Working on a historic renovation of a school building. Two building reuse questions:
1. Same as a question above that didn't get much response - Some exterior redwood siding will be reused, some must be replaced. All the stucco will be redone. Should the reused exterior wall area be based on these envelope materials or on the fact that the exterior wall structure (framing) will be intact? The difference is the exterior walls being about 15% reused, or 100% reused (I know floors, roof deck, interior structural walls go in to the calc too).
2. The language for MRc1.1 has always been very clear that structurally unsound or hazardous materials should be left out of the calculations. However, the same language has never been included in MRc1.2 (previously, NC v2.2 MRc1.3, also Schools 2007 MRc1.3). Is it assumed that hazardous materials (e.g. moldy gyp board, asbestos) should be removed and not counted in the calculations, or is this one of those unfortunate situations where we should remove them and lose the credit as a result? If hazardous/contaminated materials can be excluded from the calculations, do you just leave it out of the "total" area?
Thanks.
Anne Nicklin
Executive DirectorBuilding Materials Reuse Association
167 thumbs up
June 1, 2011 - 2:56 pm
Hi Emily,
Apologies for the delay in my response, hopefully it's still in time to be helpful on your project.
1. The credit language specifically refers to the retention of both the exterior structure, and envelope materials. Thus, the only "guaranteed" areas for inclusion are those which have the reused siding. There is not yet clear guidance from the USGBC on acceptable methods for calculating the portion of the wall that should be counted towards the credit when the structure but not the skin is reused. Cost and weight are never used in this credit, and a section area calculation would undercount the skin. I'd suggest either submitting for an official request for interpretation, or else submitting the credit with a proposed alternate calculation method that counts those areas with structural but not skin reuse as 50% compliant.
2. Hazardous materials should always be remediated, and removed from the calculations. Make sure that there is testing or confirmation that the materials are hazardous, and then yes, you simply leave the hazardous materials out of the baseline area.
BEN MONROE
AssociateMallen Gowing Berzins Architecture
September 12, 2013 - 10:30 am
I am interested in knowing what way Emily went with this because I have a similar question where there are portions fo the exterior wall where we are replacing brick veneer, but keeping the back-up framing, which is structural to the building envelope. The 50% compliant idea occurred to me also.
Michele Helou
PrincipalSage Design & Consulting
72 thumbs up
October 17, 2017 - 4:42 pm
I have the same situation with a current v2009 project. We are replacing the skin, but not the backup structure. Has anyone had luck in making the case for the 50% compliant idea?
Debra a. Lombard
Construction Administrator/ LEED APBywater Woodworks, Inc.
47 thumbs up
October 17, 2017 - 5:15 pm
HI, I believe it's not only hazardous materials that can be "deleted" from calculations but any structurally unsound material. I found a CIR and saved it and can email it to anyone who wants to see it.
We are renovating a house from 1813 (will be a museum) where a lot of the building brick had to be removed as it was deteriorating and thus that area will be "deducted" from the calcs, however the main structure of this building is the brick, in several courses, so you're making me realize about correcting the calcs for the number of layers of brick course of the walls/ structure. Thanks for these posts!