A discussion on the BPDO-EPD forum (http://www.leeduser.com/comment/redirect/66396) has started me thinking about how to treat materials that could fall on a Credit tipping point depending on whether or not one classifies them as structure/enclosure.

For example, many projects spend a significant chunk of their budgets on gypsum board (drywall). Some percentage of the board forms part of the exterior wall and ceiling assembly, making it part of the “enclosure.” In many cases, the gypsum is there as fireproofing to make combustible load-bearing elements (such as wood frame) code-compliant. Some have argued that this makes it structural. Still, in most buildings, the lion’s share of the gypsum board is for non-structural work on the interior of the building. To count this portion as non-structure/non-enclosure, are we required to tally the costs and characteristics of the interior gypsum separately from the small percentage used to enclose the structure?

Wood framing raises a similar question. Some is used for exterior walls and interior bearing elements, but some comprises non-bearing interior partitions. The sticks of wood are identical, but it appears that we must track them separately.

Since, for Option 3, structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant building products, all this hair-splitting may be necessary to maximize the contributions of non-structure/non-enclosure elements. I am curious how others have handled materials like these.

Since the questions above are applicable to all BPDO Credits, I have posted them to the “Sourcing of Raw Materials” forum. Let’s continue this discussion there: http://www.leeduser.com/comment/redirect/66653.