37
Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Introduction 3

Citation preview

Page 1: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Raise the Green RoofGus BracamontesCheryl GregoryTeddy HoAnuradha KumarJoe Ziomek

Page 2: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Introduction

Implementation

FeasibilityCosts & Benefits

Conclusions

Agenda2

Project Proposal

Questions

Page 3: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Introduction

3

Page 4: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Objectives

4

• Make a positive impact to the environment

• Serve the large percentage of students interested in sustainability

• Increase Anderson’s reputation as a sustainable school

Page 5: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Our Approach

5

• Make a measurable impact

Positive Impact on the

Environment

• Implement a concept that will excite and involve the Anderson Community

Serve Student Interest in

Sustainability • Utilize the Anderson Campus to make a visible impact

Make Anderson a Green Business

School

Page 6: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Solution

6

• Green Roofing Anderson– Covering the Anderson Roofs with

vegetation and soil planted over a waterproofing membrane

Page 7: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Why this is the best Option for the Roof

7

Alternative Benefits HurdlesGreen Roof -Reduced urban heat island

effect-Reduced energy usage & cost-Reduced renovation cost

-Large upfront costs

Reflective Roof -Reduced energy usage & cost-Cost effective

- Lower energy savings- Does not have additional environmental impacts

Solar Paneled Roof

-Use of alternative energy-Reduced fuel cost-Reduced dependence on foreign oil

-Large upfront costs-Anderson has deemed solar panels infeasible and will not consider this as an option for implementation within a year

Future Considerations: In the event that Anderson decides to invest in solar panels, green roofs increase the effectiveness of solar panels

Page 8: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Project Proposal

8

Page 9: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Green Roof Type• Extensive

– 1-6 inches of soil– Ground cover or shrubs– 15-50 pounds per square foot– Can be either Modular or Integrated (Built-In)

• Intensive– 6-24 or even more inches of soil– Extensive assortment of plants (trees, shrubs, public spaces)– 80-150 pounds per square foot– Must be integrated

9

Page 10: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Green Roof Type AnalysisCriteria Extensi

veIntensive

Ease of Installation

Weight Considerations

Amenity Space

Plant Variety

Maintenance

Price

10

Result: Extensive Modular Green Roof Implementation

Page 11: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Location ConsiderationsRequirements For Prototype• West facing building

• higher energy usage • Free space

• least amount of structural disturbance in the roof (sky lights, pipes etc.)

11

Added Benefits of Building F• High Visibility

• Visible from top floors of other buildings • Above the Dean’s office

Page 12: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Vegetation

12

• Requirements– Ability to grow under the conditions of

the green roof– Climate– Soil Level

– Tolerant of drought conditions• Recommendations

– Succulents (ex. Sedums)– Work with green roof provider

• Irrigation System– Efficient Drop Irrigation

Page 13: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Benefit & Costs

13

Page 14: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Air Quality Improvement

14

Particulate matter reduction due to a 1000 ft2 green roof = 40 lbs

Particulate matter reduction at Mullen Commons = 199 lbsParticulate matter emitted by one car in a year = 2.67 lbs

That is a reduction of particulate matter from 75 cars or the cars of ONE Anderson MBA Section a year!

Page 15: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Energy Savings

15

Annual Energy Usage (kwh)

Annual Dollar Amount Spent

Currently 644,760 $74,250.65

With Green Roof 596,403 $68,681.85

Annual Savings 48,357 $5,568.80

The financial savings is based on the fact that the energy used per year in Mullin Commons will decrease by 7.5%

Page 16: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Additional Benefits

16

- Green House Gas Absorption- Urban Heat Island Effect- Storm Water Run off- Credits towards Leed Certification

Page 17: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Branding & Social Impact• Visual representation of Anderson’s commitment to Sustainability

– Currently #93 on Aspen Institutes “Beyond Grey Pinstripes” Ranking

– Increase Anderson’s appeal to top prospective students , recruiters and donors • All with a growing concern for the environment

• Serve as an example for the external community– First retrofit a green roof at UCLA– One of the first to implement a green roof in LA

17

Page 18: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Cost Considerations

18

- Green Roof Installation- Labor- Membrane- Vegetation Modules

- Irrigation System Installation- On-going maintenance

- Labor- Water

Page 19: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

118,475

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1

118,475

133,157

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1

76,974

118,475

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1

Current StrategyRe-Roof: 5 yrs, 25 yrsTotal PV Costs: $118,475

Green Roof StrategyRoof today; Re-roof in 40 yearsTotal PV Costs: 133,157 Net Energy Savings: 56,184 Net PV Costs (after savings): 76,974

Net Difference: 41,501 CHEAPER

Costs Vs. Benefits

*Assumes Conventional Roof = $13 psf; Green Roof = $19-21 psf; Real discount Rate of 3%

Page 20: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Feasibility

20

Page 21: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Structural FeasibilityStructural Feasibility Question?

Answer

Can the roof support the weight?

Can we avoid an earthquake inspection?

Is the roof properly waterproofed as is?

Sources: Prof. Thomas Sabol of UCLA Civil & Environmental Engineering; Tom Hawkins of LiveRoof; Biltmore Roofing

56 psf Capacity

< 73.3% Coverage

Concrete & Membrane

Page 22: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Fire RegulationsWill The Roof Satisfy Fire Regulations?

Answer

Mitigate Risk of flammable vegetation

Maintain appropriate standards for Roof Access for fire fighters

Enforce appropriate occupancy level

-Appropriate Plants- Irrigation System

- Maintain current access

- Extensive roof not open to public

Page 23: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Implementation

23

Page 24: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Implementation Steps and Timeline

Page 25: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Funding

25

Funding Source Amount UCLA TGI Fund $8000Anderson Student Fee $21,000 (1,400 * $15 / year)

Faculty and Staff Contributions $5,000

Clean Water State Revolving Fund

$70,244

Total $104,244

Other Funding Sources:- Naming rights- Donor- Dean’s Initiative- Public funding

Page 26: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Construction Phase

Page 27: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Education

27

• Demonstration Project for the LA Area• Educational Research Partnerships• Anderson Case Studies

• Marketing, Finance & Strategy• UCLA Research

• Institute on the Environment etc.• Local Curriculum

• Elementary through High School

Page 28: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Conclusion

28

Page 29: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

The Green Roof is

29

• Feasible• Implementable• Scalable• Financially Beneficial

Page 30: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

The Green Roof Fulfilled Our Objectives

30

• The Green Roof will improve air quality and reduce energy usage

Positive Impact on the

Environment

• The Green Roof will serve educational purposes

Serve Student Interest in

Sustainability • The Green Roof will serve as an example for Academics, UCLA and LA

Make Anderson a Green Business

School

Page 31: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Questions?

31

Page 32: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Appendix

32

Page 33: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Costs

33

Cost Comparison

Green Roof Conventional Roof Incremental CostsINSTALL COSTSInitial Cost 19 per sq. ft 13 per sq. ft 6 per sq. ftIrrigation 2 per sq. ft 0 per sq. ftRoof Life 40 yrs 20 yrs 20 yrs

Roof Size (Sq ft) 6,800 6,800 % Covered 73.00% 100.00%Roof Covered 4,964 6,800

Total Install Costs 104,244 88,400 15,844

ONGOING COSTSAnnual Maintenance (Sq Ft) 0.52 per sq. ft 0 per sq. ft 0.52 per sq. ftTotal Annual Maintenance 2,581 0 2,581

Page 34: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Implementation – Fall Quarter

34*Note: Certain tasks may be completed in advance during the Spring 2009 term.

Projects 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25 11/1 11/8 11/15 11/22 11/29 12/6 12/13 12/20 12/27Education

Staff Education x x x

Student Education x x x

Anderson Community x x x

UCLA Community x x x

External Community

Funding

Undergraduate Fund* x x x x

Anderson Fund x x x x

Staff Fund x x x x

State Funding x x x

Construction

Roof design x x x x x x x

Roof Approval x x x

Roof Installation x x

Roll Out

Monitor

Power Usage & Reporting

Page 35: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Implementation – Winter Quarter

35*Note: Certain tasks may be completed in advance during the Spring 2009 term.

Projects 1/3 1/10 1/17 1/24 1/31 2/7 2/14 2/21 2/28 3/7 3/14 3/21

Education

Staff Education

Student Education

Anderson Community

UCLA Community

External Community x

FundingUndergraduate Fund*

Anderson Fund

Staff Fund

State Funding

Construction

Roof design

Roof Approval

Roof Installation x x x x x x x x x

Roll Out x x

Monitor

Power Usage & Reporting x

Page 36: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Total of 56 psf capacity

Goal: stay below 10% additional weight to avoid triggering required seismological evaluation.

56 psf * 10% = 5.6 psf.Removal of 6 psf of gravel total of 11.6 psf across entire roof is maximum

Green roof is 16 psf. Thus we can cover 11.6 / 16 = 73% of the roof without triggering the evaluation.

Source: Prof. Thomas Sabol of UCLA Civil & Environmental Engineering

Seismological Requirements

Page 37: Raise the Green Roof Gus Bracamontes Cheryl Gregory Teddy Ho Anuradha Kumar Joe Ziomek

Standard load capacity of 5.5-inch concrete is 39 psfAssume additional load capacity of 17 psfTotal of 56 psf capacity

Light modular green roofs are 16 psf when soaking wet.

Source: Prof. Thomas Sabol of UCLA Civil & Environmental Engineering

Structural Feasibility