Integrative Analysis of Building Materials

Integrative analysis of building materials is a process of evaluating the environmental, social, and economic impacts of building materials throughout their entire life cycle, from extraction and production to transportation, installation, use, and disposal. The goal of integrative analysis is to identify the most sustainable and cost-effective building materials for a given project, taking into account factors such as energy efficiency, durability, recyclability, and local availability.

The process of integrative analysis typically includes the following steps:

1. Material Selection: Identify the materials that are suitable for the project based on the design requirements, local regulations, and the availability of materials.

2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Conduct a life cycle assessment of each material to evaluate the environmental impacts of the materials throughout their life cycle.

3. Cost Analysis: Evaluate the costs of each material, including the initial cost, maintenance cost, and disposal cost.

4. Social Impact Analysis: Evaluate the social impact of the materials, including the impact on local communities and the labor conditions in the extraction, production, and transportation of the materials.

5. Integrative Analysis: Combining the results of the LCA, cost analysis, and social impact analysis to identify the most sustainable and cost-effective materials for the project.

6. Optimization: Optimize the design and construction process to reduce the environmental impact and costs.

The results of the integrative analysis can be used to make informed decisions about the materials used in the building project, and can help to improve the overall sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the building. Additionally, it can help to minimize the environmental footprint of the construction industry, and it can promote the use of environmentally-friendly and socially responsible materials.

This credit provided a system for our team to aggregate information pertaining to material lifecycle analysis and ingredient reporting, which allowed us to understand how each product impacts human and environmental health from production to disposal. 

I appreciate this credit for the understanding that it requires designers to reach. Some in the industry (and clients) see LEED as a series of checklists to claim a building is green but this credit really requires the design team to have a full understanding of exactly where products come from and the impacts they have from a cradle to grave perspective. As someone who loves research and getting to the root of products, this credit was eye opening on quite a few levels. It also allows us to become aware of a products short comings when it comes to a healthy and environmentally friendly product. This is the sort of credit that drives green design and gets designers to think through all levels of the products we spec, from what raw materials the product is made of, where it is manufactured, what are the harmful chemicals involved etc. This stirs designers to start to ask those questions and create a snowball effect in a positive direction. To find these answers, the designers may need to reach out to product reps. Those reps may then let their teams know that this is information that designers are looking for and interested in and might stem them to take action to make their product more appealing from the green/eco perspective. This credit gives me a lot of hope for the future of green design becoming the new standard of construction, whether designers or clients intend for products to be eco or not.  

The project team is pursuing this pilot credit after achieving BPDO EPD and Material ingredients credits. Needed data come from EPDs, Safety Data Sheets, HPDs or similar certification if available and Technical datasheets. Developing a better understanding of health, safety and environmental information life cycle of building materials is crucial from a sustainability perspective.

Asking for such data it's imortanto to push manufacturer to be more transparent with the market.

Do we know of any manufacturers other than Sherwin Williams that have generated comprehensive compiled documentation for this analysis? Armstrong and Inferface have very detailed EPDs, HPDs, etc so I wonder if eventually they will compile and cross reference everything. Maybe that is the target of a lot of them migrating to Ecomedes.

Have all of you had good experience with this pilot credit?
From my understanding, I can "Recycle" the EPDs and HPDs (and others) to comply. Would this be correct? 
Are there any catches, this seems too easy and very interesting.

Azra - you are correct, supporting resources like EPDs and HPDs can be reused from project to project, so long as they are up to date. This has been advantageous for our team - once we've collected a product's sustainability information needed to document this credit, we save it for future use. In fact, on my latest project, two of the three products had been documented previously so I was able to pull that info and save lots of time!