc.
Descon / Concordia Systems, Ltd.
FCE-Dillion, Inc.
General Electric Company
Hereoform Marketing, Inc.
Home Building Corporation
Levitt Building Systems, Inc.
SYSTEM TYPE
Service modules, wood or aluminum framed panels
Steel framed module
Large concrete panels, concreted joints
Large concrete panels, concreted joints
Wood framed panels, service modules
Large concrete panels, dry joint, service modules
Large concrete panels and
cast in place service modules
Lightweight wood-framed modules
Lightweight wood-framed modules
Lightweight wood framed modules
Lightweight wood-framed modules
PRINCIPLE INNOVATION Subsystem wet-core service
Design variability of modules
Materials and techniques
Panel Service assembly, and erection techniques
Factory built framing, sub-assemblies
Element and assembly procedure -uses existing facilities
Panel and service assembly
Cast plaster walls, central utilities chase
Tilt-up and horizontal module arrangement
ECONOMICS $10-20/sq.ft.
Medium price range
Not known
Less than conventional
Same as conventional
Comparable to conventional
$16-23/sq.ft.
Medium price range
Variable pricing
Factory built modules with stress $14/sq.ft.
skin floor panels and roof beam
ceiling
Factory built modules, hinged roofs
Comparable to conventional
Table 2-1 (continued). Operation Breakthrough Systems
PRODUCER
Material Systems Corporation
National Homes Corporation
Pantek Corporation
Pentom Incorporated
Republic Steel Corporation
Rouse-Wates Incorporated
Inland-Scholtz Incorporated
Shelly Systems Incorporated
Stirling Homex Corporation
Townland System
TRW Systems Group
SYSTEM TYPE
Inorganic composite panels
Light weight wood- or steel-framed modules
Foam plastic core framed stress skin panels
Foam plastic core framed stress skin modules
Steel faced foam and honeycomb core panels, service modules
Large concrete panels, concreted joints
Lightweight wood-framed modules
Lightweight concrete modules
Steel framed modules assembled by jacking
Precast concrete mega structure, lightweight steel framed panels and modules
Inorganic composite panels or modules
PRINCIPLE INNOVATION
Man-made plastic structural panel material
Factory built panel or module assemblies
Owner erectable system concept
Structural concept
Layout flexibility
Panel, service module assembly
Factory built modules, conventional appearance
Box module stacking arrangement
Erection process
ECONOMICS
Low to medium price range
Not known
Less than conventional
Comparable to conventional
$20-25K per unit
6% less than conventional
$14-16/sq.ft.
10-20% less
than conventional
Medium price range
Created 'land-in-air' concept Not known
CO
Man-made plastic material
More than conventional
69
necessary to establish conformance with standards for adequate housing. HUD commissioned the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to provide this criteria, which it provided in the "Guide Criteria for the Evaluation of Operation Breakthrough Systems." This document proved useful beyond the program itself for the revision of codes and standards across the nation to allow for the inspection of unit building systems. The program itself was ran until January 1973, when the Nixon Administration imposed a moratorium on housing funds. Because of the cancellation of the program, the third phase of volume production was seriously affected. At the time, the program was largely viewed as a failure because it never achieved the production goals originally set out. It was also not able to develop the market demand by way of government incentives that it had hoped for. In retrospect, however, the program is seen to have been a major catalyst for change in the building industry, and its failure largely due to its unrealistic goals for the speed of change.
Archiqram and High Tech Architecture
By the end of the 1950's, the architecture of the machine aesthetic derived from the original conception of Le Corbusier, Gropius and others during the twenties and thirties, had become largely stale and banal. In response, a group of disenchanted young architects from London formed a loose association in 1961 and published a series of "manifestoes" called Archigram (an 'architectural telegram').
70
The original group included Peter Cook, David Greene, and Michael Webb, and they were later joined by Warren Chalk, Ron Herron, and Dennis Crompton. Like Le Corbusier with his Vers Une Architecture before them, their goal was to redefine the values and syntax of modern architecture, based on 'the spirit of the age1. Their age was the space age, and the technology and imagery of Cape Kennedy and the space program was a major source of inspiration for their work. Another inspiration came from an embrace of the values of popular culture, including consumerism, planned obsolescence, and the importance given to public imagery.
The work of Archigram (the people) throughout the 1960's was primarily drawings and exhibitions. The Walking City
(Ron Herron, 1964) was directly inspired by the huge moving structures of Cape Kennedy. Herron's imaginative imagery showed huge insect-like bodies of steel, walking on telescopic legs. Capsule Homes (Warren Chalk, 1964), Gasket Homes (Ron Herron, Warren Chalk, 1965), and Living Pods
(David Green, 1965) explored the ideas prefabricated dwellings that could be stacked into towers or megastructures
(Wilkes, 1988b, p.256). Similarly, Peter Cook's Plug-In City
(1964-66) inserted throw-away units into a concrete megastructure by way of a cranes operating from a railway at the structure's peak. From 1966 onwards, the work of Archigram altogether abandoned traditional notions of architecture, producing projects such as "suits that are homes", the Instant City, and other hybrids of machine,
71
biology, electronics, and architecture. The Archigram "newsletter" was ceased in 1970, but it was only then that its influence began to be seen in built form. Arata Isozaki further developed the ideas of the Instant City in his section of the 1970 Osaka World's Fair. In that same year, Richard Rogers entered into a partnership with Renzo Piano, and in 1971 they won the international competition for what became the Centre Pompidou in Paris (Figure 2-25). In this building is the perhaps the clearest expression of the architectural style called High Tech.
Figure 2-25. Centre Pompidou, Paris, by Rogers and Renzo, 1977 (Curtis, 1983 p.375).
72
The importance of Archigram was that it offered alternative ways of looking for solutions to architectural problems. Their movement, described as architectural counter-culture, was perhaps actually more of a "hyper-culture" Many of their ideals were simply updates to or reinterpretations of the original machine aesthetic: engineering rather than architectural inspiration, modularity, industrialized production, adaptability, etc. Their work is definitely true to the spirit of its time, but from an ecological point of view, that is its greatest fault. Referring to the idea of expendable construction, Peter Cook states in Archigram 3, "We must recognize this as a healthy and altogether positive sign. It is the product of a sophisticated consumer society, rather than a stagnant (and in the end, declining) society" (Cook, 1972, p.16). In Modern Movements in Architecture, Charles Jenks states (p.298), "The great contribution of the British avant-garde has been to open up and develop new attitudes towards living in an advanced industrial civilization where only stereotyped rejection had existed before, to dramatizing consumer choice and communicating the pleasure inherent in manipulating sophisticated technology." Yet it is precisely these cultural norms of consumerism and the unbridled glorification of technology that have exasperated many environmental problems. These are values that contemporary environmentalism seeks to dethrone.
73
As stated earlier, Archigram was a key influence on the High Tech style of architecture. Richard Rogers, Nicholas Grimshaw, and Michael Hopkins three of the four major leaders of the movement were all students of the Architectural Association in the early 1960's. Norman Foster, the fourth major leader of High Tech, studied at the Liverpool school of architecture, but met Rogers briefly at Yale in 1962, and then joined him to form Team 4 upon returning to England. These four have alternately been competitors and associates with each another in the years to follow. Beyond Archigram, however, High Tech has been influenced by such architects as Allison and Peter Smithson, James Stirling, Paul Rudolph, and even Louis Kahn. The hallmarks of High Tech imagery include: exposed steel structure, visible air-conditioning and other services, plug-in service pods, suspension structures. Its ideals are similar to those of past industrialized building philosophies: mass production, flexibility, modularity. It even takes the flexibility idea a step further in proposing that not only should internal partitions be demountable, but also external walls, roofs, and even structural frames. Similarly, it has carried forward the modernist theory of the "honest expression" of materials and means, although (as before) this theory and the actual implementation are often inconsistent.
In addition to the Centre Pompidou, Foster's Hongkong Bank Headquarters and Rogers' Lloyd's of London, both
74
completed in 1986, are considered major masterpieces of the genre. In Roger's Lloyd's building, the essence of the design is the separation of the service towers containing cables, ducts and staircases from the central atrium. Every element, both structural and mechanical, is expressed on the facade. In Foster's Hongkong Bank the structure is both prominent and unique. Floors are suspended from structures called "coat hangers", which are in turn supported by eight massive masts.
Industrialized Housing Today
Terminology
Industrialized construction is broadly defined as the off-site production of building components or complete units in a factory setting, which are then assembled or erected on-site. The primary distinction between industrialized construction and conventional construction is the degree of off-site fabrication. In the past few decades, elements of industrialized construction have been absorbed within conventional construction techniques to the point that the boundary between conventional and industrialized construction is fuzzy at best.
Prefabricated components such as manufactured windows, doors, and cabinetry are practically standard in today's 'conventional' housing. Industrialized construction is applied to many different building types: residential,
75
commercial, institutional, recreational, and industrial. The emphasis of this thesis is upon residential applications.
A variety of terminology is used in describing industrialized building systems. Many of these terms have closely related meanings, and often they are used interchangeably. Unfortunately in doing so, the subtle differences in meaning are sometimes obscured. Other terms that are generally synonymous with industrialized housing include manufactured, factory-built, and prefabricated housing. The term manufactured housing is often used as a euphemism for the more specifically understood term 'mobile home'.
Building systems is another term commonly used in the realm of industrialized construction. A system can be defined as a kit of parts designed to be combined into a unified whole to accomplish a desired objective. It is this definition, with the emphasis on 'combined into a unified whole', which provides the important concept of holistic design that has often been ignored in the concept of industrialization. A systematic design philosophy includes the idea that the interrelationships between the parts are as important as the parts themselves, and it is in this context that the environmental implications of building are most clearly understood.
Building systems are classified as open or closed. An open system allows interchangeability of its own components with another system's or producer's, while components of a
76
closed system are only interchangeable internally. The term building systems is sometimes used in another sense, where products are referred to as hardware or software. Hardware refers to actual physical products; software which refers to a procedure or program for producing and marketing building products.
Categories
There are many different variations on the basic concept of an industrialized building system. Systems are often grouped together into categories to help understand commonalties and differences. Different authors propose different groupings, but the constituent systems that are recognized are generally the same. In regards to the U.S. housing market, the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Building Technologies recognizes four types: HUD Code (mobile homes), modular houses, panelized houses, and production-built housing.
HUD Code is the official name of the category commonly refer to as mobile homes. They are constructed for year-round living, outfitted with wheels, and towed to the site where they are connected to a foundation and utilities. The term mobile home is primarily a historical vestige referring to their evolutionary ancestor, the trailer home. Today's mobile homes are built around economy rather than mobility as the primary objective; they are today's low income housing. Even though many still retain the trailer chassis, most are
77
never moved once they have been delivered to their initial site. (The wheels are typically removed and sold after their initial use.) The term HUD Code refers to the fact that today's mobile homes are constructed according to building codes administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which supersede local and state building codes for these homes. Mobile homes also have special tax rates (licensed as motor vehicles and not taxed as real estate) and financing which further enhance their economical status. On the other hand, mobile homes neighborhoods are often considered as less desirable and are often subject to housing restrictions.
Modular homes (also called sectional homes) are built by stacking together two or more three-dimensional house sub-units. Each sub-unit contains one or more rooms; they are factory assembled, shipped to the site, and then stacked together, often using a crane. Modular homes are set over a standard foundation and financed in the same way as conventional houses. Moshe Safdie's Habitat housing complex in Montreal is an example of modular housing made from precast concrete technology. Many of today's modular homes have evolved from the 'single-wide' mobile home to double-wide and triple-units. It is mainly their separation from the trailer that technically qualify these modular homes as permanent housing, and circumvent the associated restrictions placed on mobile homes.
78
Panelized houses are constructed from manufactured roof, floor, and wall panels on site. Whereas the building block of a modular home is a three-dimensional unit, with the panelized home it is two-dimensional panel. Panelized wall units are either open wall, with one side open for inspection by local building officials, or closed wall. Closed wall units include wiring, plumbing, and insulation built-in and must be inspected at the factory. Open wall units may or may not include these utilities.
The fourth type, production-built housing, "refers to the mass production of whole houses, either in a factory as completely assembled units or at the site, which becomes an open-air assembly line where labor and materials are processed by advanced manufacturing methods into finished houses" (DOE 1). The on-site fabrication with this type is an exception to the general definition of industrialized construction given previously, but it includes the idea of mass production techniques. Tract housing is an example.
In addition to these housing categories, there are others which are often discussed in the industry literature. One of these is the precut house. Precut houses are units that come from the manufacturer as a package of precut lumber components. Log homes, A-frames, and geodesic domes are examples of precut packages, although they are many times considered as separate categories. Precut home kits may or may not include items such as plumbing, heating, and wiring kits. Wet cores or service modules are "special modular
79
components for housing that contain all the electrical control and mechanical and plumbing services required for a single housing unit" (Sullivan, 1980, p.72). Self-contained bathroom or kitchen modules are common examples. These service modules are often used in conjunction with other systems. In addition to modular and panelized (which essentially mean three-dimensional and two-dimensional) systems, there are skeleton or frame-based (one-dimensional) systems, also sometimes referred to as component systems. Stick-built (also called platform construction, or custom) housing is technically a frame-based housing system, although it is generally not considered industrialized construction since most fabrication takes place at the site. Metal building systems are another category of industrialized building which are often frame-based systems. All-metal systems are more prevalent in industrial and utilitarian applications than in residential housing, although this is slowly changing.
Comparisons Between Categories
The different types and categories of manufactured housing have different strengths and weaknesses. Consider the categories of mobile, modular, panelized, and component housing. As described earlier they can be considered as points on the "dimensionality scale": mobile homes are whole units, while modular, panelized and component systems represent sub-units of three, two, and one dimension. For
80
comparison purposes, they can also be considered as points on a spectrum of the degree of factory versus on-site fabrication. At one end is the mobile home, completely factory built, requiring only to be hooked up to utilities and "strapped down" to foundation anchors once transported to its site. At the component end, many different components and subsystems are assembled on site. In general terms, the mobile home end of the spectrum maximizes economy while sacrificing design flexibility, while the component end of the spectrum inverts this relationship.
Sullivan (pp.224-25) offers this list of advantages and disadvantages for the major housing types:
Mobile Housing
Advantages
- extremely low costs relative to other housing types
- a wide range of mobile home units of different style, size and features
- low taxes and relatively low maintenance costs (mobile homes must be licensed as are motor vehicles)
- mobile homes can ,if desired, be easily relocated
- units may be shipped long distances from manufacturer or distribution centers (from 500 to 700 miles)
- relatively low transportation costs
- mobile homes are essentially a form of instant housing
- financing is relatively easy to obtain
- space rental and upkeep is relatively inexpensive (mobile homes are not taxed as real estate)
Disadvantages
- prejudicial zoning keeps mobile home parks from good quality neighborhoods
- many existing parks are of low quality, offering few amenities
- mobile homes depreciate over time
- long term financing is not available (12 to 15 years maximum)
- mobile homes have a shorter life span than other forms of housing
- transport requirements impose limitations on unit design and layout
81
Modular Housing
Advantages
- modular housing is generally subject to real estate tax and as such qualifies for long-term financing in the form of the traditional mortgage
- the modular home, in general, will appreciate with time, as in the case of traditional housing
- modular housing has a reputation for superior quality relative to most mobile housing and, hence, experiences greater consumer acceptance
- there is a wider variety of forms of modular housing than mobile homes
- there are fewer problems with code acceptance
- there is more flexibility in design
- modular housing has greater structural stability than mobile homes when placed on conventional foundations
Disadvantages
- the modular home is generally more expensive than the mobile home
- lower volume production from most modular housing producers prohibits the advantages of volume production
- modular housing requires more preliminary site work and installation than mobile housing
- the transport limitations that apply to mobile homes also apply to modular housing
Panelized Housing
Advantages
- greater flexibility in design than either modulars or mobiles
- greater ease of shipping since components can be tightly packed
- because of the superior transport situation, the market range can be considerably larger
- the buyer or consumer can be involved in the design process, determining the unit layout to suit his or her preferences
- the buyer has the option of reducing costs by handling a part of the assembly or of finishing the unit himself
- the unit can be more easily designed and manufactured in compliance with codes
- far less problems with prejudicial zoning that limits the places where such housing can be erected
Disadvantages
- lack of quality control due to the amount of work that must be carried out at the site
- generally higher costs than either mobile or modular housing, due to the amount of site labor required
82
- owner must assume responsibility for arranging the general contracting or perform the function himself
- there is considerably more time involved in the construction than with either mobile or modular housing
- there is a problem with storage when all the materials and components for the housing unit arrive at the site at once, and the unit might take from one to four weeks before it is enclosed
Wet/Core/Service Modules
Advantages
- there is less need for skilled labor at the site
- skilled labor employed at the factory, where higher volumes of production per worker is possible
- industrialization is applied to the high cost items of housing
- there are no problems with storage if the unit is delivered to the site when everything is ready for installation
- it can be used in both traditional and industrialized housing
- there is better quality control of high cost labor operations
There are some additional disadvantages to mobile housing not explicitly listed by Sullivan, including poor quality construction, poor energy performance, and the inability to be site specific.
CHAPTER 3
EMERGY ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Introduction
This chapter deals with the energetic costs associated with the production of commonly used construction materials. The analysis is based on eMergy theory, developed by Howard Odum. This analysis is equivalent in purpose to the concept of "embodied energy"; however, the methodology involved in the analysis is different in a number of ways. The key differences include the scale of the analysis and the concept of energy qualities, called transformities.
Consider the difference between coal and electricity. In embodied energy analysis, typically no distinction is made between different types of energy; all of the required Joules of energy of different types in a process are added together to determine the total. Yet it takes about four Joules of coal to produce one Joule of electricity. A Joule of electricity must be of higher quality (i.e., it has greater utility for some further process) than a Joule of coal; otherwise, it would never have been produced in the first place. Thus, to accurately measure the total energetic costs associated with a given process, the concept of energy qualities (transformities, sej/J, or eMergy per unit mass
8 3
84
sej/g) must be considered. In certain cases, this difference in quality is recognized by conventional energy analysts; the transformity between fossil fuels and electricity described above is sometimes factored into embodied energy calculations. Only eMergy analysis, however, incorporates the concept of energy qualities in a fundamental and systematic manner.
The issue of scale of analysis is related to the understanding of energy quality. Because different types of energy have different transformities, it is necessary to establish a baseline; in eMergy analysis, that baseline is solar energy. Thus the units of transformity are solar emjoules per Joule (sej/J), and the units of eMergy per unit mass are solar emjoules per gram (sej/g).
Methods
The eMergy content of a number of construction materials were evaluated, including wood, steel, concrete, and glass products. For each eMergy analysis, a primary source of data that contained as much of the necessary raw information as possible was used. Any missing raw data was generally available by including one more source, and care was taken to put this data on a common basis with the primary source. The object of this approach was to minimize potential errors introduced by multiple data sources with inconsistent assumptions.
85
For each material or product evaluated, transformities were calculated both with and without human services. Human services were considered as everything associated with money, including labor, dollars paid for materials and fuels, and profits. Human services were always evaluated as a single comprehensive dollar amount represented by a product's selling price; material and fuel inputs were evaluated solely on the basis of their "natural" eMergy content. By keeping track of human services separately, a consistent method is established to prevent the double counting of human services.
Wood Products
The first category of materials analyzed were wood products, with the primary data source being the 1976 study by the Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial Materials (CORRIM) Panel II. As a secondary source, the US Census of Manufacturers was used to provide comprehensive data on human services. The CORRIM data was generally taken from the year 1970, while the Census data was from 1972, but adjusted to a per-unit basis and applied to 1970 quantities.
Three hierarchical levels of wood products were evaluated. First, an analysis of timber harvesting for the entire United States produced a transformity for cut logs. This value fed the analysis of the second level, primary wood products (including lumber and plywood, both softwood and hardwood). Primary wood product manufacture generates a good deal of wood by-products, including chips, sawdust, bark,
86
shavings and trim. The sawdust and bark can be burned to produce a large percentage of the energy needed for the products' manufacture, although it is not clear to what extent this resource is actually utilized for this purpose. Therefore, eMergy analyses were done in two ways for primary wood products; one assuming all available sawdust and bark was recycled as fuel and secondary wood product materials, and the other assuming no such recycling.
The third level of materials evaluated were secondary wood products those made largely with by-products generated from primary wood product manufacture. This includes particleboard, fiberboard, insulation board, and hardboard. Obviously, the transformity of wood by-products from the second evaluation level fed these calculations. Interestingly, the average transformity for wood by-products from all primary lumber production processes was essentially the same for both recycling and no-recycling assumptions.
Timber Harvesting
Figure 3-1 illustrates the eMergy flows for logging production in the United States as a whole for the year 1970. Table A-l in Appendix A lists the data and analysis corresponding to this figure. It should be noted that because rain and sunlight are both driven by the same energy source (the sun), only the larger of the two is included in the outflow total. Thus, the total eMergy outflow (1574.1 E20 sej/yr) is the sum of the inputs rain (816.0 E20 sej/yr),
87
Figure 3-1. US Roundwood Production, 1970.
Primary Wood Products
Primary wood products including softwood lumber, hardwood lumber, softwood plywood, and hardwood plywood were analyzed. Figures 3-2 through 3-5 illustrate the eMergy flows associated with each on a annual basis for the year 1970. Tables A-2 through A-5 lists the data and analyses corresponding to these figures.
fuel (79.4 E 20 sej/yr) and human services and labor (678.7 E 20 sej/yr).
88
Softwood Lumber Production, 1970
With Sawdust Recycling
Figure 3-2. EMergy Flows for US Softwood Lumber Production, 1970.
89
Hardwood Lumber Production, 1970
Without Sawdust Recycling
[ Services/ V Labor J Emergy Flows, E12sej/ton
JT
1 481 \ Hardwood Lumber
463 Hardwood Lumber Manufacture 944 / / Sawdust, Bark
< S^^Shavings, Trim ^vi/Vood Chips
Hardwood Lumber Production, 1970 -J r With Sawdust Recycling
Figure 3-3. EMergy Flows for US Hardwood Lumber Production, 1970.
90
Emergy Flows, E12 sej/ton
463
14
Softwood Plywood Manufacture
Softwood Plywood Production, 1970
Softwood Plywood
Without Sawdust Recycling
Emergy Flows, E12 sejVton
150
463
14
Softwood Plywood Manufacture
Softwood Plywood Production, 1970 -X
With Sawdust Recycling
Figure 3-4. EMergy Flows for US Softwood Plywood Production, 1970.
91
Hardwood Plywood Production, 1970 JL
With Sawdust Recycling
Figure 3-5. EMergy Flows for US Hardwood Plywood Production, 1970.
92
Secondary Wood Products
Secondary wood products including particleboard, fiberboard, insulation board, and hardboard were analyzed. Figures 3-6 through 3-9 illustrate the eMergy flows associated with each on a annual basis for the year 1970. Tables A-6 through A-9 lists the data and analyses corresponding to these figures.
[ Steam \ t Natural ] ( Electrical ] [ Services,]
V Energy J V Gas J\ Energy J V Labor J
\ 188 I 138 I 166 I 430
Particleboard Manufacture
Particleboard Production, 1970
1691
Without Sawdust Recycling
Emergy Flows, E12 sej/ton
Particleboard
Shavings, Trim
Figure 3-6. EMergy Flows for US Particleboard Production, 1970.
93
Figure 3-7. EMergy Flows for US Fiberboard Production, 1970.
Figure 3-8. EMergy Flows for US Insulation Board Production, 1970.
94
Figure 3-9. EMergy Flows for US Hardboard Production, 1970.
Steel Products
Three types of steel products were evaluated: raw steel (in molten form, without human services only), finished mill steel products in general, and fabricated structural steel products. The primary data source for the raw and mill steel evaluations was the American Iron and Steel Institute's (AISI) Annual Statistical Report. Analyses for these materials were made for the years 1972 and 1991, showing a significant increase in production efficiency (and decrease in quantity) for the US steel industry over this period of time. In addition, an analysis for fabricated structural
95
steel products.was done for the year 1972 based on the data provided by the US Census of Manufacturers.
A significant source of the raw material for steel production comes from recycled scrap iron and steel. In eMergy analysis, materials or energy which are part of a process feedback are not added into the summation of costs, to avoid double counting of that resource. The only additional costs associated with this input is that associated with the additional human services, fuel, etc. required to recycle it. The "natural" cost has already been accounted for in its original production. Figures 3-10 through 3-12 illustrate the eMergy flows associated with each analysis, based on total annual inputs and outputs for the years specified. Tables A-10 through A-12 lists the data and analyses corresponding to these figures.
|
|
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EVEI70KVJ_1VQMBO INGEST_TIME 2011-06-09T01:23:54Z PACKAGE UF00099303_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE
AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO
INDUSTRIALIZED BUILDING
By
DANA SCOTT HAUKOOS
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ABSTRACT iv
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Industrialized Building and Sustainability 1
What is Sustainability? 1
Focus of This Study 8
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9
Historical Overview 9
Industrialized Housing Today 74
3 EMERGY ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 83
Introduction 83
Methods 84
Wood Products 85
Steel Products 94
Concrete Products 99
Flat Glass Products 101
Discussion of Results 101
4 COMPARISONS OF FIRST COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
ALTERNATIVES VIA EMERGY ANALYSIS 107
Introduction 107
Methods 107
Results 118
Discussion of Results 122
5 INDUSTRIALIZED BUILDING AND SUSTAINABILITY: 126
Introduction 126
Indices for Sustainability 126
Other Issues 129
Summary and Conclusions 131
GLOSSARY 134
li
APPENDICES
A EMERGY EVALUATION CALCULATIONS FOR BUILDING
MATERIALS IN CHAPTER 3 135
B MASS PER GIVEN UNIT FOR VARIOUS BUILDING
MATERIALS 183
C DETAIL MATERIAL AND COST ESTIMATES FOR DESIGN
PROPOSAL ONE 187
D DETAIL MATERIAL AND COST ESTIMATES FOR DESIGN
PROPOSAL TWO 216
E DETAIL MATERIAL AND COST ESTIMATES FOR DESIGN
PROPOSAL THREE 245
REFERENCES 271
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 275
iii
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Architectural Studies
SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE
AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO
INDUSTRIALIZED BUILDING
By
Dana Scott Haukoos
August, 1995
Chairman: Ira Winarsky
Major Department: Architecture
While the concept of sustainable architecture is broadly
understood in general terms, a comprehensive quantitative
measure is more difficult to define. This study proposes a
basis for one such analytical methodology based on the theory
of ecological energetics known as eMergy (spelled with an
"M") analysis. The goal is to develop a method by which the
sustainability of various approaches to architecture can be
compared, and to look at industrialized building from this
perspective.
EMergy analysis involves determining the total amount of
energy of a single type that is required to produce a given
amount of material. This result is called the eMergy per unit
mass. EMergy evaluation of several commonly used building
IV
materials are presented, including wood, steel, concrete, and
glass products. This data, combined with conventional cost
estimating techniques, is used to estimate first costs both
in terms of monetary and eMergy units. A case study is
presented which compares a residential design of three
alternative construction materials and methods; two
alternatives represent conventional construction approaches
and the third represents an industrialized approach.
EMergy analysis is shown to provide a means of
analytically comparing diverse inputs to the building process
(materials, fuels, human services, etc.) based upon a common
metric. It can fully accommodate the concept of life-cycle
assessment, including issues of reuse, recycling, and
renewable resources.
v
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Industrialized Building and Sustainability
Industrialized building and its cousin modern
architecture claim efficiency and economy among their
founding principles. From an ecological perspective,
however, much of their legacy is anything but efficient and
economical. Some would go as far to say that the model of
industrialized construction is the antithesis of sustainable
architecture. This study asks the question "to what extent ^
are the methods, materials, philosophy, and aesthetics of
industrialized building compatible with the growing
contemporary concerns for restructuring society around the
popular concept of sustainability?" To address this question,
however, requires a working definition of what sustainability
is and a method by which it might be measured. That is the
second major issue this study will address.
What is Sustainability?
On one hand the general idea of what the concept is all
about is simple—a process (of building, in this case) which
can be sustained for an indefinite period. This "implies a
limitation on the degree and rate of human impact such that
1
2
the natural carrying capacity of the earth's ecosystems can
be perpetually maintained" (Thayer, 1972, p.99). The
analysis of sustainability, however, is a much less clearly
understood problem. This study applies the theory of
ecological energetics known as "eMergy analysis" in the
process of developing and advancing quantitative measures of
sustainability as applied to the analysis of architecture and
the built environment.
Different Perspectives Based on Scale of Consideration
Different perspectives on the efficiency and economy of
a building's design are a result of which factors have been
considered in the analysis. In general terms, this is
referred to as where one places the boundaries of the system
to be analyzed. Early proponents of industrialized building
were focused primarily on the aspects of mass production and
the efficiencies of human labor that could result. They were
interested in the "first costs" of a building. Often the
design of these structures took little consideration of the
climate in which they were placed, relying heavily instead on
fossil fuels to produce a comfortable human environment.
This attitude was economically practical as long as fossil
fuels remained inexpensive, but with the energy shortages of
the 1970s, a broadening of perspective began to emerge. The
monetary cost of fossil fuels increased, providing an
incentive to take into consideration a building's operating
costs during its design.
3
At the same time, others took an even broader look at
the consumption of energy. The concept of the "embodied
energy" of materials took into account the fact that fossil
fuels were utilized in all processes of the conversion of raw
materials into products. The accounting techniques devised
to measure these costs are known as life-cycle assessment
(LCA) or resource and environmental profile analysis (REPA).
Figure 1-1 illustrates this concept.
Figure 1-1. A System Diagram for Life-Cycle Assessment (AIA,
1992, Intro.V 2)
Since the beginnings of the energy shortages of the
1970's until today, the scope of concerns facing architects
and builders has expanded even further. Confronted with the
need to reduce energy consumption in the design of their
buildings, many designers of the past two decades responded
by developing "super-tight" buildings which minimized the
4
loss of energy by more carefully sealing each of the paths of
potential infiltration of outside air. While this did reduce
a significant source of energy loss, it also frequently had
the unanticipated effect of what is called "sick building
syndrome". The infiltration air had been providing fresh-air
ventilation, which when restricted led to the build up of
toxic gases due to off-gassing of many contemporary
construction materials. Thus, designers have been forced to
deal with new human health concerns in conjunction with their
pursuit of energy efficiency.
Other concerns, arising out of a growing appreciation
for the interrelationships between human activity and its
effects on the biosphere, have enlarged the scale of concern
still further. The health of not only immediate human
inhabitants, but also of the global geobiosphere, has become
an issue. Figure 1-2 illustrate one attempt to summarize this
enlarged conceptual framework for sustainable construction.
The "Apples and Oranges" Problem
The preceding discussion has described four
progressively broader perspectives, or scales of
consideration, in an attempt to address the issue of
sustainability. The first looks at first costs of a
structure. The second includes operating costs, but still
from a strictly monetary viewpoint. The third (Figure 1-1)
goes beyond first costs and operating costs to include
cumulative energy and resource costs as well as monetary
5
costs (which are inherently cumulative). The fourth (Figure
1-2) goes further still by incorporating issues of human and
ecosystem health.
Phase
Planning
Development
Deconstruction
Operation
Construction
Design
Water
Energy
1. Conserve
2. Reuse
3. Renewable/Recyclable
4. Protect Nature
5. Non-Toxics
6. Quality
Materials Land
Resources
Principles
Figure 1-2. A Conceptual Model for Sustainable Construction
(Kibert, 1994, p.ll).
Today the second of these perspectives has supplanted
the first in common practice of building design to the extent
that operating costs are reflected within conventional
monetary valuation. Other elements of the more holistic
perspectives are occasionally considered, typically on an ad
hoc basis. A major difficulty in analyzing sustainability is
with the many "externalites" that must be considered.
Externalities are those costs which lie beyond the realm of
conventional economic evaluation. One of the major
challenges in providing a working theory for sustainability
6
is the development of a system of evaluation which
"internalizes" all of these so-called externalities.
What is sometimes offered to fill this analytical void
are grading schemes, where various concerns are listed and
rated on an relative scale within each category. These
categories are sometimes related to one another with
weighting factors, in an attempt develop an overall score for
a given building design proposal. While these schemes no
doubt provide a useful service in raising the relevant issues
of environmental concern, they are none-the-less problematic.
The assignment of weighting factors between categories is
often done without the benefit of any underlying theoretical
basis.
EMerov Analysis
EMergy analysis (spelled with an "M") is a theory and
methodology developed by Howard Odum which provides unified
system of valuation of natural and human economies. In this
study, eMergy analysis is presented as the foundation for an
analytical scheme to evaluate sustainability with regards to
architecture. EMergy theory clearly asserts that money is a
representation of only the human services required in
bringing a commodity to market. This is obvious if one
considers that nature is never "paid" for its services. Yet
this is a concept that is often not clearly appreciated.
This is related to the common misconception that human
ingenuity and endeavor is the fundamental source of economic
7
value. Natural resources are in fact the fundamental source
of economic wealth; human activity is the catalyst in the
equation. Another major posit of eMergy theory is that
nature does indeed have an economic system of its own, namely
energy. EMergy recognizes different qualities of energy, and
provides empirically-defined conversions, called
transformities, between them. Furthermore, human economic
activity is seen as a subsystem within the context of the
larger natural economy, not as an independent or parallel
system. Money is understood to represent a form of energy
(namely human services), and with its appropriate quality
(transformity) it can be evaluated on a common basis with
other natural systems.
Solar energy is defined as the baseline level of energy
quality and given a transformity of unity. The transformity
of other types of energy represent a ratio of how much solar
energy was directly and indirectly required in its production
per unit of energy of the subject type. For example, one
Joule of coal represents an investment by nature of 40,000
Joules of sunlight. Thus, coal is said to have a
transformity of 40,000 solar emjoules per Joule (sej/J).
Likewise, one US dollar in 1990 has been calculated to
represent the equivalent of 1.6E+12 sej/$ (Odum, 1994b, p.
162) .
8
Focus of This Study
A complete evaluation of the sustainability of a
proposed building design would address all of the issues
outlined in Figure 1-2. EMergy analysis provides an unified
basis for analytical evaluation of most (if not all) of the
factors listed. This is discussed in further detail in
Chapter 5.
This study begins with a literature review of
industrialized building systems past and present. This
provides a historical perspective on the on the concept of
efficiency in building. Chapter 3 presents an eMergy
analysis of various primary building materials. Chapter 4
presents three alternative residential design scenarios,
which are analyzed in terms of first costs on an eMergy
basis. Chapter 5 concludes the study by briefly describing
the process by which eMergy analysis could be further applied
to encompass operating cosss and other considerations
necessary in a more complete evaluation of sustainable
design. It also relates these issues back to the relationship
between sustainability and industrialized building.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Historical Overview
The history of industrialized construction is closely
related to the history of the Industrial Revolution in
general, and to the roots of the Modern movement in
architecture in particular. Its roots go back as far as the
early seventeenth century when the Dorchester Company of
England produced demountable wood panel houses for the
English fishing fleet in Cape Ann, Massachusetts (Holeman,
1980, p.6). While most of the story of industrialized
construction (systematic building) takes place in Britain,
the United States, and Europe; Japan made an early important
contribution in the form of the Japanese house.
The Japanese House
Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, Japan
underwent a period of political isolation which resulted in a
policy of conservation of resources including population,
trade, and art. The architecture that developed during this
time reflected these conditions in a spirit of economizing,
rationing, and standardization. This Japanese architecture
had a significant impact upon modern architecture of the
9
10
twentieth century, with a particularly strong influence on
the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. It is of special interest
today, because the environmental pressures Japan felt then
mirror the growing recognition of global environmental strain
today. This Japanese spirit for making the most of limited
resources, and of creating an aesthetic of simplicity and
efficiency, is one that much of the rest of the world would
do well to emulate.
The floor plan of the Japanese house was based upon the
organization of a number of Tatami mats. It was not a
modular element, per se, but rather a part of a systematic
approach to building. This mat, originally a portable
element, is used to sit on, sleep on, and as a table. Made
of rice-straw bound together with string, the mats are
approximately 3' by 6', with a thickness of about two inches.
The mat was originally designed to accommodate one man
sleeping or two sitting. Room sizes are designed to
accommodate a number of mats, with the constraint that
corners of the mats are not allowed to touch. Figure 2-1
shows a number of Tatami arrangements. The most common size
rooms are the six and eight mat rooms (9x12' and 12x12',
respectively). Two different methods are used to relate the
structure to the rooms: the 'maka-ma' uses a consecutive grid
with the columns on gridline centers, while the 'kyo-ma'
places a column-wide zone between room spaces. The heights
of the room are also related by formula to the number of
11
mats, with different heights for an eight mat room, a six mat
room, etc.
3 MAT ROOMS
4.5 MAT ROOM
8 MAT ROOM
6 MAT ROOM
10 MAT ROOM
Figure 2-1. Room layouts based on Tatami mats (Russell, 1981,
p.16) .
Another Japanese tradition that has gone on to be echoed
in the theory of many industrialized building proponents is
the idea of user participation in the building process.
House building for the Japanese was not singled out as a
special activity but seen as part of daily life in which any
person can make their own house.
Early British "Pioneers of Prefabrication"
The British entrepreneurs of the early 1800's continued
the practice of prefabricated housing for the market created
by emigrants to the Americas, Australia, Africa, and the West
Indies. The conditions which these colonists encountered
12
which encouraged the prefabricated housing solution included
a shortage of skilled labor and a general lack of
infrastructure for building construction, as well as a
shortage of resources in some cases. Many settlers came with
little more than a tent for shelter when first arriving in
their new home. This left them vulnerable to the extremes of
weather and to problems of theft. Those who came with
prefabricated houses, ready for quick assembly upon arrival,
were at a considerable advantage.
One of the more successful of the early models was the
'Manning Portable Colonial Cottage for Emigrants', marketed
largely in Australia. It had several features that made it
well adapted to the needs of its customers. First, it was
specifically designed for mobility and ease of
transportation. Manning designed it to "pack in a small
compass" for shipping, and claimed "none of the pieces are
heavier than a man or a boy could easily carry for several
miles..." Second, it was designed for ease of erection. The
only site work required was the building of the foundation
and the assembly of components: "whoever can use a common
bedwrench can put this cottage up." Third, it contained the
essential qualities of industrialized construction,
dimensional coordination and standardization: "every part of
it being made exactly the same dimensions; that is, all the
panels, posts, and plates, being respectively the same
length, breadth, and thickness, no mistake or loss of time
can occur in putting them together" (Herbert, 1978, pp.9-11).
13
Figure 2-2. Manning Portable Colonial Cottage for Emigrants,
1833. (A.) Frame (B.) Plan (C.) Detail of framing (Herbert,
1978, pp.10-11) .
Figure 2-2 shows some of the details of Manning's
design. The plan shows a 121 x 24' structure with two rooms
12' square each. It was a wooden post frame, members spaced
at 3' intervals, which received standardized panels for
14
walls,â– doors, and windows. The Manning Cottage design was
conceived of as a solution to the emigrant's need for
"instant" temporary housing, at which it excelled. As a
solution for permanent housing, however, it suffered from a
problem that has often been the Achilles heel of the
industrialized building - climatic adaptation. As an
Englishman, Manning was aware of the problems of cold and
suggested installing a stove for heating. His single paneled
walls, however, provided little insulation value. He showed
even less recognition of the problems of heat, as experienced
especially by settlers in Australia. "The 8-foot ceiling ,
so cozy in England, created intolerable conditions when the
external temperature soared to 100 degrees F, or more."
(Herbert, 1978, p.23)
While Manning was advancing the concepts of
industrialized building - flexibility, ease of erection,
mobility, standardization, interchangeability of components,
and dimensional coordination - he was still using a
traditional material, timber, and the time-honored crafts of
the carpenter and the shipwright. (Herbert, 1978) Some of
his contemporaries, however, were beginning to look toward
the new technology of iron construction in their development
of prefabricated building. The first patent for the
application of corrugated metal to building components was
granted to Henry Palmer in 1829. The process of
galvanization, patented in 1837, provided the material with
its first effective protection from corrosion. A latter
15
patent, by John Spencer in 1844, greatly improved the
manufacturing process of forming corrugated iron, making it
available in greater quantities and lower cost.
Richard Walker purchased Palmer's patent and took on a
pioneering role in its practical application. An
advertisement by Walker from 1832 (Figure 2-3) shows a
warehouse with barrel vaults of curved corrugated iron
forming its roof. The use of corrugated iron for roofing
solved a major problem; "...the roof had proved to be one of
the intractable problems, not amenable to satisfactory
solution using conventional materials..." (Herbert, 1978,
p.35). The ability of this material span great distances
economically was an advantage particularly to the
construction of factories, warehouses, and other large
industrial buildings. The application of prefabricated metal
building systems predominantly to industrial buildings
continues to this day.
Figure 2-3. Richard Walker, Warehouse, 1832 (Herbert, 1978,
p.35) .
16
Walker also competed in the Australian emigrant market
for portable buildings, and his sons, John and Richard ,
carried on their father's business. By 1849, the California
gold rush provided another significant, if short lived,
market for their product. Edward T. Bellhouse was another
British manufacturer of prefabricated iron buildings to
participate in the California market, as well as American
Peter Naylor of New York. Naylor "was perhaps the largest
American manufacturer of prefabricated iron houses, shipping
more than 500 houses to the West in one year" (Herbert, 1978,
p. 47) .
With the demise of the California market, the British
returned to their traditional markets. Another firm
specializing in portable corrugated iron buildings for export
was that of Samuel Hemming. He produced residential and
commercial buildings, as well his most notable development,
the portable or temporary church. Not only did he offer a
wide variety of building type to fit various needs, but he
also began to show more sophisticated designs responsive to
the climatic conditions of his intended markets. A
contemporary account states:
The proprietor has himself been under tropical suns and
in tropical rains; and his inventive genius provided for
his son a house which should comprise portability,
security, and be put up without any difficulty or
trouble, by the most inexperienced hands . . .Mr.
Hemming saw at once the capability of this principle of
construction for adaptation to almost every conceivable
want and climate... (Herbert, 1978, p.62).
While the claim of being adaptable "to almost every
conceivable want and climate' is definitely over-
17
enthusiastic, Hemming did offer "full glazed, half-glazed,
louvered, and shuttered modular units, offering a wide
variety of fenestration options" (Herbert, 1978, p.63) which
were appropriate for his largely tropical market. Figure 2-4
shows some pages from the product catalog from Hemming's
company.
One of the great works in the history of industrialized
building was also born at the mid-century mark in Britain -
the Crystal Palace by Sir Joseph Paxton. That subject will
be discussed in greater detail in the next section. In 1854,
Britain had yet another application for economical and quick-
to assemble prefabricated structures - the Crimean War.
Isambard Brunei was in charge of some of the government's
initial designs for portable hospitals and tents. Brunei's
father, Marc, was notable for his blockmill (for the
manufacture of ship's pulleys), the first application of
machine tools to mass production on a powered basis. Others
including Hemming, Paxton and Charles D. Young also became
involved in designing buildings for the war effort. The
example of the British with prefabricated military buildings
was later put use in the American Civil War where paneled
prefabricated hospitals were used extensively (Herbert, 1978,
p.96). The tradition of "Victorian prefabs" continued on
through the late nineteenth century, notably in South Africa
where settlers were lured by the discovery of diamonds (early
1870's) and gold (1880's).
18
EAST IsOIA VII»ItA«
IIKUMIXtitt I* ATI-: NT IMI’HQVUM IHHITAltl.K IIOI'SES.
$CU MAWACTOFlf. CüfT ! 6USC. 3* 8*11»$TCH. 8RIJT0L
f i. t V*T#0**
Figure 2-4. Samuel Hemming's catalog, c.1854 (Herbert, 1978,
pp.63-64).
19
Joseph Paxton and the Crystal Palace
Built in 1851, the Crystal Palace stands a landmark in
the history of architecture. It was the first large scale
building to be built using modular construction and
prefabricated elements, and its list of innovations and
accomplishments is no less impressive today than it was
nearly a century and a half ago. The building was
commissioned to house the first world's fair, The Great
Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, in Hyde
Park, London.
The building was to be temporary in nature, economical
of materials and labor, simple in arrangement, capable
of rapid erection, dismantling and expansion,
illuminated entirely from the roof, built of fire-
resistant materials and erected over an 18-acre site ,
generally to a height of a single story (Kihlstedt,
1984, pp.132-33).
Its designer, Joseph Paxton, along with a staff,
formulated the design eight days, and went on to build it in
the unheard-of time of 39 weeks. It was dismantled in 1852
and re-erected at Sydenham Hill in 1854, where it stood until
1936 when it was accidentally destroyed by fire.
The building itself consisted of a steel and wooden
structure clad in glass (Figure 2-5). Its dimensions were
1,848 feet by 408 ft, with an extension on the north side
measuring 936 by 48 feet. Its central aisle was 72 feet wide
by 66 feet high, and its vaulted transept was 72 feet wide by
108 feet high. It consisted of a series of hollow cast-iron
columns joined by trussed girders that supported a roof made
20
of glass panes in a pleated, ridge-and furrow configuration.
(Figure 2-6) The valleys of the roof were supported by
gutters that collected the rainwater and delivered it through
the hollow columns to underground drainage.
Figure 2-5. Paxton's Crystal Palace, c.1851 (Chadwick, 1961,
p.130) .
Figure 2-6. Ridge and furrow roof of the Crystal Palace
(Chadwick, 1961, p.127).
21
As an exemplar of the concept of industrialized
construction, it is a tour de force:
1. designed to a 24 ft 0 in (7.32 m) structural and 8 ft
0 in (2.4 m) cladding module (Figure 2-7)
2. components prefabricated, mass-produced and
standardized
3. dry assembly
4. many components interchangeable
5. rapid erection (39 weeks for 989,884 sq. ft (91,960
m) of floor space) and demountability
6. light steel structure with a weatherproof lightweight
skin, or curtain wall
7. the frame was its own scaffolding
8. the use of mechanized erection techniques, for
example the roof glazing wagon (Figure 2-8)
9. the designer, engineers and suppliers worked as one
organization. Paxton, Fox and Henderson (contractors
and engineers) and Chance (glass supplier) between
them controlled the companies working on the
building (Russell, 1981, p.41)
Joseph Paxton was a farmer's son who since 1826 served
as superintendent of gardens for the Duke of Devonshire. He
worked as a gardener, a landscape gardener, and a landscape
manager who also engaged in building design. This background
played a crucial role in his development as a builder.
Previous to his work on the Crystal Palace, Paxton had
designed several greenhouses. It was in these projects where
he developed his ridge and furrow glass roofing techniques
and his familiarity with wood, glass and iron construction.
Of perhaps even greater interest is the source of his
inspiration for his roofing system, a lily by the name of
Victoris regia (Figure 2-9):
22
Figure 2-7. Crystal Palace. (Left) Part of the south
elevation showing cladding module of 8 ft (Right) Interior
showing 24 ft structural module. Also shows the arch sections
introduced to span existing trees; an early example of
respect for site (Russell, 1981, p.41).
Figure 2-8. "Glazing wagons" utilized in roof construction
(Russell, 1981, p.45).
23
This structural system, Paxton himself acknowledged, had
been inspired by that of the plant which it was to
house. The leaves of the great lily were formed of a
flat upper surface supported by a series of webs like
miniature cantilevers touching only intermittently; yet
they would bear a considerable weight, as Paxton found
when he put it to the practical test of placing his own
daughter Annie, then seven, on one. (Chadwick, 1961, p.
101)
Figure 2-9. Victoris regia (A.) Paxton's daughter Annie on a
leaf.(B.) The underside of a leaf at center, the inspiration
of Paxton's roofing system (Chadwick, 1961, p.37).
Early American Contributions
While the British pioneered the ideas of portable
prefabricated buildings and the application of corrugated
iron, America was the primary scene of experimentation and
development with other new building materials of the era -
cast iron and steel. (The Crystal Palace just discussed is
one very notable exception of British cast iron development.)
Two key figures in the story of cast iron were both from New
York; Daniel Badger and James Bogardus. Badger's factory
produced parts for over 300 buildings in New York and
throughout the United States between 1849 and 1877. Badger
was unique among his peers in that he sold his products as
24
whole building concepts, systems of frame and skin. He
manufactured his standardized components in New York and then
shipped them to be assembled on site. Badger is also
remembered for his finely illustrated product catalog.
Bogardus is credited with the first all-iron building in the
United States, his own factory built in New York City in 1849
(Figure 2-10). He would contract with various foundries and
blacksmiths for the fabrication of building components and
then supervise their assembly. Bogardus constructed several
buildings on the East Coast from New York to Havana.
Figure 2-10. James Bogardus' cast iron factory (Russell,
1981, p.56).
25
In 1856, Henry Bessemer patented a new process for .
carbonizing iron to make steel. This was followed by methods
for rolling and forming steel, and thus a revolutionary new
building material was born. During the 1880's the
development of steel-frame buildings was centered in the
boom town of Chicago, Illinois. William le Baron Jenny was a
key figure in the transformation from cast iron (First Leiter
Building, 1879) to steel frame construction (Second Leiter
Building, 1889/91). Steel-frame skeleton construction and
the full story height 'Chicago window' became trademarks of
the 'Chicago Construction'. Perhaps the largest personality
of this Chicago style was Louis Sullivan. His Carson Pirie,
Scott department store of 1899/1904 was "perhaps the most
complete embodiment of what was to come" (Russell, 1981,
p.64) with its emphasis on the grid of steel on its facades
and vast glass area.
In 1908, Sears, Roebuck and Co. entered the
prefabricated housing market through its nationwide mail¬
order business. With the establishment of their Modern Homes
Division in 1911, the houses were marketed through a separate
catalog complete with drawings, photographs, floor plans,
detailed descriptions, and pricing. Home designs were
offered in a variety of styles, sizes and price ranges.
Stick frame construction was the rule; the company bought
their own lumber mills in strategic locations to maintain
cost-controlled supply sources. The homes came in packages
of precut, numbered lumber and ancillary materials (nails,
26
paint, roofing, etc.) - everything necessary for construction
with the exception of masonry. Lighting fixtures and
plumbing were popular options. Sears also introduced
innovations including an early form of drywall in these
homes. Financing was available directly through Sears based
on their familiar time-payment plan. The decade of the
1920's, with its post-war optimism, was the heyday of the
business. "The catalog grew thicker every year. By 1926 it
contained 144 pages, and quite a few of them in color. Over
100 different house models were featured..." (Snyder, 1985,
p.44) . The decline and eventual end of the venture was
brought about by the Great Depression: not only did sales
decline, but numerous foreclosures were required when
mortgage payments ceased. By its end in 1937, Sears had sold
over 100,00 mail-order homes.
Frank Llovd Wright
Out of the Chicago scene of the late nineteenth century,
and out of Sullivan's office, came Frank Lloyd Wright.
Wright was masterful in combining the values of his Arts and
Crafts contemporaries with the ideas of the mechanized age.
"He intended to imply not that the machine should be
celebrated directly in mechanical analogies or images, but
that industrialization be understood as a means to the larger
end of providing a decent and uplifting environment for new
patterns of life" (Curtis, 1983, p.78). Much of the
inspiration for this synthesis can from his interest in
27
Japanese architecture. He admired its "refined proportions,
the exquisite carpentry, the humble use of materials, and the
subtle placement in nature. Moreover, this was an
architecture which modulated space and charged it with a
spiritual character: the opposite, in his mind, of the
Renaissance tendency to put up walls around box-like closed
rooms and to decorate them with ornament" (Curtis, 1983,
p.78).
From the late 1800's through roughly 1910, Wright
developed a residential style which came to be called the
'Prairie House Type', which was perhaps his most influential
contribution to modern architecture. Wright outlined his
guiding principles as follows:
First. To reduce the number of parts of the house and
the separate rooms to a minimum, and to make all
come together as enclosed space - so divided that
light, air, and vista permeated the whole with a
sense of unity.
Second. To associate the building as a whole with the
site by extension and emphasis of all the planes
parallel to the ground, but keeping the floors off
the best parts of the site, thus leaving that better
part for use in connection with the life of the
house....
Third. To eliminate the room as box and the house as
another by making the walls enclosing screens - the
ceilings and floors and enclosing screens to flow
into each other as one large enclosure of space,
with inner subdivisions only. Make all house
proportions more liberally human, with less wasted
space in structure, and structure more appropriate
to material, so the whole more livable...
Fourth. To get the unwholesome basement up out of the
ground, entirely above it, as a low pedestal for the
living-position of the home, making the foundation
itself visible as a low masonry platform on which
the building should stand.
Fifth. To harmonize all necessary openings to 'outside'
or to ' inside' with good human proportions and make
them occur naturally - singly or as a series in the
28
scheme of the whole building. Usually they appeared
as light screens instead of walls... there were to be
no holes cut in walls as holes are cut in a box...
Sixth. To eliminate combinations of different materials
in favor of mono materials so far as possible; use
no ornament that did not come out of the nature of
the materials to make the whole building clearer and
more expressive as a place to live in, and give the
conception of the building appropriate revealing
emphasis...
Seventh. To incorporate all heating, lighting, plumbing
so that these system became constituent parts of the
building itself. These service feature became
architectural and in this attempt the ideal of an
organic architecture was at work.
Eighth. To incorporate as organic architecture - as far
as possible - furnishings, making them all one with
the building and designing them in simple terms for
machine work...
Ninth. Eliminate the decorator...
(Curtis, 1983, pp.80-81).
Figure 2-11 shows the plan from one of Wright's house
from this period, the Willitts House of 1902. This
illustration is from his Wasmuth Volumes, a portfolio of his
work which became an important vehicle for his work to become
known in Europe.
Of special interest here are his contributions in the
ideas of building systems and holistic architecture. Three
areas can addressed:
first, his attitudes to construction and materials and
an interest in standardization; second, his approach to
three-dimensional space in planning and its relation to
dimensional grids; third his relation of the building to
the site, and the manner in which he controlled the
environment of his buildings both by this, and by
mechanical means (Russell, 1981, p.77).
The Froebel toys given to Wright as a child by his
mother are known to have been instrumental in the first two
matters. They consisted of fundamental shapes - cube,
cylinders, spheres - and the toy structures were to be
29
carefully built, with a plan marked out first upon the floor.
These toys have clear connection with Wright's attitudes to
standardization and coordination and also his subtle use of
square and tartan grids (Russell, 1981, p.78).
I.
• l.n|¡ lii.'llj I
It I , • ••; h.'ülj*1-,. •I'M
JitHi"" pi'â– ill,
kU/'vtjLi
- >â– , :
o
Figure 2-11. Plan of Wright's Ward Willitts House, Highland
Park, Ill, 1902 (Curtis, 1983, p.81).
30
Two examples of building systems by Wright include his
concept for the American System Ready-cut prefabricated flats
(1915) and the 'knitblock' system he used in some of his
California houses of the 1920's. Wright also designed for
prefabrication again much later with the Marshal Erdman
Company in 1956. Shipping and assembling doubled the houses'
costs, however, and they did not realize their goal of low-
cost housing (Sergeant, 1984, p.146).
European system builders went on to pursue both
standardization and dimensional grids, but they largely
ignored his third and arguably most important contribution -
his approach to the environmental quality of the building.
It is his concept of the whole system - holistic design -
where environmental quality is integral, that is the rightful
aim of systematic building design. And yet much of the
history of modern architecture overlooks this:
To perfect a structural system which produces an
uninhabitable building is only a partial system. Yet
this is what many of the Europeans did. The latter
learned many lessons from Wright, but it seems that
often these were of the most superficial sort and we
will find in the ensuing development of building systems
that repeated attention was given merely to structure
and fabric in very narrow terms indeed, usually ignoring
the implication of climate, site, and internal comfort
(Russell, 1981, p.83).
Europeans
While Wright strove to integrate technology with
human needs in what he called organic architecture, the
Europeans of the early twentieth century were fixated on what
31
came to be called the 'machine aesthetic'. Their goal was
the creation of an architecture that was appropriate for
their age - the age of Frederick Winslow Taylor's work study
methods and Henry Ford's phenomenally successful assembly
line production. The leading vanguards of this new
architecture were Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, and Mies van
der Rohe.
One of Le Corbusier's earliest proposals for mass-
produced housing was the Domino House concept of 1914 (Figure
2-12). This was envisioned as a way to respond to the
problem of reconstruction following the First World War,
which had just then begun. In his words, this concept
"would result in a completely new method of construction:
the windows would be attached to the structural frame, the
doors would be fixed with their frames and lined up with wall
panels to form partitions. Then the construction of the
exterior walls could begin" (Russell, 1981, p.126). In the
Domino house one can see the seeds of many of the ideas that
would go on to become the fundamental elements of modern
architecture and industrialized construction:
standardization, component building, user participation, the
flexibility allowed by the open framework, moveable
partitions, freedom in the facade design. Le Corbusier later
crystallized these concepts into what he called his 'Five
Points of a New Architecture' :
1. the piloti, or vertical support,
2. the plan libre (free plan), allowing interior wall
placement independent of structural support
(provided by the piloti),
32
3. the facade libre (free facade), also a result of the
piloti as support,
4. the fenetre en longueur (strip window), really a
subset of the free facade, and
5. the toit-jardin (roof garden), intended as a
replacement of the land lost underneath the
structure.
(Curtis, 1986, p.69)
Figure 2-12. Le Corbusier's Domino House concept, 1914
(Curtis, 1986, p.43).
While Le Corbusier's descriptions of his new
architecture often talk about their environmental advantages,
the rhetoric often did not match the reality. His strip
windows, for example, were intended to provide superior
daylighting over more traditional openings. Instead, they
were often sources of problems in interior comfort, allowing
overheating in hot conditions and thermal loss in cold
weather. The flat roofs of the "international style" are
notorious for problems with leaking in the rain (a problem
that many of Wright's buildings shared). Even with his later
33
brise-soleil (sun breaker) Le Corbusier shows a type of
band-aid approach to designing for climate. The concrete
struts may have blocked the direct sunlight, but they
themselves became solar heat sinks due to their thermal mass.
Despite its shortcomings in regards to holistic design,
the importance of Le Corbusier's contribution to modern
architecture is beyond doubt. His book Vers une Architecture
--Towards an Architecture (frequently mistranslated "Towards
a New Architecture")--is one of the most influential
architectural books of this century. First published in
Paris in 1923, it states in poetic form the ideas and theory
behind his work; for example:
MASS-PRODUCTION HOUSES
A great epoch has begun.
There exists a new spirit.
Industry, overwhelming us like a flood which rolls on
toward its destined ends, has furnished us with new
tools adapted to this epoch, animated by a new spirit.
Economic law inevitably governs our acts and thoughts.
The problem of the house is a problem of the epoch. The
equilibrium of society today depends on it.
Architecture has for its first duty, in this period of
renewal, that of bringing the revision of values, a
revision of the constituent elements of the house.
Mass-production is based on analysis and
experimentation.
Industry on the grand scale must occupy itself with
building and establish the elements of the house on a
mass-production basis.
We must create the mass-production spirit.
The spirit of constructing mass-production houses.
The spirit of living in mass-production houses.
The spirit of conceiving mass-production houses.
34
If we eliminate from our hearts and minds all dead
concepts in regard to the house, and look at the
question from a critical and objective point of view, we
shall arrive at the "House-Machine", the mass-production
house, healthy (and morally so too) and beautiful in the
same way that the working tools and instruments which
accompany our existence are beautiful.
Beautiful also with all the animation that the artist's
sensibility can add to severe and pure functioning
elements.
(Le Corbusier, 1931, pp.6-7)
While most schools of the period remained loyal to the
beaux-arts tradition, Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus embraced
the new design philosophies of the machine age. At the
Bauhaus, the ideas of unity, wholeness and totality were a
powerful force and these quasi-religious ideas became
translated into architecture theory. Ironically, it is in
their interpretation of these holistic concepts that the
seeds of perhaps their greatest disservice to environmental
design lay. For Gropius, the building itself was the whole.
In this conception, the building was separated from its
context -its specific locale and environment - and viewed as
an artifact in and of itself. "Accurately named the
'International Style', it had set aside the normal concern of
the architect for the people and their differences, and for
places and their differences and substituted the
idealizations of machine technology" (Russell, 1981, p.137).
From the perspective of a modern day systems theorist, the
idea of the relations of parts to the whole is still a valid
one, it is just that Gropius defined the "the whole" at a
remarkably narrow scale. Today we recognize "the whole" as
35
the global scale of the earth's biosphere. In this context,
the proposition of the building, and indeed the architect, is
a vastly different one.
Nonetheless, the impact of Gropius and the Bauhaus on
the development of the modern machine aesthetic was
important. A series of projects at the Bauhaus examined the
implications of standardization and functionalism. Among
them were Gropius' Serial Houses of 1921, which had the goal
of combining maximum standardization with maximum
variability. Georg Muche in 1926 designed a prototype steel
house with flexible floor plan and potential for expansion.
Ludwig Hilberseimer in 1932 proposed a plan for the city of
Dessau that was very similar to the approach later adopted by
Levitt Brothers for their tract housing in the United States
(Figure 2-13). As with Le Corbusier, Gropius's rhetoric did
not match the reality that followed:
...Standardization of the building elements will result
in new housing units and sections of cities having a
uniform character. There is no danger of monotony, for
if the basic requirement is fulfilled that only the
building units are standardized the structures thereof
will vary. Their "beauty" will be assured by properly
used material and clear simple construction...(Russell,
1981, p.144).
Both Le Corbusier and Gropius during this period, "virtually
excluded environmental comfort and services from their call
for new attitudes to technology..." (Russell, 1981, p.145).
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe is another key figure of the
modern movement associated with the Bauhaus (which he led in
its final years before closing in 1933). Mies is noted for
his concepts of modular anonymous space based on a meter grid
36
and the'separate of structure from space-making elements
(i.e. walls). The Bauhaus model of a house style firmly
equated several keywords into one interlinked concept:
mechanization, standardization, dimensional coordination,
mass production, efficiency, low cost working class housing.
Figure 2-13. Plan for Dessau, Ludwig Hilberseimer, 1932
(Russell, 1981, p.144).
Even today this list is often repeated as a model for cost-
conscious housing. To this list, however, Gropius added one
crucial factor - the independence of the house from its site.
"The houses as designed are independent, coherent organisms
not tied to any site, devised to fit the needs of modern
37
civilized man in any country, not even only Germany." (quoted
in Russell, 1981, p.147). It is this idea that must be
exorcised from the theory of industrialized housing.
Later in his career, Le Corbusier's work did evolve
beyond his earlier mechanistic forms and became more
interested in regional identity and connection with nature.
Integral to this new focus was his development of a
proportional system called the 'Modulor'. "The Modulor was
more than a tool; it was a philosophical emblem of Le
Corbusier's commitment to discovering an architectural order
equivalent to that in natural creation" (Curtis, 1986,
p.164). It was supposed to be 'a harmonic measure to the
human scale, universally applicable to architecture and
mechanics' (Curtis, 1986, p.163). Figure 2-14 illustrates
the concept: a six foot man with his arm upraised is inserted
into a square, which in turn is subdivided according to the
Golden Section. Smaller dimensions are generated by the
Fibonacci series (each number the sum of the previous two) .
Le Corbusier used the Modulor system in much of his
post-war work. An important example is the Unite d'
Habitation at Marseilles, where it was utilized to regulate
the relationships between the large and small elements of the
facade design. The Unite also contained Le Corbusier's other
new devices, the brise-soleil and beton-brut. As mentioned
earlier, the brise soleil represented Le Corbusier's new
awareness of (if not an altogether satisfactory response to)
solar heat gain. The Unite itself became a prototype for
38
collective housing. "In retrospect one realizes that the
Unite, along with Mies van der Rohe's very different but
nearly contemporary glass and steel towers, was one of the
parent buildings of the post-war modern movement" (Curtis,
1986, p.163) .
Figure 2-14. Le Corbusier's Modular (Curtis, 1986, p.164).
Another European interested in industrialized housing
was the French designer and metal fabricator Jean Prouve.
Unlike Le Corbusier and Gropius, however, Prouve was strictly
a pragmatist. One of his most interesting creations was his
large moveable internal partitions with spring fixings, as
used in the La Maison du Peuple. Another is the Free
39
University of Berlin. It uses all the rules of
industrialized building: free facade, adjustable infill
panels, etc.. In it, the concepts of growth, change, and
indeterminacy are prominently displayed. Prouve did not
considered himself an architect, instead being described as a
'self-styled constructeur' (Russell, 1981, p.158). Another
significant figure in the history of industrialized
architecture who did not arise from the architectural
profession is the subject of the next section, the American
R. Buckminster Fuller.
R. Buckminster Fuller
The ideas of Richard Buckminster Fuller form an
important contribution to the field of industrialized
building, for he approached the subject from a uniquely
scientific and technological perspective. His first
involvement in building construction was with his father-in-
law; together they created the Stockade Building System.
Between 1922 and 1927 they built 240 buildings using this
system, which consisted of lightweight blocks made of straw
and cement. It was during this time that he formulated his
attitude to building:
That was when I really learned the building business,
and the experience made me realize that craft building -
in which each house is a pilot model for a design which
never has any runs - is an art which belongs in the
middle ages. The decisions in craft-built undertakings
’ are for the most part emotional - and are based upon
methodical ignorance (Russell, 1981, p.177).
40
In 1927, when as Fuller says, 'I resolve to do my own
thinking' (Russell, 1981, p.175), he began to frame his ideas
about the use of machine technology. The first fruits of
this labor are seen in his so-called 4D houses, a 10-deck
house design and the famous Dymaxion house. The 10 deck
house featured a streamlined shield to bring the building's
heat loss proportional to the air drag, which Fuller claimed
could reduce heat losses to very little. The Dymaxion house
was Fuller's first proposed solution for the problem of low-
cost housing. It was inspired by his desire to create an
extremely efficient dwelling that could be built quickly and
inexpensively, with the intention of being mass produced for
the retail price of $1500 (roughly the cost of a typical
American automobile). The 4D house is a one-story hexagonal
volume suspended from a central mast which also functioned as
a service core (Figure 2-15). The design was completely
futuristic, demanding materials and standards which at the
time could not be met, and yet it did much to stir the public
imagination.
One of the ideas to come out of the Dymaxion house was
Fuller's mass-produced, self-contained bathroom. Twelve
prototypes of the unit were produced in 1936, but it was
never produced in quantity. The idea of the "plug-in" pod,
however, has lived on. In the early 1940's Fuller developed
the Dymaxion Dwelling Machine, or Wichita House as it came to
be known.
41
Figure 2-15. Fuller's 4D Dymaxion house, 1927 (Ward, p.71).
42
In this design he put into practice his ideas for using shape
to control cooling requirements. The building incorporated a
ventilator which used natural external air flow and
convection currents to keep the interior temperature
comfortable even at outdoor temperatures of 100 degrees F
(Russell, 1981, p. 181). Two prototypes were built, but
because of the massive tooling costs which in turn required a
large continuous guaranteed market, the design was never
mass-produced. One of concepts, however, has been realized
in mass production.
After the Wichita House project, Fuller went on to
invent the geodesic dome by devising a means for executing an
enclosure that was simple and easily adaptable to
prefabrication methods. The geodesic dome is a structure
with an ability to span great distances with an economy of
material, making it particularly applicable to large-scale
buildings of many types. It combines the gravity-resisting
shape of a solid dome shell with the economy of material of a
three-way triangulated truss.
While Buckminster Fuller's work has been important in
the area of industrialized building, most of it has never
reached the mainstream of public acceptance. Perhaps
Fuller's greatest contribution to architecture was not in the
artifacts he produced, but in his "fundamental studies of a
problem and his reformulating of possible directions"
(Russell, 1981, p.184).
43
More American Developments
Another American to play an influential role in the
development of industrialized construction, particularly in
the area of modular coordination, was Albert Farwell Bemis.
Bemis put forward his ideas in a three volume work, The
Evolving House, between 1933 and 1936. Volume I is subtitled
A History of the Home, while Volume II contains 'an analysis
of current housing conditions and trends and comparisons with
other industries' (Russell, 1981, p.185). It is Volume III,
Rational Design, in which he puts forth his most lasting
contribution - the proposal of the 4 inch cubical module
matrix (Figure 2-16). "Bemis saw his cubical module as the
â– focus for standardization' and points out how all the parts
of the house, whether factory made, or made on site, could
relate to it" (Russell, 1981, p.191). Bemis' proposals for
the use of this coordinating module were quickly taken up in
the United States, and were subsequently adopted by Europe's
proponents of component building in their metric equivalent
(100 mm).
Following World War II, the United States government
took an active interest in addressing a nationwide housing
shortage, and provided funds for the development of factory
built housing. One of the most publicized products of this
program was the Lustron House, designed and manufactured by
Carl Strandlund in 1946.
44
Figure 2-16. The 4 inch cubical module matrix: Albert
Farwell Bemis, 1936 (Russell, 1981, pp.186-187).
The house was made of prefabricated steel panels with a
porcelain enamel finish. It had a steel stud structure with
45
the panels employing rubber gaskets and fiberglass
insulation. Technically, the house had few problems, yet the
project ended in failure. Lustron was given the Curtiss-
Wright aircraft factory at Columbus, Ohio, and a series of
government loans. Production began in 1949, only to close in
1950 after producing 5000 units due to marketing and
political difficulties. Chief among these was the customer’s
requirement to pay the total $6000 amount up front due to
financing difficulties. The failure of the Lustron Home
project provided a valuable lesson for later building systems
designer's--that the whole process of home provision,
including financing, building regulations and other factors
beyond the technical design of the structure itself, must be
considered.
While the failure of the Lustron house brought about
calls for the abandonment of the goal of mass-produced
housing--'If Lustron doesn't work, let us forever quit
talking about the mass-produced house': Senator Ralph
Flanders (Russell, 1981, p.295)—the west coast designer-
architect Charles Eames breathed new life into the idea of
the industrialized vernacular with his Santa Monica house of
1949. Its simple form of rectangular units characterized an
open system of off-the-shelf prefabricated components. Its
materials of light metal structure and colored panels and
glass invoked the image of a Mondrian painting, while its
open plan allowed flexibilities in spatial organization and a
continuum of lifestyle changes over time (Wilkes, 1988b,
46
p.10). It was also able to achieve the economic advantages
of industrialized construction, so often proclaimed but
often not realized. The successful combination of function
and aesthetics of the Eames house won the admiration of the
design community, and kept the dream of the machine aesthetic
alive.
Carl Koch has been involved in a number of concepts for
industrialized housing during his career, starting with his
participation in the Lustron House Project. In 1947 he
designed the Acorn House, which arrived on site with its
floor, roof and walls folded against a central utilities
core. Made of steel and timber construction, it was placed
on a prepared foundation and then unfolded. His Techbuilt
house of 1953 is perhaps his most famous work. The house is
a two-story design constructed of stressed skin plywood
panels on a 4-ft module (Figure 2-17). The basic exterior
frame erection was accomplished in a two-day time period with
two to four workers. The design also came with an
instruction manual to allow for owner assembly. The
Techbuilt house was unlike many earlier proposals for
industrialized construction in that it did not strive for the
machine aesthetic look. While the cathedral ceilings of the
second floor were something of a new look, still it blended
easily with existing architecture. This, along with its cost
competitiveness, is probably the primary reason it was unlike
many of its predecessors in another important way -
commercial success. The product was franchised and its
47
market stretched across the United States and abroad;
Techbuilt Homes is still in business today. Koch went on to
concentrate his later work in prefabrication in the material
of precast concrete with the Techcrete system.
Figure 2-17. Techbuilt House, Carl Koch, 1953 (Russell,
1981, p.596).
In 1961, Konrad Wachsmann authored an influential
document on industrialized building called The Turning Point
of Building. Born in 1901, Wachsmann had a long history of
involvement in the field. Starting out as a cabinetmaker and
carpenter, he became the Chief Architect to Europe's largest
prefabricator of timber components in Germany. After working
with Le Corbusier for a period in France, he emigrated to the
United States in 1941, where he joined Walter Gropius in
designing the Packaged House System and founding the General
48
Panel Corporation. His Molibar Structure of 1944, featuring
a large space frame roof in tubular steel, was shown at the
Museum of Modern Art. In 1950 he became a Professor at the
Institute of Design at the Illinois Institute of Technology
(Russell, 1981, p.316).
In The Turning Point of Building, Wachsmann repeats many
of the familiar arguments in favor of industrialized
building. Nonetheless, "the very coherence of the Wachsmann
argument, has been tremendously influential both on building
systems and on architecture at large. The longspan, large
shed, flexible interior, environmentally controlled spaces of
Ehrenkrantz, Rogers and Foster all owe much to these
propositions" (ibid. 319). Wachsmann, perhaps more than
anyone else, popularized the space frame. He shows that long
before Fuller, Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated structural
systems based on the tetrahedron (Figure 2-18). Wachsmann's
most innovative contribution to the idea was his development
of the joint, which he described as 'a manifestation of
energy' (Figure 2-19).
While Wachsmann's work provided some new insights toward
the industrialized building that was to follow, it also
unfortunately repeated and even amplified the call to ignore
climatic design considerations in building:
While the production of synthetic building materials is
already providing us with insulation capable of
smoothing out local climatic conditions so effectively
that it is useful in the face of both extreme heat and
cold, complex mechanical air conditioning equipment is
making it possible to ignore the degree of latitude, and
the local climate in general, as a direct influence on
construction. Mechanical equipment of this kind helps
49
to create autonomous space that manufactures its' own
climate. Accordingly, no design need necessarily be
determined by climatic conditions. The anonymous,
universal room thus becomes a reality (Wachsmann, quoted
in Russell, 1981, p.323).
Figure 2-18. Alexander Graham Bell and tetrahedral-based
structures, c.1900 (Russell, 1981, p.320).
In retrospect, it is hard to comprehend how such 'anonymous,
universal' spaces, devoid of any local character, were
actually seen as a fervent goal. In his book, Wachsmann puts
forth Paxton as one of his great inspirations, calling his
50
Crystal Palace a work of art. Yet he has, in the tradition
of his mechanistic contemporaries, completely distorted many
of the lessons of this predecessor. "For Paxton, each problem
had a unique solution, each situation demanded a new
response, which we might call holistic eclecticism" (Russell,
1981, p.320). At the same time, his deeper understanding of
the importance of the joint quite ironically signals an
unconscious, nascent move toward an 'ecological' philosophy.
For an ecological viewpoint holds that it is the
relationships between objects - the connections, the joints -
which are more important than the objects themselves.
Figure 2-19. Wachsmann's multi-way space frame joint,
1950's (Russell, 1981, p.324).
The School Component Systems Development (SCSD) system
was proposed by Ezra Ehrenkrantz in 1961. The SCSD system
was developed with the intent of supplying 22 school projects
throughout 13 California public school systems, and was
51
funded in part by the Ford Foundation's Educational
Facilities Laboratories. SCSD was different in concept from
most of its predecessors in that it was designed as an open
system comprising only about 50% of the total building. It
consisted of four subsystems: structure, lighting and
ceiling, partition, and mechanical. Each of these subsystems
were put out to bid by independent manufacturing concerns.
Beyond these components, the rest of the project was the task
responsibility of the local project architect, who was free
to adopt the building to the site, including the choice of
external cladding materials.
The concept of the advantages of an open system marked
an important shift in the mentality of systems designers.
"Ehrenkrantz... showed that the mass production argument does
not mean vast closed systems with guaranteed markets: indeed,
the indications were that, in many ways, this was a
disadvantage to develop" (Russell, 1981, p.530). The
Educational Facilities Laboratory added this: "Basically it
is a means of using the efficiency of modern industrial
production to construct schools, while still avoiding
standardized plans or monotonous repetition of either rooms
or general appearance" (Russell, 1981, p.531).
Following in the footsteps of the SCSD system was
Toronto's study for Educational Facilities (SEF) project.
Their Metropolitan School Board had shown great interest in
the SCSD system, and in 1965 approved the study, again with
funding from the Educational Facilities Laboratory in New
52
York. Like SCSD, SEF was an open system plan, but it
included 10 subsystems accounting for 75-85% of the building
value as opposed to SCSD's 4 subsystems for 50%. The
subsystems included: structure, HVAC, lighting-ceiling,
interior partitions, vertical skin, plumbing, electric-
electronic, caseworks-furniture, roofing, and interior
finishing.
SEF is more notable for its development of a systems
approach than its actual buildings. This approach included:
"the academic and administrative programming; the
interpretation of this programming into detailed performance
specifications; the tendering procedures; the bid evaluation
methods; the two-stage contractual system; and the management
system for design, construction, and evaluation of the
individual school projects" (Sullivan, 1980, p.95). The
"dual-contract procedure" separated component manufacture
from construction. "The SEF Project culminated in the first
successful , completely open building system in construction
history generated in a single bid" (Sullivan, 1980, p.95).
At the 1967 Montreal World's Fair, Moshe Safdie
showcased a housing concept called Habitat. Its basic system
consisted of repetitive load-bearing reinforced concrete box
modules forming a variety of house types (Figure 2-20). Its
complex organization was designed to provide a multilevel
neighborhood incorporating a variety of community facilities.
Habitat was both admired for its aesthetic design qualities
and criticized for its huge cost overrun problems.
53
Figure 2-20. Moshe Safdie's Habitat, Montreal Expo 1967
(Watkins, 1988, p.39).
Originally planned for 900 units, only 158 were
constructed, with costs averaging between $80,000 and
$100,000 per unit (Wilkes, 1988a, p.12). Safdie points out
that the project scale reduction tripled the unit costs, and
thus are not representative of what the technology is capable
of. Habitat also featured prefabricated fiberglass bathroom
modules and an innovative pedestrian street network
incorporating mechanical distribution.
The Institutionalization of Industrial Building in Britain
Perhaps nowhere has the concept of industrialized
building taken hold stronger than in Britain. The British
were the originators of prefabricated buildings, as discussed
54
earlier, and following the second World War, the concept
became largely institutionalized. In 1944, the government
passed Housing Act, which created a temporary housing program
that built 156,667 houses between 1945 and 1948. In overall
terms, the program was not a great success; cost overruns and
overstated benefits tended to give prefabrication a bad name.
Yet lessons were learned and the ideal of mechanized building
lived on.
The most famous of the housing concepts under this
program were by a firm of designers called ARCON
(Architectural Consultants), with Edric Neel, Rodney Thomas,
and Raglan Squire as principals. One of their projects was
the design of a kitchen/bathroom service core following the
example of Buckminster Fuller's Dym&xion bathroom. The
rectangular unit contained kitchen appliances on one side and
bathroom facilities on the opposite side. This original
design was never mass-produced, but the concept was later
incorporated into the ARCON house design. The ARCON house
underwent a series of design changes before going into
production in 1945. The ARCON Mark 5 house consisted of
about 2500 parts produced by 145 different manufacturers;
41,000 units were produced in the three years of the program.
It "incorporated many ideas that only much later were to
become standard practice in housing in Britain. Among these
were ducted warm air heating, modular kitchen fittings,
prefabricated electrical wiring harness, prefabricated floor
and ceiling panels, and a high standard of insulation in
55
walls and ceilings" (Russell, 1981, p.243). Thus, here is an
all too uncommon case where the environmental comfort of a
prefabricated design actually exceeds that of the common
vernacular of the time. The example of the ARCON Mark 5
house also points out another continuing problem in the area
of prefabricated housing. Although the 'prefabs' were
environmentally better than most houses of the time, they did
not conform to the building regulations and were required to
obtain a special wavier before being allowed to be built.
This points out the problem of regulations that deal with the
way things are made, rather than the standards to be
achieved.
When the government decided to cease support of the
temporary housing program, ARCON turned their attention to
other projects. In the early 1950's they developed the ARCON
tropical roof using a tubular truss and columns (Figure 2-
21). It had a double roof to allow air circulation for
cooling, and met the need for a lightweight, easily erected
structure for large spans. In addition to their development
work, ARCON also carried out research projects into specific
problems. In research concerning component
interchangeability, jointing, and dimensional coordination,
Rodney Thomas' work led to the realization that the joint was
much more important than the component.
While groups like ARCON were dealing with industrialized
construction for housing following W.W.II, the Architect's
Department at Hertfordshire was applying the idea to the need
56
for new school buildings. It proposed a method of building
with the following principles (Russell, 1981, p.255):
1. rapid erection
2. economical, but not cheap, building
3. repair and maintenance costs comparable with those of
traditional building
4. a flexible system: this was not interpreted as the
ability to make frequent of rapid changes within the
building envelope but much more it was seen as
removing one of the main obstacles to planning
freedom and allowing each building to be
individually tailored to its site.
5. the schools produced should be 'pleasing to look at
and to work in'
Figure 2-21. Tropical Roof, ARCON architects, early 1950's
(Russell, 1981, p.246).
A prototype was built at Cheshunt in 1946, consisting of
a light pin-jointed steel frame, concrete roof panels laid
dry, honeycomb partitions, and horizontal precast concrete
units for the external walls. A key part of their philosophy
57
was the use of the planning 'grid. Initially, they utilized
frame construction based on the bay system. This required a
given range of spans, and allowed for expansion by adding
more bays. This was later replaced with the two-way grid
method, where columns could take any position on a regular
grid, and have beam connections from any or all four sides.
The two-way grid method was more flexible, which could be
used in dealing with orientation and site problems (Figure 2-
22). Another important change was from their initial 8 ft.,
3 in. grid to one of 40 inches.
By 1956, Hertfordshire offered three structural systems
with interchangeable components: brick, steel, and concrete.
The 1949/50 program even included a timber-framed system
which was a response to steel shortages. Thus they, unlike
many of their fellow systems builders, were pragmatic rather
than dogmatic about the use of "industrial materials". Two
other aspects of their work which went against the grain of
building systems dictums were relatively little bulk
purchasing and the use of "wet" construction wherever it was
considered sensible. Unlike the government's temporary
housing program, the success of the Hertfordshire work did
much to establish the credibility of the factory mass
production ideal.
Industrialized construction continued to evolve in the
education market with the creation of CLASP, the Consortium
of Local Authorities Special Program, in 1957 (Figure 2-23) .
58
ON THIS SITE A
RECTANGULAR PLAN
WITH GOOD ORIENTATION
MEANS
THIS SECTION OR
EXCESSIVE SITE
WORKS
A RECTANGULAR
PLAN TO GIVE
GOOD ORIENTATION
THIS SECTION
OR EXCESSIVE
SITE WORKS
A RECTANGULAR
PLAN WITH THE
CONTOURS GIVES
POOR ORIENTATION
THEREFORE SOME
IRREGULAR PLAN
FORM IS CALLED FOR
"f-
\1¿
A RECTANGULAR
PLAN WITH THE
CONTOURS GIVES EAST
WEST ORIENTATION
THEREFORE A PLAN OF
THIS TYPE IS NEEDED TO
FULFILL CONDITIONS OF SUN
AND SLOPE
Figure 2-22. Using system flexibility to deal with site
problems (Russell, 1981, p.264).
They made their most important mark with the award of the
1960 Special Grand Prize at the Triennale di Milano for the
59
primary school erected there. The school aroused a great
deal of interest from Europe in the British approach to
school design and CLASP in particular. Actual cost
reductions were a good part of the interest: "the 1948 cost
per school place L320: the increased cost of materials would
have made this L550 in 1960 (the year of the exhibition)
whereas in fact the actual cost was L260..." (Russell, 1981,
p.403) .
Figure 2-23. CLASP, 1957 onwards. Isometric showing
dimensional system (Russell, 1981, p.395).
60
It is pointed out, however, that these comparisons may be
misleading. A great deal of the cost savings was achieved
through the use of multi-use spaces, thereby reducing the
overall floor area considerably. Thus, prefabrication itself
may not be the primary reason for the cost reduction, but
rather the different approach to the design problem.
The success of CLASP began to change the climate into
which the ideas of industrialized building were received.
CLASP gradually developed throughout the 1960's and 70's to
include buildings of many types, from health centers to
community centers to universities (University of York). Yet,
after years of system building, professional and public
criticism persisted. In its Annual Report for 1975, CLASP
reports:
Some elements of the construction industry criticize
system building on the grounds that it is a short cut
technology, a bureaucratic convenience, and a struggle
to achieve the cheapest building regardless of cost and
regardless of environmental consequences (Russell, 1981,
p.413).
Yet another method of system building was initiated in
the War Office in 1961, but soon thereafter (1963) passed on
to the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works (MPBW) (Figure
2-24). Named after administrator David Nenk, the NENK concept
was organized around eight criteria (Russell, 1981, p.420):
1. Dimensions of all spaces and thicknesses of walls,
partitions, floors, and roofs would be multiples of
the basic module (M) which was 4 inches or 10 cm
(approx.).
2. Submodular thickness would then be considered and
preferred sizes for components decided.
3. Structure based on the use of a space frame.
61
4. The carcassing of internal and external walls,
floors, and roofs would be considered independently
of their finishes.
5. External walls and partitions would be in vertical
panels spanning between floors and ceilings.
6. External walls and partitions to be made up of two
independent leaves thus allowing differing
combinations to achieve differing performance
requirements.
7. Services to be housed in roofs and floors and in wall
cavities.
8. Dry construction to be used wherever practicable.
Figure 2-24. NENK system - Isometric showing hypothetical
assembly (Russell, 1981, p.419).
The use of a space frame was an attempt to escape the
difficulties and span limitations imposed by the post and
beam frame. It was a double layer flat grid space frame made
up of prefabricated inverted tetrahedra. While Fuller's work
with tetrahedra is no doubt the original inspiration for the
62
space frame, it was Konrad Wachsmann's work, showcased in his
1961 book The Turning Point of Building, that probably had
the most influence on designers of this period. The use of
the 4 inch module as the basic sizing and positioning
dimension grew out of a concern to separate the planning grid
from the structural grid. One interesting idea put forward
by the NENK team was that of the number trio: for example,
with only three panel widths of 6M, 6M, and 7M it was shown
to be possible to produce every modular dimension from 10M
upwards, in an increasing number of different ways. Thus the
idea of maximizing flexibility with a minimum of parts was in
some measure realized.
The decision to consider the finishing materials of the
walls, roof, and floor independently of the basic
construction is another interesting point:
At least there is a recognition here that the curious
moralities of the machine age argument as it had applied
to the use of materials, and the 'honest' expression of
functions and means, were more a hindrance than a help
if 'Industrialized Building' was to begin to match the
choice and flexibility of conventional building and also
to remain economically viable....The attempt in NENK to
offer the opportunity for the use of conventional
materials and/or industrially produced materials can
here be seen against the commonly held view that to be
industrialized a system has certainly to look
industrialized (Russell, 1981, p.425).
Documentation was also given considerable attention in the
NENK system. "Each component and junction was drawn
separately and given a discrete code number and all drawings
were reduced to A3 size to form a basic manual for the
method" (Russell, 1981, p.425).
63
A number of buildings were produced with the system, but
inertia waned and when key supporters moved on (Iredale to
work for Ehrenkrantz in the United States) it was gradually
phased out. Even though the NENK system had begun the
transformation from the idea of closed to open systems, it
was not enough to achieve lasting success.
Along with all the other governmental agencies involved
in industrialized building in Britain in the 1960's, the
Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) also
developed a system for housing starting in 1961. Based on
the 1 ft. 8 in. planning grid developed by CLASP, it went by
the name 5M. It used a steel frame with timber beams and a
flat roof 'to give flexibility in the shapes of the houses',
although in practice the variety of shapes produced was
small. Early on the group experimented with using components
developed for CLASP, only to discover that they were over-
designed and thus to expensive for housing purposes. It also
tried some unusual solutions for a lightweight party wall,
including a design incorporating a lead curtain to assist in
sound reduction.
In order to designers estimate costs, MHLG produced The
5-Minute Guide to Economic Design in 5M System Housing in
1966. This document contained a series of examples based on
the simple logic that those designs with the fewest corners,
and most square shape would be most economical. Similarly,
for row housing, as the number of attached units went up, the
per unit cost would drop. While these facts are no doubt
64
true, it overlooks the myriad of other factors that come into
play in the cost of good human design.
It is interesting to note that as the concerns of energy
and conservation generally became more central to
building design, much housing again acquired a style
involving projections, steps, staggers and pitched roofs
of all sorts. One set of rationalizations replaced
another, and a different range of expressive forms has
begun to emerge. This shows the dangers of assuming
that humane environments arise merely from satisfying a
narrow range of criteria (Russell, 1981, p.437).
The 5M program was officially terminated in 1968, with little
to claim in the way of accomplishments. In addition, the
maintenance record for a number of the houses built with the
system is poor. A problem with concrete panels infilling the
steel frame breaking up and falling out is reported in a
number of cases, with expensive repair bills, after little
more than a decade of use.
Following closely behind the example set by CLASP, the
Second Consortium of Local Authorities (SCOLA) was formed in
1962 with a set of goals much the same as those seen before:
a kit-of-parts solution for various requirements,
standardization for the benefit of quantity production,
consolidated projects for bulk purchasing, and fast
construction times. The member counties of SCOLA, however,
was more widely spread over England. The SCOLA group
developed yet another closed building system, and showed a
curious disregard for learning from the experience of
previous systems builders. In an even greater anomaly, one
member county, Hampshire, applied the system to a
65
standardized whole plan for several of its school sites, thus
undermining the basic concept of adaptability through a
flexible system. To its credit, the SCOLA group further
pushed the movement to a more open system framework, and made
advances in the process of documentation and communication
involved with such bureaucratic systems. Like many of the
other system designs of its day, however, SCOLA schools have
had a poor record in regard to maintenance and energy.
The concept of the local authority client sponsored
consortia grew throughout the 1960's in England. By 1970
these consortia accounted for over half of the total school
building program (Russell, 1981, p.518). By 1976, the list
of consortia included the following (Russell, 1981, p.520):
ASC: Anglican Standing Conference
CLASP: Consortium of Local Authorities Special Program
CLAW: Consortium - Local Authorities Wales
MACE: Metropolitan Architectural Consortium for
Education
METHOD: Consortium for Method Building
ONWARD: Organization of North West Authorities for
Rationalized Design
SCOLA: Second Consortium of Local Authorities
SEAC: South Eastern Architects Collaboration
Each of these groups developed their own approach to systems
building, with very little interchangeability between them.
Over time, problems of maintenance, poor environmental
control, aesthetic disfavor, and a reduction in demand
brought about a gradual abandonment of these closed systems
approaches.
66
Operation Breakthrough
No doubt influenced by the adaptation of industrialized
building by the British and other European governments, as
well as the success of SCSD in California, the United States
government undertook its largest involvement ever in
prefabricated housing with Operation Breakthrough. Directed
by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administrator George
Romney in 1969, the program's objective was to 'improve the
process of providing housing' (Wilkes, 1988a, p.12). Over
600 proposals were received, and in February 1970, 22 were
accepted.
The evaluation criteria were divided into three groups:
concepts, capacity, and plans. Concepts included system
qualities of flexibility, efficient use of labor and
materials, and schedule forecasting. Capacity involved
strength of the built form and the proposer's financial
profile. Plans looked at the goals for marketing and
production. Of the 22 accepted proposals, ten were
volumetric, nine were panel systems, and three were
component-based. The primary materials of the systems were
similarly varied: six were concrete, one metal, eight wood,
two plastic, and five were of a composite material. Table
2-1 gives a brief overview of the 22 systems selected
(Wilkes, 1988a, p.13).
Because of the unconventional nature of these
experimental systems, new methods of evaluation were
Table 2-1. Operation Breakthrough Systems
PRODUCER
SYSTEM TYPE
PRINCIPLE INNOVATION
ECONOMICS
Alcoa Construction
Systems, Inc.
Service modules, wood or
aluminum framed panels
Subsystem wet-core service
$10-20/sq.ft.
Boise-Cascade
Development
Steel framed module
Design variability of modules
Medium price
range
Building Systems
International, Inc.
Large concrete panels,
concreted joints
Materials and techniques
Not known
CAMCI, Inc.
Large concrete panels,
concreted joints
Panel Service assembly,
and erection techniques
Less than
conventional
Christiana Western
Structures, Inc.
Wood framed panels,
service modules
Factory built framing,
sub-assemblies
Same as
conventional
Descon / Concordia
Systems, Ltd.
Large concrete panels, dry
joint, service modules
Element and assembly procedure -
uses existing facilities
Comparable to
conventional
FCE-Dillion, Inc.
Large concrete panels and
cast in place service modules
Panel and service assembly
$16-23/sq.ft.
General Electric
Company
Lightweight wood-framed
modules
Cast plaster walls, central
utilities chase
Medium price
range
Hercoform Marketing,
Inc.
Lightweight wood-framed
modules
Tilt-up and horizontal
module arrangement
Variable pricing
Home Building
Corporation
Lightweight wood
framed modules
Factory built modules with stress
skin floor panels and roof beam
ceiling
$14/sq.ft.
Levitt Building
Systems, Inc.
Lightweight wood-framed
modules
Factory built modules,
hinged roofs
Comparable to
conventional
Table 2-1 (continued). Operation Breakthrough Systems
PRODUCER
SYSTEM TYPE
PRINCIPLE INNOVATION
ECONOMICS
Material Systems
Corporation
Inorganic composite panels
Man-made plastic structural
panel material
Low to medium
price range
National Homes
Corporation
Light weight wood- or
steel-framed modules
Factory built panel or
module assemblies
Not known
Pantek Corporation
Foam plastic core framed
stress skin panels
Owner erectable system
concept
Less than
conventional
Pentom Incorporated
Foam plastic core framed
stress skin modules
Structural concept
Comparable to
conventional
Republic Steel
Corporation
Steel faced foam and honeycomb
core panels, service modules
Layout flexibility
$20-25K per
unit
Rouse-Wates
Incorporated
Large concrete panels,
concreted joints
Panel, service module
assembly
6% less than
conventional
Inland-Scholtz
Incorporated
Lightweight wood-framed
modules
Factory built modules,
conventional appearance
$14-16/sq.ft.
Shelly Systems
Incorporated
Lightweight concrete
modules
Box module stacking
arrangement
10-20% less
than conventional
Stirling Homex
Corporation
Steel framed modules
assembled by jacking
Erection process
Medium price
range
Townland System
Precast concrete mega structure,
lightweight steel framed panels
and modules
Created ’land-in-air' concept
Not known
TRW Systems Group
Inorganic composite
panels or modules
Man-made plastic material
More than
conventional
69
necessary to establish conformance with standards for
adequate housing. HUD commissioned the National Bureau of
Standards (NBS) to provide this criteria, which it provided
in the "Guide Criteria for the Evaluation of Operation
Breakthrough Systems." This document proved useful beyond
the program itself for the revision of codes and standards
across the nation to allow for the inspection of unit
building systems. The program itself was ran until January
1973, when the Nixon Administration imposed a moratorium on
housing funds. Because of the cancellation of the program,
the third phase of volume production was seriously affected.
At the time, the program was largely viewed as a failure
because it never achieved the production goals originally set
out. It was also not able to develop the market demand by
way of government incentives that it had hoped for. In
retrospect, however, the program is seen to have been a major
catalyst for change in the building industry, and its failure
largely due to its unrealistic goals for the speed of change.
Archiaram and High Tech Architecture
By the end of the 1950's, the architecture of the
machine aesthetic derived from the original conception of Le
Corbusier, Gropius and others during the twenties and
thirties, had become largely stale and banal. In response, a
group of disenchanted young architects from London formed a
loose association in 1961 and published a series of
"manifestoes" called Archigram (an 'architectural telegram').
70
The original group included Peter Cook, David Greene, and
Michael Webb, and they were later joined by Warren Chalk, Ron
Herron, and Dennis Crompton. Like Le Corbusier with his Vers
Une Architecture before them, their goal was to redefine the
values and syntax of modern architecture, based on 'the
spirit of the age'. Their age was the space age, and the
technology and imagery of Cape Kennedy and the space program
was a major source of inspiration for their work. Another
inspiration came from an embrace of the values of popular
culture, including consumerism, planned obsolescence, and the
importance given to public imagery.
The work of Archigram (the people) throughout the 1960's
was primarily drawings and exhibitions. The Walking City
(Ron Herron, 1964) was directly inspired by the huge moving
structures of Cape Kennedy. Herron's imaginative imagery
showed huge insect-like bodies of steel, walking on
telescopic legs. Capsule Homes (Warren Chalk, 1964), Gasket
Homes (Ron Herron, Warren Chalk, 1965), and Living Pods
(David Green, 1965) explored the ideas prefabricated
dwellings that could be stacked into towers or megastructures
(Wilkes, 1988b, p.256). Similarly, Peter Cook's Plug-In City
(1964-66) inserted throw-away units into a concrete
megastructure by way of a cranes operating from a railway at
the structure's peak. From 1966 onwards, the work of
Archigram altogether abandoned traditional notions of
architecture, producing projects such as "suits that are
homes", the Instant City, and other hybrids of machine,
71
biology, electronics, and architecture. The Archigram .
"newsletter" was ceased in 1970, but it was only then that
its influence began to be seen in built form. Arata Isozaki
further developed the ideas of the Instant City in his
section of the 1970 Osaka World's Fair. In that same year,
Richard Rogers entered into a partnership with Renzo Piano,
and in 1971 they won the international competition for what
became the Centre Pompidou in Paris (Figure 2-25) . In this
building is the perhaps the clearest expression of the
architectural style called High Tech.
Figure 2-25. Centre Pompidou, Paris, by Rogers and Renzo,
1977 (Curtis, 1983 p.375).
72
The importance of Archigram was that it offered
alternative ways of looking for solutions to architectural
problems. Their movement, described as architectural
counter-culture, was perhaps actually more of a "hyper¬
culture" . Many of their ideals were simply updates to or
reinterpretations of the original machine aesthetic:
engineering rather than architectural inspiration,
modularity, industrialized production, adaptability, etc.
Their work is definitely true to the spirit of its time, but
from an ecological point of view, that is its greatest fault.
Referring to the idea of expendable construction, Peter Cook
states in Archigram 3, "We must recognize this as a healthy
and altogether positive sign. It is the product of a
sophisticated consumer society, rather than a stagnant (and
in the end, declining) society" (Cook, 1972, p.16). In
Modern Movements in Architecture, Charles Jenks states
(p.298), "The great contribution of the British avant-garde
has been to open up and develop new attitudes towards living
in an advanced industrial civilization where only stereotyped
rejection had existed before, to dramatizing consumer choice
and communicating the pleasure inherent in manipulating
sophisticated technology." Yet it is precisely these
cultural norms of consumerism and the unbridled glorification
of technology that have exasperated many environmental
problems. These are values that contemporary
environmentalism seeks to dethrone.
73
As stated earlier, Archigram was a key influence on the
High Tech style of architecture. Richard Rogers, Nicholas
Grimshaw, and Michael Hopkins - three of the four major
leaders of the movement - were all students of the
Architectural Association in the early 1960's. Norman Foster,
the fourth major leader of High Tech, studied at the
Liverpool school of architecture, but met Rogers briefly at
Yale in 1962, and then joined him to form Team 4 upon
returning to England. These four have alternately been
competitors and associates with each another in the years to
follow. Beyond Archigram, however, High Tech has been
influenced by such architects as Allison and Peter Smithson,
James Stirling, Paul Rudolph, and even Louis Kahn. The
hallmarks of High Tech imagery include: exposed steel
structure, visible air-conditioning and other services, plug¬
in service pods, suspension structures. Its ideals are
similar to those of past industrialized building
philosophies: mass production, flexibility, modularity. It
even takes the flexibility idea a step further in proposing
that not only should internal partitions be demountable, but
also external walls, roofs, and even structural frames.
Similarly, it has carried forward the modernist theory of the
"honest expression" of materials and means, although (as
before) this theory and the actual implementation are often
inconsistent.
In addition to the Centre Pompidou, Foster's Hongkong
Bank Headquarters and Rogers' Lloyd's of London, both
74
completed in 1986, are considered major masterpieces of the
genre. In Roger's Lloyd's building, the essence of the
design is the separation of the service towers - containing
cables, ducts and staircases - from the central atrium.
Every element, both structural and mechanical, is expressed
on the facade. In Foster's Hongkong Bank the structure is
both prominent and unique. Floors are suspended from
structures called "coat hangers", which are in turn supported
by eight massive masts.
Industrialized Housing Today
Terminology
Industrialized construction is broadly defined as the
off-site production of building components or complete units
in a factory setting, which are then assembled or erected on¬
site. The primary distinction between industrialized
construction and conventional construction is the degree of
off-site fabrication. In the past few decades, elements of
industrialized construction have been absorbed within
conventional construction techniques to the point that the
boundary between conventional and industrialized construction
is fuzzy at best.
Prefabricated components such as manufactured windows,
doors, and cabinetry are practically standard in today's
'conventional' housing. Industrialized construction is
applied to many different building types: residential,
75
commercial, institutional, recreational, and industrial. The
emphasis of this thesis is upon residential applications.
A variety of terminology is used in describing
industrialized building systems. Many of these terms have
closely related meanings, and often they are used
interchangeably. Unfortunately in doing so, the subtle
differences in meaning are sometimes obscured. Other terms
that are generally synonymous with industrialized housing
include manufactured, factory-built, and prefabricated
housing. The term manufactured housing is often used as a
euphemism for the more specifically understood term 'mobile
home'.
Building systems is another term commonly used in the
realm of industrialized construction. A system can be
defined as a kit of parts designed to be combined into a
unified whole to accomplish a desired objective. It is this
definition, with the emphasis on 'combined into a unified
whole', which provides the important concept of holistic
design that has often been ignored in the concept of
industrialization. A systematic design philosophy includes
the idea that the interrelationships between the parts are as
important as the parts themselves, and it is in this context
that the environmental implications of building are most
clearly understood.
Building systems are classified as open or closed. An
open system allows interchangeability of its own components
with another system's or producer's, while components of a
76
closed system are only interchangeable internally. The term
building systems is sometimes used in another sense, where
products are referred to as hardware or software. Hardware
refers to actual physical products; software which refers to
a procedure or program for producing and marketing building
products.
Categories
There are many different variations on the basic concept
of an industrialized building system. Systems are often
grouped together into categories to help understand
commonalties and differences. Different authors propose
different groupings, but the constituent systems that are
recognized are generally the same. In regards to the U.S.
housing market, the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of
Building Technologies recognizes four types: HUD Code (mobile
homes), modular houses, panelized houses, and production-
built housing.
HUD Code is the official name of the category commonly
refer to as mobile homes. They are constructed for year-
round living, outfitted with wheels, and towed to the site
where they are connected to a foundation and utilities. The
term mobile home is primarily a historical vestige referring
to their evolutionary ancestor, the trailer home. Today's
mobile homes are built around economy rather than mobility as
the primary objective; they are today's low income housing.
Even though many still retain the trailer chassis, most are
77
never moved once they have been delivered to their initial
site. (The wheels are typically removed and sold after their
initial use.) The term HUD Code refers to the fact that
today's mobile homes are constructed according to building
codes administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, which supersede local and state building
codes for these homes. Mobile homes also have special tax
rates (licensed as motor vehicles and not taxed as real
estate) and financing which further enhance their economical
status. On the other hand, mobile homes neighborhoods are
often considered as less desirable and are often subject to
housing restrictions.
Modular homes (also called sectional homes) are built
by stacking together two or more three-dimensional house sub¬
units. Each sub-unit contains one or more rooms; they are
factory assembled, shipped to the site, and then stacked
together, often using a crane. Modular homes are set over a
standard foundation and financed in the same way as
conventional houses. Moshe Safdie's Habitat housing complex
in Montreal is an example of modular housing made from
precast concrete technology. Many of today's modular homes
have evolved from the 'single-wide' mobile home to double¬
wide and triple-units. It is mainly their separation from
the trailer that technically qualify these modular homes as
permanent housing, and circumvent the associated restrictions
placed on mobile homes.
78
Panelized houses are constructed from manufactured
roof, floor, and wall panels on site. Whereas the building
block of a modular home is a three-dimensional unit, with the
panelized home it is two-dimensional panel. Panelized wall
units are either open wall, with one side open for inspection
by local building officials, or closed wall. Closed wall
units include wiring, plumbing, and insulation built-in and
must be inspected at the factory. Open wall units may or may
not include these utilities.
The fourth type, production-built housing, "refers to
the mass production of whole houses, either in a factory as
completely assembled units or at the site, which becomes an
open-air assembly line where labor and materials are
processed by advanced manufacturing methods into finished
houses" (DOE 1). The on-site fabrication with this type is
an exception to the general definition of industrialized
construction given previously, but it includes the idea of
mass production techniques. Tract housing is an example.
In addition to these housing categories, there are
others which are often discussed in the industry literature.
One of these is the precut house. Precut houses are units
that come from the manufacturer as a package of precut lumber
components. Log homes, A-frames, and geodesic domes are
examples of precut packages, although they are many times
considered as separate categories. Precut home kits may or
may not include items such as plumbing, heating, and wiring
kits. Wet cores or service modules are "special modular
79
components for housing that contain all the electrical
control and mechanical and plumbing services required for a
single housing unit" (Sullivan, 1980, p.72). Self-contained
bathroom or kitchen modules are common examples. These
service modules are often used in conjunction with other
systems. In addition to modular and panelized (which
essentially mean three-dimensional and two-dimensional)
systems, there are skeleton or frame-based (one-dimensional)
systems, also sometimes referred to as component systems.
Stick-built (also called platform construction, or custom)
housing is technically a frame-based housing system, although
it is generally not considered industrialized construction
since most fabrication takes place at the site. Metal
building systems are another category of industrialized
building which are often frame-based systems. All-metal
systems are more prevalent in industrial and utilitarian
applications than in residential housing, although this is
slowly changing.
Comparisons Between Categories
The different types and categories of manufactured
housing have different strengths and weaknesses. Consider
the categories of mobile, modular, panelized, and component
housing. As described earlier they can be considered as
points on the "dimensionality scale": mobile homes are whole
units, while modular, panelized and component systems
represent sub-units of three, two, and one dimension. For
80
comparison purposes, they can also be considered as points on
a spectrum of the degree of factory versus on-site
fabrication. At one end is the mobile home, completely
factory built, requiring only to be hooked up to utilities
and "strapped down" to foundation anchors once transported to
its site. At the component end, many different components
and subsystems are assembled on site. In general terms, the
mobile home end of the spectrum maximizes economy while
sacrificing design flexibility, while the component end of
the spectrum inverts this relationship.
Sullivan (pp.224-25) offers this list of advantages and
disadvantages for the major housing types:
Mobile Housing
Advantages
- extremely low costs relative to other housing types
- a wide range of mobile home units of different style,
size and features
- low taxes and relatively low maintenance costs (mobile
homes must be licensed as are motor vehicles)
- mobile homes can ,if desired, be easily relocated
- units may be shipped long distances from manufacturer
or distribution centers (from 500 to 700 miles)
- relatively low transportation costs
- mobile homes are essentially a form of instant housing
- financing is relatively easy to obtain
- space rental and upkeep is relatively inexpensive
(mobile homes are not taxed as real estate)
Disadvantages
- prejudicial zoning keeps mobile home parks from good
quality neighborhoods
- many existing parks are of low quality, offering few
amenities
- mobile homes depreciate over time
- long term financing is not available (12 to 15 years
maximum)
- mobile homes have a shorter life span than other forms
of housing
- transport requirements impose limitations on unit
design and layout
81
Modular Housing
Advantages
- modular housing is generally subject to real estate
tax and as such qualifies for long-term financing in the
form of the traditional mortgage
- the modular home, in general, will appreciate with
time, as in the case of traditional housing
- modular housing has a reputation for superior quality
relative to most mobile housing and, hence, experiences
greater consumer acceptance
- there is a wider variety of forms of modular housing
than mobile homes
- there are fewer problems with code acceptance
- there is more flexibility in design
- modular housing has greater structural stability than
mobile homes when placed on conventional foundations
Disadvantages
- the modular home is generally more expensive than the
mobile home
- lower volume production from most modular housing
producers prohibits the advantages of volume production
- modular housing requires more preliminary site work
and installation than mobile housing
- the transport limitations that apply to mobile homes
also apply to modular housing
Panelized Housing
Advantages
- greater flexibility in design than either modulars or
mobiles
- greater ease of shipping since components can be
tightly packed
- because of the superior transport situation, the
market range can be considerably larger
- the buyer or consumer can be involved in the design
process, determining the unit layout to suit his or her
preferences
- the buyer has the option of reducing costs by handling
a part of the assembly or of finishing the unit himself
- the unit can be more easily designed and manufactured
in compliance with codes
- far less problems with prejudicial zoning that limits
the places where such housing can be erected
Disadvantages
- lack of quality control due to the amount of work that
must be carried out at the site
- generally higher costs than either mobile or modular
housing, due to the amount of site labor required
82
- owner must assume responsibility for arranging the
general contracting or perform the function himself
- there is considerably more time involved in the
construction than with either mobile or modular housing
- there is a problem with storage when all the materials
and components for the housing unit arrive at the site
at once, and the unit might take from one to four weeks
before it is enclosed
Wet/Core/Service Modules
Advantages
- there is less need for skilled labor at the site
- skilled labor employed at the factory, where higher
volumes of production per worker is possible
- industrialization is applied to the high cost items of
housing
- there are no problems with storage if the unit is
delivered to the site when everything is ready for
installation
- it can be used in both traditional and industrialized
housing
- there is better quality control of high cost labor
operations
There are some additional disadvantages to mobile
housing not explicitly listed by Sullivan, including poor
quality construction, poor energy performance, and the
inability to be site specific.
CHAPTER 3
EMERGY ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Introduction
This chapter deals with the energetic costs associated
with the production of commonly used construction materials.
The analysis is based on eMergy theory, developed by Howard
Odum. This analysis is equivalent in purpose to the concept
of "embodied energy"; however, the methodology involved in
the analysis is different in a number of ways. The key
differences include the scale of the analysis and the concept
of energy qualities, called transformities.
Consider the difference between coal and electricity.
In embodied energy analysis, typically no distinction is made
between different types of energy; all of the required Joules
of energy of different types in a process are added together
to determine the total. Yet it takes about four Joules of
coal to produce one Joule of electricity. A Joule of
electricity must be of higher quality (i.e., it has greater
utility for some further process) than a Joule of coal;
otherwise, it would never have been produced in the first
place. Thus, to accurately measure the total energetic costs
associated with a given process, the concept of energy
qualities (transformities, sej/J, or eMergy per unit mass
83
84
sej/g) must be considered. In certain cases, this difference
in quality is recognized by conventional energy analysts; the
transformity between fossil fuels and electricity described
above is sometimes factored into embodied energy
calculations. Only eMergy analysis, however, incorporates the
concept of energy qualities in a fundamental and systematic
manner.
The issue of scale of analysis is related to the
understanding of energy quality. Because different types of
energy have different transformities, it is necessary to
establish a baseline; in eMergy analysis, that baseline is
solar energy. Thus the units of transformity are solar
emjoules per Joule (sej/J), and the units of eMergy per unit
mass are solar emjoules per gram (sej/g).
Methods
The eMergy content of a number of construction materials
were evaluated, including wood, steel, concrete, and glass
products. For each eMergy analysis, a primary source of data
that contained as much of the necessary raw information as
possible was used. Any missing raw data was generally
available by including one more source, and care was taken to
put this data on a common basis with the primary source. The
object of this approach was to minimize potential errors
introduced by multiple data sources with inconsistent
assumptions.
85
For each material or product evaluated, transformities
were calculated both with and without human services. Human
services were considered as everything associated with money,
including labor, dollars paid for materials and fuels, and
profits. Human services were always evaluated as a single
comprehensive dollar amount represented by a product's
selling price; material and fuel inputs were evaluated solely
on the basis of their "natural" eMergy content. By keeping
track of human services separately, a consistent method is
established to prevent the double counting of human services.
Wood Products
The first category of materials analyzed were wood
products, with the primary data source being the 1976 study
by the Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial
Materials (CORRIM) Panel II. As a secondary source, the US
Census of Manufacturers was used to provide comprehensive
data on human services. The CORRIM data was generally taken
from the year 1970, while the Census data was from 1972, but
adjusted to a per-unit basis and applied to 1970 quantities.
Three hierarchical levels of wood products were
evaluated. First, an analysis of timber harvesting for the
entire United States produced a transformity for cut logs.
This value fed the analysis of the second level, primary wood
products (including lumber and plywood, both softwood and
hardwood). Primary wood product manufacture generates a good
deal of wood by-products, including chips, sawdust, bark,
86
shavings and trim. The sawdust and bark can be burned to
produce a large percentage of the energy needed for the
products' manufacture, although it is not clear to what
extent this resource is actually utilized for this purpose.
Therefore, eMergy analyses were done in two ways for primary
wood products; one assuming all available sawdust and bark
was recycled as fuel and secondary wood product materials,
and the other assuming no such recycling.
The third level of materials evaluated were secondary
wood products - those made largely with by-products generated
from primary wood product manufacture. This includes
particleboard, fiberboard, insulation board, and hardboard.
Obviously, the transformity of wood by-products from the
second evaluation level fed these calculations.
Interestingly, the average transformity for wood by-products
from all primary lumber production processes was essentially
the same for both recycling and no-recycling assumptions.
Timber Harvesting
Figure 3-1 illustrates the eMergy flows for logging
production in the United States as a whole for the year 1970.
Table A-l in Appendix A lists the data and analysis
corresponding to this figure. It should be noted that
because rain and sunlight are both driven by the same energy
source (the sun), only the larger of the two is included in
the outflow total. Thus, the total eMergy outflow (1574.1 E20
sej/yr) is the sum of the inputs rain (816.0 E20 sej/yr),
87
fuel (79.4 E 20 sej/yr) and human services and labor (678.7 E
20 sej/yr).
Figure 3-1. US Roundwood Production, 1970.
Primary Wood Products
Primary wood products including softwood lumber,
hardwood lumber, softwood plywood, and hardwood plywood were
analyzed. Figures 3-2 through 3-5 illustrate the eMergy flows
associated with each on a annual basis for the year 1970.
Tables A-2 through A-5 lists the data and analyses
corresponding to these figures.
88
Figure 3-2. EMergy Flows for US Softwood Lumber Production,
1970.
89
Figure 3-3. EMergy Flows for US Hardwood Lumber Production,
1970.
90
Figure 3-4. EMergy Flows for US Softwood Plywood Production,
1970.
91
Figure 3-5. EMergy Flows for US Hardwood Plywood Production,
1970.
92
Secondary Wood Products
Secondary wood products including particleboard,
fiberboard, insulation board, and hardboard were analyzed.
Figures 3-6 through 3-9 illustrate the eMergy flows
associated with each on a annual basis for the year 1970.
Tables A-6 through A-9 lists the data and analyses
corresponding to these figures.
Figure 3-6. EMergy Flows for US Particleboard Production,
1970.
93
Figure 3-7. EMergy Flows for US Fiberboard Production, 1970.
Figure 3-8. EMergy Flows for US Insulation Board Production,
1970.
94
Figure 3-9. EMergy Flows for US Hardboard Production, 1970.
Steel Products
Three types of steel products were evaluated: raw steel
(in molten form, without human services only), finished mill
steel products in general, and fabricated structural steel
products. The primary data source for the raw and mill steel
evaluations was the American Iron and Steel Institute's
(AISI) Annual Statistical Report. Analyses for these
materials were made for the years 1972 and 1991, showing a
significant increase in production efficiency (and decrease
in quantity) for the US steel industry over this period of
time. In addition, an analysis for fabricated structural
95
steel products .was done for the year 1972 based on the data
provided by the US Census of Manufacturers.
A significant source of the raw material for steel
production comes from recycled scrap iron and steel. In
eMergy analysis, materials or energy which are part of a
process feedback are not added into the summation of costs,
to avoid double counting of that resource. The only
additional costs associated with this input is that
associated with the additional human services, fuel, etc.
required to recycle it. The "natural" cost has already been
accounted for in its original production. Figures 3-10
through 3-12 illustrate the eMergy flows associated with each
analysis, based on total annual inputs and outputs for the
years specified. Tables A-10 through A-12 lists the data and
analyses corresponding to these figures.
VD
en
Figure 3-10. EMergy Flows for US Steel Production, 1972.
97
Production, 1972
Figure 3-11. EMergy Flows for US Fabricated Structural Steel
Production, 1972.
U5
00
Figure 3-12. EMergy Flows for US Steel Production, 1991.
99
Concrete Products
Three concrete products were evaluated: cement, ready-
mix concrete, and concrete block. The primary data source
was the 1972 Census of Manufacturers. The transformity for
cement fed the analyses for ready-mix concrete and concrete
block. Figures 3-13 through 3-15 illustrate the eMergy flows
associated with each on a annual basis for the year 1972.
Tables A-13 through A-15 list the data and analyses
corresponding to these figures.
Figure 3-13. EMergy Flows for US Cement Production, 1972.
100
Figure 3-14. EMergy Flows for US Ready-Mix Concrete
Figure 3-15. EMergy Flows for US Concrete Block Production,
1972.
101
Flat Glass Products
Flat glass products were evaluated on the basis of 1972
Census of Manufacturers data. Figures 3-16 illustrates the
eMergy flows associated with flat glass production for the
year 1972. Table A-16 lists the data and analysis
corresponding to this figure.
Figure 3-16. EMergy Flows for US Flat Glass Production, 1972.
Discussion of Results
Table 3-1 presents an overview of the eMergy per unit
mass values for the construction materials considered.
102
Table 3-1.
Materials.
EMergy Per Unit Mass
for Various
Construction
Without
With
Human
Human
Human
Services
Services Services
as a %
Cateaorv
Product
(E8 sei/cr)(E8 sen/cr)
of Total
WOOD1
Softwood lumber (R)
5.89
13.84
57%
Hardwood lumber (R)
5.10
10.41
51%
Softwood plywood (R)
7.77
22.97
66%
Hardwood plywood (R)
6.74
30.19
78%
WOOD2
Softwood lumber
7.08
13.97
49%
Hardwood lumber
7.28
12.59
42%
Softwood plywood
8.29
21.68
62%
Hardwood plywood
7.90
26.01
70%
WOODBOARD
Particleboard
12.79
17.15
25%
Fiberboard
14.10
18.70
2 5%
Insulation Board
23.66
30.91
23%
Hardboard
24.85
42.34
41%
STEEL
Raw Steel '72
24.80
-
-
Steel Products '72
42.56
61.43
31%
Fab. Struct Steel '72
35.89
71.64
50%
Raw Steel '91
15.83
-
-
Steel Products '91
21.56
27.66
22%
CONCRETE
Portland Cement
10.28
11.96
14%
Ready-Mix Concrete
5.92
6.93
15%
Concrete Block
5.81
7.58
23%
GLASS
Flat Glass
15.00
42.64
65%
Assuming sawdust recycled as fuel.
2Assuming sawdust not recycled as fuel.
The last column of Table 3-1 shows the percentage of the
eMergy transformity due to human services; two trends can be
identified. Firstly, as products go from "raw" to more
finished forms, the percentage of human services increases.
For example, concrete block has about twice as much human
services as a percentage as ready-mix concrete. Secondly,
103
fuel-intensive materials like steel have lower percentages of
human services as compared to others materials.
Hardboard
Insulation Board
Fiberboard
Particleboard
Hardwood plywood (R)
Hardwood plywood
Softwood plywood (R)
Softwood plywood
Hardwood lumber (R)
Hardwood lumber
Softwood lumber (R)
Softwood lumber
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
E8 sej/g
Figure 3-17. EMergy Per Unit Mass for Various Wood-Based
Products.
Figure 3-17 presents a graphical summary of the eMergy
per unit mass for the wood-based construction materials in
units of solar emjoules per gram (sej/g), while Figure 3-18
presents a similar summary for the steel, concrete, and glass
products evaluated. (Both graphs use a common scale to
facilitate direct comparisons.) Note that in the analysis of
104
lumber and plywood in Figure 3-17, the assumption regarding
sawdust recycling for fuel did not have a large impact on the
resultant eMergy per unit mass. This figure also illustrates
the higher eMergy costs of engineered wood products relative
to finished lumber.
E8 sej/g
Figure 3-18. EMergy Per Unit Mass for Steel, Concrete, and
Glass Products.
It is important to realize that the data presented in
these summary figures provides necessary but insufficient
information for the purposes of determining what materials
may be preferable with regards to sustainable architecture
105
EMergy per unit mass must be multiplied by the mass utilized
to arrive at an eMergy cost for using a given material in a
specific design. Steel has more eMergy cost per unit mass
than wood, for example, but it also has greater strength.
Thus less total mass of steel may be needed for a given
function than would be required if wood were specified. Other
factors, such as expected service life, are discussed further
in Chapter 5.
Another important observation is the data presented
represents a "snapshot" in time for each given process. For
example, wood-based products were analyzed based on data from
the 1970; other products were analyzed for the years 1972 and
1991. The goal was to find the necessary data, from a single
consistent source (or at most two sources), for the latest
date possible. Unfortunately, while it is often not
difficult to find the relevant information in terms of
dollars, it is difficult to find in terms of energy of a
known type. The US Census of Manufacture's Data, for
example, stopped reporting the necessary energy information
after 1972. This analysis does account for the variation in
buying power of money, however, so it is inherently corrected
for inflation. Money is converted into units of eMergy based
on the year of the analysis.
In the case of steel, the American Iron and Steel
Institute provides annual reports that allowed for a
comparison of the years 1972 and 1991. Figure 3-18 shows that
steel production consumed roughly twice as much eMergy per
106
unit mass in 1972 as in 1991. Thus, the industry has become
much more efficient in the span of those two decades. One
might speculate that other industries have also made gains in
efficiency, although to what degree is hard to predict.
CHAPTER 4
COMPARISONS OF FIRST COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES VIA
EMERGY ANALYSIS
Introduction
The previous chapter describes research that was
conducted in order to determine the eMergy costs on a unit
mass basis for various construction materials. The work
presented in this chapter builds upon that information.
Here, three alternative construction schemes for a
residential design are considered.
Methods
Program
First, a hypothetical design program was formulated. A
single family residence for a young couple with a low to
moderate middle-class income is desired. The couple plans to
start a family (one or two children) after about five years.
They desire a home that will expand with their needs over
time. An initial floor space of at least 1000 square feet of
living area is desired (phase one), to include a
kitchen/dining area, living room, two bedrooms, and a
bathroom. The planned expansion (phase two) should add a
single-car garage and a bathroom/ study. The anticipated
107
108
site is an unspecified urban residential lot in the city of
Gainesville, Florida.
The Baseline Design Concept
A general three-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design
(CAD) model was designed to meet the programmatic
requirements listed above, as well as several other design
goals relative to the issues of this study. These other
design goals include the following:
1. The design should be adapted to the hot and humid
climate, allowing ample cross-ventilation and
providing adequate shading of fenestration. Passive
winter heating should be considered as a secondary
concern.
2. The design should provide abundant natural
daylighting.
3. For the purposes of comparison in this study, the
house should be equally realizable as a
conventionally-built home and as an industrialized
design.
Figure 4-1 shows an isometric view of the generalized
model for the initial phase. Figure 4-2 shows a similar view
with the second phase added, while Figure 4-3 shows an
isometric of both phases from an opposing vantage point.
Figures 4-4 and 4-5 provide the corresponding floor plans for
the lower and upper floors (for both phases), respectively.
The design utilizes a high degree of symmetry and based
on the notion (prevalent in industrialized building) of
repeating a basic modular form. Each room/space consists of
a central area of 14 feet squared (measured exterior to
109
exterior). Each of these modules opens to auxiliary spaces
in all directions. On the southern exposure, these spaces are
connected to porches via a "trio" of French doors, with
similar doors or casement windows on the opposite northern
side. On the east-most and west-most ends of the house, these
spaces are enclosed with 5'xlO' "wings" with minimal
fenestration. In between each pair of module stacks, these
auxiliary spaces provide screened-in circulation, and mimic
the dog-trot design of vernacular Cracker architecture. Each
room/space with one auxiliary enclosed wing provides a
nominal 250 ft^.
Figure 4-1. General Design Model, Phase One.
Figure 4-2. General Design Model, Phases One and Two.
Figure 4-3. General Design Model, Phases One and Two, View
from Rear.
Ill
Figure 4-4. Floor Plan, Lower Level, Phases One and Two.
112
Figure 4-5. Floor Plan, Upper Level, Phases One and Two.
Three Construction Alternatives
Once a general model of the design was established, a
detailed cost analysis was performed for particular sets of
assumptions about the types of construction used. Each set of
construction choices constitute an alternative proposal.
113
(For the purposes of design comparisons, only phase one of
each alternative was analyzed.)
The first step in this analysis procedure was to
calculate the monetary costs and to identify quantities of
materials. The Means Residential Cost Data guide was used
for this purpose. This data was then used, together with the
data presented in Chapter 3, to generate an eMergy analysis
for the first costs of each construction proposal. In order
to facilitate this process, a table of intermediary data was
created which details the calculations for the mass of
construction materials in typical units. For example, for
softwood lumber the mass per linear foot of a 2"x4" or 2"x6"
was found. Appendix B presents this information.
Each of the three alternative designs analyzed were
categorized according to the conventions given in the Means
Residential Cost Data guide:
1. Site Work
2. Foundation
3. Framing
4. Exterior Walls
5. Roofing
6. Interiors
7. Specialties
8. Mechanical
9. Electrical
In comparing among alternatives, however, many of these
categories were essentially treated as constants, including
Site Work, Interiors, Specialties, Mechanical, and
Electrical.
The alternative construction choices for each of the
three proposals are listed in the following three tables:
114
Table 4-1. Construction Types for Proposal One (Wood Frame)
Catecrorv
Construction Types
Foundation
Poured Concrete Footing
Poured Concrete Wall, 4' High
Framing
Wood Joist Floor System
2"x6", 16" O.C. Hip Roof Framing
2"x4", 16" O.C. Ext. Wall Framing
Exterior Walls
Wood Siding
Roofing
Asphalt Shingles
Table 4-2. Construction Types for Proposal Two (Concrete
Block).
Cateaorv
Construction Tvoes
Foundation
Poured Concrete Footing
Poured Concrete Wall, 4' High
Framing
Wood Joist Floor System
2"x6", 16" O.C. Hip Roof Framing
Exterior Walls
Concrete Block Wall Framing
Stucco
Roofing
Asphalt Shingles
Table 4-3. Construction Types for Proposal Three (Steel
Frame).
Cateaorv
Construction Tvoes
Foundation
Poured Concrete Pilings
Framing
Light Gauge Steel Floor System
Light Gauge Steel Roof Framing
Steel I-Beam Skeletal Frame
Exterior Walls
Non-Load Bearing, 'Wooden Box' Panels
Wood Sidings
Roofing
Preformed Metal Roofing
115
It is also important to note that direct comparison of
categories between proposals is not always appropriate. For
example, in Proposal One, the wooden framing of the exterior
walls is considered part of the Framing category, while in
Proposal Two, the functionally equivalent concrete block is
considered part of the Exterior Wall category. While this
example is primarily an issue of how logical groupings were
made, other cases are due to inherent functional coupling
between groups. In Proposal Three, the Foundation can be
reduced to a set of pilings and wall panels can be non-load
bearing because of the strength of the steel framework.
The Industrialized Alternative
The three alternatives described above define different
means to similar end. Proposals one and two are meant to
represent more typical types of residential construction used
today, while proposal three represents an alternative in the
tradition of industrialized building. Because this
alternative is non-typical in terms of residential
construction, greater design detail had to be established to
enable a comparable cost estimate. In addition, it was
desired to visually express the steel structure in keeping
with the philosophy of modern architecture. Figures 4-6
through 4-8 illustrate some of the specific details of
proposal three.
-pi<3uÃe
iQS3-
.1
3^e
?\o'
OÃ
117
Cost Accounting
For each of the three construction alternatives, both
monetary and eMergy cost analyses were performed. Appendices
C through E contain the data for Proposals One, Two and
Three, respectively. In each of these appendices, Table 1
lists the take-off measurements for the given alternative,
Tables 2 through 10 list the monetary costs for each of the
nine categories specified previously, and Tables 11 through
19 list the eMergy costs for those same categories.
The monetary cost analysis was performed first,
following conventional cost estimating practices using the
1994 Means Residential Cost Data guide. This reference allows
118
for high-level estimating by providing detailed component
material and labor breakdowns for an entire system based on a
nominal square-foot estimate. This same information was then
used to calculate an eMergy cost estimate, utilizing much of
the information of Chapter 3. It is noted that in many
cases, eMergy contributions for the material portions of more
highly processed goods are not included. A detailed analysis
of the eMergy require to make an kitchen appliance, for
example, was beyond the scope of this study. As a rough
estimate, the human services (money) alone was used in cases
like this. This is not unreasonable, because human services
generally represent the majority of eMergy costs for highly
processed goods. It is also of less consequence because the
categories where this is most prevalent are those that are
not the focus of this study (i.e. Interiors, Specialties,
Mechanical, and Electrical).
Ideally, all of the eMergy analysis data of the previous
chapter would have been from the same year as this monetary
cost estimate (1994). As explained earlier, however, this
was not possible.
Results
Comparison of Monetary Costs
The results of the total dollar cost estimates for the
first costs of each the three construction alternatives are
presented in Table 4-4 and Figure 4-9. On the basis of
119
these estimates it can be seen that there is less than five
percent difference in the total dollar cost (materials and
labor) between the lowest estimate (Proposal Three) and the
highest (Proposal One).
Table 4-4. Monetary Cost Comparison Among the Proposed
Alternatives.
Proposal One (Wood Frame)
Proposal Two (Concrete Block)
Proposal Three (Steel Frame)
Monetary Costs
Materials Labor
Total
39,171
26
37,669
29
38,083
26
371 65,543
283 66,952
024 64,107
Total
Labor
Materials
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
Dollars
Figure 4-9. Monetary Cost Comparison Among the Proposed
Alternatives.
As shown in Figure 4-9, materials account for roughly 60
percent of the total cost for each alternative. Both
material and labor costs were relatively similar for each
alternative. The labor associated with Proposal Two
(Concrete Block) is the only possible exception, being around
10 percent greater than the other two alternatives.
120
Comparison of EMerav Costs
The results of the total eMergy cost estimates for the
first costs of each the three construction alternatives are
presented in Table 4-5 and Figure 4-10. In these and the
tables and figures to follow, NR stands for non-renewable and
R stands for renewable/recyclable.
Table 4-5. EMergy Cost Comparison Among the Proposed
Alternatives.
Proposal One
Proposal Two
Proposal Three
Wood Frame
Concrete Block
Steel Frame
NR Dollars
78.4
80.5
73.5
NR Materials
5.5
6.7
15.0
R Dollars
13.4
13.3
12.6
R Materials
6.2
3.9
27.4
Totals
103.5
104.3
128.4
Steel Frame
Concrete Block
Wood Frame
â–¡ R Materials
â–¡ R Services
E NR Materials
â– NR Services
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
EMergy (E15 sej)
Figure 4-10. EMergy Cost Comparison Among the Proposed
Alternatives. R = Renewable, NR = Non-Renewable.
For each of the alternatives, eMergy is broken down into
four components: renewable (R) and non-renewable (NR) human
services (dollars) and renewable (R) and non-renewable (NR)
121
materials. Figures 4-11, 4-12, and 4-13 show how these
eMergy costs break down among the various categories for each
of the respective proposals.
Electrical
Mechanical
Specialties
Interiors
Roofing
Exterior Walls
Framing
Foundations
Site Work
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
â–¡ R Materials
n R Services
a NR Materials
â– NR Services
EMergy (E12 sej)
Figure 4-11. Proposal One (Wood Frame) EMergy Costs by
Category. R = Renewable, NR = Non-Renewable.
Electrical
Mechanical
Specialties
Interiors
Roofing
Exterior Walls
Framing
Foundations
Site Work
Emergy (e12 sej)
Figure 4-12. Proposal Two (Concrete Block) EMergy Costs by
Category. R = Renewable, NR = Non-Renewable.
122
Electrical
Mechanical
Specialties
Interiors
Roofing
Walls
Framing
Foundations
Site Work
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Emegry (E12 sej)
Figure 4-13. Proposal Three (Steel Frame) EMergy Costs by
Category. R = Renewable, NR = Non-Renewable.
In most cases of the previous three figures, non-renewable
human services represents the largest eMergy component. (In
this analysis, the ratio of renewable to non-renewable human
services was a fixed parameter assumed to be 14 percent,
based on Odum (1994b, p.119). This reflects the fact that
the majority of our present economy is driven by fossil fuels
and other non-renewable sources.)
Discussion of Results
Figure 4-10 indicates that the total eMergy costs of
Proposals One and Two (Wood and Concrete Block) are similar,
while Proposal Three is significantly greater. This begs the
question, "What do these results say about the issue of
123
sustainability?". First it is necessary to clarify the
significance of the eMergy break down described earlier:
renewable and non-renewable human services (dollars) and
renewable and non-renewable materials. From the viewpoint of
conventional economics, dollars is the measure of cost.
Everything else (i.e., that which nature provides) is "free".
From the viewpoint of the economics of sustainability,
however, a very tangible cost is associated with the
depletion of natural resources. What is "free" from the
viewpoint of sustainability is that which can be supported by
the earth's natural ecosystems without degradation. The non¬
renewable (NR) components of the eMergy estimate, both of
dollars and materials, are the costs to be concerned with
first and foremost. Non-renewable costs can be considered a
measure of unsustainability. From this perspective, the NR
eMergy costs of all three proposals are not greatly
different.
While non-renewable costs are a measure of
unsustainability, we cannot immediately conclude the inverse
- that renewable costs are by themselves a positive measure
of sustainability. This goes back to the notion of carrying
capacity; the earth's ecosystems have a limit to the "degree
and rate of human impact...[that] can be perpetually
maintained" (Thayer, 1994, p.99). Thus utilizing a certain
quantity of renewable costs is sustainable only at a rate
that the impacted system determines.
124
As illustrated by these results, all of the proposals
are largely unsustainable (i.e., non-renewable) according to
the working definition given above. This reflects the fact
that the sustainability of all of these alternatives are a
function of the economy which produces them. Thus, as we
attempt to move toward the goal of a sustainability (in
building design as well as any other economic activity), it
is important to recognize a number of factors:
1.) In the United States, fossil fuels are the major
source both of our wealth and of our unsustainable
economy.
2.) Because the labor force is dependent on a fossil
fuel economy, it is impossible to produce a
completely sustainable product utilizing this labor.
3.) Progress toward sustainability must proceed
incrementally.
In comparing the breakdowns by category in Figures 4-11
through 4-13, the most striking difference among the
proposals is the large amount of additional renewable/
recyclable eMergy associated with the steel framing of
Proposal Three. This bears out two related facts: Firstly,
the production of steel is of course a very energy intensive
process, reflected by the large total eMergy cost. Secondly,
a large percentage of that eMergy is "renewable" in the sense
that through recycling, all of the energy that went into the
original production of raw steel is not lost, or "used up".
Thus the recyclable eMergy associated with steel can be
thought of as an energy storage.
Of course, there are a number of other considerations to
be made in evaluating the sustainability of a building
125
design. This study has focused on building materials and how
their choice affects it. Chapter 5 will continue this
discussion and relate how this information fits into an
overall lifecycle evaluation based on eMergy analysis.
CHAPTER 5
INDUSTRIALIZED BUILDING AND SUSTAINABILITY:
THE LARGER PICTURE
Introduction
In Chapter 4, it was shown how the concepts of eMergy
analysis could be applied to an evaluation of the first costs
of a building design in a manner analogous to a conventional
cost analysis. This discussion, along with the associated
tables in Appendices C through E, covered one part of the
overall lifecycle assessment problem in a relatively high
level of detail. For a true analysis of sustainability,
however, many other factors must be considered (as mentioned
in Chapter 1). This summary chapter provides an outline of
how the eMergy analysis techniques of Chapter 4 could be
expanded to provide a more complete analysis of the
sustainability of proposed building designs.
Indices for Sustainability
The comparison of costs of Figure 4-10 are based on
units of eMergy (solar energy costs) for all of the materials
and labor require to produce a new building. As mentioned
earlier, the non-renewable (NR) costs are the primary concern
for an analysis of sustainability. By measuring the rate of
these NR "expenditures", a measure is made of the depletion
126
127
of the earth's "invested capital". The use of renewable
resources in analogous to spending an allowance; as long as
the rate of spending is at or below the allowance rate, there
is no loss of wealth. The use of recyclable materials is
analogous to making an investment; NR resources are typically
used in the original production, but then much of that eMergy
can be recovered, or used "renewably".
The first adjustment that must be made to the analysis
of the previous chapter is to put all costs on an amortized
basis. Obviously, the life span of an asphalt shingle roof
is different than that of concrete block walls. In addition
to variation of life expectancies of components within a
given design, alternative designs may have significantly
different levels of expected longevity. Thus, NR eMergy
costs per year (rates) are a more appropriate basis for
comparison. This "rate of nonrenewable eMergy consumption"
(RNR) due to the first costs may be found by summing the
quotient of NR costs divided by expected lifespan for each
component of the structure:
NR _cos ts
lifespan
Operating costs are of course another important factor.
In addition to maintenance considerations, the energy
requirements for heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning
must be included in an lifecycle assessment, again on the
basis of NR eMergy costs per year, or RNR. Several analysis
methods and computer programs exist for calculating expected
128
yearly fuel consumption; these results need only then be
converted to an eMergy basis. This is how "design for
climate" considerations would be incorporated into the
overall calculations.
RNRoper =
NR cos ts
year
As illustrated in Figure 1-1, a complete lifecycle
assessment also accounts for costs associated with disposal,
recycle, or re-use. Kibert (Figure 1-2) refers to this as
the "deconstruction" phase. These NR costs would similarly
need to be amortized by dividing their sum by the expected
life span of the structure as a whole.
NR _cos ts
lifespan
The overall rate of NR eMergy consumption rate for a
particular structure is the sum of the three terms described
above:
RNRto, = RNR, + RNRl>Per+RNRdecon
By calculating the rate of NR eMergy consumption, one is
actually measuring a lack of sustainability, as mentioned
previously. Another index that may provide a useful insight
is the ratio of the renewable to nonrenewable rates of eMergy
consumption (where RRTot is found in a manner analogous to
RNRTot above) :
129
R = RRto,
NR RNRro.
The example of Chapter 4 looked at various alternative
materials and construction techniques for an otherwise
essentially common residential design. If alternative
designs are to be compared, other factors may be included to
"normalize" these comparisons. One obviously important
consideration is size; cost comparisons are typically made on
the basis of a unit floor area. Another size consideration is
volume. Not all designs utilize a given floor area or volume
equally well, however. To rate a design on the assumption
that its quality is linearly related to its floor area, while
common, misses an important criteria. The efficiency with
which a design achieves its intended purpose must be viewed
more holistically. In the case of residential design, for
example, comparisons among alternatives should account for
how efficiently they serve a given number of residents. All
of these other criteria - floor area, volume, number of
people served - as well as others could act as normalizing
factors for indices of comparison between designs.
Other Issues
It is proposed that the above indices comprehensively
addresses the issues raised by life-cycle assessment (as
illustrated in Figure 1-1), while unifying otherwise
disparate units of currency, energies of various quality, and
masses of various materials into a common metric of eMergy.
130
Furthermore, many of the elements of Kibert's model for
sustainable construction (Figure 1-2) are clearly accounted
for. All elements of the phase axis have been addressed. On
the resource axis, energy and materials have been discussed
explicitly. Water and land can also be integrated into the
eMergy-based indices described above.
On the principles axis of Figure 1-2, the first three
are clearly incorporated. The relationship between
principles four through six and the indices described above
has not been addressed in this study. 'Protecting Nature1
and 'Non-Toxics' deal with the health of the ecosystem in
general and humans specifically. The category of protecting
nature could include cost analysis associated with
maintaining species diversity, habitat restoration,
reforestation, etc. Concern about toxic materials at the
environmental scale includes hazardous waste sites and all
manners of water, air, and ground pollution. At the built
environment scale, sick building syndrome is a concern with
the potentially harmful off-gassing of many common building
materials. All health care and health maintenance costs
associated with creating and living in the built environment
would be candidates for analysis. Lastly, the principle of
quality - while clearly important - arguably cannot be
quantified as an entity distinct from all of the other
elements considered. It can be stated that quality design
will lead to a longer building life span, lower operating and
maintenance costs, etc. These types of issues have already
131
been addressed, however. Perhaps it is meant to include
aesthetic issues or other concerns unaccounted for, but if
so, the challenge would be to determine a way to quantify and
\
\
relate these to the overall eMergy metric. These issues are ^
suggested as topics for further study.
Summary and Conclusions
This study begins to develop a methodology by which to
address the question it initially asks, "to what extent are
the methods, materials, philosophy, and aesthetics of
industrialized building compatible with the growing
contemporary concerns for restructuring society around the
popular concept of sustainability?" EMergy analysis is
presented as the theoretical foundation for this methodology,
measuring both natural ecosystem and human economic costs on
a unified solar energy basis.
Several common building materials were analyzed to
obtain representative values of eMergy per unit mass. The
wood products analyzed included lumber and plywood (both
hardwood and plywood), particleboard, fiberboard, insulation
board, and hardboard. Among these, lumber is the least
"expensive" while hardboard and insulation board are the
most. Other materials that were considered included steel
products, plate glass, concrete, and cement. All of these
products' eMergy costs are within roughly an order of
magnitude of each other (6-60 E8 sej/g).
132
The eMergy per unit mass of these materials was
calculated based on data primarily from the 1970-72 time
frame; this was often the most recent year(s) for which
complete information could be found. The exception to this
was steel products. A comparative analysis of steel
production was made for the years 1972 and 1991. This
analysis showed a 50% reduction in eMergy costs over this
twenty year period. Other industries could be expected to
have reduced costs also (eMergy as well as monetary),
although it is questionable if they could match the steel
industry's rate of reduction.
This data on common building materials was applied to
eMergy analyses of the first costs of three construction
alternatives for a residential design; two alternatives were
representative of conventional construction techniques and
the third illustrated an industrialized building approach.
The methodology involves first performing a conventional cost
estimate, and then using that information as a basis for a
full eMergy accounting of materials and human services.
Distinguishing between renewable versus nonrenewable
resources as well as natural resources versus human services
is an important consideration.
The nonrenewable first costs of the three proposed
alternative residential designs were all similar; the
renewable (recyclable) costs of the steel frame design
provided the only significant difference among the three.
This greater renewable cost expenditure for the steel frame
133
design can be considered an essentially non-depreciating
energy investment. From this point of view, steel may
actually have an ecological advantage over other construction
materials. While it is initially quite energy intensive to
produce, through recycling its energy cost over its extended
("renewed") lifetime may drop significantly.
Chapter 4 analyzed only the first costs associated with
each proposal. As outlined earlier in this chapter, however,
several other factors must be considered before a
comprehensive measure regarding sustainability can be
determined. A first-cost analysis needs to include lifespan
\
amortization on a component-by-component basis. Operating and
"deconstruction" cost rates should also be included to
provide an eMergy-based lifecycle assessment. The assembly j
techniques of industrialized building may offer an advantage
over other construction practices in deconstruction cost
rates.
Other issues not addressed in detail in this study
include what Kibert has dubbed the "protect nature" and "non¬
toxics" principles. These were beyond the scope of this work
and are suggested as topics for further study.
GLOSSARY
(taken from Odum, 1994b, p.166)
eMergy
(spelled with an "M") All of the
available energy that was used in the
work of making a product expressed in
units of one type of energy.
energy
A property which can be turned into heat
and measured in heat units (Calories,
BTUs, or Joules).
solar transformity
Solar eMergy per unit energy, expressed
in solar emjoules per Joule (sej/J).
sustainable use
Resource use that can be continued by
society in the long run because the use
level and system design allow resources
to be renewed by natural or man aided
processes.
systems ecology
The field which came from the union of
systems theory and ecology and provides
a world view for energy analysis.
transformity
The eMergy of one type required to make
a unit of energy of another type.
134
APPENDIX A
EMERGY EVALUATION CALCULATIONS
FOR BUILDING MATERIALS IN CHAPTER 3
136
Table A-l. EMergy Evaluation of US Roundwood Production (1972)
Solar
Solar
Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E20
sei/vr)
Note
Item, units
(units/yr)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL %
renew RENEW
Inputs:
1
Sunlight, J
6.51E+21
1
65
100%
65
2
Rain, Chemical potential,
J 4.49E+18
1.82E+04
816
100%
816
3
Diesel Fuel, J
1.20E+17
6.60E+04
79
0%
0
4
Services & Labor, $ ('72)
9.70E+09
7.00E+12
679
20%
136
TOTAL w/o services, 2-3
895
91%
816
TOTAL w/ services, 2-4
1574
60%
952
Outputs:
la Harvested Logs, g 1.75E+14 5.10E+08
8.97E+08
lb Harvested Logs, J 2.64E+18 3.39E+04
5.95E+04
w/o services
w/ services
w/o services
w/ services
Footnotes to Table A-l.
General
Note:
All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
1 Solar energy = area*insolation*(1-albedo) :
land area [a] = 2.02E+12 m^2
average insolation = 1.10E+06 kcal/m^2/yr
(1 - albedo) = 0.7
4186 J/kcal
6.51E+21 J/yr
2
3
Rain, Chemical potential =
area*rainfall:
land area [a] =
2.02E+12
rainfall =
0.89916
evapotranspiration rate =
LD
O
density of water =
1000
Gibbs free energy =
4940
4.49E+18
Diesel Fuel:
4.26
1.93E+08
138336
1055
1.20E+17
evapo*density*Gibbs :
m/v2
m/yr
(percentage)
kg/m^
J/kg
J/yr
gal./ O.D. ton
O.D. ton/yr
BTU/gal
J/BTU
J/yr
4 Services & Labor = production*$/cu.ft:
1.93E+08
2000
ave. density of wood [b] = 38
product cost [c] = 0.953
9.70E+09
O.D. ton/yr
lbs/ton
lbs/cu.ft.
$/cu.ft.
$/yr
137
Footnotes to Table A-l (continued).
General All data from COFRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
la
lb
OUTPUTS
1 Harvested Logs
softwood sawlogs
softwood veneer logs
hardwood sawlogs
hardwood veneer logs
pup1wood
fuelwood & mise.
Total logs
Total logs
(E6 O.D. Ton
73.41
15.08
24.51
2.28
61.48
16.62
193.38
(g/yr)
1.75E+14
(g/E6 ton)
9.07E+11
9.07E+11
9.07E+11
9.07E+11
9.07E+11
9.07E+11
9.07E+11
(J/g)
1.51E+04
(g/yr)
6.66E+13
1.37E+13
2.22E+13
2.07E+12
5.58E+13
1.51E+13
1.75E+14
(J/yr)
2.64E+18
[a] Spurr, Stephen H. and Vaux, Henry J., "Timber: Biological and Economic
Potential", SCIENCE, Vol. 191, 20 Feb 1976, p.752
[b] Baumeister, Marks, STANDARD HANDBOOK FOR MECHANICAL ENGINEERS,
7th ed., p. 6-7. (Estimated average for a variety of wood species.)
[c] 1972 US Census of Manufacturers Data, SIC 24110 - Logs and boles
138
Table A-2a. EMergy Evaluation of US Softwood Lumber Production (1972), Assuming No
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Note
Item, units
Raw Data
(units/ton)
Solar Solar Emergy
Transformity (E12 sej/ton)
(sen/unit) TOTAL % renew RENEW
Inputs:
la
Softwood Logs, g
9.07E+05
5.10E+08 463 91%
422
lb
Softwood Logs, J
1.37E+10
3.39E+04 463 91%
422
2
Services & Labor, $
8.92E+01
7.00E+12 624 20%
125
3
Mechanical Energy, J
1.69E+08
2.50E+05 ice 42 /? 0%
0
4
Steam Energy, J
1.72E+09
8.00E+04 137 £4 0%
0
4 Olt Le
TOTAL w/o services
643 iH 66%
422
TOTAL w/ services
1267 //?* 43%
547
Output Products:
la
Dry planed lumber, g
3.18E+05
y;7.08E+08 w/o services
y 1.40E+09 w/ services
lb
Dry planed lumber, J
4.78E+09
4.70E+04 w/o services
9.27E+04 w/ services
(w/o services)
2a
Shavings, trim, g
1.36E+05
7.08E+08
2b
Shavings, trim, J
2.05E+09
4.70E+04
3a
Pulp chips, g
2.63E+05
7.08E+08
3b
Pulp chips, J
3.96E-i 09
4.70E+04
4a
Sawdust, bark, g
1.91E+05
7.08E+08
4b
Sawdust, bark, J
2.87E+09
4.7 0E+04
Total Wood Products, g
9.07E+05
Total Wood Products, J
1.37E+10
139
Footnotes to Table A-2a.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Softwood Logs
1
907,200
1.37E+10
2
Services & Labor = (value/unit product)*production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 bd. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/bd.ft.)
Manufacturers
24677.6
3117.7
$0.13
(bd.ft./lb)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
0.35
2000
$89.18
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
3
Mechanical Energy
62.8
2,684,520
1.69E+08
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
4
Steam Energy
1396
1,231,185
1.72E+09
OUTPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Dry planed lumber
0.35
317,520
4.78E+09
2
Shavings, trim
0.15
136,080
2.05E+09
3
Pulp chips
0.29
263,088
3.96E+09
4
Sawdust, bark
0.21
190,512
2.87E+09
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
Mechanical Energy
134
2,684,520
3.60E+08
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
Steam Energy
2184
1,231,185
2.69E+09
140
Table A-2b. EMergy Evaluation of US Softwood Lumber Production (1972), Assuming
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E12
sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sen/unit)
TOTAL %
renew RENEW
Inputs
la
Softwood Logs, g
9.07E+05
5.10E+08
463
91%
422
lb
Softwood Logs, J
1.37E+10
3.39E+04
463
91%
422
2
Services & Labor, $
8.92E+01
7.00E+12
624
20%
125
TOTAL w/o services, lb
463
91%
422
TOTAL w/ services, lb-2
1087
50%
547
Output Products
la
Dry planed lumber, g
3.18E+05
5.89E+08
w/o services
1.38E+09
w/ services
lb
Dry planed lumber, J
4.78E+09
3.91E+04
w/o services
9.19E+04
w/ services
(w/o services)
2a
Shavings, trim, g
1.36E+05
5.89E+08
135
2b
Shavings, trim, J
2.05E+09
3.91E+04
135
3a
Pulp chips, g
2.63E+05
5.89E+08
260
3b
Pulp chips, J
3.96E+09
3.91E+04
260
4a
Sawdust, bark, g
6.87E+04
5.89E+08
68
4b
Sawdust, bark, J
1.04E+09
3.91E+04
68
Total Wood Products, g
7.85E+05
Total Wood Products, J
1.18E+10
141
Footnotes to Table A-2b.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Softwood Logs
1
907,200
1.37E+10
2
Services & Labor = (value/unit product)*production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 bd. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/bd.ft.)
Manufacturers
24677.6
3117.7
$0.13
(bd.ft./lb)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
0.35
2000
$89.18
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
3
Mechanical Energy
62.8
2,684,520
1.69E+08
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
4
Steam Energy
1396
1,231,185
1.72E+09
OUTPUTS
O.D. ton
grams
Joules
Dry planed lumber
0.35
317,520
4.78E+09
Shavings, trim
0.15
136,080
2.05E+09
Pulp chips
0.29
263,088
3.96E+09
Remaining sawdust
0.08
68,738
1.04E+09
hp-hrs
J/hp-hr
Joules
Mechanical Energy (gross
out 134
2,684,520
3.60E+08
lbs
J/lb
Joules
Steam Energy (gross out)
2184
1,231,185
2.69E+09
142
Table A-3a. EMergy Evaluation of US Hardwood Lumber Production (1972), Assuming No
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E12
sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL %
renew RENEW
Inputs
la
Hardwood Logs, g
9.07E+05
5.10E+08
463
91%
422
lb
Hardwood Logs, J
1.37E+10
3.39E+04
463
91%
422
2
Services & Labor, $
6.88E+01
7.00E+12
481
20%
96
3
Mechanical Energy, J
1.59E+08
2.50E+05
40
0%
0
4
Steam Energy, J
1.97E+09
8.00E+04
158
0%
0
TOTAL w/o services, lb,3-4
660
64%
422
TOTAL w/ services, lb-4
1142
45%
518
Output Products
la
Dry planed lumber, g
2.54E+05
-L 7.28E+08
w/o services
1.26E+09
w/ services
lb
Dry planed lumber, J
3.83E+09
'fA . 83E+04
w/o services
v/ 8.35E+04
w/ services
(w/o services)
2a
Shavings, trim, g
1.81E+05
7.28E+08
183
2b
Shavings, trim, J
2.73E+09
4.83E+04
183
3a
Pulp chips, g
2.63E+05
7.28E+08
266
3b
Pulp chips, J
3.96E+09
4.83E+04
266
4a
Sawdust, bark, g
2.09E+05
7.28E+08
211
4b
Sawdust, bark, J
3.14E+09
4.83E+04
211
Total Wood Products, g
9.07E+05
Total Wood Products, J
1.37E+10
143
Footnotes to Table A-3a.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Hardwood Logs
1
907,200
1.37E+10
2
Services & Labor = (value/unit product)*production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 bd. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/bd.ft.)
Manufacturers
3742.6
471.9
$0.13
(bd.ft./lb)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
0.27
2000
$68.78
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
3
Mechanical Energy
59.3
2,684,520
1.59E+08
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
4
Steam Energy
1600
1,231,185
1.97E+09
OUTPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Dry planed lumber
0.28
254,016
3.83E+09
2
Shavings, trim
0.2
181,440
2.73E+09
3
Pulp chips
0.29
263,088
3.96E+09
4
Sawdust, bark
0.23
208,656
3.14E+09
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
Mechanical Energy
146.8
2,684,520
3.94E+08
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
Steam Energy
2392
1,231,185
2.94E+09
144
Table A-3b. EMergy Evaluation of US Hardwood Lumber Production (1972), Assuming
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar
Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E12
sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL %
renew
RENEW
Inputs
la
Hardwood Logs, g
9.07E+05
5.10E+08
463
91%
422
lb
Hardwood Logs, J
1.37E+10
3.39E+04
463
91%
422
2a
Services & Labor, $
6.88E+01
7.00E+12
481
20%
96
TOTAL w/o services, lb
463
91%
422
TOTAL w/ services, lb-2
944
55%
518
Output Products
la
Dry planed lumber, g
2.54E+05
5.10E+08
w/o services
1.04E+09
w/ services
v
lb
Dry planed lumber, J
3.83E+09
3.39E+04
w/o services
\
r
6.91E+04
w/ services >
/
(w/o services)
2a
Shavings, trim, g
1.81E+05
5.10E+08
129
2b
Shavings, trim, J
2.73E+09
3.39E+04
129
3a
Pulp chips, g
2.63E+05
5.10E+08
186
3b
Pulp chips, J
3.96E+09
3.39E+04
186
4a
Sawdust, bark, g
2.09E+05
5.10E+08
148
4b
Sawdust, bark, J
3.14E+09
3.39E+04
148
Total Wood Products, g
9.07E+05
Total Wood Products, J
1.37E+10
145
Footnotes to Table A-3b.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
1
Hardwood Logs
1
907,200
2
Services & Labor = (value/unit
product)*production
source: 1972 Census of (
E6 bd. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
Manufacturers
3742.6
471.9
(bd.ft./lb)
(lbs/ton)
0.27
2000
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
3
Mechanical Energy
59.3
2,684,520
(lbs)
(J/lb)
4
Steam Energy
1600
1,231,185
OUTPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
1
Dry planed lumber
0.28
254,016
2
Shavings, trim
0.2
181,440
3
Pulp chips
0.29
263,088
4
Sawdust, bark
0.23
208,656
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
Mechanical Energy (gross out)
146.8
2,684,520
(lbs)
(J/lb)
Steam Energy (gross out)
2392
1,231,185
(Joules)
1.37E+10
(S/bd.ft.)
$0.13
($/ton)
$68.78
(Joules)
1.59E+08
(Joules)
1.97E+09
(Joules)
3.83E+09
2.73E+09
3.96E+09
3.14E+09
(Joules)
3.94E+08
(Joules)
2.94E+09
146
Table A-4a. EMergy Evaluation of US Softwood Plywood Production (1972), Assuming No
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar Solar Emergy
Raw Data
TransÃormity
(E12 sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
Inputs
(units/ton)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL % renew RENEW
la
Softwood Logs, g
9.07E+05
5.10E+08
463 91% 422
lb
Softwood Logs, J
1.37E+10
3.39E+04
463 91% 422
2a
Phenol-Form. Resin, g
9.07E+03
1.50E+09
14 -bO 0% 0
2b
Phenol-Form. Resin, J
3.18E+08
3
4
Services & Labor, $
Mechanical Energy, J
1.75E+02
3.80E+07
7.00E+12
2.50E+05
1227 , 20% 245
9 yip o% 0
5
Steam Energy, J
3.42E+09
8.00E+04
273 1U 1 0% 0
5 ,CU£ ^
TOTAL w/o services
*—— 56% 422
TOTAL w/ services
1M7- 34% 667
Output Products
w/o services Ủ۪bfr0!
la
Plywood, g
4.08E+05
8.29E+08
2.17E+09
w/ services
lb
Plywood, J
6.15E+09
5.50E+04
w/o services
1.44E+05
w/ services 6*7
2a
Studs, g (w/o services
5.44E+04
8.29E+08
81
(w/ services)
2.17E+09
213
2b
Studs, J (w/o services
8.20E+08
5.50E+04
81
(w/ services)
1.44E+05
213
(w/o services)
3a
Shavings, trim, g
7.26E+04
8.29E+08
108. |, fS ft ^
3b
Shavings, trim, J
1.09E+09
5.50E+04
108
4a
Pulp chips, g
2.72E+05
8.29E+08
407
4b
Pulp chips, J
4.10E+09
5.50E+04
407
5a
Sawdust, g
1.09E+05
8.29E+Ü8
163
5b
Sawdust, J
1.64E+09
5.50E+04
163
Total Wood Products, g
9.16E+05
Total Wood Products, J
1.38E+10
147
Footnotes to Table A-4a.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note:
for Indutrial Materials)
Panel II study,
1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Softwood Logs
1
907,200
1.37E+10
2
Phenol-Formaldehyde Resin
0.01
9072
3.18E+08
3
Services & Labor = (value/unit product)*production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 sq. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/sq.ft.)
Manufacturers
18311.5
1705.5
9.31E-02
(sq.ft.=3/8" basis)
(sq.ft./lb)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
0.941176471
2,000
1.75E+02
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
4
Mechanical Energy
14.15
2.68E+06
3.80E+07
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
5
Steam Energy
2775
1.23E+06
3.42E+09
OUTPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Unsanded plywood
0.45
408,240
6.15E+09
2
Studs
0.06
54,432
8.20E+08
3
Shavings, trim
0.08
72,576
1.09E+09
4
Pulp chips
0.3
272,160
4.10E+09
5
Sawdust
0.12
108,864
1.64E+09
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
Mechanical Energy
76.6
2.68E+06
2.06E+08
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
Steam Energy
1248
1.23E+06
1.54E+09
148
Assuming
Table A-4b. EMergy Evaluation of US Softwood Plywood Production (1972),
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar
Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E12
sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL %
renew RENEW
Inputs
la
Softwood Logs, g
9.07E+05
5.10E+08
463
91%
422
lb
Softwood Logs, J
1.37E+10
3.39E+04
463
91%
422
2a
Phenol-Form. Resin, g
9.07E+03
1.50E+09
14
0%
0
2b
Phenol-Form. Resin, J
3.18E+08
3a
Services & Labor, $
1.75E+02
7.00E+12
1227
20%
245
5
Steam Energy, J
1.88E+09
8.00E+04
150
0%
0
TOTAL w/o services
627
67%
422
TOTAL w/ services
1854
36%
667
Output Products
la
Plywood, g
4.08E+05
7.77E+08
w/o services
2.30E+09
w/ services
lb
Plywood, J
6.15E+09
5.15E+04
w/o services
1.52E+05
w/ services
2a
Studs, g (w/o services
5.44E+04
7.77E+08
86
(w/ services)
2.30E+09
253
2b
Studs, J (w/o services
8.20E+08
5.15E+04
86
(w/ services)
1.52E+05
253
(w/o services)
3a
Shavings, trim, g
7.26E+04
7.77E+08
114
3b
Shavings, trim, J
1.09E+09
5.15E+04
114
4a
Pulp chips, g
2.72E+05
7.77E+08
428
4b
Pulp chips, J
4.10E+09
5.15E+04
428
5a
(Sawdust, g)
0.00E+C0
5b
(Sawdust, J)
0.00E+00
Total Wood Products, g
8.07E+05
Total Wood Products, J
1.22E+10
149
Footnotes to Table A-4b.
General
All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note:
for Indutrial Materials) Panel
II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Softwood Logs
1
907,200
1.37E+10
2
Phenol-Forma1dehyde
Resin
0.01
9072
318427200
3
Services & Labor =
(value/unit
product)*production
source: 1972 Census
of
(E6 sq. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/sq.ft.)
Manufacturers
18311.5
1705.5
$0.09
(sq.ft.=3/8" basis)
(sq.ft./lb)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
0.941176471
2,000
$175.32
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
4
Mechanical Energy
14.15
2.68E+06
3.80E+07
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
5
Steam Energy
2775
1.23E+06
3.42E+09
OUTPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Unsanded plywood
0.45
4.08E+05
6.15E+09
2
Studs
0.06
5.44E+04
8.20E+08
3
Shavings, trim
0.08
7.26E+04
1.09E+09
4
Pulp chips
0.3
2.72E+05
4.10E+09
5
Sawdust
0.12
1.09E+05
1.64E+09
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
Mechanical Energy (gross out)
76.6
2.68E+06
2.06E+08
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
Steam Energy (gross
out)
1248
1.23E+06
1.54E+09
150
Table A-5a. EMergy Evaluation of US Hardwood Plywood Production (1972), Assuming No
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar
Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E12
sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL %
renew RENEW
Inputs
la
Hardwood Logs, g
9.07E+05
5.10E+08
463
91%
422
lb
Hardwood Logs, J
1.37E+10
3.39E+04
463
91%
422
2a
Urea-Form. Resin, g
9.07E+03
4.00E+08
4
0%
0
2b
Urea-Form. Resin, J
1.61E+08
3a
Services & Labor, $
2.37E+02
7.00E+12
1659
20%
332
4
Mechanical Energy, J
4.56E+07
2.50E+05
11
0%
0
5
Steam Energy, J
3.08E+09
8.00E+04
246
0%
0
TOTAL w/o services
724
58%
422
TOTAL w/ services
2383
32%
754
Output Products
la
Plywood, g
2.72E+05
7.90E+08
w/o services
2.60E+09
w/ services
lb
Plywood, J
4.10E+09
5.25E+04
w/o services
1.73E+05
w/ services
(w/o services)
3a
Pulp chips, g
4.35E+05
7.90E+08
490
3b
Pulp chips, J
6.56E+09
5.25E+04
490
4a
Sawdust, trim, g
2.09E+05
7.90E+08
235
4b
Sawdust, trim, J
3.14E+09
5.25E+04
235
Total Wood Products, g
9.16E+05
Total Wood Products, J
1.38E+10
151
Footnotes to Table A-5a.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Hardwood Logs
1
907,200
1.37E+10
2
Urea-Formaldehyde Resin
0.01
9072
1.61E+08
3
Services & Labor = (value/unit product)*production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 sq. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/sq.ft.)
Manufacturers
4712.9
698
1.48E-01
(sq.ft.=3/8" basis)
(sq.ft./lb)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
0.8
2,000
2.37E+02
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
4
Mechanical Energy
17
2.68E+06
4.56E+07
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
5
Steam Energy
2500
1.23E+06
3.08E+09
OUTPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Unsanded plywood
0.3
272,160
4.10E+09
2
Pulp chips
0.48
435,456
6.56E+09
3
Sawdust, trim
0.23
208,656
3.14E+09
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
Mechanical Energy
146.8
2,684,520
3.94E+08
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
Steam Energy
2392
1.23E+06
2.94E+09
152
Assuming
Table A-5b. EMergy Evaluation of US Hardwood Plywood Production (1972),
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar
Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E12
sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL %
renew RENEW
Inputs
la
Softwood Logs, g
9.07E+05
5.10E+08
463
91%
422
lb
Softwood Logs, J
1.37E+10
3.39E+04
463
91%
422
2a
Urea-Form. Resin, g
9.07E+03
4.00E+08
4
0%
0
2b
Urea-Form. Resin, J
1.61E+08
3a
Services & Labor, $
2.37E+02
7.00E+12
1659
20%
332
5
Steam Energy, J
1.33E+08
8.00E+04
11
0%
0
TOTAL w/o services
477
88%
422
TOTAL w/ services
2136
35%
754
Output Products
la
Plywood, g
2.72E+05
6.74E+08
w/o services
3.02E+09
w/ services
lb
Plywood, J
4.10E+09
4.48E+04
w/o services
2.00E+05
w/ services
(w/o services)
3a
Pulp chips, g
4.35E+05
6.74E+08
477
3b
Pulp chips, J
6.56E+09
4.48E+04
477
4a
(Sawdust, trim, g)
0.00E+00
4b
(Sawdust, trim, J)
0.00E+00
Total Wood Products, g
7.08E+05
Total Wood Products, J
1.07E+10
153
Footnotes to Table A-5b.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
1
2
3
4
5
INPUTS
(O.D.
ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
Softwood Logs
1
907,200
1.37E+10
Phenol-Formaldehyde Resin
0.01
9072
160574400
Services & Labor = (value/unit
product)*production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 sq.
ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/sq.ft.)
Manufacturers
4712.9
698
$0.15
(sq.ft.=3/8" basis)
(sq.ft.
/lb)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
0.8
2,000
$236.97
(hp-hrs
)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
Mechanical Energy
17
2.68E+06
4.56E+07
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
Steam Energy
2500
1.23E+06
3.08E+09
1
2
3
OUTPUTS
Unsanded plywood
Pulp chips
Sawdust, trim
Mechanical Energy (gross out)
(O.D. ton)
0.3
0.48
0.23
(hp-hrs)
146.8
(lbs)
2392
(grams)
2.72E+05
4.35E+05
2.09E+05
(J/hp-hr)
2.68E+06
(J/lb)
1.23E+06
(Joules)
4.10E+09
6.56E+09
3.14E+09
(Joules)
3.94E+08
(Joules)
2.94E+09
Steam Energy (gross out)
154
Table A-6. EMergy Evaluation of US Particleboard Production (1972), Assuming No
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity (E12 sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sei/unit.) TOTAL
% renew
RENEW
Inputs
la
Wood by-product, g
9.07E+05
8.10E+08 735
57%
418
lb
Wood by-product, J
1.37E+10
5.37E+04 735
57%
418
2a
Urea-Form. Resin, g
7.26E+04
4.00E+08 ^ 29
14£ 0%
0
2b
Urea-Form. Resin, J
1.28E+09
3a
Wax, g
6.35E+03
8.00E+08 5
50%
3
3b
Wax, J
(?)
4
Services & Labor, $
6.14E+01
7.00E+12 430
20%
86
5
Electrical Energy, J
8.32E+08
2.00E+05 166
0%
0
6
Steam Energy, J
2.35E+09
8.00E+04‘>tV 188
\ 1$ 0%
0
7
Natural Gas, J
2.88E+09
4.80E+04 138
0%
0
TOTAL w/o services
1261
33%
421
TOTAL w/ services
i,e.z-7 1691
30%
507
Output Products
la
Particleboard, g
8.88E+05
1.28E+09 w/o services
i,59
1.71E+09 w/ services
lb
Particleboard, J
1.34E+10
8.49E+04 w/o services
i, ci- e <
1.14E+05 w/ services
t.+l e s'
(w/o services)
2a
Sawdust, trim, g
9.80E+04
1.29E+10 1261
2b
Sawdust, trim, J
1.48E+09
8.54E+05 1261
Total Products, g
9.86E+05
Total Products, J
1.49E+10
155
Footnotes to Table A-6.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
1
Wood by-product
1
907,200
2
Urea-Formaldehyde Resin
0.08
72576
3
Wax
0.007
6350.4
4
Services & Labor = (value/unit product)*production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 sq. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
Manufacturers
6069.40
582.4
(sq.ft.=3/4" basis)
(sq.ft/lbs)
(lbs/ton)
0.32
2,000
(KWH)
(J/KWH)
5
Electrical Energy
231
3.60E+06
(lbs)
(J/lb)
6
Steam Energy
1908
1.23E+06
(cu.ft.)
(J/cu.ft.)
7
Natural Gas
2681
1.08E+06
OUTPUTS
1 Particleboard
2 Sawdust, trim
Mechanical Energy
(O.D. ton)
0.979
0.108
(hp-hrs)
79.5
(lbs)
(grams)
8.88E+05
9.80E+04
(J/hp-hr)
2.68E+06
(J/lb)
1.23E+06
(Joules)
1.37E+10
1284595200
($/sq.ft.)
$0.10
($/ton)
6.14E+01
(Joules)
8.32E+08
(Joules)
2.35E+09
(Joules)
2.88E+09
(Joules)
1.34E+10
1.48E+09
(Joules)
2.13E+08
(Joules)
1.60E+09
Steam Energy
1296
156
Table A-7. EMergy Evaluation of US Fiberboard Production (1972), Assuming No Recylcing
of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar
Solar
Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E12 sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sei/unit) TOTAL % renew
RENEW
Inputs
la
Wood by-product, g
4.54E+05
8.10E+08
367
57%
209
lb
Wood by-product, J
6.84E+09
5.37E+04
367
57%
209
2a
Roundwood, g
4.54E+05
5.10E+08
232
91%
211
2b
Roundwood, J
6.84E+09
3.39E+04
232
91%
211
3a
Urea-Form. Resin, g
7.26E+04
4.00E+08 . 29 r39
0%
0
3b
Urea-Form. Resin, J
1.28E+09
n t *■'»
4a
Wax, g
9.07E+03
8.00E+08
7 2
50%
15
4b
Wax, J
(?)
5
Services & Labor, $
6.14E+01
7.00E+12
430
20%
86
6
Electrical Energy, J
1.10E+09
2.00E+05
219
0%
0
7
Heat Energy, J
5.80E+09
8.00E+04
464 HZ
0
0
TOTAL w/o services
1318
33%
435
TOTAL w/ services
1748
30%
520
Output Products
la
Fiberboard, g
7.80E+05
1.41E+09 w/o services
i.44£ 1
1.87E+09 w/ services
Z .4 €*?
lb
Fiberboard, J
1.18E+10
9.36E+04 w/o services
i..t £*>
1.24E+05 w/ services
(w/o services)
2a
Sawdust, trim, g
1.54E+05
6.32E+09
97 4
2b
Sawdust, trim, J
2.32E+09
4.19E+05
974
3
Volatiles, g
5.44E+04
6.32E+09
344
Total Products, g
9.34E+05
Total Products, J
1.41E+10
157
Footnotes to Table A-7.
General
All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note:
for Indutrial Materials) Panel
II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Wood by-product
0.5
453,600
6.84E+09
2
Roundwood
0.5
453600
6835570560
3
Urea-Formaldehyde Resin
0.08
72576
1284595200
4
Wax
0.01
9072
5
Services & Labor = (value/unit
product)*production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 sq. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/sq.ft.)
Manufacturers
6069.4
582
$0.10
(sq.ft.=3/4" basis)
(sq.ft/lbs)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
0.32
2.00E+03
6.14E+01
(KWH)
(J/KWH)
(Joules)
6
Electrical Energy
304.5
3.60E+06
1.10E+09
(MM BTU)
(J/MM BTU)
(Joules)
7
Heat Energy
5.493
1.06E+09
5.80E+09
OUTPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Fiberboard
0.86
7.80E+05
1.18E+10
2
Sawdust, trim
0.17
1.54E+05
2.32E+09
3
Volatiles
0.06
5.44E+04
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
Mechanical Energy
108.5
2.68E+06
2.91E+08
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
Steam Energy
1768
1.23E+06
2.18E+09
158
Table A-8. EMergy Evaluation of US Insulation Board Production (1972), Assuming No
Recylcing of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar
Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E12
sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL %
renew RENEW
Inputs
la
Wood by-product, g
4.54E+05
8.10E+08
367
57%
209
lb
Wood by-product, J
6.84E+09
5.37E+04
367
57%
209
2a
Roundwood, g
4.54E+05
5.10E+08
232
91%
211
2b
Roundwood, J
6.84E+09
3.39E+04
232
91%
211
3a
Starch, g
2.72E+04
1.40E+09
38
50%
19
3b
Starch, J
4.93E+08
9.50E+04
47
50%
23
4a
Wax, g
9.07E+03
8.00E+08
7
50%
4
4b
Wax, J
(?)
5a
Asphalt, g
1.36E+05
5.69E+09
774
0%
0
5b
Asphalt, J
5.98E+09
6
Services & Labor, $
1.02E+02
7.00E+12
716
0.2
143
7
Mechanical Energy, J
1.74E+09
2.50E+05
434
0%
0
8
Heat Energy, J
6.09E+09
8.00E+04
487
0%
0
TOTAL w/o services
2340
19%
443
TOTAL w/ services
3056
19%
586
Output Products
la
Insulation Board, g
9.43E+05
2.37E+09
w/o services
3.09E+09
w/ services
lb
Insulation Board, J
1.42E+10
1.57E+05
w/o services
2.05E+05
w/ services
(w/o services)
2a
Sawdust, trim, g
4.54E+04
1.72E+10
780
2b
Sawdust, trim, J
6.84E+08
1.14E+06
780
3
Volatiles, g
9.07E+04
1.72E+10
1560
Total Products, g
9.89E+05
Total Products, J
1.49E+10
159
Footnotes to Table A-8.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Wood by-product
0.5
453,600
6.84E+09
2
Roundwood
0.5
453600
6.84E+09
3
Starch
0.03
27216
4.93E+08
4
Wax
0.01
9072
5
Asphalt
0.15
136080
5.98E+09
6
Services & Labor = (value/unit product)‘production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 sq. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/sq.ft.)
Manufacturers
6069.4
582
9.60E-02
(sq.ft.=3/4" basis)
(sq.ft/lbs)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
0.533333333
2.00E+03
1.02E+02
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
7
Mechanical Energy
647.27
2.68E+06
1.74E+09
(MM BTU)
(J/MM BTU)
(Joules)
8
Heat Energy
5.77
1.06E+09
6.09E+09
OUTPUTS
(O.D.
ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Insulation board
1.04
9.43E+05
1.42E+10
2
Sawdust, trim
0.05
4.54E+04
6.84E+08
3
Volatiles
0.1
9.07E+04
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
Mechanical Energy
31.9
2.68E+06
8.56E+07
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
Steam Energy
520
1.23E+06
6.40E+08
160
Table A-9. EMergy Evaluation of US Hardboard Production (1972), Assuming No Recylcing
of Sawdust for Fuel.
Solar Solar
Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity (E12 sej/ton)
Note
Item, units
(units/ton)
(sei/unit) TOTAL % renew
RENEW
Inputs
la
Wood by-product, g
4.54E+05
8.10E+08 367
57%
209
lb
Wood by-product, J
6.84E+09
5.37E+04 367
57%
209
2a
Roundwood, g
4.54E+05
5.10E+08 232
91%
211
2b
Roundwood, J
6.84E+09
3.39E+04 232
91%
211
3a
3b
Phenol-Form. Resin, g
Phenol-Form. Resin, J
9.07E+03
3.18E+08
1.50E+09. 14
0%
0
4a
4b
Additives, g
Additives, J
9.07E+03
r^
U*
CO -3*
w
o
o
CO
0%
0
5
Services & Labor, $
2.09E+02
7.00E+12 1460
20%
292
6
Mechanical Energy, J
2.96E+09
2.50E+05»6^740
0%
0
7
Heat Energy, J
8.94E+09
8.00E+04 «..715
C
0
0
TOTAL w/o services
1 ^ It* 2074
20%
420
TOTAL w/ services
x #( *» 3534
20%
712
Output Products
la
Fiberboard, g
7.89E+05
2.49E+09 w/o services
1,
<*£ t ñ
4.23E+09 w/ services
>.
, t *
lb
Fiberboard, J
1.19E+10
1.65E+05 w/o services
1.
Z •» «r*
2.81E+05 w/ services
1
(w/o services)
2a
Sawdust, trim, g
4.54E+04
1.52E+10 691
2b
Sawdust, trim, J
6.84E+08
1.01E+06 691
3
Volatiles, g
9.07E+04
1.52E+10 1383
Total Products, g
8.35E+05
Total Products, J
1.26E+10
161
Footnotes to Table A-9.
General All data from CORRIM (Committee on Renewable Resources
Note: for Indutrial Materials) Panel II study, 1976,
unless otherwise stated.
INPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Wood by-product
0.5
453,600
6.84E+09
2
Roundwood
0.5
453600
6.84E+09
3
Phenol-Formaldehyde Resin
0.01
9072
3.18E+08
4
"Additives" (assume wax)
0.01
9072
5
Services & Labor = (value/unit
product)‘production
source: 1972 Census of
(E6 sq. ft.)
(E6 1972 $)
($/sq.ft.)
Manufacturers
4579
249
$0.05
(sq.ft.=1/8†basis)
(sq.ft/lbs)
(lbs/ton)
($/ton)
1.92
2.00E+03
2.09E+02
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
6
Mechanical Energy
1102.21
2.68E+06
2.96E+09
(MM BTU)
(J/MM BTU)
(Joules)
7
Heat Energy
8.47
1.06E+09
8.94E+09
OUTPUTS
(O.D. ton)
(grams)
(Joules)
1
Hardboard
0.87
7.89E+05
1.19E+10
2
Sawdust, trim
0.05
4.54E+04
6.84E+08
3
Volatiles
0.1
9.07E+04
(hp-hrs)
(J/hp-hr)
(Joules)
Mechanical Energy
31.9
2.68E+06
8.56E+07
(lbs)
(J/lb)
(Joules)
Steam Energy
520
1.23E+06
6.40E+08
162
Table A-10. EMergy Evaluation of US Steel Production (1972).
Solar
Solar
Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E18
sej/yr)
Note
Item, units
(units/vr)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL
% renew
RENEW
Inputs
1
Iron Ore, g
1.22E+14
1.00E+09
121,933
0%
0
2
Manganese ore, g
7.21E+11
6.80E+10
49,000
0%
0
3
Purchased Scrap Iron, g
3.78E+13
2.48E+09
93,824
0%
0
4
Limestone, Lime, g
2.70E+13
1.60E+06
43
0%
0
5
Coal, J
2.59E+18
4.00E+04
103,598
0%
0
6a*
Electricity (finishing),
J 7.08E+16
2.00E+05
14,169
0%
0
6b*
Electricity (raw steel),
J 7.08E+16
2.00E+05
14,169
0%
0
7a
Natural Gas (raw steel),
J 1.07E+17
4.80E+04
5,128
0%
0
7b
Natural Gas (finishing),
J 7.08E+17
4.80E+04
33,960
0%
0
8a
Fuel Oil (raw steel), J
9.29E+16
6.60E+04
6,134
0%
0
8b
Fuel Oil (finishing), J
1.01E+17
6.60E+04
6,664
0%
0
9
Labor, Human Services
2.25E+10
7.00E+12
157,290
20%
31458
TOTAL: 1,2,4,5,6a,7a,8a
300,004
0
TOTAL: 1,2,4-8b
w/o services
354,797
0%
0
TOTAL: 1,2,4-9
w/ services
512,087
6%
31458
Outputs
% recvcleable
1
Raw Steel, g
1.21E+14
2.48E+09
300,004
w/o
services
2a
Steel Products, g
8.34E+13
4.26E+09
354,797
w/o
services
58%
2b
Steel Products, g
8.34E+13
6.14E+09
512,087
w/ services
40%
163
Footnotes to Table A-10.
INPUTS
1
Iron Ore
1.34E+08
tons
9.08E+05
g/ton
1.22E+14
g
2
Manganese
Ore
7.94E+05
tons
9.08E+05
g/ton
7.21E+11
g
3
Purchased
Scrap Iron
4.17E+07
tons
9.08E+05
g/ton
3.78E+13
g
4
Limestone,
Lime
2.97E+07
tons
9.08E+05
g/ton
2.70E+13
g
5
Coal
8.14E+07
tons
3.18E+10
J/ton
2.59E+18
J
6
Purchased
Electricity
3.94E+10
kwh
3.60E+06
J/kwh
1.42E+17
J
6a*
Purchased
Electricity
50%
blast & steel furnaces
7.08E+16
6b*
Purchased
Electricity
50%
heating &
annealing
7.08E+16
SOURCE OF DATA
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 55
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 62
Mineral Facts and Problems,
1975, p. 554
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 53
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 53
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 60
assumed percentage of total
assumed percentage of total
164
Footnotes to Table A-10 (continued).
INPUTS
7a Natural Gas
blast & steel furnaces
7b Natural Gas
heating & annealing
8a Fuel Oil
blast & steel furnaces
8b Fuel Oil
heating & annealing
9 Labor, Human Services
1.01E+11 cu ft
1.06E+06 J/cu ft
1.07E+17 J
6.71E+11 cu ft
1.06E+06 J/cu ft
7.08E+17 J
6.29E+08 gal.
1.40E+05 BTU/gal
1.06E+03 J/BTU
9.29E+16 J
6.84E+08 gal.
1.40E+05 BTU/gal
1.06E+03 J/BTU
1.01E+17 J
2.25E+10 1972 $
OUTPUTS
1
Raw Steel
1.33E+08
tons
9.08E+05
g/ton
1.21E+14
<3
2
Steel Products
9.18E+07
tons
9.08E+05
g/ton
8.34E+13
g
SOURCE OF DATA
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 59
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 59
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 59
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 59
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 8
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 42
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1972, p. 8
165
Table A-ll. EMergy Evaluation of US Fabricated Structural Steel Production (1972).
Solar
Solar
Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E18
sej/yr)
Note
Item, units
(units/vr)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL % renew
RENEW
Inputs
1
Mill Steel, g
5.73E+12
3.37E+09
19,288
0%
0
2
Coal, J
3.82E+14
4.00E+04
15
0%
0
3
Purchased Electricity, J
4.21E+15
2.00E+05
842
0%
0
4
Natural Gas, J
6.75E+15
4.80E+04
324
0%
0
5
Fuel Oil, J
1.30E+15
6.60E+04
86
0%
0
6
Labor, Services, $
2.93E+09
7.00E+12
20,475
20%
4095
TOTAL, 1-5
w/o services
20,555
0%
0
TOTAL, 1-6
w/ services
41,030
10%
4095
Outputs
% recvcleable
la
Fabr. Structural Steel, g
5.73E+12
3.59E+09
20,555 w/o
services
69%
lb
Fabr. Structural Steel, g
5.73E+12
7.16E+09
41,030 w/ services
35%
166
Footnotes to Table A-ll.
INPUTS
1 Mill Steel, Scrap, Castings:
reinforcing bars
3.74E+02
E3 tons
bars and shapes
4.24E+02
sheet and strip
8.74E+02
plates
1.20E+03
structural shapes
2.87E+03
wire
1.06E+02
other mill shapes
1.95E+02
alloy bars
3.46E+01
other alloy mill shapes
4.95E+01
scrap iron and steel
1.57E+02
iron castings
2.60E+00
steel castings
1.26E+01
TOTAL
6.31E+06
tons/yr
9.08E+05
g/ton
5.73E+12
g
Coal
1.20E+04
tons/yr
3.18E+10
J/ton
3.82E+14
J
Purchased Electricity
1.17E+09
kwh/yr
3.60E+06
J/kwh
4.21E+15
J
SOURCE OF DATA
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3441
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3441
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3441
167
Footnotes to Table A-ll (continued).
INPUTS
4 Natural Gas
5 Fuel Oil
6 Labor, Human Services
6.40E+09 cu ft/yr
1.06E+06 J/cu ft
6.75E+15 J
8.78E+06 gal./yr
1.40E+05 BTU/gal
1.06E+03 J/BTU
1.30E+15 J
2.93E+09 1972 $
OUTPUTS
1 Fabr. Structural Steel
6.31E+06 tons/yr
9.08E+05 g/ton
5.73E+12 g
SOURCE OF DATA
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3441
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3441
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3441
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3441
Table A-12. EMergy Evaluation of US Steel Production (1991).
Solar Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E18
sej/yr)
Note
Item, units
(units/vr)
(sei/unit)
TOTAL
% renew
RENEW
Inputs
1
Iron Ore, g
6.36E+13
1.00E+09
63,643
0%
0
2
Manganese ore, g
1.17E+11
6.80E+10
7,939
0%
0
3
Purchased Scrap Iron, g
4.46E+13
1.58E+09
70,530
0%
0
4
Limestone, Lime, g
4.32E+12
1.60E+06
7
0%
0
5
Coal, J
9.11E+17
4.00E+04
36,442
0%
0
6a*
Electricity (finishing),
J 6.34E+16
2.00E+05
12,675
0%
0
6b*
Electricity (raw steel),
J 6.34E+16
2.00E+05
12,675
0%
0
7a
Natural Gas (raw steel),
J 8.36E+16
4.80E+04
4,015
0%
0
7b
Natural Gas (finishing),
J 3.04E+17
4.80E+04
14,613
0%
0
8a
Fuel Oil (raw steel), J
2.43E+16
6.60E+04
1,601
0%
0
8b
Fuel Oil (finishing), J
1.18E+16
6.60E+04
777
0%
0
9
Labor, Services, $
2.73E+10
1.60E+12
43,632
20%
8726
TOTAL: 1,2,4,5,6a,7a,8a
126,321
0
TOTAL: l,2,4-8b
w/o services
154,385
0%
0
TOTAL: 1,2,4-9
w/ services
198,017
4%
8726
Outputs
% recvcleable
1
Raw Steel, g
7.98E+13
1.58E+09
126,321
w/o
services
2a
Steel Products, g
7.16E+13
2.16E+09
154,385
w/o
services
73%
2b
Steel Products, g
7.16E+13
2.77E+09
198,017
w/
services
57%
169
Footnotes to Table A-12.
INPUTS
1
Iron Ore
7.01E+07
9.08E+05
6.36E+13
tons
g/ton
g
2
Manganese Ore
1.29E+05
9.08E+05
1.17E+11
tons
g/ton
g
3
Purchased Scrap Iron
4.91E+07
9.08E+05
4.46E+13
tons
g/ton
g
4
Limestone, Lime
4.76E+06
9.08E+05
4.32E+12
tons
g/ton
g
5
Coal
2.86E+07
3.18E+10
9.11E+17
tons
J/ton
J
6
Purchased Electricity-
3.52E+10
3.60E+06
1.27E+17
kwh
J/kwh
J
6a*
Purchased Electricity
50%
blast & steel furnaces
6.34E+16
J
6b*
Purchased Electricity
50%
heating & annealing
6.34E+16
J
SOURCE OF DATA
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1991, p. 80
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1991, p. 77
Minerals Yearbook,
1991, p. 838
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1991, p. 78
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1991, p. 78
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1991, p. 83
assumed percentage of total
assumed percentage of total
170
Footnotes to Table A-12 (continued).
INPUTS
7a Natural Gas
blast & steel furnaces
7b Natural Gas
heating & annealing
8a Fuel Oil
blast & steel furnaces
8b Fuel Oil
heating & annealing
9 Labor, Human Services
7.93E+10 cu ft
1.06E+06 J/cu ft
8.36E+16 J
2.89E+11 cu ft
1.06E+06 J/cu ft
3.04E+17 J
1.64E+08 gal.
1.40E+05 BTU/gal
1.06E+03 J/BTU
2.43E+16 J
7.97E+07 gal.
1.40E+05 BTU/gal
1.06E+03 J/BTU
1.18E+16 J
2.73E+10 1991 $
OUTPUTS
1 Raw Steel 8.79E+07 tons
9.08E+05 g/ton
7.98E+13 g
2 Steel Products 7.88E+07 tons
9.08E+05 g/ton
7.16E+13 g
SOURCE OF DATA
AISI Annual Statisical Report,
1991, p. 85
AISI Annual
1991, p. 85
Statisical Report,
AISI Annual
1991, p. 84
Statisical Report,
AISI Annual
1991, p. 84
Statisical Report,
AISI Annual
1991, p. 5
Statisical Report,
AISI Annual
1991, p. 73
Statisical Report,
AISI Annual
1991, p. 4
Statisical Report,
171
Table A-13. EMergy Evaluation of US Cement Production (1972).
Solar Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
& «0
(E10 sej/yr)
Note
Item, units
(units/vr)
(sen/unit) TOTAL
% renew
RENEW
Inputs
1
Limestone, g
1.07E+06
1.60E+06 171
101,00 0
0%
0
2
Clay, g
3.45E+05
1.70E+09
58,657
0%
0
3
Coal, J
2.71E+09
4.00E+04
10,838
0%
0
4
Purchased Electricity, J
3.80E+08
2.00E+05
7,597
0%
0
5
Natural Gas, J
2.64E+09
4.80E+04
12,657
0%
0
6
Fuel Oil, J
5.23E+08
6.60E+04
3,454
0%
0
7
Labor, Services, $
2.17E+01
7.OOE+12
15,219
20%
3044
TOTAL, 1-6
w/o services
93,374
0%
0
TOTAL, 1-7
w/ services
108,593
3%
3044
Outputs
Z, >1
la
Cement, w/o services, g
9.08E+05
1.03E+09
93,374
2.1 o £
IZ 10
lb
Cement, w/ services, g
9.08E+05
1.20E+09
108,593
2J2-V76
A
2 fc*1
172
Footnotes to Table A-13.
SOURCE OF DATA
General Data needed for conversion from gross yearly consumption (1972)
Note: quantities to per-ton consumption basis follows:
Total cement production
INPUTS
1 Limestone
2 Clay
3 Coal
4 Purchased Electricity
5 Natural Gas
6 Fuel Oil
7 Labor, Human Services
8.07E+07 tons
9.08E+05 g/ton
7.33E+13 g
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3241
1.18E+00
9.08E+05
1.07E+06
3.80E-01
9.08E+05
3.45E+05
6.88E+06
8.52E-02
3.18E+10
2.71E+09
8.51E+09
1.06E+02
3.60E+06
3.80E+08
2.02E+11
2.50E+03
1.06E+06
2.64E+09
tons/ton cement
g/ton
g
tons/ton cement
g/ton
g
tons
tons/ton cement
J/ton
J
kwh
kwh/ton cement
J/kwh
J
cu ft
cu ft/ton cement
J/cu ft
J
see note below
see note below
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3241
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3241
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3241
2.86E+08 gal.
3.54E+00 gal/ton cement
1.40E+05 BTU/gal
1.06E+03 J/BTU
5.23E+08 J
1.75E+09 1972 $
2.17E+01 $/ton cement
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3241
1972 Census of Manufactures
SIC 3241
173
Footnotes to Table A-13 (continued).
OUTPUTS
1 Cement
1.00E+00 tons
9.08E+05 g/ton
9.08E+05 g
Calculations to determine input requirements of limestone and clay on a
per ton basis, given their chemical composition and that required
for Portland cement. Source: Hornbostel, Caleb: "Construction Materials:
Types, Uses and Applications", 2nd Ed. p.192.
Typical Chemical Composition of Portland Cement:
Silica (Si02)
Alumina (A1203)
Lime (CaO)
Magnesia (MgO)
Ferric oxide (Fe203)
(percent)
19-25
3-8
60-66
0-5
1-5
Composition
(percent)
Limestone
(percent)
Limestone
(tons)
Clay Clay
(percent) (tons)
24% Silica (Si02)
7% Alumina (A1203)
65% Lime (CaO)
1% Magnesia (MgO)
3% Ferric oxide (Fe203)
54.8%
0.3%
0.1%
0.3%
1.2%
1.1800
0.0137
0.0039
0.6469
0.0033
0.0009
59%
18%
1%
2%
8%
0.380
0.223
0.070
0.002
0.007
0.029
100%
174
Table A-14. EMergy Evaluation of US "Ready-Mix" Concrete Production (1972).
Solar Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
fet'd
(E10
sej/yr)
Note
Item, units
(units/vr)
(sen/unit) TOTAL
% renew
RENEW
1
Inputs
Cement, g
3.40E+13
x, >t E *)
1.03E+09
34,975
0%
0
2
Sand, Gravel, Stone, g
2.14E+14
5.00E+08 '61
107,175
0%
0
3
Coal, J
5.78E+16
4.00E+04
2,312
0%
0
4
Purchased Electricity, J
2.23E+15
2.00E+05
446
0%
0
5
Natural Gas, J
4.01E+16
4.80E+04
1,924
0%
0
6
Fuel Oil, J
4.27E+15
6.60E+04
282
0%
0
7
Labor, Services, $
3.58E+09
7.00E+12
25,052
20%
5010
TOTAL, 1-6
w/o services
147,115
0%
0
TOTAL, 1-7
w/ services
172,167
3%
5010
la
Outputs
Ready-Mixed Concrete, g
2.48E+14
Cfc.r'l c
5.92E+08
147,115
w/o
services
lb
Ready-Mixed Concrete, g
2.48E+14
6.93E+08
172,167
w/
services
175
Footnotes to Table A-14.
INPUTS.
SOURCE OF DATA
1
Cement
3.75E+07
tons/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
9.08E+05
g/ton
SIC 3273
3.40E+13
g
2
Sand,Gravel,Crushed Stone
2.36E+08
tons/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
9.08E+05
g/ton
SIC 3273
2.14E+14
g
3
Coal
1.82E+06
tons/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
3.18E+10
J/ton
SIC 3273
5.78E+16
J
4
Purchased Electricity
6.20E+08
kwh/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
3.60E+06
J/kwh
SIC 3273
2.23E+15
J
5
Natural Gas
3.80E+10
cu ft/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
1.06E+06
J/cu ft
SIC 3273
4.01E+16
J
6
Fuel Oil
2.89E+07
gal./yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
1.40E+05
BTU/gal
SIC 3273
1.06E+03
J/BTU
4.27E+15
J
7
Labor, Human Services
3.58E+09
1972 $
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
SIC 3273
OUTPUTS
1
Ready-Mixed Concrete
2.09E+08
cu.yd/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
density of concrete [a] =
3.89E+03
lbs/cu yd
SIC 3273
4.54E+02
g/ib
3.68E+14
g
Note: The mass output cannot be greater than the input!!
Therefore, mass output is assumed to be the sum of the mass inputs...
Cement 3.40E+13 g
Sand.Gravel.Crushed Stone 2.14E+14 g
Ready-Mixed Concrete 2.48E+14 g
[a] Baumeister, Marks, STANDARD HANDBOOK FOR MECHANICAL ENGINEERS,
7th ed. , p. 6-7. (144 lbs/cu ft * 27 cu ft/cu yd)
176
Table A-15. EMergy Evaluation of US Concrete Block Production (1972).
Solar
Solar
Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
(E10
sej/yr)
Note
Item, units
(units/vr)
(sen/unit) TOTAL % renew
RENEW
Inputs
1
Cement, g
3.21E+12
1.03E+09
3,302
0%
0
2
Sand,Gravel,Crushed Stone,
2.81E+13
5.00E+08 ^'
14,074
0%
0
3
Steel (reinforcing), g
1.27E+10
3.59E+09
46
0%
0
4
Coal, J
3.15E+14
4.00E+04
13
0%
0
5
Purchased Electricity, J
1.12E+15
2.00E+05
224
0%
0
6
Natural Gas, J
6.22E+15
4.80E+04
299
0%
0
7
Fuel Oil, J
4.04E+15
6.60E+04
267
0%
0
8
Labor, Services, $
7.96E+08
7.00E+12
5,570
20%
1114
TOTAL, 1-7
w/o services
18,224
0%
0
TOTAL, 1-8
w/ services
23,794
5%
1114
Outputs
la
Concrete Block, w/o servic
3.14E+13
5.81E+08
18,224
lb
Concrete Block, w/ service
3.14E+13
7.58E+08
23,794
177
Footnotes to Table A-15.
INPUTS
Cement
Sand,Gravel,Crushed Stone
Steel (reinforcing)
Coal
Purchased Electricity-
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Labor, Human Services
3.54E+06
9.08E+05
3.21E+12
3.10E+07
9.08E+05
2.81E+13
1.40E+04
9.08E+05
1.27E+10
9.90E+03
3.18E+10
3.15E+14
3.11E+08
3.60E+06
1.12E+15
5.90E+09
1.06E+06
6.22E+15
2.73E+07
1.40E+05
1.06E+03
4.04E+15
7.96E+08
tons/yr
g/ton
g
tons/yr
g/ton
g
tons/yr
g/ton
g
tons/yr
J/ton
J
kwh/yr
J/kwh
J
cu ft/yr
J/cu ft
J
gal./yr
BTU/gal
J/BTU
J
1972 $
SOURCE OF DATA
1972 Census of
Manufactures, SIC 3271
1972 Census of
Manufactures, SIC 3271
1972 Census of
Manufactures, SIC 3271
1972 Census of
Manufactures, SIC 3271
1972 Census of
Manufactures, SIC 3271
1972 Census of
Manufactures, SIC 3271
1972 Census of
Manufactures, SIC 3271
1972 Census of
Manufactures, SIC 3271
178
Footnotes to Table A-15 (continued).
OUTPUTS
Actual census data given:
E6 blocks
lightweight blocks 1.81E+03
heavyweight blocks 9,33.E+Q2
TOTAL 2.65E+03
Est. equiv. total blocks (based on total $, given lightweight/heavyweight block ratio)
E6 blocks g/block [a] grams
1 lightweight blocks 2.51E+03 1.35E+04 3.39E+13
2 heavyweight blocks 1.15E+03 1.90E+04 2.19Etl3
TOTAL 3.67E+03 5.58E+13
[a] Waddell, Joseph, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS READY-REFERENCE MANUAL,
New York: McGraw Hill, 1985, p. 119.
1972
Census
E6 $ ave.
$/block (calculated)
3.54E+02
0.20
2.20E+02
0.26
5.75E+02
0.22
Note: The mass output cannot be greater than the input!!
Therefore, mass output is assumed to be the sum of the mass inputs...
Cement 3.21E+12 g
Sand,Gravel,Crushed Stone 2.81E+13 g
Steel (reinforcing) 1.27E+10 g
3.14E+13 g
179
Table A-16. EMergy Evaluation of US Flat Glass Production (1972).
Solar
Solar Emergy
Raw Data
Transformity
t ' 'i
(E10 sej/yr)
Note
Item, units
(units/vr)
(sei/unit) TOTAL
% renew
RENEW
Inputs
1 -
Soda ash (Na2C03), g
4.91E+11
* i>
0
1 H
0%
0
2 ,
Glass Sand, g
1.77E+12
5.00E+08 IB 1
886
1/7»*
0%
0
3 .
Soduim sulfate, g
5.97E+10
0
It
0%
0
4
Plate Glass, g
8.61E+10
5.00E+08 \en
43
0%
0
5
Glass Scrap, g
7.49E+11
5.00E+08 IC ‘I
375
0%
0
6 ^
Coal, J
4.60E+15
4.00E+04
184
0%
0
7 ..
Purchased Electricity, J
3.37E+15
2.00E+05
673
0%
0
8
Natural Gas, J
5.32E+16
4.80E+04
2,552
0%
0
9 "
Fuel Oil, J
3.70E+14
6.60E+04
. 24
a ?H7
0%
0
10
Labor, Services, $
1.25E+09
7.00E+12
8,730
b^ £ “ t?
20%
1746
TOTAL, 1-9
w/o services
4,738
0%
0
TOTAL, 1-10
w/ services
13,467
13%
1746
Outputs
/, B <\
% recvcleable
la
Flat Glass, w/o services,
3.16E+12
1.50E+09
4,738
*
33%
lb
Flat Glass, w/ services,
g 3.16E+12
4.26E+09
13,467
I*/**
12%
5 t<3
180
Footnotes to Table A-16.
INPUTS
SOURCE OF DATA
1
Soda ash (Na2C03)
5.41E+05
tons/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
9.08E+05
g/ton
SIC 3211
4.91E+11
g
2
Glass Sand
1.95E+06
tons/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
9.08E+05
g/ton
SIC 3211
1.77E+12
g
3
Soduim sulfate
6.58E+04
tons/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
9.08E+05
g/ton
SIC 3211
5.97E+10
g
4
Plate Glass
1.82E+08
sq.ft./yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
1.04E-02
cu.ft./sq,
,SIC 3211
1.00E+02
lbs/cu ft
4.54E+02
g/lb
8.61E+10
g
5
Glass Scrap
8.25E+05
tons/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
9.08E+05
g/ton
SIC 3211
7.49E+11
g
6
Coal
1.45E+05
tons/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
3.18E+10
J/ton
SIC 3211
4.60E+15
J
7
Purchased Electricity
9.35E+08
kwh/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
3.60E+06
J/kwh
SIC 3211
3.37E+15
J
8
Natural Gas
5.04E+10
cu ft/yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
1.06E+06
J/cu ft
SIC 3211
5.32E+16
J
9
Fuel Oil
2.51E+06
gal./yr
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
1.40E+05
BTU/gal
SIC 3211
1.06E+03
J/BTU
3.70E+14
J
10
Labor, Human Services
1.25E+09
1972 $
1972 Census
of
Manufactures
SIC 3211
181
Footnotes to Table A-16 (continued).
OUTPUTS
1 Flat Glass (E6 boxes*) (E6 $, 1972)1972 Census of Manufactures
sheet (window) glass
2.39E+01
157 SIC 3211
tempered glass
2.08E+02
163
plate and float glass
1.19E+03
393
laminated plate glass
3.07E+02
515
laminated sheet glass
1.52E+01
19
TOTAL
1.75E+03
1248
1.75E+09
boxes*
5.21E-01
cu ft/box**
density of glass [a] =
1.00E+02
lbs/cu
ft
4.54E+02
g/lb
4.13E+13
g
* 50 sq ft ea. single strength equiv.
**assuming single strength equivalent to 1/8" thick
[a] Baumeister, Marks, STANDARD HANDBOOK FOR MECHANICAL ENGINEERS,
7th ed., p. 6-7.
Note: The mass output cannot be greater than the input!!
Therefore, mass output is assumed to be the sum of the mass inputs.
Soda ash (Na2C03) 4.91E+11 g
Glass Sand 1.77E+12 g
Soduim sulfate 5.97E+10 g
Plate Glass 8.61E+10 g
Glass Scrap 7.49E+11 g
TOTAL 3.16E+12 g
182
APPENDIX B
MASS PER GIVEN UNIT FOR VARIOUS BUILDING MATERIALS
184
Table B-l. Mass Per Specified
SOFTWOOD LUMBER width
Description (ft.),.
4"x4" - L.F. 0.292
2"x4" - L.F. 0.292
2"x6" - L.F. 0.458
2"x8" - L.F. 0.625
2"xlO" - L.F. 0.792
1"x3" - L.F. 0.208
1"x4" -L.F. 0.292
1"x6" - L.F. 0.458
Trim, cedar 0.292
Frame, pine, 5-13/16" deep 0.484
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb 0.385
Interior casing, 2-1/2" wide 0.208
Trim, casing 0.208
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4" 0.333
l/2"x8" beveled cedar siding 1.000
width
(ft)
Bridging, l"x3" - 18"x2 - Pr. 0.208
HARDWOOD LUMBER width
Description (ft)
Handrails, oak 0.125
stair treads, 12"xl.5"x3' 0.125
Balusters, Birch, 30" high 0.125
birch door, solid core 3.000
Oak sill, 8/4x8" deep 0.625
For Softwood and Hardwood Lumber Products
depth length volume density CONVERSION
(ft)
(ft)
(cu.ft)
(lb/cu.ft)
(lb/LF)
(cr/LF)
0.292
1
0.0851
35
2.977
1351.8
0.125
1
0.0365
35
1.276
579.3
0.125
1
0.0573
35
2.005
910.4
0.125
1
0.0781
35
2.734
1241.4
0.125
1
0.0990
35
3.464
1572.4
0.063
1
0.0130
35
0.456
206.9
0.063
1
0.0182
35
0.638
289.7
0.063
1
0.0286
35
1.003
455.2
0.063
1
0.0182
25
0.456
206.9
0.063
1
0.0303
37
1.120
508.5
0.063
1
0.0241
37
0.891
404.6
0.063
1
0.0130
37
0.482
218.7
0.042
1
0.0087
37
0.321
145.8
0.146
1
0.0486
37
1.799
816.6
0.042
1
0.0417
25
1.042
472.9
depth
length
volume
density
CONVERSION
(ft)
(ft)
(cu. ft)
(lb/cu.ft)
(lb/Pr)
(q/Pr)
0.063
3
0.0391
35
1.367
620.7
depth
length
volume
density
CONVERSION
(ft)
(ft)
(cu.ft)
(lb/cu.ft)
(lb/LF)
(q/LF)
0.125
1
0.0156
44
0.688
312.1
(lb/Ea)
(g/Ea)
0.958
3
0.3594
44
15.813
7178.9
0.125
2.5
0.0391
44
1.719
780.3
0.146
6.67
2.9167
44
128.333
58263.3
0.167
1
0.1042
37
3.854
1749.8
Table B-2. Mass Per Specified Unit For Plywood and Particleboard Products
SOFTWOOD PLYWOOD
width
depth
length
volume
density
CONVERSION
Description
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(cu.ft)
(lb/cu.ft)
(lb/SF)
(q/SF)
1/2" plywood - S.F.
1.000
0.042
1
0.0417
34
1.417
643.2
5/8" plywood - S.F.
1.000
0.052
1
0.0521
34
1.771
804.0
HARDWOOD PLYWOOD
width
depth
length
volume
density
CONVERSION
Description
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(cu.ft)
(lb/cu.ft)
(lb/EA)
(a/EA)
Door, birch, hollow
core,
4' x6
4.000
0.250
6.67
6.667
44
293.3
133180
Door, birch, hollow
core,
2 ' -E
2.667
0.250
6.67
4.445
44
195.6
88798
PARTICLEBOARD
width
depth
length
volume
density
CONVERSION
Description
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(cu.ft)
(lb/cu.ft)
(lb/SF)
(a/SF)
3/8" particle board
(med.
dens
1.000
0.031
1
0.0313
50
1.563
709.4
Table B-3. Mass Per Specified Unit For Concrete and Glass Products
CONCRETE
density
CONVERSION
Description
(lb/cu.ft)
(lb/SF) (a/SF)
concrete, poured in place
144
3888 1.77E+6
width
length
blocks/
unit wt
CONVERSION
Description
(ft,)
(ft)
£F
(g/blopk)
(q/SF)
concrete block, 8"x8"xl6"
0.66667
1.33333
0.88889
16000
14222
PLATE GLASS
width
thick
length
volume
density
CONVERSION
Description
(ft)
(ft).
(ft)
(cu.ft)
(lb/cu.ft)
,(lb/SF).
(q/SF)
plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
1.000
0.021
1
0.0208
100
2.083
945.8
185
Table B-4. Mass Per Specified Unit For Steel Products
LIGHT GAUGE STEEL
width
thick
length
volume
density
CONVERSION
Description
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft3)
(lb/ft3)
(lb/LF)
(a/LF)
"C" Joist, 8" deep, 12 Ga.
1.000
0.010
1
0.0104
489
5.094
2312.6
STRUCTURAL STEEL
depth
width
thick
length
CONVERSION
Description
(in)
(in)
(in)
(ft)
(lb/LF)
(a/LF)
W6xl5
6.000
6.00
0.250
1
15.0
6810.0
W8xl0
7.875
4.00
0.188
1
10.0
4540.0
W6x9
5.875
4.00
0.188
1
9.0
4086.0
M4xl3
4.000
4.00
0.375
1
13.0
5902.0
M6x4.4
6.000
1.88
0.188
1
4.4
1997.6
OTHER STEEL PRODUCTS
radius
length
volume
density
CONVERSION
Description
(ft)
(ft)
(ft3)
(lb/ft3)
(lb/ea)
(a/ea)
Dowels, 1/2" dia bars, 2' long - EA
0.021
2.000
0.0027
489
1.334
605.4
Anchor bolts, 1/2" dia, 12" long
0.021
1.000
0.0014
489
0.667
302.7
(a/lb)
Reinforcing, 1/2" dia bars, 2 ea.
454.0
(lb/SF)
(a/SF)
Steel, galvanized, 22ga., 1.45 psf
1.450
658.3
186
APPENDIX C
DETAIL MATERIAL AND COST ESTIMATES
FOR DESIGN PROPOSAL ONE
Table C-l. Takeoffs for Proposal One
FOUNDATIONS
Footing Systems
N & S main
E & W main/wing
N & S wing
stair landing
total
Concrete Wall Systems
stair landing extra
total
FRAMING
Floor Framing (Wood)
main
wing
entry
stair landing
cat walk
total
Ext. Wall Framing (Wood)
corners
bottom wings
upper wings...
above door openings
N wall, W bdrm
N wall, E bdrm
total
Headers, 2"x6"-4.5’
Headers, 2"x6"-6'
Hip Roof Framing System
main
stair landing
cupolas
total
Shed/Flat Roof Framing System
total
Partition Framing System
upper level
total
Headers, 2"x6"-3'
Headers, 2"x6"-6'
qty
width
lencrth
heiaht
U.F.
4
13
52
4
14
56
4
4.5
18
4
7.5
30
156
qty
width
lenath
heiaht
S.F.
156
4
624
30
4
120
744
qty
width
lenath
heiaht
S.F.
4
14
14
784
4
5
10
200
1
10
13
130
1
8
8
64
1
3
10
30
1208
16
4.5
8
576
2
19
8
304
4
5
6.25
125
2
3
8
48
4
3
7.125
85.5
8
9
1
72
1
9
3
27
1
9
8
72
1309.5
qty
width
lenath
heiaht
L.F.
12
9
108
l
12
12
qty
width
lenath
heiaht
S.F.
2
14
14
392
1
8
8
64
2
5
5
50
506
2
5
10
100
1
10
13
130
230
8
3
8
192
192
qty
width
lenath
heiaht
L.F.
4
6
24
2
12
24
188
189
Table C-l. Takeoffs for Proposal One (continued)
EXTERIOR WALLS
Wood Siding Systems
gty
width
lencrth
%
S.F.
total
1310
Insulation Systems
walls
1048
ceilings
8
5.6
9
80%
323
2
5
10
80%
M
403
floors
2
14
14
80%
314
2
5
10
80%
80
394
WWW Window Systems
2
WDW Window & Door Systems
2
DWD Door & Window Systems
5
ROOFING
gty
width
lencrth
heiaht
S.F.
Hip Roof - Roofing Systems
506
Shed Roofing Systems
230
103 464 Cupolas
0300 23" sq., Al
1
INTERIORS
Drywall & Thincoat Wall Sys.
qty
width
lencrth
heiaht
3 r F.j-
inside of ext. walls
1309.5
interior walls
384.0
total
1693.5
Drywall & Thincoat Ceiling Sys
total
503.2
Interior Door Systems
4
WDW Window & Door Systems
2
t
Closet Door Systems
41 wide ea.
4
Carpet Systems
main
3
13.5
13.5
546.8
cat walk
1
3
10
30.0
total
576.8
Flooring Systems
wings
4
4.5
9.5
171.0
main
1
13.5
13.5
182.3
entry
1
10
13
130.0
total
483.3
Stairways
7 risers, oak treads
2
SPECIALTIES
qty
width
lencrth
heiaht
L.F.
Kitchen Systems
17
S.F.
Wood Deck Systems
2
6
10
120
Table C-2. Site Work Dollar Costs For Proposal One
SITE WORK
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
0.00
922.59
COST
922.59
Footing Excavation Systems
BUILDING, 26'X46\ 4' DEEP
QTY,
LME
HOURS
MAT. 1NSL
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
Clear and strip, dozer, light trees, 30
0.2
Acre
10.08
467.25
467.3
0.2
Acre
10.08
467.25
467.25
Excavate, backhoe
201
C.Y.
2.68
269.34
269.3
201.0
C.Y.
2.68
269.34
269.34
Backfill, dozer, 4†lifts, no compaction
100
C.Y.
0.667
93.00
93.0
100.0
C.Y.
0.67
93
93
Rough grade, dozer, 30' from building
TOTAL
100
C.Y.
0.667
14.09
93.00
922.59
93.0
922.6
100.0
C.Y.
0.67
14.09
93
922.59
93
922.59
Table C-3. Foundation Dollar Costs For Proposal One
FOUNDATIONS 2706.24 3586.44 6292.68
MAN- COST EACH MAN- COST
Footing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
8" THICK BY 18" WIDE FOOTING
156.0
L.F.
Concrete, 3000 psi
0
C.Y.
2.20
2.20
6.2
C.Y.
343.20
343.20
Place concrete, direct chute
0
C.Y.
0.016
0.37
0.37
6.2
C.Y.
2.5
57.72
57.72
Forms, footing, 4 uses
1.3
Sfca
0.103
0.74
2.56
3.30
207.5
Sfca
16.1
115.44
399.36
514.80
Reinforcing, 1/2" dia bars, 2 ea.
1.4
Lb.
0.011
0.36
0.35
0.71
215.3
Lb.
1.7
56.16
54.60
110.76
Keyway, 2"x4", beveled, 4 uses
1
L.F.
0.015
0.18
0.42
0.60
156.0
L.F.
2.3
28.08
65.52
93.60
Dowels, 1/2" dia bars, 2’ long, 6' O.C.
0.2
Ea.
0.021
0.18
0.69
0.87
25.9
Ea.
3.3
28.08
107.64
135.72
TOTAL
0.166
3.66
4.39
8.05
25.9
570.96
684.84
1255.80
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Concrete Wall Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTL
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
8" THICK, POURED CONCRETE WALL (4' high)
744.0
S.F.
Concrete, 8" THICK, 3000 psi
0
C.Y.
1.38
1.38
18.6
C.Y.
1026.72
1026.72
Forms, prefab, plywood, 4 uses per mo
2
Sfca
0.099
0.66
2.52
3.18
1488.0
Sfca
73.7
491.04
1874.88
2365.92
Reinforcing, light
0.7
Lb.
0.004
0.19
0.11
0.30
498.5
Lb.
3.0
141.36
81.84
223.20
Place concrete, direct chute
0
C.Y.
0.013
0.31
0.31
18.6
C.Y.
9.7
230.64
230.64
Dampproofing, brushed on, 2 coats
1
S.F.
0.016
0.10
0.42
0.52
744.0
S.F.
11.9
74.40
312.48
386.88
Rigid insulation, 1“ polystyrene
1
S.F.
0.010
0.34
0.28
0.62
744.0
S.F.
7.4
252.96
208.32
461.28
Anchor bolts, 1/2" Dia x 12" , 4' O.C.
0.1
EA.
0.003
0.04
0.07
0.1 1
44.6
EA.
2.2
29.76
52.08
81.84
Sill Plates, 2"x4", treated
0.3
L.F.
0.007
0.16
0.19
0.35
186.0
L.F.
5.2
1 19.04
141.36
260.40
TOTAL
0.152
2.87
3.90
6.77
1 13.1
2135.28
2901.60
5036.88
191
Table C-4. Framing Dollar Costs For Proposal One
FRAMING 7030.51 5946.16 12976.67
MAN- COST PER S.F. MAN- COST
Floor Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST. TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
2"x10", 16" O.C.
1208
S.F.
Wood joists, 2"x10â€, 16" O.C.
1
L.F.
0.018
1.38
0.45
1.8
1208.0
L.F.
21.74
1667.04
543.60
2210.64
Bridging, 1"x3", 6' O.C.
0.1
Pr.
0.005
0.03
0.15
0.2
96.6
Pr.
6.04
36.24
181.20
217.44
Box Sills, 2"x10"
0.2
L.F.
0.003
0.21
0.06
0.3
181.2
L.F.
3.62
253.68
72.48
326.16
Girder, incl. lally columns, 3-2"x10"
0.1
L.F.
0.016
0.55
0.42
1.0
151.0
L.F.
19.33
664.40
507.36
1171.76
Sheathing, plywood subfloor, 5/8" CDX
1
S.F.
0.012
0.47
0.31
0.8
1208.0
S.F.
14.50
567.76
374.48
942.24
Furring, 1"x3", 16" O.C.
1
L.F.
0.023
0.27
0.63
0.9
1208.0
L.F.
27.78
326.16
761.04
1087.20
TOTAL
0.077
2.91
2.02
4.9
93.02
3515.28
2440.16
5955.44
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Exterior Wall Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST. TOTAL
QTY,
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
2"x4“, 16" O.C.
1309.5
S.F.
2"x4" studs, 16" O.C.
1
L.F.
0.015
0.4
0.39
0.8
1309.5
L.F.
19.64
523.80
510.71
1034.51
Plates, 2"x4", double top, single bottor
0.4
L.F.
0.006
0.15
0.15
0.3
491.1
L.F.
7.86
196.43
196.43
392.85
Corner bracing, let-in, 1"x6"
0.1
L.F.
0.003
0.02
0.09
0.1
82.5
L.F.
3.93
26.19
117.86
144.05
Sheathing, 1/2" plywood, CDX
1
S.F.
0.011
0.41
0.29
0.7
1309.5
S.F.
14.40
536.90
379.76
916.65
Headers, 2x6", 6' (doors), QTY 1
12
L.F.
0.185
3.66
4.74
8.4
12.0
L.F.
0.19
3.66
4.74
8.40
Headers, 2x6", 4.5'(windows), QTY 12
9
L.F.
0.246
4.88
6.3
11.2
108.0
L.F.
2.95
58.56
75.60
134.16
TOTAL
48.97
1345.53
1285.08
2630.61
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Hip Roof Framing Systems
ore
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST. TOTAL
QIY
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST,
TOTAL
2"x6" RAFTERS, 16" O.C., 4/12 PITCH
506.0
S.F.
Hip rafters, 2"x6", 16" O.C.
0.2
L.F.
0.00
0.1 1
0.08
0.2
81.0
L.F.
1.52
55.66
40.48
96.14
Jack rafters, 2"x6", 16" O.C.
1.4
L.F.
0.04
0.96
0.97
1.9
723.6
L.F.
19.23
485.76
490.82
976.58
Ceiling Joists, 2"x4", 16" O.C.
1
L.F.
0.01
0.39
0.33
0.72
506.0
L.F.
6.58
197.34
166.98
364.32
Fascia board, 2"x8"
0.2
L.F.
0.01
0.16
0.31
0.47
111.3
L.F.
6.07
80.96
156.86
237.82
Soffit nailer, 2"x4", 24" O.C.
0.2
L.F.
0.01
0.10
0.15
0.25
11 1.3
L.F.
3.04
50.60
75.90
126.50
Sheathing, ext., plywood, 1/2†CDX
1.6
S.F.
0.02
0.64
0.46
1.1
794.4
S.F.
9.11
323.84
232.76
556.60
Furring strips, 1â€x3", 16" O.C.
1
L.F.
0.02
0.27
0.63
0.9
506.0
L.F.
11.64
136.62
318.78
455.40
TOTAL
0.11
2.63
2.93
5.6
57.18
1330.78
1482.58
2813.36
192
Table C-4. Framing Dollar Costs For Proposal One (continued)
MAN- COST PER S.F. MAN- COST
Shed/Flat Roof Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
2"x6†RAFTERS, 16" O.C., 4/12 PITCH
230
S.F.
Rafters, 2"x6", 16" O.C., 4/12 pitch
1.2
L.F.
0.019
0.78
0.48
1.3
592.0
L.F.
9.61
394.68
242.88
637.56
Fascia board, 2"x8"
0.1
L.F.
0.006
0.07
0.15
0.2
50.6
L.F.
3.04
35.42
75.90
111.32
Bridging, rx3\ 6' O.C.
0.1
Pr.
0.005
0.03
0.15
0.2
40.5
Pr.
2.53
15.18
75.90
91.08
Sheathing, exterior, plywood, 1/2†CD
1.2
S.F.
0.014
0.50
0.35
0.9
622.4
S.F.
7.08
253.00
177.10
430.10
TOTAL
0.044
1.38
1.13
2.5
22.26
698.28
571.78
1270.06
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Partition Framing System
S£L
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
1NSL
TOTAL
2"x4", 16" O.C.
192.0
S.F.
2"x4" studs, #2 or better, 16" O.C.
1
L.F.
0.015
0.4
0.39
0.8
192.0
L.F.
2.88
76.80
74.88
151.68
Plates, double top, single bottom
0.4
L.F.
0.006
0.15
0.15
0.3
72.0
L.F.
1.15
28.80
28.80
57.60
Cross bracing, let-in, 1"x6"
0.1
L.F.
0.004
0.03
0.13
0.2
15.4
L.F.
0.77
5.76
24.96
30.72
4.0
Ea.
Headers, 2"x6", 3' long
6
L.F.
0.185
3.66
4.74
8.4
24.0
L.F.
0.74
14.64
18.96
33.60
2.0
Ea.
Headers, 2"x6", 6' long
1 2
L.F.
0.185
3.66
4.74
8.4
24.0
L.F.
0.74
14.64
18.96
33.60
TOTAL
6.28
140.64
166.56
307.20
193
Table C-5. Exterior Wall Dollar Costs For Proposal One
EXTERIOR WALLS
9908.26
4208.17
14116.43
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Wood Siding Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
ore
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
1/2"x8“ BEVELED CEDAR SIDING, "A" GRADE
1309.5
S.F.
1/2"x8" beveled cedar siding
1.0
S.F.
0.029
1.94
0.80
2.74
1309.5
S.F.
38.0
2540.43
1047.60
3588.03
#15 asphalt felt paper
1.1
S.F.
0.002
0.03
0.07
0.10
1440.5
S.F.
2.6
39.29
91.67
130.95
Trim, cedar
0.13
L.F.
0.005
0.09
0.14
0.23
163.7
L.F.
6.5
1 17.86
183.33
301.19
Paint, primer & 2 coats
1.0
S.F.
0.017
0.19
0.44
0.63
1309.5
S.F.
22.3
248.81
576.18
824.99
TOTAL
0.053
2.25
1.45
3.70
69.4
2946.38
1898.78
4845.15
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Insulation Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
NON-RIGID INSULATION BATTS
For walls...
1047.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, foil faced, 3.5" thick, R11
1.0
S.F.
0.005
0.24
0.14
0.38
1047.6
S.F.
5.2
251.42
146.66
398.09
For ceiling..
402.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, foil faced, 9" thick, R30
1.0
S.F.
0.006
0.56
0.16
0.72
402.6
S.F.
2.4
225.43
64.41
289.84
For floor..
393.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, kraft faced, 3.5†thick, RT
â– 1.0
S.F.
0.005
0.21
0.14
0.35
393.6
S.F.
2.0
82.66
55.10
137.76
TOTAL
9.6
559.51
266.18
825.69
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
WWW Window Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QtTL
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST,
TOTAL
TRI-WINDOW SET, MIDDLE FIXED, 32"x48"
2.0
Ea.
Window, wood, 32"x48", insul. glass
3.0
Ea.
3
450.00
75.00
525.00
6.0
Ea.
6.0
900.00
150.00
1050.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4â€x4"
36.0
L.F.
72.0
L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
21.0
S.F.
42.0
S.F.
Trim, interior casing
26.0
L.F.
0.866
19.76
23.92
43.68
52.0
L.F.
1.7
39.52
47.84
87.36
Paint, Interior, primer & 2 coats
1.0
Ea.
0.800
1.18
20.00
21.18
2.0
Ea.
1.6
2.36
40.00
42.36
Calking
26.0
L.F.
0.738
1.92
20.64
22.56
52.0
L.F.
1.5
3.84
41.28
45.12
TOTAL
5.404
472.86
139.56
612.42
10.8
945.72
279.12
1224.84
194
Table C-5. Exterior Wall Dollar Costs For Proposal One (continued)
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
WDW Window & Door Systems
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
om unit
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9' WIDE
2.0 Ea.
Door, 32"x6'8\ insul. glass 24"x5'8"
1.0
Ea.
1
200
26.00
226.00
2.0 Ea.
2.0
400.00
52.00
452.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
12.0
L.F.
24.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
11.3
S.F.
22.7 S.F.
Window, 32"x6'8“, insul. glass 24"x5'
2.0
Ea.
2
400
52.00
452.00
4.0 Ea.
4.0
800.00
104.00
904.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24
L.F.
48.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
45.3 S.F.
Interior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.5
18.40
35.90
46.0 L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Exterior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.5
18.40
35.90
46.0 L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
3.0
L.F.
0.96
35
24.50
59.50
6.0 L.F.
1.9
70.00
49.00
119.00
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2“x4 1/2"
1.5
Pr.
18.15
18.15
3.0 Pr.
0.0
36.30
0.00
36.30
Lockset
1.0
Ea.
0.571
28.5
15.7
44.2
2.0 Ea.
1.1
57.00
31.40
88.40
Drip cap
3.0
L.F.
0.12
0.55
3.3
3.85
6.0 L.F.
0.2
1.10
6.60
7.70
Paint, Inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
2.0
Face
1.6
4
65
69
4.0 Face
3.2
8.00
130.00
138.00
TOTAL
7.585
721.2
223.3
944.5
15.2
1442.40
446.60
1889.00
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
DWD Window & Door Systems
QTL
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
TRI PANEL DOOR/WINDOW/DOOR, 9' WIDE
5 Ea.
Door, 32"x6'8", Insul. glass 24"x5'8"
2.0
Ea.
2
400
52
452
10.0 Ea.
10.0
2000.00
260.00
2260.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24.0
L.F.
120.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
113.3 S.F.
Window, 32"x6'8“, Insul. glass 24"x5'
1.0
Ea.
1
200.00
26.00
226.00
5.0 Ea.
5.0
1000.00
130.00
1130.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
12.0
L.F.
60.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
11.3
S.F.
56.7 S.F.
Interior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.50
18.40
35.90
115.0 L.F.
3.3
87.50
92.00
179.50
Exterior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.50
18.40
35.90
115.0 L.F.
3.3
87.50
92.00
179.50
Sill, oak, 8/4x8†deep
6.0
L.F.
1.92
70.00
49.00
119.00
30 L.F.
9.6
350.00
245.00
595.00
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
3.0
Pr.
36.30
36.30
15.0 Pr.
0.0
181.50
0.00
181.50
Lockset
2.0
Ea.
1.142
57.00
31.40
88.40
10.0 Ea.
5.7
285.00
157.00
442.00
Drip cap
3.0
L.F.
0.12
0.55
3.30
3.85
15.0 L.F.
0.6
2.75
16.50
19.25
Paint, Inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
2.0
Face
1.6
4.00
65.00
69.00
10.0 Face
8.0
20.00
325.00
345.00
TOTAL
9.116
802.85
263.50
1066.35
45.6
4014.25
1317.50
5331.75
195
Table C-6. Roofing Dollar Costs For Proposal One
ROOFING
Hip Roof - Roofing Systems
ASPHALT, ROOF SHINGLES, CLASS A
Shingles, asphalt std., 210-235 lb/sq.ft.
Drip Edge, metal, 5" girth
Building paper, #15 felt
Ridge shingles, asphalt
Soffit&fascia, painted AL, T overhang
Gutter, seamless, AL painted
Downspouts, AL painted
TOTAL
Shed Roofing Systems
ASPHALT, ROOF SHINGLES, CLASS A
Shingles, asphalt std., 210-235 lb/sq.ft.
Drip Edge, metal, 5†girth
Building paper, #15 felt
Soffit&fascia, painted AL, T overhang
Rake trim, painted, 1“x6''
Gutter, seamless, AL painted
Downspouts, AL painted
TOTAL
Cupolas
103 464 CUPOLA
0300 23" square, Al roof
771.88 1069.04 1840.92
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
QTY,
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
506.0
S.F.
1.6
S.F.
0.023
0.38
0.62
1.00
794.4
S.F.
11.6
192.28
313.72
506.00
0.1
L.F.
0.002
0.03
0.07
0.10
61.7
L.F.
1.0
15.18
35.42
50.60
1.80
S.F.
0.002
0.05
0.07
0.12
910.8
S.F.
1.0
25.30
35.42
60.72
0.1
L.F.
0.002
0.03
0.05
0.08
38.0
L.F.
1.0
15.18
25.30
40.48
0.1
L.F.
0.017
0.24
0.44
0.68
60.7
L.F.
8.6
121.44
222.64
344.08
0.1
L.F.
0.008
0.12
0.24
0.36
60.7
L.F.
4.0
60.72
121.44
182.16
0
L.F.
0.002
0.03
0.05
0.08
17.7
L.F.
1.0
15.18
25.30
40.48
0.056
0.88
1.54
2.42
28.3
445.28
779.24
1224.52
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
ore
UNJI
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
230.0
S.F.
1.2
S.F.
0.019
0.31
0.5
0.81
282.9
S.F.
4.4
71.30
115.00
186.30
0.1
L.F.
0.002
0.02
0.06
0.08
23.0
L.F.
0.5
4.60
13.80
18.40
1.3
S.F.
0.002
0.04
0.05
0.09
299.0
S.F.
0.5
9.20
11.50
20.70
0.1
L.F.
0.012
0.16
0.29
0.45
18.4
L.F.
2.8
36.80
66.70
103.50
0
L.F.
0.004
0.03
0.1
0.13
9.89
L.F.
0.92
6.9
23
29.9
0
L.F.
0.003
0.04
0.08
0.12
9.2
L.F.
0.69
9.2
18.4
27.6
0
L.F.
0.001
0.02
0.03
0.05
4.6
L.F.
0.23
4.6
6.9
11.5
0.043
0.62
1.11
1.73
9.9
142.60
255.30
397.90
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
ore
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
1.0
Ea.
1.0
Ea.
2.162
184.00
34.50
218.50
1.0
S.F.
2.2
184.00
34.50
218.50
196
Table C-7. Interiors Dollar Costs For Proposal One
INTERIORS 7613.45 5132.97 12746.42
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Drywall & Thincoat Wall Systems
STL
UNJI
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
OTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
JMSL.
TOTAL
5/8" SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
1693.5
S.F.
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard
1.0
S.F.
0.008
0.21
0.22
0.43
1693.5
S.F.
13.5
355.64
372.57
728.21
Finish, taped & finished joints
1.0
S.F.
0.008
0.08
0.22
0.30
1693.5
S.F.
13.5
135.48
372.57
508.05
Corners, taped & finished, 32 L.F....
0.08
L.F.
0.001
0.01
0.04
0.05
140.6
L.F.
1.7
16.94
67.74
84.68
Painting, primer & 2 coats
1.0
S.F.
0.01
0.1
0.25
0.35
1693.5
S.F.
16.9
169.35
423.38
592.73
Trim, baseboard, painted
0.1
L.F.
0.006
0.15
0.16
0.31
211.7
L.F.
10.2
254.03
270.96
524.99
TOTAL
0.033
0.55
0.89
1.44
55.9
931.43
1507.22
2438.64
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Drywall&Thincoat Ceiling Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
OTY,
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
5/8" SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
503.2
S.F.
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard
1.0
S.F.
0.008
0.21
0.22
0.43
503.2
S.F.
4.0
105.67
110.70
216.38
Finish, taped & finished
1.0
S.F.
0.008
0.08
0.22
0.3
503.2
S.F.
4.0
40.26
110.70
150.96
Corners, taped & finished, 12'x12' room
0.0
L.F.
0.005
0.02
0.13
0.15
16.6
L.F.
2.5
10.06
65.42
75.48
Painting, primer & 2 coats
1.0
S.F.
0.01
0.1
0.25
0.35
503.2
S.F.
5.0
50.32
125.80
176.12
TOTAL
0.031
0.41
0.82
1.23
15.6
206.31
412.62
618.94
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Interior Door Systems
OTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
OTY,
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
BIRCH, FLUSH DOOR, HOLLOW CORE
4
Ea.
Door, birch, hollow core, 2'-8',x6,-8â€
1
Ea.
0.889
37
22.63
59.63
4.0
Ea.
3.6
148.00
90.52
238.52
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb
17.0
L.F.
0.725
63.58
18.53
82.11
68.0
L.F.
2.9
254.32
74.12
328.44
Trim, casing, painted
34
L.F.
1.38
28.22
37.4
65.62
136
L.F.
5.52
112.88
149.6
262.48
Butt hinges, bronze, 3-1/2"x3-1/2"
1.5
Pr.
32.25
32.25
6
Pr.
129
129
Lockset, passage
1.0
Ea.
0.5
12.45
13.75
26.20
4.0
Ea.
2.0
49.80
55.00
104.80
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
2.0
Face
2.465
13.16
62.40
75.56
8.0
Face
9.9
52.64
249.60
302.24
TOTAL
5.959
186.66
154.71
341.37
23.8
746.64
618.84
1365.48
197
Table C-7. Interiors Dollar Costs For Proposal One (continued)
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Closet Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
BY-PASSING, FLUSH, BIRCH, HOLLOW CORE, 4'X6'-8"
4.0
Ea.
Door, birch, hollow core, 4'x6'-8"
1
Ea.
1.333
127.0
34
161
4.0
Ea.
5.332
508.00
136.00
644.00
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb
1 8
L.F.
0.768
67.5
19.60
87.10
72.0
L.F.
3.1
270.00
78.40
348.40
Trim, both sides, casing, painted
36
L.F.
1.849
28.0
49.50
77.50
144.0
L.F.
7.4
112.00
198.00
310.00
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
2
Face
2.465
13.2
62.50
75.65
8.0
Face
9.9
52.60
250.00
302.60
TOTAL
6.415
235.7
165.60
401.25
25.7
942.60
662.40
1605.00
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Carpet Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
CARPET
576.8
S.F.
Carpet, nylon, level loop, 32 oz.
1
S.F.
0.018
1.8
0.47
2.26
576.8
S.F.
10.4
1032.38
271.07
1303.46
Padding, sponge rubber cushion, min.
1
S.F.
0.006
0.3
0.15
0.41
576.8
L.F.
3.5
149.96
86.51
236.47
Underlayment particle board, 3/8" thick
1
L.F.
0.011
0.3
0.27
0.57
576.8
S.F.
6.3
173.03
155.72
328.75
TOTAL
0.035
2.4
0.89
3.24
20.2
1355.36
513.31
1868.67
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Flooring Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST,
TOTAL
VINYL TILE
483.3
S.F.
Vinyl tile, 12“x12", 1/8" thick, min.
1
S.F.
0.02
1 .9
0.42
2.35
483.3
S.F.
7.7
932.67
202.97
1 135.64
Subfloor, plywood, 1/2" thick
1
L.F.
0.01
0.4
0.27
0.67
483.3
S.F.
5.3
193.30
130.48
323.78
TOTAL
0.027
2.3
0.69
3.02
13.0
1125.97
333.44
1459.42
198
Table C-7. Interiors Dollar Costs For Proposal One (continued)
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
total
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9' WIDE
2.0
Ea.
Door, 32"x6,8'\ insul. glass 24,,x5’8"
1.0
Ea.
1.00
200.00
26.00
226.00
2.0
Ea.
2.0
400.00
52.00
452.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
12.0
L.F.
24.0
L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
11.3
S.F.
22.7
S.F.
Window, 32â€x6'8", Insul. glass 24"x5'8"
2.0
Ea.
2.00
400.00
52.00
452.00
4.0
Ea.
4.0
800.00
104.00
904.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4''x4â€
24.0
L.F.
48.0
L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
45.3
S.F.
Interior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.67
17.50
18.40
35.90
46.0
L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Exterior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.67
17.50
18.40
35.90
46.0
L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
3.0
L.F.
0.96
35.00
24.50
59.50
6.0
L.F.
1.9
70.00
49.00
119.00
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
1.5
Pr.
18.15
18.15
3.0
Pr.
0.0
36.30
0.00
36.30
Lockset, passage
1.0
Ea.
0.50
12.45
13.75
26.20
2.0
Ea.
1.0
24.90
27.50
52.40
Paint, Inter. & exter., primer & 2 coats
2.0
Face
1.60
4.00
65.00
69.00
4.0
Face
3.2
8.00
130.00
138.00
TOTAL
7.39
704.60
218.05
922.65
14.8
1409.20
436.10
1845.30
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Stairways
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QIX
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
total
7 RISERS, OAK TREADS, BOX STAIRS
2.0
Ea.
Treads, oak
7.0
Ea.
3.1 1
168.00
85.40
253.40
14.0
Ea.
6.2
336.00
170.80
506.80
Balusters, Birch, 30" high
14.0
Ea.
3.06
127.40
84.28
211.68
28.0
Ea.
6.1
254.80
168.56
423.36
Newels
2.0
Ea.
2.29
79.00
63.00
142.00
4.0
Ea.
4.6
158.00
126.00
284.00
Handrails, oak
7.0
L.F.
0.93
38.50
25.69
64.19
14.0
L.F.
1.9
77.00
51.38
128.38
Stringers, 2"x10'', 3 each
21.0
L.F.
2.59
35.07
66.15
101.22
42.0
L.F.
5.2
70.14
132.30
202.44
TOTAL
11.98
447.97
324.52
772.49
24.0
895.94
649.04
1544.98
199
Table C-8. Specialties
Dollar Costs For Proposal One
SPECIALTIES
4847.30
1810.16
6657.46
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Kitchen Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
IML
TOTAL
KITCHEN, AVERAGE GRADE
1 7
L.F.
Top cabinets, average grade
1.0
L.F.
0.21
33.00
5.86
38.86
1 7
L.F.
3.6
561.00
99.62
660.62
Bottom cabinets, average grade
1.0
L.F.
0.32
49.50
8.79
58.29
1 7
L.F.
5.4
841.50
149.43
990.93
Counter top, laminated plastic...
1.0
L.F.
0.27
27.50
7.35
34.85
1 7
L.F.
4.5
467.50
124.95
592.45
Blocking, wood, 2"x4"
1.0
L.F.
0.03
0.40
0.92
1.32
1 7
L.F.
0.5
6.80
15.64
22.44
Soffit framing, wood, 2"x4“
4.0
L.F.
0.07
1.76
1.80
3.56
68
L.F.
1.2
29.92
30.60
60.52
Soffit drywall, painted
2.0
S.F.
0.06
0.74
1.66
2.40
34
S.F.
1.0
12.58
28.22
40.80
TOTAL
0.96
112.90
26.38
139.28
16.4
1919.30
448.46
2367.76
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Appliance Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
EACH "MINIMUM"
Range, built-in
1.0
Ea.
6.00
535.00
168.00
703.00
1
Ea.
6.0
535.00
168.00
703.00
Dishwasher, built-in
1.0
Ea.
6.74
320.00
200.00
520.00
1
Ea.
6.7
320.00
200.00
520.00
Range hood, ducted
1.0
Ea.
4.66
96.00
129.00
225.00
1
Ea.
4.7
96.00
129.00
225.00
Refrigerator, 19 cu.ft.
1.0
Ea.
2.67
650.00
54.50
704.50
1
Ea.
2.7
650.00
54.50
704.50
Sinks, porcelain on cast iron
1.0
Ea.
10.81
365.00
289.00
654.00
1
Ea.
10.8
365.00
289.00
654.00
Water heater, gas, 30 gallon
1.0
Ea.
4.00
253.00
119.00
372.00
2
Ea.
8.0
506.00
238.00
744.00
TOTAL
34.87
2219.00
959.50 3178.50
38.9
2472.00
1078.50
3550.50
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Wood Deck Systems
ore
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
DECK, PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER, JOISTS 16" O.C.
120
S.F.
Decking, 2"x6" lumber
2.1
L.F.
0.03
1.52
0.68
2.20
249.6
L.F.
3.2
182.40
81.60
264.00
Joists, 2"x8\ 16" O.C.
1.0
L.F.
0.02
0.98
0.43
1.41
120
L.F.
2.0
117.60
51.60
169.20
Girder, 2"x10â€
0.1
L.F.
0.00
0.20
0.05
0.25
1 5
L.F.
0.2
24.00
6.00
30.00
Posts, 4"x4", incl. concrete footing
0.3
L.F.
0.02
0.58
0.54
1.12
30
L.F.
2.6
69.60
64.80
134.40
Railings, 2"x4"
1.0
L.F.
0.03
0.52
0.66
1.18
120
L.F.
3.1
62.40
79.20
141.60
0.09
3.80
2.36
6.16
11.3
456.00
283.20
739.20
200
Table C-9. Mechanical Dollar Costs For Proposal One
MECHANICAL 5252.32 2457.57 7709.89
MAN- COST EACH MAN- COST
Three Fixture Bathroom Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT,
INST.
TOTAL
BATHROOM WITH LAVORATORY IN VANITY
1
Ea.
Water closet, floor mounted, 2 piece
1 Ea.
3.02
160.00
81.00
241.00
1
Ea.
3.0
160.00
81.00
241.00
Rough-In supply,waste,vent for w.c.
1 Ea.
2.38
53.68
65.38
119.06
1
Ea.
2.4
53.68
65.38
119.06
Lavatory, 20"x18", P.E. cast iron...
1 Ea.
2.50
169.00
67.00
236.00
1
Ea.
2.5
169.00
67.00
236.00
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for lavatoi
1 Ea.
2.79
54.00
77.70
131.70
1
Ea.
2.8
54.00
77.70
131.70
Shower, steel enamled, stone base
1 Ea.
8.00
360.00
214.00
574.00
1
Ea.
8.0
360.00
214.00
574.00
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for shower
1 Ea.
3.24
57.75
91.33
149.08
1
Ea.
3.2
57.75
91.33
149.08
Piping, supply, 1/2" copper
36 L.F.
3.56
51.84
105.48
157.32
36
L.F.
3.6
51.84
105.48
157.32
Waste, 4" cast iron, no hub
7 L.F.
1.93
58.80
51.80
110.60
7
L.F.
1.9
58.80
51.80
110.60
Vent, 2" steel, galvanized
6 L.F.
1.50
33.00
40.20
73.20
6
L.F.
1.5
33.00
40.20
73.20
Vanity base, 2 door, 30" wide
1 Ea.
1.00
204.00
27.50
231.50
1
Ea.
1.0
204.00
27.50
231.50
Vanity top, plastic laminated, sq. edge
3 L.F.
0.71
56.07
19.62
75.69
2.67
L.F.
0.7
56.07
19.62
75.69
TOTAL
30.62
1258.14
841.01
2099.15
30.6
1258.14
841.01
2099.15
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Gas Heating/Cooling Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
ore
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
JN£L
TOTAL
HEATING/COOLING, GAS-FIRED FORCED AIR, ONE ZONE, 1200 S.F.
1
Ea.
Furnace, incl. compressor, coil
1 Ea.
14.72
2737.00
386.40
3123.40
1
Ea.
14.7
2737.00
386.40
3123.40
Intermittent pilot
1 Ea.
118.00
118.00
1
Ea.
118.00
118.00
Supply duct, rigid fiberglass
176 L.F.
12.07
124.96
330.88
455.84
176
L.F.
12.1
124.96
330.88
455.84
Return duct, sheet metal, galvanized
158 Lb.
16.14
323.90
442.40
766.30
158
Lb.
16.1
323.90
442.40
766.30
Lateral duct, 6" flexible fiberglass
144 L.F.
8.86
263.52
233.28
496.80
144
L.F.
8.9
263.52
233.28
496.80
Register elbows
12 Ea.
3.20
85.80
84.60
170.40
12
Ea.
3.2
85.80
84.60
170.40
Floor registers, enameled steel
12 Ea.
3.00
147.60
88.20
235.80
12
Ea.
3.0
147.60
88.20
235.80
Floor grill return air
2 Ea.
0.73
30.90
21.30
52.20
2
Ea.
0.7
30.90
21.30
52.20
Thermostat
1 Ea.
1.00
22.50
29.50
52.00
1
Ea.
1.0
22.50
29.50
52.00
Refrigeration piping (precharged)
2 5 L.F.
140.00
140.00
25
L.F.
140.00
140.00
TOTAL
59.71
3994.18
1616.56
5610.74
59.7
3994.18
1616.56
5610.74
201
Table C-10. Electrical Dollar Costs For Proposal One
ELECTRICAL
1041.40
1238.10
2279.50
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Electrical Service Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAL
ÃN3L
TOTAL
QLA UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INSL
TOTAL
200 AMP SERVICE
1 Ea.
Weather cap
1 Ea.
1.00
17.60
29.00
46.60
1 Ea.
1.0
17.60
29.00
46.60
Service entrance cable
10 L.F.
1.14
32.50
33.10
65.60
1 0 L.F.
1.1
32.50
33.10
65.60
Meter socket
1 Ea.
4.21
47.50
122.00
169.50
1 Ea.
4.2
47.50
122.00
169.50
Ground rod with clamp
1 Ea.
1.82
30.50
52.50
83.00
1 Ea.
1.8
30.50
52.50
83.00
Ground cable
10 L.F.
0.50
13.20
14.50
27.70
10 L.F.
0.5
13.20
14.50
27.70
3/4" EMT
5 L.F.
0.31
2.95
8.90
1 1.85
5 L.F.
0.3
2.95
8.90
1 1.85
Panel board, 24 circuit
1 Ea.
12.31
320.00
355.00
675.00
1 Ea.
12.3
320.00
355.00
675.00
TOTAL
21.29
464.25
615.00
1079.25
21.3
464.25
615.00
1079.25
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Wiring Device Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QEA UNJI
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
EACH USING NON-METALLIC SHEATHED CABLE
Air conditioning receptacles
1 Ea.
0.80
11.10
23.00
34.10
1 Ea.
0.8
11.10
23.00
34.10
Dryer circuit
1 Ea.
1.46
27.50
42.00
69.50
1 Ea.
1.5
27.50
42.00
69.50
Exhaust fan wiring
1 Ea.
0.80
11.10
23.00
34.10
1 Ea.
0.8
11.10
23.00
34.10
Furnace circuit & switch
1 Ea.
1.33
14.85
38.50
53.35
1 Ea.
1.3
14.85
38.50
53.35
Ground fault
1 Ea.
1.00
49.50
29.00
78.50
4 Ea.
4.0
198.00
116.00
314.00
Lighting wiring
1 Ea.
0.50
11.00
14.50
25.50
4 Ea.
2.0
44.00
58.00
102.00
Range circuits
1 Ea.
2.00
42.00
58.00
100.00
1 Ea.
2.0
42.00
58.00
100.00
Switches, single pole
1 Ea.
0.50
11.00
14.50
25.50
4 Ea.
2.0
44.00
58.00
102.00
Switches, 3-way
1 Ea.
0.67
13.65
19.30
32.95
2 Ea.
1.3
27.30
38.60
65.90
Water heater
1 Ea.
1.60
13.65
46.50
60.15
2 Ea.
3.2
27.30
93.00
120.30
TOTAL
10.66
205.35
308.30
513.65
18.9
447.15
548.10
995.25
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Light Fixture Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
EACH "AVERAGE"
Fluorescent strip. 4' long, 2 lights
1 Ea.
1.00
33.00
29.00
62.00
1 Ea.
1.0
33.00
29.00
62.00
Incandescent, Recessed, 150W
1 Ea.
0.80
48.50
23.00
71.50
2 Ea.
1.6
97.00
46.00
143.00
TOTAL
1.80
81.50
52.00
133.50
2.6
130.00
75.00
205.00
202
Table C-ll. Site Work EMergy Costs For Proposal One
SITE WORK
0 1,292
1,292
0
185
184.5
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Footing Excavation Systems
BUILDING, 26'X46\ 4' DEEP
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
Clear and strip, dozer, light trees, 30'
0.2
Acre
654
654
93
93
Excavate, backhoe
201.0
C.Y.
377
377
54
54
Backfill, dozer, 4" lifts, no compaction
100.0
C.Y.
130
130
1 9
19
Rough grade, dozer, 30' from building
100.0
C.Y.
130
130
1 9
19
TOTAL
1292
1292
185
185
203
Table C-12. Foundation EMergy Costs For Proposal One
FOUNDATIONS
1,802
8,810
10,612
502
1,259
1,761
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Footing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
8“ THICK BY 18" WIDE FOOTING
156.0
L.F.
(sei/unit)
Concrete, 3000 psl
6.2
C.Y.
4086.0 g/C.Y 5.92E+08
1 5
480
496
69
69
Place concrete, direct chute
6.2
C.Y.
81
81
12
1 2
Forms, footing, 4 uses
207.5
Sfca
643.2 g/S.F. 8.29E+08
111
721
831
56% 61
103
164
Reinforcing, 1/2" dia bars, 2 ea.
215.3
Lb.
454.0 g/Lb. 2.16E+09
211
155
366
22
22
Keyway, 2"x4", beveled, 4 uses
156.0
L.F.
131
131
1 9
19
Dowels, 1/2" dia bars, 2' long, 6' O.C.
25.9
Ea.
605.4 g/Ea. 2.16E+09
34
190
224
27
27
TOTAL
370
1758
2128
61
251
313
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Concrete Wall Systems
STL
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
8" THICK, POURED CONCRETE WALL
744.0
S.F.
à sep/unit)
Concrete, 8" THICK, 3000 psi
18.6
C.Y.
4086.0 g/C.Y 5.92E+08
45
1437
1482
205
205
Forms, prefab, plywood, 4 uses per mo
1488.0
Sfca
643.2 g/S.F. 8.29E+08
793
3312
4106
56% 441
473
914
Reinforcing, light
498.5
Lb.
454.0 g/Lb. 2.16E+09
488
312
801
45
45
Place concrete, direct chute
18.6
C.Y.
323
323
46
46
Dampproofing, brushed on, 2 coats
744.0
S.F.
542
542
77
77
Rigid insulation, 1†polystyrene
744.0
S.F.
646
646
92
92
Anchor bolts, 1/2" Dia x 12" , 4' O.C.
44.6
EA.
302.7 g/Ea. 2.16E+09
29
115
144
1 6
1 6
Sill Plates, 2"x4", treated
186.0
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
76
365
441
52
52
TOTAL
1432
7052
8483
441
1007
1448
204
Table C-13. Framing EMergy Costs For Proposal One
FRAMING
6,569
18,167
24,736
4,085
2,595
6,681
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Floor Framing Systems (Wood)
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2"x10", 16" O.C.
1208
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Wood joists, 2"x10â€, 16“ O.C.
1208.0
L.F.
1572.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
1346
3095
4440
66%
884
442
1326
Bridging, 1"x3", 6' O.C.
96.6
Pr.
620.7 g/Pr. 7.08E+08
42
304
347
66%
28
43
71
Box Sills, 2"x10"
181.2
L.F.
1572.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
202
457
658
66%
133
65
198
Girder, incl. lally columns, 3-2"x10"
151.0
L.F.
1572.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
168
1640
1809
66%
110
234
345
Sheathing, plywood subfloor, 5/8" CDX
1208.0
S.F.
804.0 g/S.F. 8.29E+08
805
1319
2124
56%
447
188
636
Furring, 1â€x3", 16" O.C.
1208.0
L.F.
206.9 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
177
1522
1699
66%
116
217
334
TOTAL
2740
8338
11078
1718
1191
2909
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Exterior Wall Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2"x4", 16" O.C.
1309.5
S.F.
(sei/unit)
2"x4" studs, 16" O.C.
1309.5
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
537
1448
1986
66%
353
207
560
Plates, 2"x4", double top, single bottor
491.1
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
202
550
752
66%
132
79
211
Corner bracing, let-in, 1"x6"
82.5
L.F.
455.2 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
27
202
228
66%
1 7
29
46
Sheathing, 1/2" plywood, CDX
1309.5
S.F.
643.2 g/S.F. 8.29E+08
698
1283
1981
56%
388
183
571
Headers, 2x6", 6' (doors) QTY 1
12.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
8
12
1 9
66%
5
2
7
Headers, 2x6", 4.5' (windows) QTY 12
108.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
70
188
257
66%
46
27
73
TOTAL
1 541
3683
5224
941
526
1467
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Hip Roof Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2â€x6" RAFTERS, 16" O.C., 4/12 PITCH
506.0
S.F.
(sej/unit)
Hip rafters, 2"x6", 16" O.C.
81.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
52
135
187
66%
34
1 9
54
Jack rafters, 2"x6“, 16" O.C.
723.6
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
467
1367
1834
66%
306
195
502
Ceiling Joists, 2"x4", 16" O.C.
506.0
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
208
510
718
66%
136
73
209
Fascia board, 2"x8"
111.3
L.F.
1241.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
98
333
431
66%
64
48
112
Soffit nailer, 2"x4", 24" O.C.
111.3
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
46
177
223
66%
30
25
55
Sheathing, ext., plywood, 1/2" CDX
794.4
S.F.
643.2 g/S.F. 8.29E+08
423
779
1203
56%
235
1 1 1
347
Furring strips, 1"x3", 16" O.C.
506.0
L.F.
206.9 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
74
638
712
66%
49
91
140
TOTAL
1368
3939
5306
855
563
1418
205
Table C-13. Framing EMergy Costs For Proposal One (continued)
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Shed/Flat Roof Framing Systems
QTY. UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2"x6" RAFTERS, 16†O.C., 4/12 PITCH
230.0 S.F.
(sej/unip
Rafters, 2,,x6", 16†O.C., 4/12 pitch
592.0 L.F.
910.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
382
893
1274 66%
251
128
378
Fascia board, 2"x8"
50.6 L.F.
1241.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
44
156
200 66%
29
22
51
Bridging, 1"x3â€, 6' O.C.
40.5 Pr.
620.7 g/Pr.
7.08E+08
1 8
128
145 66%
1 2
1 8
30
Sheathing, exterior, plywood, 1/2" CD
622.4 S.F.
643.2 g/S.F.
8.29E+08
332
602
934 56%
184
86
270
TOTAL
776
1778
2554
476
254
730
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Partition Framing System
QlTL unji
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2â€x4“, 16" O.C.
192.0 S.F.
(sei/unitl
2"x4" studs, #2 or better, 16" O.C.
192.0 L.F.
579.3 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
79
212
291 66%
52
30
82
Plates, double top, single bottom
72.0 L.F.
579.3 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
30
81
1 10 66%
1 9
12
31
Cross bracing, let-in, 1"x6"
15.4 L.F.
455.2 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
5
43
4 8 66%
3
6
9
4.0 Ea.
Headers, 2"x6", 3' long
24.0 L.F.
910.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 5
47
6 3 66%
1 0
7
1 7
2.0 Ea.
Headers, 2â€x6", 6' long
24.0 L.F.
910.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 5
47
63 66%
1 0
7
1 7
TOTAL
144
430
574
95
61
156
206
Table C-14. Exterior Wall EMergy Costs For Proposal One
EXTERIOR WALLS 1,151 19,763 20,914 494 2,823 3,317
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Wood Siding Systems
QFL
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
1/2"x8" BEVELED CEDAR SIDING
1309.5
S.F.
fsej/unit)
1/2"x8" beveled cedar siding
1309.5
S.F.
472.9 g/S.F.
7.08E+08
439
5023
5462 66%
288
718
1006
#15 asphalt felt paper
1440.5
S.F.
183
183
26
26
Trim, cedar
163.7
L.F.
206.9 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
24
422
446 66%
1 6
60
76
Paint, primer & 2 coats
1309.5
S.F.
1155
1155
165
165
TOTAL
463
6783
7246
304
969
1273
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Insulation Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
NON-RIGID INSULATION BATTS
fsej/unit)
For walls...
1047.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, foil faced, 3.5" thick, R11
1047.6
S.F.
557
557
80
80
For ceiling..
402.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, foil faced, 9" thick, R30
402.6
S.F.
406
406
58
58
For floor..
393.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, kraft faced, 3.5" thick, R1‘
393.6
S.F.
193
193
28
28
TOTAL
0
1156
1156
165
165
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
WWW Window Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI-WINDOW SET, MID. FIXED, 32x48"
2.0
Ea.
(sei/unit)
Window, wood, 32“x48", insul. glass
6.0
Ea.
1470
1470
210
210
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4â€
72.0
L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
42
42 66%
27
27
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
42.0
S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
60
60
Trim, interior casing
52.0
L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
8
122
130 66%
5
1 7
23
Paint, interior, primer & 2 coats
2.0
Ea.
59
59
8
8
Calking
52.0
L.F.
63
63
9
9
TOTAL
109
1715
1824
33
245
278
Table C-14. Exterior Walls EMergy Costs For Proposal One (continued)
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9'
2.0
Ea.
(sei/unit)
Door, 32"x6’8", insul. glass 24,,x5,8"
2.0
Ea.
633
633
90
90
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24.0
L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
14
14
66%
9
9
...plate glass, 2x1/8“ thick
22.7
S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
32
32
Window, 32"x6'8“, insul. glass 24"x5'
4.0
Ea.
1266
1266
181
181
...wood frame, 1 3/4“x4"
48.0
L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
28
28
66%
1 8
18
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
45.3
S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
64
64
Interior casing
46.0
L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
14
1 9
Exterior casing
46.0
L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
14
1 9
Sill, oak, 8/4x8“ deep
6.0
L.F.
1749.8 g/L.F.
7.28E+08
8
167
174
64%
5
24
29
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2“x4 1/2"
3.0
Pr.
51
51
7
7
Lockset
2.0
Ea.
124
124
18
18
Drip cap
6.0
L.F.
1 1
1 1
2
2
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
4.0
Face
193
193
28
28
TOTAL
160
2645
2805
42
378
419
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
DWD Window & Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI PANEL DOOR/WINDOW/DOOR, 9'
5.0
Ea.
(sei/unitl
Door, 32“x6'8", Insul. glass 24"x5'8"
10.0
Ea.
3164
3164
452
452
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
120.0
L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
69
69
66%
46
46
...plate glass, 2x1/8“ thick
113.3
S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
161
161
Window, 32â€x6'8", insul. glass 24“x5'
5.0
Ea.
1582
1582
226
226
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
60.0
L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
35
35
66%
23
23
...plate glass, 2x1/8“ thick
56.7
S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
80
80
Interior casing
115.0
L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 8
251
269
66%
1 2
36
48
Exterior casing
115.0
L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 8
251
269
66%
1 2
36
48
Sill, oak, 8/4x8“ deep
30.0
L.F.
1749.8 g/L.F.
7.28E+08
38
833
871
64%
24
119
143
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2“
15.0
Pr.
254
254
36
36
Lockset
10.0
Ea.
619
619
88
88
Drip cap
15.0
L.F.
27
27
4
4
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
10.0
Face
483
483
69
69
TOTAL
419
7464
7884
116
1066
1183
208
Table C-15. Roofing EMergy
Costs For
Proposal
One
ROORNG
0
2,577
2,577
0 368
368
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Hip Roof - Roofing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
ASPHALT, ROOF SHINGLES, CLASS A
506.0
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Shingles, asphalt std., 210-235 Ib/sq.
794.4
S.F.
708
708
101
101
Drip Edge, metal, 5" girth
61.7
L.F.
71
71
1 0
10
Building paper, #15 felt
910.8
S.F.
85
85
12
12
Ridge shingles, asphalt
38.0
L.F.
57
57
8
8
Soffit&fascia, painted AL, 1' overhang
60.7
L.F.
482
482
69
69
Gutter, seamless, AL painted
60.7
L.F.
255
255
36
36
Downspouts, AL painted
17.7
L.F.
57
57
8
8
TOTAL
1714
1714
245
245
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Shed Roofing Systems
STL
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONFY
TOTAL
ASPHALT, ROOF SHINGLES, CLASS A
230.0
S.F.
(sei/uniU
Shingles, asphalt std., 210-235 Ib/sq.
282.9
S.F.
261
261
37
37
Drip Edge, metal, 5" girth
23.0
L.F.
26
26
4
4
Building paper, #15 felt
299.0
S.F.
29
29
4
4
Soffit&fascia, painted AL, 1' overhang
18.4
L.F.
145
145
21
21
Rake trim, painted, 1"x6"
9.9
L.F.
42
42
6
6
Gutter, seamless, AL painted
9.2
L.F.
39
39
6
6
Downspouts, AL painted
4.6
L.F.
1 6
1 6
2
2
TOTAL
557
557
80
80
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Cupolas
QIY
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
103 464 CUPOLA
1.0
Ea.
(sei/unit)
0300 23" square, Al roof
1.0
S.F.
306
306
44
44
Table C-16. Interior EMergy Costs For Proposal One
INTERIORS 1,796 17,845 19,641 868 2,549 3,417 .
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Drywall & Thincoat Wall Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
5/8“ SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
1693.5
S.F.
(sei/unitl
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard
1693.5
S.F.
1019
1019
146
146
Finish, taped & finished joints
1693.5
S.F.
71 1
71 1
102
102
Corners, taped & finished, 32 L.F....
140.6
L.F.
119
119
1 7
17
Painting, primer & 2 coats
1693.5
S.F.
830
830
119
119
Trim, baseboard, painted
211.7
L.F.
735
735
105
105
TOTAL
3414
3414
488
488
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Drywall&Thincoat Ceiling Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
5/8“ SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
503.2
S.F.
fsei/unitl
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard
503.2
S.F.
303
303
43
43
Finish, taped & finished
503.2
S.F.
21 1
21 1
30
30
Corners, taped & finished, 12'x12' rm
16.6
L.F.
106
106
1 5
15
Painting, primer & 2 coats
503.2
S.F.
247
247
35
35
TOTAL
867
867
124
124
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Interior Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
BIRCH, FLUSH DOOR, HOLLOW CORE
4.0
Ea.
(sej/unit)
Door, birch, hollow core, 2'-8"x6'-8“
4.0
Ea.
88798 g/ea.
7.90E+08
281
334
615
58%
164
48
211
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb
68.0
L.F.
404.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 9
460
479
66%
1 3
66
78
Trim, casing, painted
136.0
L.F.
145.8 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 4
367
382
66%
9
52
62
Butt hinges, bronze, 3-1/2"x3-1/2"
6.0
Pr.
181
181
26
26
Lockset, passage
4.0
Ea.
147
147
21
21
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
8.0
Face
423
423
60
60
TOTAL
314
1912
2226
186
273
459
210
Table C-16. Interior EMergy Costs For Proposal One (continued)
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Closet Door Systems
QTY.
UNJI
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
BY-PASSING, FLUSH, BIRCH, HOLLOW
4.0
Ea.
(sej/unit)
Door, birch, hollow core, 4'x6'-8"
4.0
Ea.
133180 g/ea.
7.90E+08
421
902
1323 58%
245
129
374
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb
72.0
L.F.
404.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
21
488
508 66%
14
70
83
Trim, both sides, casing, painted
144.0
L.F.
145.8 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 5
434
449 66%
10
62
72
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
8.0
Face
424
424
61
61
TOTAL
457
2247
2704
269
321
590
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Carpet Systems
QTL
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
CARPET
576.8
S.F.
(sej/unit)
Carpet, nylon, level loop, 32 oz.
576.8
S.F.
1825
1825
261
261
Padding, sponge rubber cushion, min.
576.8
L.F.
331
331
47
47
Underlayment particle board, 3/8" thic
576.8
S.F.
709.4 g/S.F.
1.28E+09
523
460
984 33%
174
66
240
TOTAL
523
2616
3139
174
374
548
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Flooring Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
VINYL TILE
483.3
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Vinyl tile, 12"x12", 1/8" thick, min.
483.3
S.F.
1590
1590
227
227
Subfloor, plywood, 1/2" thick
483.3
S.F.
643.2 g/S.F.
8.29E+08
258
453
711 56%
143
65
208
TOTAL
258
2043
2301
143
292
435
211
Table C-16. Interior EMergy Costs For Proposal One (continued)
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY. UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9'
2.0 Ea.
(sei/unit)
Door, 32“x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8"
2.0 Ea.
633
633
90
90
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4“
24.0 L.F.
817 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
14
14
66%
9
9
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7 S.F.
946 g/S.F. 1.50E+09
32
32
Window, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24“x5'
4.0 Ea.
1266
1266
181
181
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
48.0 L.F.
817 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
28
28
66%
1 8
1 8
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
45.3 S.F.
946 g/S.F. 1.50E+09
64
64
Interior casing
46.0 L.F.
219 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
14
1 9
Exterior casing
46.0 L.F.
219 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
1 4
1 9
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
6.0 L.F.
1750 g/L.F. 7.28E+08
8
167
174
64%
5
24
29
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
3.0 Pr.
51
51
7
7
Lockset, passage
2.0 Ea.
73
73
1 0
10
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
4.0 Face
193
193
28
28
TOTAL
160
2583
2743
42
369
41 1
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Stairways
QTY. UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
7 RISERS, OAK TREADS, BOX STAIRS
2.0 Ea.
(sej/unit)
Treads, oak
14.0 Ea.
1750 g/Ea. 7.28E+08
1 8
710
727
64%
1 1
101
113
Balusters, Birch, 30" high
28.0 Ea.
780 g/Ea. 7.28E+08
1 6
593
609
64%
1 0
85
95
Newels
4.0 Ea.
398
398
57
57
Handrails, oak
14.0 L.F.
312 g/L.F. 7.28E+08
3
180
183
64%
2
26
28
Stringers, 2"x10", 3 each
42.0 L.F.
1572 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
47
283
330
66%
31
40
71
TOTAL
84
2163
2247
54
309
363
212
Table C-17. Specialties EMergy Costs For Proposal One
SPECIALTIES
396
9,320
9,717
260
1,331
1,592
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Kitchen Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
KITCHEN, AVERAGE GRADE
17.0
L.F.
(sej/uniU
Top cabinets, average grade
17.0
L.F.
925
925
132
132
Bottom cabinets, average grade
17.0
L.F.
1387
1387
198
198
Counter top, laminated plastic...
17.0
L.F.
829
829
118
118
Blocking, wood, 2â€x4"
17.0
L.F.
579 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
7
31
38
66%
5
4
9
Soffit framing, wood, 2"x4"
68.0
L.F.
579 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
28
85
113
66%
1 8
1 2
30
Soffit drywall, painted
34.0
S.F.
57
57
8
8
TOTAL
35
3315
3350
23
474
496
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Appliance Systems
ore
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT. MONEY
TOTAl.
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
EACH "MINIMUM"
(sei/unitt
Range, built-in
1.0
Ea.
984
984
141
141
Dishwasher, built-in
1.0
Ea.
728
728
104
104
Range hood, ducted
1.0
Ea.
315
315
45
45
Refrigerator, 19 cu.ft.
1.0
Ea.
986
986
141
141
Sinks, porcelain on cat iron, double bov
1.0
Ea.
916
916
131
131
Water heater, gas, 30 gallon
2.0
Ea.
1042
1042
149
149
TOTAL
4971
4971
710
710
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Wood Deck Systems
QDC
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
DECK, PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER, Ji
120.0
S.F.
(sej/unit)
Decking, 2“x6" lumber
249.6
L.F.
910 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
161
370
531
66%
106
53
158
Joists, 2"x8", 16" O.C.
120.0
L.F.
1241 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
106
237
342
66%
69
34
103
Girder, 2"x10"
15.0
L.F.
1572 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
17
42
59
66%
1 1
6
1 7
Posts, 4"x4", incliding concrete footint
30.0
L.F.
1352 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
29
188
217
66%
19
27
46
Railings, 2"x4"
120.0
L.F.
579 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
49
198
247
66%
32
28
61
361
1035
1396
237
148
385
213
Table C-18. Mechanical EMergy Costs For Proposal One
MECHANICAL
UNIT
Three Fixture Bathroom Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
BATHROOM WITH LAVORATORY IN VANIT
1
Ea.
Water closet, floor mounted, 2 piece
1
Ea.
Rough-in supply, waste & vent for w.c.
1
Ea.
Lavatory, 20"x18", P.E. cast iron...
1
Ea.
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for lavatory
1
Ea.
Shower, steel enamled, stone base
1
Ea.
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for shower
1
Ea.
Piping, supply, 1/2" copper
36
L.F.
Waste, 4" cast iron, no hub
7
L.F.
Vent, 2" steel, galvanized
6
L.F.
Vanity base, 2 door, 30" wide
1
Ea.
Vanity top, plastic laminated, sq. edge
TOTAL
3
L.F.
UNIT
Gas Heating/Cooling Systems
OTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
HEATING/COOLING, GAS-FIRED FORCED /
1
Ea.
Furnace, incl. plenum, compressor, coil
1
Ea.
Intermittent pilot
1
Ea.
Supply duct, rigid fiberglass
176
L.F.
Return duct, sheet metal, galvanized
158
Lb.
Lateral duct, 6" flexible fiberglass
144
L.F.
Register elbows
12
Ea.
Floor registers, enameled steel
1 2
Ea.
Floor grill return air
2
Ea.
Thermostat
1
Ea.
Refrigeration piping (precharged)
TOTAL
25
L.F.
0 10,794 10,794 0 1,542 1,542
EMERGY/ EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
UNIT MAT. MONEY TOTAL % RNW MAT. MONEY TOTAL
(¿gjZmUD
337
337
48
48
167
167
24
24
330
330
47
47
184
184
26
26
804
804
115
115
209
209
30
30
220
220
31
31
155
155
22
22
102
102
1 5
1 5
324
324
46
46
106
106
1 5
1 5
2939
2939
420
420
EMERGY/ EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
UNIT MAT. MONEY TOTAL % RNW MAT. MONEY TOTAL
(sei/unitl
4373
4373
625
625
165
165
24
24
638
638
91
91
1073
1073
153
153
696
696
99
99
239
239
34
34
330
330
47
47
73
73
1 0
1 0
73
73
1 0
10
196
196
28
28
7855
7855
1122
1122
214
Table C-19. Electrical EMergy Costs For Proposal One
ELECTRICAL
0
3,191
3,191
0 713
713
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Electrical Service Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
200 AMP SERVICE
1
Ea.
(sei/unit)
Weather cap
1
Ea.
65
65
9
9
Service entrance cable
10
L.F.
92
92
1 3
13
Meter socket
1
Ea.
237
237
34
34
Ground rod with clamp
1
Ea.
116
116
1 7
17
Ground cable
1 0
L.F.
39
39
6
6
3/4†EMT
5
L.F.
17
1 7
2
2
Panel board, 24 circuit
1
Ea.
945
945
135
135
TOTAL
151 1
1511
216
216
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Wiring Device Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
EACH USING NON-METALLIC SHEATHED CABLE
(sei/unit)
Air conditioning receptacles
1
Ea.
48
48
7
7
Dryer circuit
1
Ea.
97
97
1 4
14
Exhaust fan wiring
1
Ea.
48
48
7
7
Furnace circuit & switch
1
Ea.
75
75
1 1
1 1
Ground fault
4
Ea.
440
440
63
63
Lighting wiring
4
Ea.
143
1 43
20
20
Range circuits
1
Ea.
140
1 40
20
20
Switches, single pole
4
Ea.
143
143
20
20
Switches, 3-way
2
Ea.
92
92
1 3
1 3
Water heater
2
Ea.
168
168
24
24
TOTAL
1393
1393
199
199
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Light Fixture Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
EACH "AVERAGE"
fsei/unitl
Fluorescent strip. 4' long, 2 lights
1
Ea.
87
87
12
12
Incandescent, Recessed, 150W
2
Ea.
200
200
29
29
TOTAL
287
287
298
298
215
APPENDIX D
DETAIL MATERIAL AND COST ESTIMATES
FOR DESIGN PROPOSAL TWO
Table D-l. Takeoffs for Proposal Two
FOUNDATIONS
Footing Systems
N & S main
E & W main/wing
N & S wing
stair landing
total
Concrete Wall Systems
stair landing extra
total
FRAMING
Floor Framing (Wood)
main
wing
entry
stair landing
cat walk
total
Ext. Wall Framing (Wood)
wings (louvers)
above door openings
N wall, W bdrm
N wall, E bdrm
total
Headers, 2"x6"-4.5'
Headers, 2"x6"-6'
Hip Roof Framing System
main
stair landing
cupolas
total
Shed/Flat Roof Framing System
total
Partition Framing System
upper level
total
Headers, 2"x6"-3'
Headers, 2"x6"-6'
Sty
width
lencrth
heiaht
L. F.
4
13
52
4
14
56
4
4.5
18
4
7.5
30
156
sty
width
lencrth
heiaht
S.F.
156
4
624
30
4
120
744
sty
width
lenath
heiaht
S • F,.
4
14
14
784
4
5
10
200
1
10
13
130
1
8
8
64
1
3
10
30
1208
4
3
8
96
8
9
1
72
1
9
3
27
1
9
8
72
267
sty
width
lenath
heiaht
L.F.
12
9
108
1
12
12
gty
width
lenath
heiaht
S.F.
2
14
14
392
1
8
8
64
2
5
5
50
506
2
5
10
100
1
10
13
130
230
8
3
8
192
192
Sty
width
lenath
heiaht
I,. F.
4
6
24
2
12
24
217
218
Table D-l. Takeoffs for Proposal Two (continued)
EXTERIOR WALLS
Block Masonry Systems
corners
bottom wings
upper wings
total
Insulation Systems
block walls
ceilings
total
floors
total
WWW Window Systems
WDW Window & Door Systems
DWD Door & Window Systems
ROOFING
Hip Roof - Roofing Systems
Shed Roofing Systems
103 464 Cupolas
INTERIORS
Drywall & Thincoat Wall Sys.
inside of ext. walls
interior walls
total
sty
width
length
%
S.F.
16
4.5
8
576
4
8
8
256
4
4.5
6
108
4
3
6.25
75
1015
825
8
5.6
9
80%
323
2
5
10
80%
80
403
2
14
14
80%
314
2
2
2
5
5
10
80%
80
394
gty
width
length
height
S.F.
506
230
1
atv width length height S.F.
1015
384
1399
Drywall & Thincoat Ceiling Systems
total
503
Interior Door Systems
4
WDW Window & Door Systems
2
Closet Door Systems, 4'
wide
4
Carpet Systems
main
3
13.5
13.5
547
cat walk
1
3
10
30
total
577
Flooring Systems
wings
4
4.5
9.5
171
main
1
13.5
13.5
182
entry
1
10
13
130
total
483
Stairways, 7 risers
2
SPECIALTIES
qty
width
length height
L.F.
Kitchen Systems
17
S.F.
Wood Deck Systems
2
6
10
120
Table D-2. Site Work Dollar Costs For Proposal Two
SITE WORK
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
0.00
922.59
COST
922.59
Footing Excavation Systems
BUILDING, 26'X46\ 4' DEEP
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT. INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INSL
TOTAL
Clear and strip, dozer, light trees, 30
0.2
Acre
10.08
467.25
467.3
0.2
Acre
10.08
467.25
467.25
Excavate, backhoe
201
C.Y.
2.68
269.34
269.3
201.0
C.Y.
2.68
269.34
269.34
Backfill, dozer, 4" lifts, no compaction
100
C.Y.
0.667
93.00
93.0
100.0
C.Y.
0.67
93
93
Rough grade, dozer, 30' from building
TOTAL
100
C.Y.
0.667
14.09
93.00
922.59
93.0
922.6
100.0
C.Y.
0.67
14.09
93
922.59
93
922.59
219
Table D-3. Foundation Dollar Costs For Proposal Two
FOUNDATIONS
Footing Systems
8" THICK BY 18" WIDE FOOTING
ore
UNIT
Concrete, 3000 psi
0
C.Y.
Place concrete, direct chute
0
C.Y.
Forms, footing, 4 uses
1.3
Sfca
Reinforcing, 1/2" dia bars, 2 ea.
1.4
Lb.
Keyway, 2â€x4", beveled, 4 uses
1
L.F.
Dowels, 1/2" dia bars, 2' long, 6' O.C.
TOTAL
0.2
Ea.
Concrete Wall Systems
GDC*
UNIT
8" THICK, POURED CONCRETE WALL (4‘
high)
Concrete, 8" THICK, 3000 psi
0
C.Y.
Forms, prefab, plywood, 4 uses per mo
2
Sfca
Reinforcing, light
0.7
Lb.
Place concrete, direct chute
0
C.Y.
Dampproofing, brushed on, 2 coats
1
S.F.
Rigid insulation, 1" polystyrene
1
S.F.
Anchor bolts, 1/2" Dia x 12" , 4' O.C.
0.1
EA.
Sill Plates, 2"x4", treated
0.3
L.F.
TOTAL
MAN-
COSTEACH
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
Q£L
156.0
2.20
2.20
6.2
0.016
0.37
0.37
6.2
0.103
0.74
2.56
3.30
207.5
0.011
0.36
0.35
0.71
215.3
0.015
0.18
0.42
0.60
156.0
0.021
0.18
0.69
0.87
25.9
0.166
3.66
4.39
8.05
MAN-
COSTEACH
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
o
as
Ol
1.38
1.38
18.6
0.099
0.66
2.52
3.18
1488.0
0.004
0.19
0.1 1
0.30
498.5
0.013
0.31
0.31
18.6
0.016
0.10
0.42
0.52
744.0
0.010
0.34
0.28
0.62
744.0
0.003
0.04
0.07
0.1 1
44.6
0.007
0.16
0.19
0.35
186.0
0.152
2.87
3.90
6.77
2706.24
3586.44
6292.68
MAN-
COST
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
1NSL
TOTAL
L.F.
C.Y.
343.20
343.20
C.Y.
2.5
57.72
57.72
Sfca
16.1
115.44
399.36
514.80
Lb.
1.7
56.16
54.60
110.76
L.F.
2.3
28.08
65.52
93.60
Ea.
3.3
28.08
107.64
135.72
25.9
570.96
684.84
1255.80
MAN-
COST
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
S.F.
C.Y.
1026.72
1026.72
Sfca
73.7
491.04
1874.88
2365.92
Lb.
3.0
141.36
81.84
223.20
C.Y.
9.7
230.64
230.64
S.F.
11.9
74.40
312.48
386.88
S.F.
7.4
252.96
208.32
461.28
EA.
2.2
29.76
52.08
81.84
L.F.
5.2
119.04
141.36
260.40
113.1
2135.28
2901.60
5036.88
220
Table D-4. Framing Dollar Costs For Proposal Two
FRAMING
6008.86
4987.06
10995.92
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Floor Framing Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST. TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
2"x10\ 16" O.C.
1208
S.F.
Wood joists, 2"x10“, 16" O.C.
1 L.F.
0.018
1.38
0.45
1.8
1208.0
L.F.
21.74
1667.04
543.60
2210.64
Bridging, 1"x3\ 6' O.C.
0.1 Pr.
0.005
0.03
0.15
0.2
96.6
Pr.
6.04
36.24
181.20
217.44
Box Sills, 2"x10"
0.2 L.F.
0.003
0.21
0.06
0.3
181.2
L.F.
3.62
253.68
72.48
326.16
Girder, incl. tally columns, 3-2"x10"
0.1 L.F.
0.016
0.55
0.42
1.0
151.0
L.F.
19.33
664.40
507.36
1171.76
Sheathing, plywood subfloor, 5/8" CDX
1 S.F.
0.012
0.47
0.31
0.8
1208.0
S.F.
14.50
567.76
374.48
942.24
Furring, 1"x3", 16" O.C.
1 L.F.
0.023
0.27
0.63
0.9
1208.0
L.F.
27.78
326.16
761.04
1087.20
TOTAL
0.077
2.91
2.02
4.9
93.02
3515.28
2440.16
5955.44
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Exterior Wall Framing Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST. TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT,
1NS1
TOTAL
2"x4", 16" O.C.
267.0
S.F.
2"x4" studs, 16" O.C.
1 L.F.
0.015
0.4
0.39
0.8
267.0
L.F.
4.01
106.80
104.13
210.93
Plates, 2"x4", double top, single bottor
0.4 L.F.
0.006
0.15
0.15
0.3
100.1
L.F.
1.60
40.05
40.05
80.10
Corner bracing, let-in, 1"x6"
0.1 L.F.
0.003
0.02
0.09
0.1
16.8
L.F.
0.80
5.34
24.03
29.37
Sheathing, 1/2" plywood, CDX
1 S.F.
0.01 1
0.41
0.29
0.7
267.0
S.F.
2.94
109.47
77.43
186.90
Headers, 2x6", 6' (doors), QTY 1
12 L.F.
0.185
3.66
4.74
8.4
12.0
L.F.
0.19
3.66
4.74
8.40
Headers, 2x6", 4.5'(windows), QTY 12
9 L.F.
0.246
4.88
6.3
11.2
108.0
L.F.
2.95
58.56
75.60
134.16
TOTAL
12.48
323.88
325.98
649.86
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Hip Roof Framing Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST. TOTAL
QTY,
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
2"x6" RAFTERS, 16" O.C., 4/12 PITCH
506.0
S.F.
Hip rafters, 2"x6", 16" O.C.
0.2 L.F.
0.00
0.11
0.08
0.2
81.0
L.F.
1.52
55.66
40.48
96.14
Jack rafters, 2"x6", 16" O.C.
1.4 L.F.
0.04
0.96
0.97
1.9
723.6
L.F.
19.23
485.76
490.82
976.58
Ceiling Joists, 2"x4", 16" O.C.
1 L.F.
0.01
0.39
0.33
0.72
506.0
L.F.
6.58
197.34
166.98
364.32
Fascia board, 2"x8"
0.2 L.F.
0.01
0.16
0.31
0.47
111.3
L.F.
6.07
80.96
156.86
237.82
Soffit nailer, 2“x4", 24" O.C.
0.2 L.F.
0.01
0.10
0.15
0.25
111.3
L.F.
3.04
50.60
75.90
126.50
Sheathing, ext., plywood, 1/2" CDX
1.6 S.F.
0.02
0.64
0.46
1.1
794.4
S.F.
9.11
323.84
232.76
556.60
Furring strips, 1"x3", 16" O.C.
1 L.F.
0.02
0.27
0.63
0.9
506.0
L.F.
11.64
136.62
318.78
455.40
TOTAL
0.11
2.63
2.93
5.6
57.18
1330.78
1482.58
2813.36
221
Table D-4. Framing Dollar Costs For Proposal Two (continued)
MAN- COST PER S.F. MAN- COST
Shed/Flat Roof Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
2"x6“ RAFTERS, 16†O.C., 4/12 PITCH
230
S.F.
Rafters, 2,,x6â€, 16" O.C., 4/12 pitch
1.2
L.F.
0.019
0.78
0.48
1.3
592.0
L.F.
9.61
394.68
242.88
637.56
Fascia board, 2â€x8"
0.1
L.F.
0.006
0.07
0.15
0.2
50.6
L.F.
3.04
35.42
75.90
111.32
Bridging, 1"x3", 6' O.C.
0.1
Pr.
0.005
0.03
0.15
0.2
40.5
Pr.
2.53
15.18
75.90
91.08
Sheathing, exterior, plywood, 1/2†CD
1.2
S.F.
0.014
0.50
0.35
0.9
622.4
S.F.
7.08
253.00
177.10
430.10
TOTAL
0.044
1.38
1.13
2.5
22.26
698.28
571.78
1270.06
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Partition Framing System
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTÜ
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
2"x4â€, 16" O.C.
192.0
S.F.
2"x4" studs, #2 or better, 16" O.C.
1
L.F.
0.015
0.4
0.39
0.8
192.0
L.F.
2.88
76.80
74.88
151.68
Plates, double top, single bottom
0.4
L.F.
0.006
0.15
0.15
0.3
72.0
L.F.
1.15
28.80
28.80
57.60
Cross bracing, let-in, 1"x6"
0.1
L.F.
0.004
0.03
0.13
0.2
15.4
L.F.
0.77
5.76
24.96
30.72
4.0
Ea.
Headers, 2“x6", 3' long
6
L.F.
0.185
3.66
4.74
8.4
24.0
L.F.
0.74
14.64
18.96
33.60
2.0
Ea.
Headers, 2"x6", 6' long
1 2
L.F.
0.185
3.66
4.74
8.4
24.0
L.F.
0.74
14.64
18.96
33.60
TOTAL
6.28
140.64
166.56
307.20
222
Table D-5. Exterior Wall Dollar Costs For Proposal Two
EXTERIOR WALLS 9589.25 8341.55 17930.80
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Block Masonry Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
8" THICK CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
1015.0
S.F.
8" thick concrete block, 8,,x8"x16"
1.0
S.F.
0.107
1.27
2.74
4.01
1015.0
S.F.
108.6
1289.05
2781.10
4070.15
Masonry reinforcing
0.6
L.F.
0.002
0.12
0.04
0.16
634.4
L.F.
2.0
121.80
40.60
162.40
Furring, 1"x3", 16" O.C.
1.00
L.F.
0.016
0.27
0.44
0.71
1015.0
L.F.
16.2
274.05
446.60
720.65
Masonry insulation, poured vermiculite
1.0
S.F.
0.018
0.51
0.48
0.99
1015.0
S.F.
18.3
517.65
487.20
1004.85
Stucco, 2 coats
1.0
S.F.
0.069
0.2
1.76
1.96
1015.0
S.F.
70.0
203.00
1786.40
1989.40
Masonry paint, 2 coats
1.0
S.F.
0.016
0.19
0.40
0.59
1015.0
S.F.
16.2
192.85
406.00
598.85
TOTAL
0.228
2.56
5.86
8.42
231.4
2598.40
5947.90
8546.30
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Insulation Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QIY
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
NON-RIGID INSULATION BATTS
For block walls...
824.7
S.F.
Polystyrene, extruded, 3/4†th, R4
1.0
S.F.
0.01
0.34
0.28
0.62
824.7
S.F.
8.2
280.39
230.91
511.31
For ceiling..
402.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, foil faced, 9" thick, R30
1.0
S.F.
0.006
0.56
0.16
0.72
402.6
S.F.
2.4
225.43
64.41
289.84
For floor..
393.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, kraft faced, 3 1/2" thick, F
1.0
S.F.
0.005
0.21
0.14
0.35
393.6
S.F.
2.0
82.66
55.10
137.76
TOTAL
12.6
588.48
350.43
938.91
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
WWW Window Systems
Q1X
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
TRI-WINDOW SET, MIDDLE FIXED, 32“x48"
2.0
Ea.
Window, wood, 32"x48", insul. glass
3.0
Ea.
3
450.00
75.00
525.00
6.0
Ea.
6.0
900.00
150.00
1050.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
36.0
L.F.
72.0
L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
21.0
S.F.
42.0
S.F.
Trim, interior casing
26.0
L.F.
0.866
19.76
23.92
43.68
52.0
L.F.
1.7
39.52
47.84
87.36
Paint, interior, primer & 2 coats
1.0
Ea.
0.800
1.18
20.00
21.18
2.0
Ea.
1.6
2.36
40.00
42.36
Calking
26.0
L.F.
0.738
1.92
20.64
22.56
52.0
L.F.
1.5
3.84
41.28
45.12
TOTAL
5.404
472.86
139.56
612.42
10.8
945.72
279.12
1224.84
223
Table D-5. Exterior Wall Dollar Costs For Proposal Two (continued)
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
WDW Window & Door Systems
STL
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9' WIDE
2.0 Ea.
Door, 32nx6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8''
1.0
Ea.
1
200
26.00
226.00
2.0 Ea.
2.0
400.00
52.00
452.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4M
12.0
L.F.
24.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
11.3
S.F.
22.7 S.F.
Window, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'
2.0
Ea.
2
400
52.00
452.00
4.0 Ea.
4.0
800.00
104.00
904.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24
L.F.
48.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
45.3 S.F.
Interior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.5
18.40
35.90
46.0 L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Exterior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.5
18.40
35.90
46.0 L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
3.0
L.F.
0.96
35
24.50
59.50
6.0 L.F.
1.9
70.00
49.00
119.00
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
1.5
Pr.
18.15
18.15
3.0 Pr.
0.0
36.30
0.00
36.30
Lockset
1.0
Ea.
0.571
28.5
15.7
44.2
2.0 Ea.
1.1
57.00
31.40
88.40
Drip cap
3.0
L.F.
0.12
0.55
3.3
3.85
6.0 L.F.
0.2
1.10
6.60
7.70
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
2.0
Face
1.6
4
65
69
4.0 Face
3.2
8.00
130.00
138.00
TOTAL
7.585
721.2
223.3
944.5
15.2
1442.40
446.60
1889.00
MAN-
COST PER:
S.F.
MAN-
COST
DWD Window & Door Systems
QIT
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
TRI PANEL DOOR/WINDOW/DOOR, 9' WIDE
5 Ea.
Door, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8"
2.0
Ea.
2
400
52
452
10.0 Ea.
10.0
2000.00
260.00
2260.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24.0
L.F.
120.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
113.3 S.F.
Window, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'
1.0
Ea.
1
200.00
26.00
226.00
5.0 Ea.
5.0
1000.00
130.00
1130.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
12.0
L.F.
60.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
11.3
S.F.
56.7 S.F.
Interior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.50
18.40
35.90
115.0 L.F.
3.3
87.50
92.00
179.50
Exterior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.50
18.40
35.90
1 15.0 L.F.
3.3
87.50
92.00
179.50
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
6.0
L.F.
1.92
70.00
49.00
1 19.00
30 L.F.
9.6
350.00
245.00
595.00
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
3.0
Pr.
36.30
36.30
15.0 Pr.
0.0
181.50
0.00
181.50
Lockset
2.0
Ea.
1.142
57.00
31.40
88.40
10.0 Ea.
5.7
285.00
157.00
442.00
Drip cap
3.0
L.F.
0.12
0.55
3.30
3.85
15.0 L.F.
0.6
2.75
16.50
19.25
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
2.0
Face
1.6
4.00
65.00
69.00
10.0 Face
8.0
20.00
325.00
345.00
TOTAL
9.116
802.85
263.50
1066.35
45.6
4014.25
1317.50
5331.75
224
Table D-6. Roofing Dollar Costs For Proposal Two
ROOFING
771.88
1069.04
1840.92
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Hip Roof - Roofing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
ASPHALT, ROOF SHINGLES, CLASS A
506.0
S.F.
Shingles, asphalt std., 210-235
Ib/sq.ft. 1.6
S.F.
0.023
0.38
0.62
1.00
794.4
S.F.
11.6
192.28
313.72
506.00
Drip Edge, metal, 5" girth
0.1
L.F.
0.002
0.03
0.07
0.10
61.7
L.F.
1.0
15.18
35.42
50.60
Building paper, #15 felt
1.80
S.F.
0.002
0.05
0.07
0.12
910.8
S.F.
1.0
25.30
35.42
60.72
Ridge shingles, asphalt
0.1
L.F.
0.002
0.03
0.05
0.08
38.0
L.F.
1.0
15.18
25.30
40.48
Soffit&fascia, painted AL, 1' overhang 0.1
L.F.
0.017
0.24
0.44
0.68
60.7
L.F.
8.6
121.44
222.64
344.08
Gutter, seamless, AL painted
0.1
L.F.
0.008
0.12
0.24
0.36
60.7
L.F.
4.0
60.72
121.44
182.16
Downspouts, AL painted
0
L.F.
0.002
0.03
0.05
0.08
17.7
L.F.
1.0
15.18
25.30
40.48
TOTAL
0.056
0.88
1.54
2.42
28.3
445.28
779.24
1224.52
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Shed Roofing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
ASPHALT, ROOF SHINGLES, CLASS A
230.0
S.F.
Shingles, asphalt std., 210-235
Ib/sq.ft. 1.2
S.F.
0.019
0.31
0.5
0.81
282.9
S.F.
4.4
71.30
115.00
186.30
Drip Edge, metal, 5" girth
0.1
L.F.
0.002
0.02
0.06
0.08
23.0
L.F.
0.5
4.60
13.80
18.40
Building paper, #15 felt
1.3
S.F.
0.002
0.04
0.05
0.09
299.0
S.F.
0.5
9.20
11.50
20.70
Soffit&fascia, painted AL, 1' overhang 0.1
L.F.
0.012
0.16
0.29
0.45
18.4
L.F.
2.8
36.80
66.70
103.50
Rake trim, painted, 1"x6"
0
L.F.
0.004
0.03
0.1
0.13
9.89
L.F.
0.92
6.9
23
29.9
Gutter, seamless, AL painted
0
L.F.
0.003
0.04
0.08
0.12
9.2
L.F.
0.69
9.2
18.4
27.6
Downspouts, AL painted
0
L.F.
0.001
0.02
0.03
0.05
4.6
L.F.
0.23
4.6
6.9
11.5
TOTAL
0.043
0.62
1.11
1.73
9.9
142.60
255.30
397.90
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Cupolas
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
103 464 CUPOLA
1.0
Ea.
0300 23" square, Al roof
1.0
Ea.
2.162
184.00
34.50
218.50
1.0
S.F.
2.2
184.00
34.50
218.50
225
Table D-7. Interiors Dollar Costs For Proposal Two
INTERIORS
Drywall & Thincoat Wall Systems QTY.
5/8" SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard 1.0
Finish, taped & finished joints 1.0
Corners, taped & finished, 32 L.F.... 0.08
Painting, primer & 2 coats 1.0
Trim, baseboard, painted 0.1
TOTAL
Drywall&Thincoat Ceiling Systems QTY.
5/8" SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard 1.0
Finish, taped & finished 1.0
Corners, taped & finished, 12'x12' room 0.0
Painting, primer & 2 coats 1.0
TOTAL
Interior Door Systems QTY.
BIRCH, FLUSH DOOR, HOLLOW CORE
Door, birch, hollow core, 2'-8"x6'-8" 1
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb 17.0
Trim, casing, painted 34
Butt hinges, bronze, 3-1/2"x3-1/2“ 1.5
Lockset, passage 1.0
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats 2.0
TOTAL
MAN-
COSTEACH
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
1399.0
S.F.
0.008
0.21
0.22
0.43
1399.0
S.F.
0.008
0.08
0.22
0.30
1399.0
L.F.
0.001
0.01
0.04
0.05
116.1
S.F.
0.01
0.1
0.25
0.35
1399.0
L.F.
0.006
0.15
0.16
0.31
174.9
0.033
0.55
0.89
1.44
MAN-
COSTEACH
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
503.2
S.F.
0.008
0.21
0.22
0.43
503.2
S.F.
0.008
0.08
0.22
0.3
503.2
L.F.
0.005
0.02
0.13
0.15
16.6
S.F.
0.01
0.1
0.25
0.35
503.2
0.031
0.41
0.82
1.23
MAN-
COST EACH
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
4
Ea.
0.889
37
22.63
59.63
4.0
L.F.
0.725
63.58
18.53
82.11
68.0
L.F.
1.38
28.22
37.4
65.62
136
Pr.
32.25
32.25
6
Ea.
0.5
12.45
13.75
26.20
4.0
Face
2.465
13.16
62.40
75.56
8.0
5.959
186.66
154.71
341.37
7451.48
4870.86
12322.34
MAN-
COST
UNJI
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
S.F.
S.F.
11.2
293.79
307.78
601.57
S.F.
11.2
111.92
307.78
419.70
L.F.
1.4
13.99
55.96
69.95
S.F.
14.0
139.90
349.75
489.65
L.F.
8.4
209.85
223.84
433.69
46.2
769.45
1245.11
2014.56
MAN-
COST
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
S.F.
S.F.
4.0
105.67
110.70
216.38
S.F.
4.0
40.26
110.70
150.96
L.F.
2.5
10.06
65.42
75.48
S.F.
5.0
50.32
125.80
176.12
15.6
206.31
412.62
618.94
MAN-
COST
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
Ea.
Ea.
3.6
148.00
90.52
238.52
L.F.
2.9
254.32
74.12
328.44
L.F.
5.52
112.88
149.6
262.48
Pr.
129
129
Ea.
2.0
49.80
55.00
104.80
Face
9.9
52.64
249.60
302.24
23.8
746.64
618.84
1365.48
226
Table D-7. Interiors Dollar Costs For Proposal Two (continued)
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Closet Door Systems
ore
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
BY-PASSING, FLUSH, BIRCH, HOLLOW CORE, 4'X6'-8"
4.0
Ea.
Door, birch, hollow core, 4'x6'-8H
1
Ea.
1.333
127.0
34
161
4.0
Ea.
5.332
508.00
136.00
644.00
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb
1 8
L.F.
0.768
67.5
19.60
87.10
72.0
L.F.
3.1
270.00
78.40
348.40
Trim, both sides, casing, painted
36
L.F.
1.849
28.0
49.50
77.50
144.0
L.F.
7.4
112.00
198.00
310.00
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
2
Face
2.465
13.2
62.50
75.65
8.0
Face
9.9
52.60
250.00
302.60
TOTAL
6.415
235.7
165.60
401.25
25.7
942.60
662.40
1605.00
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Carpet Systems
STL
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTL
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
CARPET
576.8
S.F.
Carpet, nylon, level loop, 32 oz.
1
S.F.
0.018
1.8
0.47
2.26
576.8
S.F.
10.4
1032.38
271.07
1303.46
Padding, sponge rubber cushion, min.
1
S.F.
0.006
0.3
0.15
0.41
576.8
L.F.
3.5
149.96
86.51
236.47
Underlayment particle board, 3/8" thick
1
L.F.
0.011
0.3
0.27
0.57
576.8
S.F.
6.3
173.03
155.72
328.75
TOTAL
0.035
2.4
0.89
3.24
20.2
1355.36
513.31
1868.67
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Flooring Systems
QTL
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
VINYL TILE
483.3
S.F.
Vinyl tile, 12"x12", 1/8" thick, min.
1
S.F.
0.02
1 .9
0.42
2.35
483.3
S.F.
7.7
932.67
202.97
1 135.64
Subfloor, plywood, 1/2" thick
1
L.F.
0.01
0.4
0.27
0.67
483.3
S.F.
5.3
193.30
130.48
323.78
TOTAL
0.027
2.3
0.69
3.02
13.0
1125.97
333.44
1459.42
227
Table D-7. Interiors Dollar Costs For Proposal Two (continued)
MAN- COST EACH MAN- COST
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
1NSL
TOTAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9' WIDE
2.0
Ea.
Door, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8"
1.0
Ea.
1.00
200.00
26.00
226.00
2.0
Ea.
2.0
400.00
52.00
452.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4â€x4â€
12.0
L.F.
24.0
L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
11.3
S.F.
22.7
S.F.
Window, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24''x5'8"
2.0
Ea.
2.00
400.00
52.00
452.00
4.0
Ea.
4.0
800.00
104.00
904.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24.0
L.F.
48.0
L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
45.3
S.F.
Interior casing
23.0
L.F.
C.67
17.50
18.40
35.90
46.0
L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Exterior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.67
17.50
18.40
35.90
46.0
L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
3.0
L.F.
0.96
35.00
24.50
59.50
6.0
L.F.
1.9
70.00
49.00
1 19.00
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
1.5
Pr.
18.15
18.15
3.0
Pr.
0.0
36.30
0.00
36.30
Lockset, passage
1.0
Ea.
0.50
12.45
13.75
26.20
2.0
Ea.
1.0
24.90
27.50
52.40
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coats
2.0
Face
1.60
4.00
65.00
69.00
4.0
Face
3.2
8.00
130.00
138.00
TOTAL
7.39
704.60
218.05
922.65
14.8
1409.20
436.10
1845.30
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Stairways
QBi
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
7 RISERS, OAK TREADS, BOX STAIRS
2.0
Ea.
Treads, oak
7.0
Ea.
3.1 1
168.00
85.40
253.40
14.0
Ea.
6.2
336.00
170.80
506.80
Balusters, Birch, 30" high
14.0
Ea.
3.06
127.40
84.28
211.68
28.0
Ea.
6.1
254.80
168.56
423.36
Newels
2.0
Ea.
2.29
79.00
63.00
142.00
4.0
Ea.
4.6
158.00
126.00
284.00
Handrails, oak
7.0
L.F.
0.93
38.50
25.69
64.19
14.0
L.F.
1.9
77.00
51.38
128.38
Stringers, 2"x10", 3 each
21.0
L.F.
2.59
35.07
66.15
101.22
42.0
L.F.
5.2
70.14
132.30
202.44
TOTAL
11.98
447.97
324.52
772.49
24.0
895.94
649.04
1544.98
228
Table D-8. Specialties Dollar Costs For Proposal Two
SPECIALTIES 4847.30 1810.16 6657.46
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Kitchen Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
KITCHEN, AVERAGE GRADE
17
L.F.
Top cabinets, average grade
1.0
L.F.
0.21
33.00
5.86
38.86
1 7
L.F.
3.6
561.00
99.62
660.62
Bottom cabinets, average grade
1.0
L.F.
0.32
49.50
8.79
58.29
1 7
L.F.
5.4
841.50
149.43
990.93
Counter top, laminated plastic...
1.0
L.F.
0.27
27.50
7.35
34.85
1 7
L.F.
4.5
467.50
124.95
592.45
Blocking, wood, 2"x4''
1.0
L.F.
0.03
0.40
0.92
1.32
1 7
L.F.
0.5
6.80
15.64
22.44
Soffit framing, wood, 2"x4"
4.0
L.F.
0.07
1.76
1.80
3.56
68
L.F.
1.2
29.92
30.60
60.52
Soffit drywall, painted
2.0
S.F.
0.06
0.74
1.66
2.40
34
S.F.
1.0
12.58
28.22
40.80
TOTAL
0.96
112.90
26.38
139.28
16.4
1919.30
448.46
2367.76
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Appliance Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
total
EACH "MINIMUM"
Range, built-in
1.0
Ea.
6.00
535.00
168.00
703.00
1
Ea.
6.0
535.00
168.00
703.00
Dishwasher, built-in
1.0
Ea.
6.74
320.00
200.00
520.00
1
Ea.
6.7
320.00
200.00
520.00
Range hood, ducted
1.0
Ea.
4.66
96.00
129.00
225.00
1
Ea.
4.7
96.00
129.00
225.00
Refrigerator, 19 cu.ft.
1.0
Ea.
2.67
650.00
54.50
704.50
1
Ea.
2.7
650.00
54.50
704.50
Sinks, porcelain on cast iron
1.0
Ea.
10.81
365.00
289.00
654.00
1
Ea.
10.8
365.00
289.00
654.00
Water heater, gas, 30 gallon
1.0
Ea.
4.00
253.00
119.00
372.00
2
Ea.
8.0
506.00
238.00
744.00
TOTAL
34.87
2219.00
959.50 3178.50
38.9
2472.00
1078.50
3550.50
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Wood Deck Systems
QTX
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
DECK, PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER, JOISTS 16" O.C.
120
S.F.
Decking, 2"x6“ lumber
2.1
L.F.
0.03
1.52
0.68
2.20
249.6
L.F.
3.2
182.40
81.60
264.00
Joists, 2â€x8", 16" O.C.
1.0
L.F.
0.02
0.98
0.43
1.41
120
L.F.
2.0
117.60
51.60
169.20
Girder, 2"x10"
0.1
L.F.
0.00
0.20
0.05
0.25
1 5
L.F.
0.2
24.00
6.00
30.00
Posts, 4"x4", incl. concrete footing
0.3
L.F.
0.02
0.58
0.54
1.12
30
L.F.
2.6
69.60
64.80
134.40
Railings, 2"x4"
1.0
L.F.
0.03
0.52
0.66
1.18
120
L.F.
3.1
62.40
79.20
141.60
0.09
3.80
2.36
6.16
11.3
456.00
283.20
739.20
229
Table D-9. Mechanical Dollar Costs For Proposal Two
MECHANICAL
5252.32
2457.57
7709.89
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Three Fixture Bathroom Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT,
INST.
TOTAL
BATHROOM WITH LAVORATORY IN VANITY
1
Ea.
Water closet, floor mounted, 2 piece
1 Ea.
3.02
160.00
81.00
241.00
1
Ea.
3.0
160.00
81.00
241.00
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for w.c.
1 Ea.
2.38
53.68
65.38
119.06
1
Ea.
2.4
53.68
65.38
119.06
Lavatory, 20"x18", P.E. cast iron...
1 Ea.
2.50
169.00
67.00
236.00
1
Ea.
2.5
169.00
67.00
236.00
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for lavatoi
1 Ea.
2.79
54.00
77.70
131.70
1
Ea.
2.8
54.00
77.70
131.70
Shower, steel enamled, stone base
1 Ea.
8.00
360.00
214.00
574.00
1
Ea.
8.0
360.00
214.00
574.00
Rough-In supply,waste,vent for shower
1 Ea.
3.24
57.75
91.33
149.08
1
Ea.
3.2
57.75
91.33
149.08
Piping, supply, 1/2†copper
36 L.F.
3.56
51.84
105.48
157.32
36
L.F.
3.6
51.84
105.48
157.32
Waste, 4†cast iron, no hub
7 L.F.
1.93
58.80
51.80
110.60
7
L.F.
1.9
58.80
51.80
110.60
Vent, 2†steel, galvanized
6 L.F.
1.50
33.00
40.20
73.20
6
L.F.
1.5
33.00
40.20
73.20
Vanity base, 2 door, 30" wide
1 Ea.
1.00
204.00
27.50
231.50
1
Ea.
1.0
204.00
27.50
231.50
Vanity top, plastic laminated, sq. edge
3 L.F.
0.71
56.07
19.62
75.69
2.67
L.F.
0.7
56.07
19.62
75.69
TOTAL
30.62
1258.14
841.01
2099.15
30.6
1258.14
841.01
2099.15
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Gas Heating/Cooling Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
OTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
HEATING/COOLING, GAS-FIRED FORCED AIR, ONE ZONE, 1200 S.F.
1
Ea.
Furnace, incl. compressor, coil
1 Ea.
14.72
2737.00
386.40
3123.40
1
Ea.
14.7
2737.00
386.40
3123.40
Intermittent pilot
1 Ea.
118.00
118.00
1
Ea.
118.00
118.00
Supply duct, rigid fiberglass
176 L.F.
12.07
124.96
330.88
455.84
176
L.F.
12.1
124.96
330.88
455.84
Return duct, sheet metal, galvanized
158 Lb.
16.14
323.90
442.40
766.30
158
Lb.
16.1
323.90
442.40
766.30
Lateral duct, 6" flexible fiberglass
144 L.F.
8.86
263.52
233.28
496.80
144
L.F.
8.9
263.52
233.28
496.80
Register elbows
12 Ea.
3.20
85.80
84.60
170.40
1 2
Ea.
3.2
85.80
84.60
170.40
Floor registers, enameled steel
12 Ea.
3.00
147.60
88.20
235.80
1 2
Ea.
3.0
147.60
88.20
235.80
Floor grill return air
2 Ea.
0.73
30.90
21.30
52.20
2
Ea.
0.7
30.90
21.30
52.20
Thermostat
1 Ea.
1.00
22.50
29.50
52.00
1
Ea.
1.0
22.50
29.50
52.00
Refrigeration piping (precharged)
2 5 L.F.
140.00
140.00
25
L.F.
140.00
140.00
TOTAL
59.71
3994.18
1616.56
5610.74
59.7
3994.18
1616.56
5610.74
230
Table D-10. Electrical Dollar Costs For Proposal Two
ELECTRICAL 1041.40 1238.10 2279.50
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Electrical Service Systems
QTÜ
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
200 AMP SERVICE
1 Ea.
Weather cap
1
Ea.
1.00
17.60
29.00
46.60
1 Ea.
1.0
17.60
29.00
46.60
Service entrance cable
1 0
L.F.
1.14
32.50
33.10
65.60
10 L.F.
1.1
32.50
33.10
65.60
Meter socket
1
Ea.
4.21
47.50
122.00
169.50
1 Ea.
4.2
47.50
122.00
169.50
Ground rod with clamp
1
Ea.
1.82
30.50
52.50
83.00
1 Ea.
1.8
30.50
52.50
83.00
Ground cable
10
L.F.
0.50
13.20
14.50
27.70
1 0 L.F.
0.5
13.20
14.50
27.70
3/4" EMT
5
L.F.
0.31
2.95
8.90
11.85
5 L.F.
0.3
2.95
8.90
11.85
Panel board, 24 circuit
1
Ea.
12.31
320.00
355.00
675.00
1 Ea.
12.3
320.00
355.00
675.00
TOTAL
21.29
464.25
615.00
1079.25
21.3
464.25
615.00
1079.25
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Wiring Device Systems
orl
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
EACH USING NON-METALLIC SHEATHED CABLE
Air conditioning receptacles
1
Ea.
0.80
11.10
23.00
34.10
1 Ea.
0.8
11.10
23.00
34.10
Dryer circuit
1
Ea.
1.46
27.50
42.00
69.50
1 Ea.
1.5
27.50
42.00
69.50
Exhaust fan wiring
1
Ea.
0.80
11.10
23.00
34.10
1 Ea.
0.8
11.10
23.00
34.10
Furnace circuit & switch
1
Ea.
1.33
14.85
38.50
53.35
1 Ea.
1.3
14.85
38.50
53.35
Ground fault
1
Ea.
1.00
49.50
29.00
78.50
4 Ea.
4.0
198.00
116.00
314.00
Lighting wiring
1
Ea.
0.50
11.00
14.50
25.50
4 Ea.
2.0
44.00
58.00
102.00
Range circuits
1
Ea.
2.00
42.00
58.00
100.00
1 Ea.
2.0
42.00
58.00
100.00
Switches, single pole
1
Ea.
0.50
11.00
14.50
25.50
4 Ea.
2.0
44.00
58.00
102.00
Switches, 3-way
1
Ea.
0.67
13.65
19.30
32.95
2 Ea.
1.3
27.30
38.60
65.90
Water heater
1
Ea.
1.60
13.65
46.50
60.15
2 Ea.
3.2
27.30
93.00
120.30
TOTAL
10.66
205.35
308.30
513.65
18.9
447.15
548.10
995.25
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Light Fixture Systems
QTY,
UNIT
HOURS
mal
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
EACH "AVERAGE"
Fluorescent strip. 4' long, 2 lights
1
Ea.
1.00
33.00
29.00
62.00
1 Ea.
1.0
33.00
29.00
62.00
Incandescent, Recessed, 150W
1
Ea.
0.80
48.50
23.00
71.50
2 Ea.
1.6
97.00
46.00
143.00
TOTAL
1.80
81.50
52.00
133.50
2.6
130.00
75.00
205.00
231
Table D-ll. Site Work EMergy Costs For Proposal Two
SITE WORK
0 1,292
1,292
0
185
185
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Footing Excavation Systems
BUILDING, 26'X46', 4' DEEP
QIY
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
Clear and strip, dozer, light trees, 30'
0.2
Acre
654
654
93
93
Excavate, backhoe
201.0
C.Y.
377
377
54
54
Backfill, dozer, 4" lifts, no compaction
100.0
C.Y.
130
130
1 9
1 9
Rough grade, dozer, 30' from building
100.0
C.Y.
130
130
19
1 9
TOTAL
1292
1292
185
185
232
Table D-12. Foundation EMergy Costs For Proposal Two
FOUNDATIONS
1,802
8,810
10,612
502
1,259
1,761
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Footing Systems
OTA
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
8" THICK BY 18" WIDE FOOTING
156.0
L.F.
(sei/unitl
Concrete, 3000 psl
6.2
C.Y.
4086.0 g/C.Y
5.92E+08
1 5
480
496
69
69
Place concrete, direct chute
6.2
C.Y.
81
81
1 2
12
Forms, footing, 4 uses
207.5
Sfca
643.2 g/S.F.
8.29E+08
111
721
831
56%
61
103
164
Reinforcing, 1/2†dia bars, 2 ea.
215.3
Lb.
454.0 g/Lb.
2.16E+09
211
155
366
22
22
Keyway, 2"x4", beveled, 4 uses
156.0
L.F.
131
131
1 9
19
Dowels, 1/2" dia bars, 2' long, 6' O.C.
25.9
Ea.
605.4 g/Ea.
2.16E+09
34
190
224
27
27
TOTAL
370
1758
2128
61
251
313
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Concrete Wall Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
8" THICK, POURED CONCRETE WALL
744.0
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Concrete, 8" THICK, 3000 psi
18.6
C.Y.
4086.0 g/C.Y
5.92E+08
45
1437
1482
205
205
Forms, prefab, plywood, 4 uses per mo
1488.0
Sfca
643.2 g/S.F.
8.29E+08
793
3312
4106
56%
441
473
914
Reinforcing, light
498.5
Lb.
454.0 g/Lb.
2.16E+09
488
312
801
45
45
Place concrete, direct chute
18.6
C.Y.
323
323
46
46
Dampproofing, brushed on, 2 coats
744.0
S.F.
542
542
77
77
Rigid insulation, 1" polystyrene
744.0
S.F.
646
646
92
92
Anchor bolts, 1/2" Dia x 12“ , 4' O.C.
44.6
EA.
302.7 g/Ea.
2.16E+09
29
1 15
144
1 6
1 6
Sill Plates, 2"x4", treated
186.0
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
76
365
441
52
52
TOTAL
1432
7052
8483
441
1007
1448
233
Table D-13. Framing EMergy Costs For Proposal Two
FRAMING
5,404
15,394
20,798
1,950
1,321
3,271
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Floor Framing Systems (Wood)
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2"x10", 16" O.C.
1208
S.F.
(sej/unit)
Wood joists, 2"x10", 16" O.C.
1208.0
L.F.
1572.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1346
3095
4440
66%
884
442
1326
Bridging, 1Hx3\ 6' O.C.
96.6
Pr.
620.7 g/Pr.
7.08E+08
42
304
347
66%
28
43
71
Box Sills, 2“x10"
181.2
L.F.
1572.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
202
457
658
66%
133
65
198
Girder, incl. lally columns, 3-2"x10"
151.0
L.F.
1572.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
168
1640
1809
66%
110
234
345
Sheathing, plywood subfloor, 5/8" CDX
1208.0
S.F.
804.0 g/S.F.
8.29E+08
805
1319
2124
56%
447
188
636
Furring, 1"x3", 16" O.C.
1208.0
L.F.
206.9 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
177
1522
1699
66%
1 16
217
334
TOTAL
2740
8338
11078
1718
1191
2909
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Exterior Wall Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2“x4“, 16" O.C.
1309.5
S.F.
(sei/unit)
2"x4" studs, 16" O.C.
1309.5
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
110
295
405
66%
72
42
114
Plates, 2"x4", double top, single bottor
491.1
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
41
112
153
66%
27
1 6
43
Corner bracing, let-in, 1"x6“
82.5
L.F.
455.2 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
5
41
47
66%
4
6
9
Sheathing, 1/2" plywood, CDX
1309.5
S.F.
643.2 g/S.F.
8.29E+08
142
262
404
56%
79
37
116
Headers, 2x6", 6' (doors) QTY 1
12.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
8
1 2
1 9
66%
5
2
7
Headers, 2x6", 4.5' (windows) QTY 12
108.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
70
1 88
257
66%
46
27
73
TOTAL
376
910
1286
232
130
362
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Hip Roof Framing Systems
ore
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2"x6" RAFTERS, 16" O.C., 4/12 PITCH
506.0
S.F.
fsei/unit)
Hip rafters, 2"x6", 16" O.C.
81.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
52
135
187
66%
34
1 9
54
Jack rafters, 2"x6", 16“ O.C.
723.6
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
467
1367
1834
66%
306
195
502
Ceiling Joists, 2"x4", 16" O.C.
506.0
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
208
510
718
66%
136
73
209
Fascia board, 2l,x8'1
111.3
L.F.
1241.4 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
98
333
431
66%
64
48
112
Soffit nailer, 2"x4", 24" O.C.
111.3
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
46
177
223
66%
30
25
55
Sheathing, ext., plywood, 1/2" CDX
794.4
S.F.
643.2 g/S.F.
8.29E+08
423
779
1203
56%
235
1 1 1
347
Furring strips, 1"x3", 16" O.C.
506.0
L.F.
206.9 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
74
638
712
66%
49
91
140
TOTAL
1363
3939
5306
855
563
1418
234
Table D-13. Framing EMergy Costs For Proposal Two (continued)
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Shed/Flat Roof Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2"x6" RAFTERS, 16" O.C., 4/12 PITCH
230.0
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Rafters, 2"x6", 16" O.C., 4/12 pitch
592.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
382
893
1274 66%
251
128
378
Fascia board, 2"x8"
50.6
L.F.
1241.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
44
156
200 66%
29
22
51
Bridging, 1"x3", 6' O.C.
40.5
Pr.
620.7 g/Pr. 7.08E+08
1 8
128
145 66%
1 2
1 8
30
Sheathing, exterior, plywood, 1/2" CD
622.4
S.F.
643.2 g/S.F. 8.29E+08
332
602
934 56%
184
86
270
TOTAL
776
1778
2554
476
254
730
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Partition Framing System
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2"x4", 16“ O.C.
192.0
S.F.
(sejZunjp
2"x4" studs, #2 or better, 16" O.C.
192.0
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
79
212
291 66%
52
30
82
Plates, double top, single bottom
72.0
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
30
81
1 10 66%
1 9
1 2
31
Cross bracing, let-in, 1"x6"
15.4
L.F.
455.2 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
5
43
48 66%
3
6
9
4.0
Ea.
Headers, 2"x6", 3' long
24.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
1 5
47
63 66%
1 0
7
1 7
2.0
Ea.
Headers, 2"x6", 6' long
24.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
1 5
47
6 3 66%
1 0
7
1 7
TOTAL
144
430
574
95
61
156
235
Table D-14. Exterior Wall EMergy Costs For Proposal Two
EXTERIOR WALLS
1,177
25,103
26,280
288
3,586
3,874
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Block Masonry Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
8" THICK CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
is_e.i/u_n[t)
8" thick concrete block, 8"x8“x16"
1015.0
S.F.
472.9 g/S.F. 7.08E+08
340
5698
6038
814
814
Masonry reinforcing
634.4
L.F.
227
227
32
32
Furring, 1“x3", 16" O.C.
1015.0
L.F.
206.9 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
149
1009
1158
66%
98
144
242
Masonry insulation, poured vermiculite
1015.0
S.F.
1407
1407
201
201
Stucco, 2 coats
1015.0
S.F.
2785
2785
398
398
Masonry paint, 2 coats
1015.0
S.F.
838
838
120
120
TOTAL
489
11965
12454
98
1709
1807
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Insulation Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
NON-RIGID INSULATION BATTS
(sei/unit)
For block walls...
824.7
S.F.
Polystyrene, extruded, 3/4" th, R4
824.7
S.F.
716
716
102
102
For ceiling..
402.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, foil faced, 9" thick, R30
402.6
S.F.
406
406
58
58
For floor..
393.6
S.F.
Fiberglass, kraft faced, 3 1/2" thick, F
393.6
S.F.
193
193
28
28
TOTAL
1314
1314
188
188
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
WWW Window Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI-WINDOW SET, MID. FIXED, 32x48"
2.0
Ea.
(sei/unit)
Window, wood, 32"x48", insul. glass
6.0
Ea.
1470
1470
210
210
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
72.0
L.F.
816.6 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
42
42
66%
27
27
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
42.0
S.F.
945.8 g/S.F. 1.50E+09
60
60
Trim, interior casing
52.0
L.F.
218.7 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
8
122
130
66%
5
1 7
23
Paint, interior, primer & 2 coats
2.0
Ea.
59
59
8
8
Calking
52.0
L.F.
63
63
9
9
TOTAL
109
1715
1824
33
245
278
236
Table D-14. Exterior Walls EMergy Costs For Proposal Two (continued)
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY. UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
IQJAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9‘
2.0 Ea.
(sej/unit)
Door, 32“x6'8", insul. glass 24,,x5'8"
2.0 Ea.
633
633
90
90
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24.0 L.F.
816.6 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
14
1 4
66%
9
9
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7 S.F.
945.8 g/S.F. 1.50E+09
32
32
Window, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'
4.0 Ea.
1266
1266
181
181
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
48.0 L.F.
816.6 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
28
28
66%
18
1 8
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
45.3 S.F.
945.8 g/S.F. 1.50E+09
64
64
Interior casing
46.0 L.F.
218.7 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
1 4
19
Exterior casing
46.0 L.F.
218.7 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
1 4
1 9
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
6.0 L.F.
1749.8 g/L.F. 7.28E+08
8
167
174
64%
5
24
29
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
3.0 Pr.
51
51
7
7
Lockset
2.0 Ea.
124
124
1 8
1 8
Drip cap
6.0 L.F.
1 1
1 1
2
2
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
4.0 Face
193
193
28
28
TOTAL
160
2645
2805
42
378
419
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
DWD Window & Door Systems
QTY. UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI PANEL DOOR/WINDOW/DOOR, 9'
5.0 Ea.
(sej/unit)
Door, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8"
10.0 Ea.
3164
3164
452
452
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
120.0 L.F.
816.6 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
69
69
66%
46
46
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
113.3 S.F.
945.8 g/S.F. 1.50E+09
161
161
Window, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'
5.0 Ea.
1582
1582
226
226
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
60.0 L.F.
816.6 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
35
35
66%
23
23
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
56.7 S.F.
945.8 g/S.F. 1.50E+09
80
80
Interior casing
115.0 L.F.
218.7 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
1 8
251
269
66%
1 2
36
48
Exterior casing
115.0 L.F.
218.7 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
1 8
251
269
66%
1 2
36
48
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
30.0 L.F.
1749.8 g/L.F. 7.28E+08
38
833
871
64%
24
119
143
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
15.0 Pr.
254
254
36
36
Lockset
10.0 Ea.
619
619
88
88
Drip cap
15.0 L.F.
27
27
4
4
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
10.0 Face
483
483
69
69
TOTAL
419
7464
7884
116
1066
1183
237
Table D-15. Roofing EMergy Costs For Proposal Two
ROOFING
0
2,577
2,577
0 368
368
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Hip Roof - Roofing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
ASPHALT, ROOF SHINGLES, CLASS A
506.0
S.F.
(.sej/unit)
Shingles, asphalt std., 210-235 Ib/sq.
794.4
S.F.
708
708
101
101
Drip Edge, metal, 5" girth
61.7
L.F.
71
71
1 0
1 0
Building paper, #15 felt
910.8
S.F.
85
85
12
12
Ridge shingles, asphalt
38.0
L.F.
57
57
8
8
Soffit&fascia, painted AL, 1' overhang
60.7
L.F.
482
482
69
69
Gutter, seamless, AL painted
60.7
L.F.
255
255
36
36
Downspouts, AL painted
17.7
L.F.
57
57
8
8
TOTAL
1714
1714
245
245
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Shed Roofing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
ASPHALT, ROOF SHINGLES, CLASS A
230.0
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Shingles, asphalt std., 210-235 Ib/sq.
282.9
S.F.
261
261
37
37
Drip Edge, metal, 5" girth
23.0
L.F.
26
26
4
4
Building paper, #15 felt
299.0
S.F.
29
29
4
4
Soffit&fascia, painted AL, T overhang
18.4
L.F.
145
145
21
21
Rake trim, painted, 1"x6â€
9.9
L.F.
42
42
6
6
Gutter, seamless, AL painted
9.2
L.F.
39
39
6
6
Downspouts, AL painted
4.6
L.F.
1 6
1 6
2
2
TOTAL
557
557
80
80
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Cupolas
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
103 464 CUPOLA
1.0
Ea.
(sei/unit)
0300 23" square, Al roof
1.0
S.F.
306
306
44
44
Table D-16. Interior EMergy Costs For Proposal Two
INTERIORS
1,796
17,251
19,047
868
2,464
3,332
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Drywall & Thincoat Wall Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
5/8" SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
1399.0
S.F.
fsei/uniU
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard
1399.0
S.F.
842
842
120
120
Finish, taped & finished joints
1399.0
S.F.
588
588
84
84
Corners, taped & finished, 32 L.F....
116.1
L.F.
98
98
14
1 4
Painting, primer & 2 coats
1399.0
S.F.
686
686
98
98
Trim, baseboard, painted
174.9
L.F.
607
607
87
87
TOTAL
2820
2820
403
403
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Drywall&Thincoat Ceiling Systems
ore
UNJI
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
5/8" SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
503.2
S.F.
(sej/u.njt)
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard
503.2
S.F.
303
303
43
43
Finish, taped & finished
503.2
S.F.
211
21 1
30
30
Corners, taped & finished, 12'x12' rm
16.6
L.F.
106
106
1 5
1 5
Painting, primer & 2 coats
503.2
S.F.
247
247
35
35
TOTAL
867
867
124
124
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Interior Door Systems
STL
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
BIRCH, FLUSH DOOR, HOLLOW CORE
4.0
Ea.
(sei/unitt
Door, birch, hollow core, 2'-8"x6'-8"
4.0
Ea.
88798 g/ea.
7.90E+08
281
334
615
58%
164
48
21 1
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb
68.0
L.F.
404.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 9
460
479
66%
1 3
66
78
Trim, casing, painted
136.0
L.F.
145.8 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 4
367
382
66%
9
52
62
Butt hinges, bronze, 3-1/2"x3-1/2"
6.0
Pr.
181
181
26
26
Lockset, passage
4.0
Ea.
147
147
21
21
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
8.0
Face
423
423
60
60
TOTAL
314
1912
2226
186
273
459
239
Table D-16. Interior EMergy Costs For Proposal Two (continued)
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Closet Door Systems
ore
UNIT
CONVERSON
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
BY-PASSING, FLUSH, BIRCH, HOLLOW
4.0
Ea.
(sei/unit)
Door, birch, hollow core, 4'x6'-8''
4.0
Ea.
133180 g/ea.
7.90E+08
421
902
1323 58%
245
129
374
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb
72.0
L.F.
404.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
21
488
508 66%
1 4
70
83
Trim, both sides, casing, painted
144.0
L.F.
145.8 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 5
434
449 66%
1 0
62
72
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
8.0
Face
424
424
61
61
TOTAL
457
2247
2704
269
321
590
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Carpet Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
CARPET
576.8
S.F.
(sei/unitl
Carpet, nylon, level loop, 32 oz.
576.8
S.F.
1825
1825
261
261
Padding, sponge rubber cushion, min.
576.8
L.F.
331
331
47
47
Underlayment particle board, 3/8" thic
576.8
S.F.
709.4 g/S.F.
1.28E+09
523
460
984 33%
174
66
240
TOTAL
523
2616
3139
174
374
548
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Flooring Systems
STL
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
VINYL TILE
483.3
S.F.
fsei/unitl
Vinyl tile, 12Hx12", 1/8" thick, min.
483.3
S.F.
1 590
1 590
227
227
Subfloor, plywood, 1/2" thick
483.3
S.F.
643.2 g/S.F.
8.29E+08
258
453
711 56%
143
65
208
TOTAL
258
2043
2301
143
292
435
240
Table D-16. Interior EMergy Costs For Proposal Two (continued)
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY. UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9'
2.0 Ea.
(sei/unit)
Door, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8"
2.0 Ea.
633
633
90
90
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24.0 L.F.
817 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 4
14
66%
9
9
...plate glass, 2x1/8“ thick
22.7 S.F.
946 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
32
32
Window, 32“x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'
4.0 Ea.
1266
1266
181
181
...wood frame, 1 3/4,,x4''
48.0 L.F.
817 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
28
28
66%
1 8
18
...plate glass, 2x1/8†thick
45.3 S.F.
946 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
64
64
Interior casing
46.0 L.F.
219 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
1 4
1 9
Exterior casing
46.0 L.F.
219 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
1 4
1 9
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
6.0 L.F.
1750 g/L.F.
7.28E+08
8
167
174
64%
5
24
29
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2“x4 1/2"
3.0 Pr.
51
51
7
7
Lockset, passage
2.0 Ea.
73
73
1 0
10
Paint, Inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
4.0 Face
193
193
28
28
TOTAL
160
2583
2743
42
369
41 1
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Stairways
OTY. UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
7 RISERS, OAK TREADS, BOX STAIRS
2.0 Ea.
(sei/unitl
Treads, oak
14.0 Ea.
1750 g/Ea.
7.28E+08
1 8
710
727
64%
1 1
101
113
Balusters, Birch, 30" high
28.0 Ea.
780 g/Ea.
7.28E+08
1 6
593
609
64%
1 0
85
95
Newels
4.0 Ea.
398
398
57
57
Handrails, oak
14.0 L.F.
312 g/L.F.
7.28E+08
3
180
183
64%
2
26
28
Stringers, 2"x10", 3 each
42.0 L.F.
1572 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
47
283
330
66%
31
40
71
TOTAL
84
2163
2247
54
309
363
241
Table D-17. Specialties EMergy Costs For Proposal Two
SPECIALTIES
Kitchen Systems
KITCHEN, AVERAGE GRADE
Top cabinets, average grade
Bottom cabinets, average grade
Counter top, laminated plastic...
Blocking, wood, 2,lx4â€
Soffit framing, wood, 2â€x4"
Soffit drywall, painted
TOTAL
Appliance Systems
EACH "MINIMUM"
Range, built-in
Dishwasher, built-in
Range hood, ducted
Refrigerator, 19 cu.ft.
Sinks, porcelain on cat iron, double bov
Water heater, gas, 30 gallon
TOTAL
Wood Deck Systems
DECK, PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER, Ji
Decking, 2"x6" lumber
Joists, 2"x8\ 16" O.C.
Girder, 2"x10"
Posts, 4"x4", incliding concrete footinc
Railings, 2"x4"
396
9,320
9,717
260
1,331
1,592
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
QTC
iiNJI
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
17.0
L.F.
fsei/unitl
17.0
L.F.
925
925
132
132
17.0
L.F.
1387
1387
198
198
17.0
L.F.
829
829
118
118
17.0
L.F.
579 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
7
31
38
66%
5
4
9
68.0
L.F.
579 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
28
85
113
66%
1 8
1 2
30
34.0
S.F.
57
57
8
8
35
3315
3350
23
474
496
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
fsei/unitl
1.0
Ea.
984
984
141
141
1.0
Ea.
728
728
104
104
1.0
Ea.
315
315
45
45
1.0
Ea.
986
986
141
141
1.0
Ea.
916
916
131
131
2.0
Ea.
1042
1042
149
149
4971
4971
710
710
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
120.0
S.F.
fsei/uniO
249.6
L.F.
910 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
161
370
531
66%
106
53
158
120.0
L.F.
1241 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
106
237
342
66%
69
34
103
15.0
L.F.
1572 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
17
42
59
66%
1 1
6
1 7
30.0
L.F.
1352 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
29
188
217
66%
1 9
27
46
120.0
L.F.
579 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
49
198
247
66%
32
28
61
361
1035
1396
237
148
385
242
Table D-18. Mechanical EMergy Costs For Proposal Two
MECHANICAL
UNIT
EMERGY/
Three Fixture Bathroom Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSON
UNIT
BATHROOM WITH LAVORATORY IN VANIT
1
Ea.
(sei/unit)
Water closet, floor mounted, 2 piece
1
Ea.
Rough-in supply, waste & vent for w.c.
1
Ea.
Lavatory, 20"x18", P.E. cast iron...
1
Ea.
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for lavatory
1
Ea.
Shower, steel enamled, stone base
1
Ea.
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for shower
1
Ea.
Piping, supply, 1/2“ copper
36
L.F.
Waste, 4“ cast iron, no hub
7
L.F.
Vent, 2" steel, galvanized
6
L.F.
Vanity base, 2 door, 30“ wide
1
Ea.
Vanity top, plastic laminated, sq. edge
TOTAL
3
L.F.
UNIT
EMERGY/
Gas Heating/Cooling Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
HEATING/COOLING, GAS-FIRED FORCED /
1
Ea.
(sei/uniU
Furnace, incl. plenum, compressor, coil
1
Ea.
Intermittent pilot
1
Ea.
Supply duct, rigid fiberglass
176
L.F.
Return duct, sheet metal, galvanized
158
Lb.
Lateral duct, 6“ flexible fiberglass
144
L.F.
Register elbows
1 2
Ea.
Floor registers, enameled steel
1 2
Ea.
Floor grill return air
2
Ea.
Thermostat
1
Ea.
Refrigeration piping (precharged)
TOTAL
25
L.F.
0 10,794
10,794
0
1,542
1,542
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
337
337
48
48
167
167
24
24
330
330
47
47
184
184
26
26
804
804
115
115
209
209
30
30
220
220
31
31
155
155
22
22
102
102
1 5
1 5
324
324
46
46
106
106
1 5
1 5
2939
2939
420
420
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
4373
4373
625
625
165
165
24
24
638
638
91
91
1073
1073
153
153
696
696
99
99
239
239
34
34
330
330
47
47
73
73
1 0
1 0
73
73
1 0
1 0
196
196
28
28
7855
7855
1122
1122
243
Table D-19. Electrical EMergy Costs For Proposal Two
ELECTRICAL
0
3,191
3,191
0
713
713
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Electrical Service Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
200 AMP SERVICE
1
Ea.
(sej/unit)
Weather cap
1
Ea.
65
65
9
9
Service entrance cable
1 0
L.F.
92
92
13
1 3
Meter socket
1
Ea.
237
237
34
34
Ground rod with clamp
1
Ea.
116
116
1 7
1 7
Ground cable
1 0
L.F.
39
39
6
6
3/4" EMT
5
L.F.
1 7
1 7
2
2
Panel board, 24 circuit
1
Ea.
945
945
1 35
135
TOTAL
1511
151 1
216
216
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Wiring Device Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
EACH USING NON-METALLIC SHEATHED CABLE
(sei/uniU
Air conditioning receptacles
1
Ea.
48
48
7
7
Dryer circuit
1
Ea.
97
97
1 4
14
Exhaust fan wiring
1
Ea.
48
48
7
7
Furnace circuit & switch
1
Ea.
75
75
1 1
1 1
Ground fault
4
Ea.
440
440
63
63
Lighting wiring
4
Ea.
143
143
20
20
Range circuits
1
Ea.
140
140
20
20
Switches, single pole
4
Ea.
143
143
20
20
Switches, 3-way
2
Ea.
92
92
1 3
1 3
Water heater
2
Ea.
1 68
168
24
24
TOTAL
1393
1393
199
199
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Light Fixture Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
EACH "AVERAGE"
(sei/unit)
Fluorescent strip. 4' long, 2 lights
1
Ea.
87
87
1 2
12
Incandescent, Recessed, 150W
2
Ea.
200
200
29
29
TOTAL
287
287
298
298
244
APPENDIX E
DETAIL MATERIAL AND COST ESTIMATES
FOR DESIGN PROPOSAL THREE
Table E-l. Takeoffs for Proposal Three
FOUNDATIONS
Pilings
large footing
small footings
FRAMING
I-Beam Frame
Columns W6xl5
main corner columns
total
Beams W8xl0
main floor spans
total
Beams W6x9
main roof span
main cupola mount
total
Beams M6x4.4
main ceiling spans
side wing short spans
side wing long spans
side wing ceiling spans
south wing short spans
south wing long spans
stair floor spans
stair ceiling spans
breezeway floor spans
breezeway ceiling spans
total
Columns M4xl3
side wing columns
south wing columns
stair columns
total
gty
dia.
deoth
CY ea.
8
1.5
4
0.2618
12
1
3
0.0873
atv width
lenath heiaht
L.F.
8
19
152
152
16
13.5
216
216
8
9
72
8
4
32
104
8
13.5
108
8
4.75
38
4
9.5
38
4
4.75
19
8
5.75
46
4
9.5
38
4
7.75
31
4
7.75
31
5
10.5
53
3
10.5
32
433
4
23
92
4
24
96
4
15
60
248
246
247
Table E-l. Takeoffs for Proposal
FRAMING (continued)
Light Gauge Steel Floor Sys.
main
side wing
entry
stair landing
cat walk
total
Roof Framing System
main
stair landing
main cupolas
wing flat
wing sloped
foyer flat
foyer sloped
total
Partition Framing System
upper level
total
Headers, 2"x6"-3'
Headers, 2"x6"-6’
EXTERIOR WALLS
EXTERIOR, frame
main
wing, bottom end
wing, top end
wing, bottom sides
wing, top sides
total
EXTERIOR, siding
INTERIOR, frame
Insulation Systems
ceilings
total
floors
total
exterior walls
total
WWW Window Systems
WDW Window & Door Systems
DWD Door & Window Systems
Three (continued)
gty
width
lenath
heiaht
S.F.
4
14
14
784
4
5
10
200
1
10
13
130
1
8
8
64
1
3
10
30
1208
cfty
width
lenath
%
S.F.
8
14
6.7
747
4
5
4.5
89
2
6
6.0
72
2
3
6.0
36
4
4
6.0
96
1
3
10.0
30
2
4
10.0
80
1150
8
3
8
192
192
gty
width
lenath
heiaht
L.F.
4
6
24
2
12
24
36
2
7.5
540
2
9
7.5
135
2
9
7
126
2
4.5
7.5
68
2
4.5
6
54
923
923
8
3
7.5
180
8
5.6
9
95%
383
2
5
10
95%
15
478
2
14
14
95%
372
2
5
10
95%
15
467
0.95
876
2
2
248
Table E-l. Takeoffs for Proposal Three (continued)
ROOFING
crtv width length height
Roofing Systems
Cupola, 23" sq., Al 1
Drywall & Thincoat Wall Systems
inside of ext. walls
interior walls
total
Drywall & Thincoat Ceiling Systems
total
S.F.
1150.1
923
360
1283
598
Interior Door Systems 4
WDW Window & Door Systems 2
Closet Door Systems
4' wide ea. 4
Carpet Systems
main
3
13.5
13.5
547
cat walk
1
3
10
30
total
577
Flooring Systems
wings
4
4.5
9.5
171
main
1
13.5
13.5
182
entry
1
10
13
130
total
483
Stairways
7 risers, oak treads
2
Kitchen Systems
otv width length height
gtv width length height
2
10
L.F.
17
S.F.
120
Wood Deck Systems
6
Table E-2. Site Work Dollar Costs For Proposal Three
SITE WORK
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
0.00
922.59
COST
922.59
Footing Excavation Systems
BUILDING, 26'X46', 4' DEEP
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT. INST.
TOTAL
QFL
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
Clear and strip, dozer, light trees, 30
0.2 Acre
10.08
467.25
467.3
0.2
Acre
10.08
467.25
467.25
Excavate, backhoe
201
C.Y.
2.68
269.34
269.3
201.0
C.Y.
2.68
269.34
269.34
Backfill, dozer, 4" lifts, no compaction
100
C.Y.
0.667
93.00
93.0
100.0
C.Y.
0.67
93
93
Rough grade, dozer, 30' from building
TOTAL
100
C.Y.
0.667
14.09
93.00
922.59
93.0
922.6
100.0
C.Y.
0.67
14.09
93
922.59
93
922.59
Table E-3.
Foundation
Dollar Costs
For
Proposal Three
FOUNDATIONS
172.79
375.00
547.79
Piling Systems
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
Large Footings
8.0
Ea.
Concrete, 3000
psi
0.3
C.Y.
14.40
14.40
2.1
C.Y.
1 15.19
115.19
Place concrete,
direct
chute
0.3
C.Y.
0.750
18.75
18.75
2.1
C.Y.
6.0
150.00
150.00
TOTAL
0.750
14.40
18.75
33.15
6.0
115.19
150.00
265.19
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
or/.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST,
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
Small Footings
12.0
Ea.
Concrete, 3000
psi
0.1
C.Y.
4.8
4.80
1.0
C.Y.
57.60
57.60
Place concrete,
direct
chute
0.1
C.Y.
0.750
18.75
18.75
1.0
C.Y.
9.0
0.00
225.00
225.00
TOTAL
0.750
4.8
18.75
23.55
9.0
57.60
225.00
282.60
249
Table E-4. Framing Dollar Costs For Proposal Three
FRAMING
Floor Framing Systems QTY.
LIGHT GAUGE STEEL FLOOR SYSTEMS
Light gauge steel, 8“ deep, 16 in O.C, 1 1.9
Subfllor plywood CDX 5/8" 1.1
TOTAL
Exterior Wall Framing Systems QTY.
corner columns, W6x15 1
floor spans, W8x10 1
roof spans, W6x9 1
spans, M6x4.4 1
corner columns, M4x13 1
TOTAL
Roof Framing Systems QTY.
LIGHT GAUGE STEEL ROOFING SYSTEMS
Light gauge steel, 8" deep, 16 in O.C, 1 1.9
Subfllor plywood CDX 5/8“ 1.1
TOTAL
Partition Framing System QTY.
2"x4\ 16" O.C.
2"x4" studs, #2 or better, 16" O.C. 1
Plates, double top, single bottom 0.4
Cross bracing, let-in, 1"x6" 0.1
Headers, 2"x6", 3' long 6
Headers, 2"x6", 6' long 1 2
TOTAL
MAN- COST PER S.F.
UNÜ
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
1208
Lb.
1.30
0.73
2.0
2259.0
S.F.
0.50
0.49
1.0
1268.4
1.80
1.22
3.0
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
unji
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
L.F.
0.093
7.9
4.03
11.9
152.0
L.F.
0.093
4.95
4.03
9.0
216.0
L.F.
0.093
4.45
4.03
8.5
104.0
L.F.
0.093
2.25
4.03
6.3
433.0
L.F.
0.093
8.9
4.03
12.9
248.0
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QEC
1150.1
Lb.
1.30
0.73
2.0
2150.7
S.F.
0.50
0.49
1.0
1207.6
1.80
1.22
3.015
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
192.0
L.F.
0.015
0.4
0.39
0.8
192.0
L.F.
0.006
0.15
0.15
0.3
72.0
L.F.
0.004
0.03
0.13
0.2
15.4
4.0
L.F.
0.185
3.66
4.74
8.4
24.0
2.0
L.F.
0.185
3.66
4.74
8.4
24.0
10299.49
7678.25
17977.74
MAN-
COST
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
total
S.F.
L.F.
0.00
1570.40
881.84
2452.24
Pr.
0.00
604.00
585.88
1189.88
2174.40
1467.72
3642.12
MAN-
COST
UNIT
HOURS
MAT,
INST.
TOTAL
L.F.
14.14
1200.80
612.56
1813.36
L.F.
20.09
1069.20
870.48
1939.68
L.F.
9.67
462.80
419.12
881.92
L.F.
40.27
974.25
1744.99
2719.24
L.F.
23.06
2207.20
999.44
3206.64
107.23
5914.25
4646.59
10560.84
MAN-
COST
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
S.F.
L.F.
0.00
1495.14
839.58
2334.72
Pr.
0.00
575.05
557.80
1132.86
2070.20
1397.38
3467.58
MAN-
COST
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
S.F.
L.F.
2.88
76.80
74.88
151.68
L.F.
1.15
28.80
28.80
57.60
L.F.
0.77
5.76
24.96
30.72
Ea.
L.F.
0.74
14.64
18.96
33.60
Ea.
L.F.
0.74
14.64
18.96
33.60
6.28
140.64
166.56
307.20
250
Table E-5. Exterior Wall Dollar Costs For Proposal Three
EXTERIOR WALLS
8429.76
3424.81
11854.57
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Wood Siding Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
1NSL
total
1/2"x8" BEVELED CEDAR SIDING, "A" GRADE
152.0
S.F.
1/2-x8" beveled cedar siding
1.0
S.F.
0.029
1.94
0.80
2.74
152.0
S.F.
4.4
294.88
121.60
416.48
#15 asphalt felt paper
1.1
S.F.
0.002
0.03
0.07
0.10
167.2
S.F.
0.3
4.56
10.64
15.20
Trim, cedar
0.13
L.F.
0.005
0.09
0.14
0.23
19.0
L.F.
0.8
13.68
21.28
34.96
Paint, primer & 2 coats
1.0
S.F.
0.017
0.19
0.44
0.63
152.0
S.F.
2.6
28.88
66.88
95.76
TOTAL
0.053
2.25
1.45
3.70
8.1
342.00
220.40
562.40
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Wall Panel Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
2â€x4", 16" O.C.
922.5
S.F.
2"x4“ studs, 16" O.C.
1.0
L.F.
0.015
0.4
0.39
0.79
922.5
L.F.
13.8
369.00
359.78
728.78
Sheathing, 1/2†plywood, CDX
2.0
S.F.
0.022
0.82
0.58
1.40
1845.0
S.F.
20.3
756.45
535.05
1291.50
0.037
1.22
0.97
2.19
34.1
1 125.45
894.83
2020.28
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
Insulation Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
NON-RIGID INSULATION BATTS
Fiberglass, foil faced, 3 1/2" thick, R1
1.0
S.F.
0.005
0.24
0.14
0.38
1048.0
S.F.
5.2
251.52
146.72
398.24
Fiberglass, foil faced, 9" thick,
R30
1.0
S.F.
0.006
0.56
0.16
0.72
403.0
S.F.
2.4
225.68
64.48
290.16
Fiberglass, kraft faced, 3 1/2"
thick, F
1.0
S.F.
0.005
0.21
0.14
0.35
394.0
S.F.
2.0
82.74
55.16
137.90
TOTAL
9.6
559.94
266.36
826.30
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
WWW Window Systems
QtPL
UNIT
HOUFiS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
total
TRI-WINDOW SET, MIDDLE FIXED, 32"x48"
2.0
Ea.
Window, wood, 32"x48", insul.
glass
3.0
Ea.
3
450.00
75.00
525.00
6.0
Ea.
6.0
900.00
150.00
1050.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
36.0
L.F.
72.0
L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
21.0
S.F.
42.0
S.F.
Trim, interior casing
26.0
L.F.
0.866
19.76
23.92
43.68
52.0
L.F.
1.7
39.52
47.84
87.36
Paint, interior, primer & 2 coats
1.0
Ea.
0.800
1.18
20.00
21.18
2.0
Ea.
1.6
2.36
40.00
42.36
Calking
26.0
L.F.
0.738
1.92
20.64
22.56
52.0
L.F.
1.5
3.84
41.28
45.12
TOTAL
5.404
472.86
139.56
612.42
10.8
945.72
279.12
1224.84
251
Table E-5. Exterior Wall Dollar Costs For Proposal Three (continued)
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
total
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9' WIDE
2.0 Ea.
Door, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24Mx5,8''
1.0
Ea.
1
200
26.00
226.00
2.0 Ea.
2.0
400.00
52.00
452.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
12.0
L.F.
24.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
11.3
S.F.
22.7 S.F.
Window, 32"x6'8\ insul. glass 24"x5'
2.0
Ea.
2
400
52.00
452.00
4.0 Ea.
4.0
800.00
104.00
904.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24
L.F.
48.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
45.3 S.F.
Interior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.5
18.40
35.90
46.0 L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Exterior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.5
18.40
35.90
46.0 L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
3.0
L.F.
0.96
35
24.50
59.50
6.0 L.F.
1.9
70.00
49.00
119.00
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2“x4 1/2"
1.5
Pr.
18.15
18.15
3.0 Pr.
0.0
36.30
0.00
36.30
Lockset
1.0
Ea.
0.571
28.5
15.7
44.2
2.0 Ea.
1.1
57.00
31.40
88.40
Drip cap
3.0
L.F.
0.12
0.55
3.3
3.85
6.0 L.F.
0.2
1.10
6.60
7.70
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
2.0
Face
1.6
4
65
69
4.0 Face
3.2
8.00
130.00
138.00
TOTAL
7.585
721.2
223.3
944.5
15.2
1442.40
446.60
1889.00
MAN-
COST PER S.F.
MAN-
COST
DWD Window & Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
TRI PANEL DOOR/WINDOW/DOOR, 9' WIDE
5 Ea.
Door, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8"
2.0
Ea.
2
400
52
452
10.0 Ea.
10.0
2000.00
260.00
2260.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24.0
L.F.
120.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
113.3 S.F.
Window, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'
1.0
Ea.
1
200.00
26.00
226.00
5.0 Ea.
5.0
1000.00
130.00
1130.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
12.0
L.F.
60.0 L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
11.3
S.F.
56.7 S.F.
Interior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.50
18.40
35.90
115.0 L.F.
3.3
87.50
92.00
179.50
Exterior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.667
17.50
18.40
35.90
115.0 L.F.
3.3
87.50
92.00
179.50
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
6.0
L.F.
1.92
70.00
49.00
119.00
30 L.F.
9.6
350.00
245.00
595.00
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
3.0
Pr.
36.30
36.30
15.0 Pr.
0.0
181.50
0.00
181.50
Lockset
2.0
Ea.
1.142
57.00
31.40
88.40
10.0 Ea.
5.7
285.00
157.00
442.00
Drip cap
3.0
L.F.
0.12
0.55
3.30
3.85
15.0 L.F.
0.6
2.75
16.50
19.25
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
2.0
Face
1.6
4.00
65.00
69.00
10.0 Face
8.0
20.00
325.00
345.00
TOTAL
9.116
802.85
263.50
1066.35
45.6
4014.25
1317.50
5331.75
252
Table E-6. Roofing Dollar Costs For Proposal Three
ROOFING
MAN- COST EACH
mx
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
Preformed Metal Roofing
Steel, galvanized, 22ga., 1.45 psf
1.0
S.F.
0.85
1.22
2.07
TOTAL
0.85
1.22
2.07
MAN-
COSTEACH
Cupolas
103 464 CUPOLA
QIX
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
0300 23" square, Al roof
1.0
Ea.
2.162
184.00
34.50
218.50
614.10
651.82
1265.92
MAN-
COST
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST
TOTAL
506.0
S.F.
506.0
S.F.
0.0
430.10
617.32
1047.42
0.0
430.10
617.32
1047.42
MAN-
COST
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
1.0
Ea.
1.0
Ea.
2.2
184.00
34.50
218.50
253
Table E-7. Interiors Dollar Costs For Proposal Three
INTERIORS 7426.09 4844.60 12270.69
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Drywall & Thincoat Wall Systems
QTY,
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
5/8†SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
1282.5
S.F.
Drywall, 5/8†thick, standard
1.0
S.F.
0.008
0.21
0.22
0.43
1282.5
S.F.
10.3
269.33
282.15
551.48
Finish, taped & finished joints
1.0
S.F.
0.008
0.08
0.22
0.30
1282.5
S.F.
10.3
102.60
282.15
384.75
Corners, taped & finished, 32 L.F....
0.08
L.F.
0.001
0.01
0.04
0.05
106.4
L.F.
1.3
12.83
51.30
64.13
Painting, primer & 2 coats
1.0
S.F.
0.01
0.1
0.25
0.35
1282.5
S.F.
12.8
128.25
320.63
448.88
Trim, baseboard, painted
0.1
L.F.
0.006
0.15
0.16
0.31
160.3
L.F.
7.7
192.38
205.20
397.58
TOTAL
0.033
0.55
0.89
1.44
42.3
705.38
1141.43
1846.80
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Drywall&Thincoat Ceiling Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
STL
UNJI
HOURS
MAT.
1NSL
TOTAL
5/8†SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
597.6
S.F.
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard
1.0
S.F.
0.008
0.21
0.22
0.43
597.6
S.F.
4.8
125.49
131.46
256.95
Finish, taped & finished
1.0
S.F.
0.008
0.08
0.22
0.3
597.6
S.F.
4.8
47.80
131.46
179.27
Corners, taped & finished, 12'x12' room
0.0
L.F.
0.005
0.02
0.13
0.15
19.7
L.F.
3.0
11.95
77.68
89.63
Painting, primer & 2 coats
1.0
S.F.
0.01
0.1
0.25
0.35
597.6
S.F.
6.0
59.76
149.39
209.14
TOTAL
0.031
0.41
0.82
1.23
18.5
245.00
489.99
734.99
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Interior Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
BIRCH, FLUSH DOOR, HOLLOW CORE
4
Ea.
Door, birch, hollow core, 2'-8"x6'-8"
1
Ea.
0.889
37
22.63
59.63
4.0
Ea.
3.6
148.00
90.52
238.52
Frame, pine, 4-5/8“ jamb
17.0
L.F.
0.725
63.58
18.53
82.11
68.0
L.F.
2.9
254.32
74.12
328.44
Trim, casing, painted
34
L.F.
1.38
28.22
37.4
65.62
136
L.F.
5.52
112.88
149.6
262.48
Butt hinges, bronze, 3-1/2â€x3-1/2"
1.5
Pr.
32.25
32.25
6
Pr.
129
129
Lockset, passage
1.0
Ea.
0.5
12.45
13.75
26.20
4.0
Ea.
2.0
49.80
55.00
104.80
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
2.0
Face
2.465
13.16
62.40
75.56
8.0
Face
9.9
52.64
249.60
302.24
TOTAL
5.959
186.66
154.71
341.37
23.8
746.64
618.84
1365.48
254
Table E-7. Interiors Dollar Costs For Proposal Three (continued)
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Closet Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
BY-PASSING, FLUSH, BIRCH, HOLLOW CORE, 4'X6'-8"
4.0
Ea.
Door, birch, hollow core, 4'x6'-8“
1
Ea.
1.333
127.0
34
161
4.0
Ea.
5.332
508.00
136.00
644.00
Frame, pine, 4-5/81' jamb
1 8
L.F.
0.768
67.5
19.60
87.10
72.0
L.F.
3.1
270.00
78.40
348.40
Trim, both sides, casing, painted
36
L.F.
1.849
28.0
49.50
77.50
144.0
L.F.
7.4
112.00
198.00
310.00
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
2
Face
2.465
13.2
62.50
75.65
8.0
Face
9.9
52.60
250.00
302.60
TOTAL
6.415
235.7
165.60
401.25
25.7
942.60
662.40
1605.00
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Carpet Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INSI,
TOTAL
CARPET
576.8
S.F.
Carpet, nylon, level loop, 32 oz.
1
S.F.
0.018
1.8
0.47
2.26
576.8
S.F.
10.4
1032.38
271.07
1303.46
Padding, sponge rubber cushion, min.
1
S.F.
0.006
0.3
0.15
0.41
576.8
L.F.
3.5
149.96
86.51
236.47
Underlayment particle board, 3/8" thick
1
L.F.
0.011
0.3
0.27
0.57
576.8
S.F.
6.3
173.03
155.72
328.75
TOTAL
0.035
2.4
0.89
3.24
20.2
1355.36
513.31
1868.67
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Flooring Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
VINYL TILE
483.3
S.F.
Vinyl tile, 12"x12", 1/8" thick, min.
1
S.F.
0.02
1 .9
0.42
2.35
483.3
S.F.
7.7
932.67
202.97
1 1 35.64
Subfloor, plywood, 1/2" thick
1
L.F.
0.01
0.4
0.27
0.67
483.3
S.F.
5.3
193.30
130.48
323.78
TOTAL
0.027
2.3
0.69
3.02
13.0
1125.97
333.44
1459.42
255
Table E-7. Interiors Dollar Costs For Proposal Three (continued)
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
ÃN3L
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9' WIDE
2.0
Ea.
Door, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8"
1.0
Ea.
1.00
200.00
26.00
226.00
2.0
Ea.
2.0
400.00
52.00
452.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
12.0
L.F.
24.0
L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
11.3
S.F.
22.7
S.F.
Window, 32“x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5,8"
2.0
Ea.
2.00
400.00
52.00
452.00
4.0
Ea.
4.0
800.00
104.00
904.00
...wood frame, 1 3/4“x4"
24.0
L.F.
48.0
L.F.
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
45.3
S.F.
Interior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.67
17.50
18.40
35.90
46.0
L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Exterior casing
23.0
L.F.
0.67
17.50
18.40
35.90
46.0
L.F.
1.3
35.00
36.80
71.80
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
3.0
L.F.
0.96
35.00
24.50
59.50
6.0
L.F.
1.9
70.00
49.00
119.00
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
1.5
Pr.
18.15
18.15
3.0
Pr.
0.0
36.30
0.00
36.30
Lockset, passage
1.0
Ea.
0.50
12.45
13.75
26.20
2.0
Ea.
1.0
24.90
27.50
52.40
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coats
2.0
Face
1.60
4.00
65.00
69.00
4.0
Face
3.2
8.00
130.00
138.00
TOTAL
7.39
704.60
218.05
922.65
14.8
1409.20
436.10
1845.30
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Stairways
OTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
7 RISERS, OAK TREADS, BOX STAIRS
2.0
Ea.
Treads, oak
7.0
Ea.
3.1 1
168.00
85.40
253.40
14.0
Ea.
6.2
336.00
170.80
506.80
Balusters, Birch, 30" high
14.0
Ea.
3.06
127.40
84.28
211.68
28.0
Ea.
6.1
254.80
168.56
423.36
Newels
2.0
Ea.
2.29
79.00
63.00
142.00
4.0
Ea.
4.6
158.00
126.00
284.00
Handrails, oak
7.0
L.F.
0.93
38.50
25.69
64.19
14.0
L.F.
1.9
77.00
51.38
128.38
Stringers, 2"x10", 3 each
21.0
L.F.
2.59
35.07
66.15
101.22
42.0
L.F.
5.2
70.14
132.30
202.44
TOTAL
11.98
447.97
324.52
772.49
24.0
895.94
649.04
1544.98
256
Table E-8. Specialties
Dollar Costs For Proposal Three
*
SPECIALTIES
4847.30
1810.16
6657.46
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Kitchen Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
on.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
KITCHEN, AVERAGE GRADE
17
L.F.
Top cabinets, average grade
1.0
L.F.
0.21
33.00
5.86
38.86
17
L.F.
3.6
561.00
99.62
660.62
Bottom cabinets, average grade
1.0
L.F.
0.32
49.50
8.79
58.29
17
L.F.
5.4
841.50
149.43
990.93
Counter top, laminated plastic...
1.0
L.F.
0.27
27.50
7.35
34.85
1 7
L.F.
4.5
467.50
124.95
592.45
Blocking, wood, 2"x4â€
1.0
L.F.
0.03
0.40
0.92
1.32
1 7
L.F.
0.5
6.80
15.64
22.44
Soffit framing, wood, 2"x4"
4.0
L.F.
0.07
1.76
1.80
3.56
68
L.F.
1.2
29.92
30.60
60.52
Soffit drywall, painted
2.0
S.F.
0.06
0.74
1.66
2.40
34
S.F.
1.0
12.58
28.22
40.80
TOTAL
0.96
112.90
26.38
139.28
16.4
1919.30
448.46
2367.76
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Appliance Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
EACH "MINIMUM"
Range, built-in
1.0
Ea.
6.00
535.00
168.00
703.00
1
Ea.
6.0
535.00
168.00
703.00
Dishwasher, built-in
1.0
Ea.
6.74
320.00
200.00
520.00
1
Ea.
6.7
320.00
200.00
520.00
Range hood, ducted
1.0
Ea.
4.66
96.00
129.00
225.00
1
Ea.
4.7
96.00
129.00
225.00
Refrigerator, 19 cu.ft.
1.0
Ea.
2.67
650.00
54.50
704.50
1
Ea.
2.7
650.00
54.50
704.50
Sinks, porcelain on cast iron
1.0
Ea.
10.81
365.00
289.00
654.00
1
Ea.
10.8
365.00
289.00
654.00
Water heater, gas, 30 gallon
1.0
Ea.
4.00
253.00
119.00
372.00
2
Ea.
8.0
506.00
238.00
744.00
TOTAL
34.87
2219.00
959.50 3178.50
38.9
2472.00
1078.50
3550.50
MAN-
COSTEACH
MAN-
COST
Wood Deck Systems
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
fflX
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
DECK, PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER, JOISTS 16“ O.C.
120
S.F.
Decking, 2"x6" lumber
2.1
L.F.
0.03
1.52
0.68
2.20
249.6
L.F.
3.2
182.40
81.60
264.00
Joists, 2“x8", 16" O.C.
1.0
L.F.
0.02
0.98
0.43
1.41
120
L.F.
2.0
117.60
51.60
169.20
Girder, 2"x10"
0.1
L.F.
0.00
0.20
0.05
0.25
15
L.F.
0.2
24.00
6.00
30.00
Posts, 4"x4", incl. concrete footing
0.3
L.F.
0.02
0.58
0.54
1.12
30
L.F.
2.6
69.60
64.80
134.40
Railings, 2"x4"
1.0
L.F.
0.03
0.52
0.66
1.18
120
L.F.
3.1
62.40
79.20
141.60
0.09
3.80
2.36
6.16
11.3
456.00
283.20
739.20
257
Table E-9. Mechanical Dollar Costs For Proposal Three
MECHANICAL
5252.32
2457.57
7709.89
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Three Fixture Bathroom Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
BATHROOM WITH LAVORATORV IN VANITY
1
Ea.
Water closet, floor mounted, 2 piece
1 Ea.
3.02
160.00
81.00
241.00
1
Ea.
3.0
160.00
81.00
241.00
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for w.c.
1 Ea.
2.38
53.68
65.38
119.06
1
Ea.
2.4
53.68
65.38
119.06
Lavatory, 20"x18", P.E. cast iron...
1 Ea.
2.50
169.00
67.00
236.00
1
Ea.
2.5
169.00
67.00
236.00
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for lavatoi
1 Ea.
2.79
54.00
77.70
131.70
1
Ea.
2.8
54.00
77.70
131.70
Shower, steel enamled, stone base
1 Ea.
8.00
360.00
214.00
574.00
1
Ea.
8.0
360.00
214.00
574.00
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for shower
1 Ea.
3.24
57.75
91.33
149.08
1
Ea.
3.2
57.75
91.33
149.08
Piping, supply, 1/2" copper
36 L.F.
3.56
51.84
105.48
157.32
36
L.F.
3.6
51.84
105.48
157.32
Waste, 4" cast iron, no hub
7 L.F.
1.93
58.80
51.80
110.60
7
L.F.
1.9
58.80
51.80
110.60
Vent, 2" steel, galvanized
6 L.F.
1.50
33.00
40.20
73.20
6
L.F.
1.5
33.00
40.20
73.20
Vanity base, 2 door, 30" wide
1 Ea.
1.00
204.00
27.50
231.50
1
Ea.
1.0
204.00
27.50
231.50
Vanity top, plastic laminated, sq. edge
3 L.F.
0.71
56.07
19.62
75.69
2.67
L.F.
0.7
56.07
19.62
75.69
TOTAL
30.62
1258.14
841.01
2099.15
30.6
1258.14
841.01
2099.15
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Gas Heating/Cooling Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY.
UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
HEATING/COOLING, GAS-FIRED FORCED AIR, ONE ZONE, 1200 S.F.
1
Ea.
Furnace, incl. compressor, coil
1 Ea.
14.72
2737.00
386.40
3123.40
1
Ea.
14.7
2737.00
386.40
3123.40
Intermittent pilot
1 Ea.
1 18.00
118.00
1
Ea.
118.00
118.00
Supply duct, rigid fiberglass
176 L.F.
12.07
124.96
330.88
455.84
176
L.F.
12.1
124.96
330.88
455.84
Return duct, sheet metal, galvanized
158 Lb.
16.14
323.90
442.40
766.30
158
Lb.
16.1
323.90
442.40
766.30
Lateral duct, 6" flexible fiberglass
144 L.F.
8.86
263.52
233.28
496.80
144
L.F.
8.9
263.52
233.28
496.80
Register elbows
12 Ea.
3.20
85.80
84.60
170.40
1 2
Ea.
3.2
85.80
84.60
170.40
Floor registers, enameled steel
12 Ea.
3.00
147.60
88.20
235.80
1 2
Ea.
3.0
147.60
88.20
235.80
Floor grill return air
2 Ea.
0.73
30.90
21.30
52.20
2
Ea.
0.7
30.90
21.30
52.20
Thermostat
1 Ea.
1.00
22.50
29.50
52.00
1
Ea.
1.0
22.50
29.50
52.00
Refrigeration piping (precharged)
2 5 L.F.
140.00
140.00
25
L.F.
140.00
140.00
TOTAL
59.71
3994.18
1616.56
5610.74
59.7
3994.18
1616.56
5610.74
258
Table E-10. Electrical Dollar Costs For Proposal Three
ELECTRICAL
1041.40
1238.10
2279.50
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Electrical Service Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
200 AMP SERVICE
1 Ea.
Weather cap
1 Ea.
1.00
17.60
29.00
46.60
1 Ea.
1.0
17.60
29.00
46.60
Service entrance cable
10 L.F.
1.14
32.50
33.10
65.60
10 L.F.
1.1
32.50
33.10
65.60
Meter socket
1 Ea.
4.21
47.50
122.00
169.50
1 Ea.
4.2
47.50
122.00
169.50
Ground rod with clamp
1 Ea.
1.82
30.50
52.50
83.00
1 Ea.
1.8
30.50
52.50
83.00
Ground cable
1 0 L.F.
0.50
13.20
14.50
27.70
10 L.F.
0.5
13.20
14.50
27.70
3/4" EMT
5 L.F.
0.31
2.95
8.90
11.85
5 L.F.
0.3
2.95
8.90
11.85
Panel board, 24 circuit
1 Ea.
12.31
320.00
355.00
675.00
1 Ea.
12.3
320.00
355.00
675.00
TOTAL
21.29
464.25
615.00
1079.25
21.3
464.25
615.00
1079.25
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Wiring Device Systems
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST,
TOTAL
EACH USING NON-METALLIC SHEATHED CABLE
Air conditioning receptacles
1 Ea.
0.80
11.10
23.00
34.10
1 Ea.
0.8
11.10
23.00
34.10
Dryer circuit
1 Ea.
1.46
27.50
42.00
69.50
1 Ea.
1.5
27.50
42.00
69.50
Exhaust fan wiring
1 Ea.
0.80
11.10
23.00
34.10
1 Ea.
0.8
11.10
23.00
34.10
Furnace circuit & switch
1 Ea.
1.33
14.85
38.50
53.35
1 Ea.
1.3
14.85
38.50
53.35
Ground fault
1 Ea.
1.00
49.50
29.00
78.50
4 Ea.
4.0
198.00
116.00
314.00
Lighting wiring
1 Ea.
0.50
11.00
14.50
25.50
4 Ea.
2.0
44.00
58.00
102.00
Range circuits
1 Ea.
2.00
42.00
58.00
100.00
1 Ea.
2.0
42.00
58.00
100.00
Switches, single pole
1 Ea.
0.50
11.00
14.50
25.50
4 Ea.
2.0
44.00
58.00
102.00
Switches, 3-way
1 Ea.
0.67
13.65
19.30
32.95
2 Ea.
1.3
27.30
38.60
65.90
Water heater
1 Ea.
1.60
13.65
46.50
60.15
2 Ea.
3.2
27.30
93.00
120.30
TOTAL
10.66
205.35
308.30
513.65
18.9
447.15
548.10
995.25
MAN-
COST EACH
MAN-
COST
Light Fixture Systems
Q]X UNJI
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
QTY. UNIT
HOURS
MAT.
INST.
TOTAL
EACH "AVERAGE"
Fluorescent strip. 4' long, 2 lights
1 Ea.
1.00
33.00
29.00
62.00
1 Ea.
1.0
33.00
29.00
62.00
Incandescent, Recessed, 150W
1 Ea.
0.80
48.50
23.00
71.50
2 Ea.
1.6
97.00
46.00
143.00
TOTAL
1.80
81.50
52.00
133.50
2.6
130.00
75.00
205.00
259
Table E-ll. Site Work EMergy Costs For Proposal Three
SITE WORK
0 1,292
1,292
0 185
185
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Footing Excavation Systems
BUILDING, 26'X46', 4' DEEP
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
Clear and strip, dozer, light trees, 30'
0.2
Acre
654
654
93
93
Excavate, backhoe
201.0
C.Y.
377
377
54
54
Backfill, dozer, 4†lifts, no compaction
100.0
C.Y.
130
130
1 9
19
Rough grade, dozer, 30' from building
100.0
C.Y.
130
130
1 9
19
TOTAL
1292
1292
185
185
Table E-12. Foundation EMergy Costs For Proposal Three
FOUNDATIONS
3,285
767
4,052
0
110
110
Piling Systems
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
Large Footings
8
Ea.
(sej/unit)
Concrete, 3000
psi
2.1
C.Y.
1.8E+6 g/C.Y
5.92E+08
2190
161
2351
23
23
Place concrete,
direct chute
2.1
C.Y.
210
210
30
30
TOTAL
2190
371
2561
0
53
53
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
Small Footings
1 2
Ea.
(sei/unit)
Concrete, 3000
psi
1.0
C.Y.
1.8E+6 g/C.Y
5.92E+08
1095
81
1176
1 2
1 2
Place concrete,
direct chute
1 .047
C.Y.
315
315
45
45
TOTAL
1095
396
1490.6
0
57
57
260
Table E-13. Framing EMergy Costs For Proposal Three
FRAMING
34,070
25,169
59,239
24,701
3,596
28,296
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Floor Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
LIGHT GAUGE STEEL FLOOR SYSTEMS
1208
S.F.
(sej/unit)
Light gauge steel, 8" deep, 16 in O.C, 1
2259.0
L.F.
2312.6 g/L.F. 2.16E+09
11265
3433
14698
73%
8268
490
8759
Subfllor plywood CDX 5/8“
1268.4
Pr.
804.0 g/S.F. 8.29E+08
845
1666
2511
56%
470
238
708
TOTAL
12110
5099
17209
8738
728
9466
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
QTY,
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
Exterior Wall Framing Systems
(sei/unit)
corner columns, W6x15
152.0
L.F.
6810.0 g/L.F. 2.16E+09
2232
2539
4771
73%
1638
363
2001
floor spans, W8x10
216.0
L.F.
4540 g/L.F. 2E+09
21 1 5
2716
4830
73%
1552
388
1 940
roof spans, W6x9
1 04
L.F.
4086 g/L.F. 2E + 09
916.4
1 235
2151
73%
672.6
176
849
spans, M6x4.4
433
L.F.
1 998 g/L.F. 2E + 09
1 865
3807
5672
73%
1369
544
1913
corner columns, M4x13
248
L.F.
5902.0 g/L.F. 2.16E+09
3156
4489
7646
73%
2317
641
2958
TOTAL
10285
14785
25070
7548.8
2112
9661
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Roof Framing Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
LIGHT GAUGE STEEL ROOFING SYSTEMS
1150.1
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Light gauge steel, 8†deep, 16 in O.C, 1
2150.7
L.F.
2312.6 g/L.F. 2.16E+09
10725
3269
13994
73%
7872
467
8339
Subfllor plywood CDX 5/8"
1207.6
Pr.
804.0 g/S.F. 8.29E+08
805
1586
2391
56%
447
227
674
TOTAL
11530
4855
16385
8319
694
9013
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Partition Framing System
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2“x4", 16“ O.C.
192.0
S.F.
(sej/unit)
2“x4" studs, #2 or better, 16“ O.C.
192.0
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
79
212
291
66%
52
30
82
Plates, double top, single bottom
72.0
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
30
81
110
66%
1 9
12
31
Cross bracing, let-in, 1"x6“
15.4
L.F.
455.2 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
5
43
48
66%
3
6
9
4.0
Ea.
Headers, 2"x6", 3' long
24.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
1 5
47
63
66%
1 0
7
1 7
2.0
Ea.
Headers, 2l,x6â€, 6' long
24.0
L.F.
910.4 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
1 5
47
63
66%
1 0
7
1 7
TOTAL
144
430
574
95
61
156
261
Table E-14. Exterior Wall EMergy Costs For Proposal Three
EXTERIOR WALLS
2,104
16,596
18,701
1,021
2,371
3,392
UNIT
EMERGY/ EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Wood Siding Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
1/2"x8†BEVELED CEDAR SIDING, "A" G
152.0
S.F.
(sei/unit)
1/2"x8" beveled cedar siding
152.0
S.F.
472.9 g/S.F.
7.08E+08 51
583
634
66%
33
83
117
#15 asphalt felt paper
167.2
S.F.
21
21
3
3
Trim, cedar
19.0
L.F.
206.9 g/L.F.
7.08E+08 3
49
52
66%
2
7
9
Paint, primer & 2 coats
152.0
S.F.
134
134
1 9
19
TOTAL
54
787
841
35
112
148
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Wall Panel Framing Systems
STL
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
2"x4n, 16" O.C.
922.5
S.F.
(sej/unit)
2"x4" studs, 16" O.C.
922.5
L.F.
579.3 g/L.F.
7E+08
379
1020
1399
0.66
249
1 46
394
Sheathing, 1/2" plywood, CDX
1845.0
S.F.
643.2 g/S.F.
8E + 08
984
1 808
2792
0.56
546
258
805
1362
2828
4190
795
404
1199
UNIT EMERGY/ EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Insulation Systems
OTY.
UNIT CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL % RNW MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
NON-RIGID INSULATION BATTS
Fiberglass, foil faced, 3 1/2“ thick, R1
1048.0
S.F.
(sei/unit)
558
558
80
80
Fiberglass, foil faced, 9" thick, R30
403.0
S.F.
406
406
58
58
Fiberglass, kraft faced, 3 1/2" thick, F
394.0
S.F.
193
193
28
28
TOTAL
0 1157
1157
165
165
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
WWW Window Systems
QTY. UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI-WINDOW SET, MIDDLE FIXED, 32"x
2.0 Ea.
fsei/unitt
Window, wood, 32"x48", insul. glass
6.0 Ea.
1470
1470
210
210
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
72.0 L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
42
42
66%
27
27
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
42.0 S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
60
60
Trim, interior casing
52.0 L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
8
122
130
66%
5
17
23
Paint, interior, primer & 2 coats
2.0 Ea.
59
59
8
8
Calking
52.0 L.F.
63
63
9
9
TOTAL
109
1715
1824
33
245
278
262
Table E-14. Exterior Walls EMergy Costs For Proposal Three (continued)
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY. UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9'
2.0 Ea.
(sei/unitl
Door, 32"x6l8", insul. glass 24"x5'8"
2.0 Ea.
633
633
90
90
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24.0 L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 4
14
66%
9
9
...plate glass, 2x1/8†thick
22.7 S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
32
32
Window, 32â€x6'8", Insul. glass 24â€x5'
4.0 Ea.
1266
1266
181
181
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4B
48.0 L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
28
28
66%
1 8
1 8
...plate glass, 2x1/8“ thick
45.3 S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
64
64
Interior casing
46.0 L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
1 4
1 9
Exterior casing
46.0 L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
1 4
1 9
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
6.0 L.F.
1749.8 g/L.F.
7.28E+08
8
167
174
64%
5
24
29
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
3.0 Pr.
51
51
7
7
Lockset
2.0 Ea.
124
124
1 8
1 8
Drip cap
6.0 L.F.
1 1
1 1
2
2
Paint, Inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
4.0 Face
193
193
28
28
TOTAL
160
2645
2805
42
378
419
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
DWD Window & Door Systems
OTY. UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI PANEL DOOR/WiNDOW/DOOR, 9'
5.0 Ea.
fsei/unitl
Door, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8"
10.0 Ea.
3164
3164
452
452
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
120.0 L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
69
69
66%
46
46
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
113.3 S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
161
161
Window, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5’
5.0 Ea.
1582
1582
226
226
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
60.0 L.F.
816.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
35
35
66%
23
23
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
56.7 S.F.
945.8 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
80
80
Interior casing
115.0 L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 8
251
269
66%
1 2
36
48
Exterior casing
115.0 L.F.
218.7 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 8
251
269
66%
1 2
36
48
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
30.0 L.F.
1749.8 g/L.F.
7.28E+08
38
833
871
64%
24
119
143
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
15.0 Pr.
254
254
36
36
Lockset
10.0 Ea.
619
619
88
88
Drip cap
15.0 L.F.
27
27
4
4
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
10.0 Face
483
483
69
69
TOTAL
419
7464
7884
116
1066
1183
263
Table E-15. Roofing EMergy Costs For Proposal Three
ROOFING
Preformed Metal Roofing
Steel, galvanized, 22ga., 1.45
TOTAL
Cupolas
103 464 CUPOLA
0300 23" square, Al roof
718
1,772
2,491
527
253
780
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
SIX
UNE
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
506.0
S.F.
isei/unitl
506.0
S.F.
658.3 (g/SF)
2.16E+09
718
1466
2185
73%
527
209
737
718
1466
2185
527
209
737
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
1.0
Ea.
(sei/unitl
1.0
Ea.
306
306
44
44
264
Table E-16. Interior EMergy Costs For Proposal Three
INTERIORS
1,796
17,179
18,975
868
2,454
3,322
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Drywall & Thlncoat Wall Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
5/8" SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
1282.5
S.F.
(sei/unitl
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard
1282.5
S.F.
772
772
110
110
Finish, taped & finished joints
1282.5
S.F.
539
539
77
77
Corners, taped & finished, 32 L.F....
106.4
L.F.
90
90
1 3
1 3
Painting, primer & 2 coats
1282.5
S.F.
628
628
90
90
Trim, baseboard, painted
160.3
L.F.
557
557
80
80
TOTAL
2586
2586
369
369
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Drywall&Thincoat Ceiling Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
5/8" SHEETROCK, TAPED & FINISHED
597.6
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Drywall, 5/8" thick, standard
597.6
S.F.
360
360
51
51
Finish, taped & finished
597.6
S.F.
251
251
36
36
Corners, taped & finished, 12'x12' rm
19.7
L.F.
125
125
1 8
1 8
Painting, primer & 2 coats
597.6
S.F.
293
293
42
42
TOTAL
1029
1029
147
147
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Interior Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
BIRCH, FLUSH DOOR, HOLLOW CORE
4.0
Ea.
(sgj/unit)
Door, birch, hollow core, 2'-8"x6,-8"
4.0
Ea.
88798 g/ea.
7.90E+08
281
334
615
58%
164
48
211
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb
68.0
L.F.
404.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 9
460
479
66%
1 3
66
78
Trim, casing, painted
136.0
L.F.
145.8 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 4
367
382
66%
9
52
62
Butt hinges, bronze, 3-1/2"x3-1/2"
6.0
Pr.
181
181
26
26
Lockset, passage
4.0
Ea.
147
147
21
21
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
8.0
Face
423
423
60
60
TOTAL
314
1912
2226
186
273
459
265
Table E-16. Interior EMergy Costs For Proposal Three (continued)
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Closet Door Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
BY-PASSING, FLUSH, BIRCH, HOLLOW
4.0
Ea.
(sei/unit)
Door, birch, hollow core, 4'x6'-8"
4.0
Ea.
133180 g/ea.
7.90E+08
421
902
1323 58%
245
129
374
Frame, pine, 4-5/8" jamb
72.0
L.F.
404.6 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
21
488
508 66%
1 4
70
83
Trim, both sides, casing, painted
144.0
LF.
145.8 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 5
434
449 66%
1 0
62
72
Paint, door & frame, primer & 2 coats
8.0
Face
424
424
61
61
TOTAL
457
2247
2704
269
321
590
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Carpet Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
CARPET
576.8
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Carpet, nylon, level loop, 32 oz.
576.8
S.F.
1825
1825
261
261
Padding, sponge rubber cushion, min.
576.8
L.F.
331
331
47
47
Underlayment particle board, 3/8" thic
576.8
S.F.
709.4 g/S.F.
1.28E+09
523
460
984 33%
174
66
240
TOTAL
523
2616
3139
174
374
548
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Flooring Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
VINYL TILE
483.3
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Vinyl tile, 12"x12", 1/8" thick, min.
483.3
S.F.
1590
1590
227
227
Subfloor, plywood, 1/2" thick
483.3
S.F.
643.2 g/S.F.
8.29E+08
258
453
711 56%
143
65
208
TOTAL
258
2043
2301
143
292
435
266
Table E-16. Interior EMergy Costs For Proposal Three (continued)
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
WDW Window & Door Systems
QTY.
UNJI
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
TRI PANEL WINDOW/DOOR/WINDOW, 9'
2.0
Ea.
(sei/unit)
Door, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24"x5'8''
2.0
Ea.
633
633
90
90
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
24.0
L.F.
817 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
1 4
1 4
66%
9
9
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
22.7
S.F.
946 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
32
32
Window, 32"x6'8", insul. glass 24â€x5'
4.0
Ea.
1266
1266
181
181
...wood frame, 1 3/4"x4"
48.0
L.F.
817 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
28
28
66%
18
1 8
...plate glass, 2x1/8" thick
45.3
S.F.
946 g/S.F.
1.50E+09
64
64
Interior casing
46.0
L.F.
219 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
1 4
1 9
Exterior casing
46.0
L.F.
219 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
7
101
108
66%
5
14
19
Sill, oak, 8/4x8" deep
6.0
L.F.
1750 g/L.F.
7.28E+08
8
167
174
64%
5
24
29
Butt Hinges, brass, 4 1/2"x4 1/2"
3.0
Pr.
51
51
7
7
Lockset, passage
2.0
Ea.
73
73
1 0
10
Paint, inter. & exter., primer & 2 coat
4.0
Face
193
193
28
28
TOTAL
160
2583
2743
42
369
41 1
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Stairways
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
7 RISERS, OAK TREADS, BOX STAIRS
2.0
Ea.
(sej/unit)
Treads, oak
14.0
Ea.
1750 g/Ea.
7.28E+08
1 8
710
727
64%
1 1
101
113
Balusters, Birch, 30" high
28.0
Ea.
780 g/Ea.
7.28E+08
1 6
593
609
64%
1 0
85
95
Newels
4.0
Ea.
398
398
57
57
Handrails, oak
14.0
L.F.
312 g/L.F.
7.28E+08
3
180
183
64%
2
26
28
Stringers, 2"x10", 3 each
42.0
L.F.
1572 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
47
283
330
66%
31
40
71
TOTAL
84
2163
2247
54
309
363
267
Table E-17. Specialties EMergy Costs For Proposal Three
SPECIALTIES
396
9,320
9,717
260
1,331
1,592
UNIT EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Kitchen Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
KITCHEN, AVERAGE GRADE
17.0
L.F.
(sei/unit)
Top cabinets, average grade
17.0
L.F.
925
925
132
132
Bottom cabinets, average grade
17.0
L.F.
1387
1387
198
198
Counter top, laminated plastic...
17.0
L.F.
829
829
118
118
Blocking, wood, 2"x4"
17.0
L.F.
579 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
7
31
38
66%
5
4
9
Soffit framing, wood, 2"x4''
68.0
L.F.
579 g/L.F. 7.08E+08
28
85
113
66%
1 8
1 2
30
Soffit drywall, painted
34.0
S.F.
57
57
8
8
TOTAL
35
3315
3350
23
474
496
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Appliance Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
EACH "MINIMUM"
(sei/unit)
Range, built-in
1.0
Ea.
984
984
141
141
Dishwasher, built-in
1.0
Ea.
728
728
104
104
Range hood, ducted
1.0
Ea.
315
315
45
45
Refrigerator, 19 cu.ft.
1.0
Ea.
986
986
141
141
Sinks, porcelain on cat iron, double bov
1.0
Ea.
916
916
131
131
Water heater, gas, 30 gallon
2.0
Ea.
1042
1042
149
1 49
TOTAL
4971
4971
710
710
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Wood Deck Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
DECK, PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER, Ji
120.0
S.F.
(sei/unit)
Decking, 2"x6" lumber
249.6
L.F.
910 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
161
370
531
66%
106
53
158
Joists, 2“x8", 16" O.C.
120.0
L.F.
1241 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
106
237
342
66%
69
34
103
Girder, 2“x10"
15.0
L.F.
1572 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
17
42
59
66%
1 1
6
1 7
Posts, 4"x4", incliding concrete footinc
30.0
L.F.
1352 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
29
188
217
66%
1 9
27
46
Railings, 2"x4"
120.0
L.F.
579 g/L.F.
7.08E+08
49
198
247
66%
32
28
61
361
1035
1396
237
148
385
268
Table E-18. Mechanical EMergy Costs For Proposal Three
MECHANICAL
0
10,794
10,794
0
1,542
1,542
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12
sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Three Fixture Bathroom Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
BATHROOM WITH LAVORATORY IN VANIT
1
Ea.
fsei/unitt
Water closet, floor mounted, 2 piece
1
Ea.
337
337
48
48
Rough-in supply, waste & vent for w.c.
1
Ea.
167
167
24
24
Lavatory, 20â€x18“, P.E. cast iron...
1
Ea.
330
330
47
47
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for lavatory
1
Ea.
184
184
26
26
Shower, steel enamled, stone base
1
Ea.
804
804
115
115
Rough-in supply,waste,vent for shower
1
Ea.
209
209
30
30
Piping, supply, 1/2" copper
36
L.F.
220
220
31
31
Waste, 4" cast iron, no hub
7
L.F.
155
155
22
22
Vent, 2" steel, galvanized
6
L.F.
102
102
1 5
1 5
Vanity base, 2 door, 30" wide
1
Ea.
324
324
46
46
Vanity top, plastic laminated, sq. edge
3
L.F.
106
106
1 5
1 5
TOTAL
2939
2939
420
420
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej)
RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Gas Heating/Cooling Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
% RNW
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL
HEATING/COOLING, GAS-FIRED FORCED /
1
Ea.
(sej/unit)
Furnace, incl. plenum, compressor, coil
1
Ea.
4373
4373
625
625
Intermittent pilot
1
Ea.
165
165
24
24
Supply duct, rigid fiberglass
176
L.F.
638
638
91
91
Return duct, sheet metal, galvanized
158
Lb.
1073
1073
153
153
Lateral duct, 6" flexible fiberglass
144
L.F.
696
696
99
99
Register elbows
1 2
Ea.
239
239
34
34
Floor registers, enameled steel
1 2
Ea.
330
330
47
47
Floor grill return air
2
Ea.
73
73
1 0
1 0
Thermostat
1
Ea.
73
73
1 0
1 0
Refrigeration piping (precharged)
25
L.F.
196
196
28
28
TOTAL
7855
7855
1122
1122
269
Table E-19. Electrical EMergy Costs For Proposal Three
ELECTRICAL
0
3,191
3,191
0 713
713
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Electrical Service Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
200 AMP SERVICE
1
Ea.
(sei/unitl
Weather cap
1
Ea.
65
65
9
9
Service entrance cable
1 0
L.F.
92
92
1 3
1 3
Meter socket
1
Ea.
237
237
34
34
Ground rod with clamp
1
Ea.
116
116
1 7
1 7
Ground cable
1 0
L.F.
39
39
6
6
3/4" EMT
5
L.F.
17
1 7
2
2
Panel board, 24 circuit
1
Ea.
945
945
135
135
TOTAL
1511
1511
216
216
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Wiring Device Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
EACH USING NON-METALLIC SHEATHED CABLE
(sei/uniH
Air conditioning receptacles
1
Ea.
48
48
7
7
Dryer circuit
1
Ea.
97
97
1 4
1 4
Exhaust fan wiring
1
Ea.
48
48
7
7
Furnace circuit & switch
1
Ea.
75
75
1 1
1 1
Ground fault
4
Ea.
440
440
63
63
Lighting wiring
4
Ea.
143
143
20
20
Range circuits
1
Ea.
140
1 40
20
20
Switches, single pole
4
Ea.
143
143
20
20
Switches, 3-way
2
Ea.
92
92
1 3
1 3
Water heater
2
Ea.
1 68
168
24
24
TOTAL
1393
1393
199
199
UNIT
EMERGY/
EMERGY (E12 sej) RENEWABLE EMERGY (E12 sej)
Light Fixture Systems
QTY.
UNIT
CONVERSION
UNIT
MAT.
MONEY
TOTAL % RNW
MAT. MONEY
TOTAL
EACH "AVERAGE"
isei/uniU
Fluorescent strip. 4' long, 2 lights
1
Ea.
87
87
1 2
12
Incandescent, Recessed, 150W
2
Ea.
200
200
29
29
TOTAL
287
287
298
298
270
REFERENCES
Annual Statistical Report. Washington, D.C.: American Iron
and Steel Institute (AISI), 1972.
Annual Statistical Report. Washington, D.C.: American Iron
and Steel Institute (AISI), 1991.
Baumeister, Marks, Standard Handbook for Mechanical
Engineers, 7th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1967.
Bender, Richard, A Crack in the Rear-View Mirror -- A View of
Industrialized Building. New York: 0 Von Norstrand
Reinhold Company, 1973.
Bruce, Alfred, and Sandbank, Harold, A History of
Prefabrication. New York: Arno Press, 1972.
Census of Manufacturers. 1972a, INDUSTRY SERIES: Cement and
Structural Clav Products. U.S. Bureau of the Census,
MC72(2)-32B, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975.
Census of Manufacturers, 1972b, INDUSTRY SERIES: Concrete.
Plaster, and Cut Stone Products. U.S. Bureau of the
Census, MC72(2)-32D, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1975.
Census of Manufacturers. 1972c. INDUSTRY SERIES: Fabricated
Structural Metal Products. U.S. Bureau of the Census,
MC72(2)-34C, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975.
Census of Manufacturers. 1972d, INDUSTRY SERIES: Glass
Products. U.S. Bureau of the Census, MC72(2)-32A,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1975.
Census of Manufacturers. 1972e. INDUSTRY SERIES: Logging
Camos. Sawmills, and Planing Mills. U.S. Bureau of the
Census, MC72(2)-24A, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1975.
Chadwick, George F., The Works of Sir Joseph Paxton. London:
Architectural Press, 1961.
271
272
Cook, Peter, Archicrram. London: Studio Vista, 1972.
Curtis, William J., Le Corbusier: Ideas and Forms. New York:
Rizzoli, 1986.
Curtis, William J., Modern Architecture Since 1900. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1983.
Davies, Colin, High Tech Architecture. New York: Rizzoli,
1988, pp. 6-21.
Environmental Resource Guide. Washington, D.C.: American
Institute of Architects (AIA), October 1992.
Gore, Albert, Earth in the Balance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1992.
Herbert, Gilbert, Pioneers of Prefabrication. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press, 1978.
Holeman, Vaugan D, A Flexible Kit-of-Parts for Low Cost,
Energy Efficient Homes. Master of Arts in Architecture
Terminal Project, University of Florida, 1980.
Hornbostel, Caleb, Construction Materials: Types. Uses and
Applications. 2nd ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1991.
Jenks, Charles, Modern Movements in Architecture.
Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd.,
1985.
Kibert, Charles J., "Establishing Principles and a Model for
Sustainable Construction", Sustainable Construction:
Proceedings of the First International Conference of CIB
TG 16. Ann Arbor: Braun-Brumfield, Inc., 1994, pp.3-12.
Kihlstedt, Folke T., "The Crystal Palace", Scientific
American, October 1984, pp.132-143.
Kramer, J.J., Buyer's Guide to Kit Homes, Garden City, NY:
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981, pp. 1-7.
Le Corbusier. Towards a New Architecture. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1986. Reprint. Originally
published: London: J. Rodker, 1931.
McHarg, Ian L., Design with Nature. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971.
273
McLean, J. F., Jr., Southeastern Panel Building System,
Master of Arts in Architecture Terminal Project,
University of Florida, 1978.
Means Residential Cost Data 1994, 13th ed., Kingston, MA:
R.S. Means Company, Inc.,1994.
Mineral Facts and Problems, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1975.
Minerals Yearbook: Metals and Minerals, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Vol.
1, 1991.
Odum, Howard T., EMERGY: A Basis for Public Policy, Part I.
Draft prepared for John Wiley, New York, January, 1994a.
Odum, Howard T., EMERGY: A Basis for Public Policy, Part II,
Draft prepared for John Wiley, New York, January, 1994b.
Olgyay, Victor, Design with Climate. New York: Van Norstrand
Reinhold, 1992.
Roudebush, Wilfred H., Environmental Value Engineering (EVE):
A System for Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Built
Environment Alternatives, Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Florida, 1992.
Russell, Barry, Building Systems. Industrialization, and
Architecture. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.
Sergeant, John, Frank Llvod Wright's Usonian Houses. New
York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1984.
Snyder, Tim, "The Sears Pre-Cut: A Mail-Order House for
Everyone", Fine Homebuilding. August/September 1985,
pp.42-45.
Spurr, Stephen H. and Vaux, Henry J., "Timber: Biological and
Economic Potential", Science, Vol. 191, 20 Feb 1976.
Stein, Richard G., Architecture and Energy, Garden City:
Anchor Books, 1978.
Sudjic, Deyan, Norman Foster. Richard Rogers. James Stirling:
New Directions in British Architecture. New York: Thames
and Hudson, 1986.
Sullivan, Barry, J., Industrialization in the Building
Industry. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1980.
274
Testa, Carlo, The Industrialization of Building, New York: 0
Von Norstrand Reinhold Company, 1972.
Thayer, Robert L., Gray World. Green Heart: Technology.
Nature, and the Sustainable Landscape. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994.
Vale, Brenda and Vale, Robert, The Autonomous House. New
York: Universe Books, 1975.
Vale, Brenda and Vale, Robert, Green Architecture. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company, 1991.
Waddell, Joseph, Construction Materials Ready-Reference
Manual. New York: McGraw Hill, 1985.
Ward, James, The Artifacts of R. Buckminster Fuller. New
York: Garland Publishing Inc., Vol.1. 1984.
Watkins, A.M., The Complete Guide to Factory-Made Houses.
Chicago: Longman Financial Services Publishing, 1988.
Watson, Donald and Labs, Kenneth, Climatic Design. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983.
Wilkes, Joseph A. and Packard, Robert T, "Industrialized
Construction", Encyclopedia of Architecture: Design
Engineering, and Construction. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1988a, Vol. 3, pp. 1-20.
Wilkes, Joseph A. and Packard, Robert T. "Archigram",
Encyclopedia of Architecture: Design Engineering, and
Construction. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988b, Vol.
1, pp. 1-20, 255-257.
"Wood for Structural and Architectural Purposes", Wood and
Fiber. Committee on Renewable Resources for Industrial
Materials (CORRIM) Panel II, Vol. 8, Num. 1 (Spring
1976).
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Dana S. Haukoos was born in Albert Lea, Minnesota, on
December 29th, 1961. After graduating from Truman High
School, he studied at Mankato State University for one year
before transferring to South Dakota State University. There
he received his Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical
engineering in 1984. He was employed as an engineer for
Harris Corporation in Winter Park, Florida, from 1985 through
1987. In 1987 he enrolled at the University of Florida, and
earned the Master of Engineering degree in mechanical
engineering the following year. From 1988 through 1992, he
was employed as an engineer for Odetics, Incorporated of
Anaheim, California. Next he took a position as a computer
graphics consultant for the San Diego Supercomputer Center.
He returned to the University of Florida in 1993 to pursue a
Master of Science in Architectural Studies degree.
275
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a thesis for the degree of Master of Science in Architectural
Studies.
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a thesis for the degree of Master of Science in Architectural
Studies.
Mark Brown
Associate Scientist of
Environmental Engineering
Sciences
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a thesis for the degree of Master of Science in Architectural
Studies.
This thesis was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
College of Architecture and to the Graduate School and was
accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
August, 1995
degree of Master of Science in Architectural £
Dean, College ol
Architecture
Dean, Coll
Dean, Graduate School
|
