US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

Session no. A

TECHNICALITIES – SECTION 438

Kevin Araki, Bruce Chun,

Brandi Jim On, Russell Leong

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

20 May 2010

BUILDING STRONG®

ARCHITECTURE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR

STEEL DOOR DESIGN

BUILDING STRONG®

Steel Doors and Frames

Unified Facilities Guide Specification

(UFGS) Section 08 11 13, paragraph 2.1.1

Door Classification (Levels 1, 2, 3 & 4) Level 1 – Standard Duty Doors

Level 2 – Heavy Duty Doors

Level 3 – Extra Heavy Duty Doors

Level 4 – Maximum Duty Doors

For a normal standard facility, which door classification

would you specify??

BUILDING STRONG®

Steel Doors and Frames

Approximately 20% of the projects submitted for review left

paragraph 2.1.1 unedited. All Door Levels (1, 2, 3 and 4) are

included resulting in an undefined requirement for each door.

(Further editing of Specifications needed)

Approximately 40% of the projects submitted for review specify only

Level 1 – Standard Duty Doors. (This is incorrect, Level 1 doors are

specified for use in areas of very low use (i.e. closet doors). The

majority of the door classifications specified should be either Level 2

or Level 3)

Approximately 20% of the projects submitted for review specify

Level 2 - Heavy Duty Doors and/or Level 3 – Extra Heavy Duty

Doors (In most cases, this is acceptable)

BUILDING STRONG®

Steel Doors and Frames

GUIDANCE NOTES FROM UFGS SECTION 08 11 13

BUILDING STRONG®

Steel Doors and FramesSDI 108-04 Recommended Selection and Usage Guide

for Standard Steel Doors (Table 2)

BUILDING STRONG®

Steel Doors and FramesSDI 108-04 Recommended Selection and Usage Guide

for Standard Steel Doors (Table 2)

BUILDING STRONG®

Steel Doors and FramesClassification Levels shown on Drawings and/or Specs

SPECS

DRAWINGS

BUILDING STRONG®

STRUCTURAL

CHANGES TO UFC 4-023-03

Design of Buildings to Resist

Progressive Collapse

BUILDING STRONG®

UFC 4-023-03

Progressive Collapse applies to all DoD

services and all DoD inhabited buildings 3

stories or higher.

Standoff distance is irrelevant to progressive

collapse.

Current edition of UFC 4-023-03 is 14 July

2009.

Three design approaches in UFC 4-023-03:

Tie Forces, Alternate Path Method, and

Enhanced Local Resistance.

BUILDING STRONG®

Design Requirements

Design Requirements were revised in the current

edition of the UFC:

- Previous edition (25 Jan 2005) of the UFC used

“Levels of Protection” (LOPs), determined by the

Project Planning Team, to define the progressive

collapse design requirements.

- Current edition (14 July 2009) of the UFC

correlates the level of progressive collapse, for

both new and existing structures, with the

Occupancy Category of a structure.

BUILDING STRONG®

Design Requirements Design Requirements, based on Occupancy

Category are shown in Table 2-2 of UFC 4-023-03:

BUILDING STRONG®

Occupancy Category

The Occupancy Category is taken from

UFC 3-310-01, or specified by the building owner.

The Occupancy Category Level can be considered

as a measure of the consequences of a progressive

collapse event and is based on:

The level of occupancy

The building function or criticality.

BUILDING STRONG®

Changes in UFC 4-023-03

The previous edition of the UFC required Tie Forces for

Occupancy Category II (Low Level of Protection). The

Current UFC allows the option of using Alternate Path or

Tie Force method.

The “Effective Column and Wall Height” design

requirement (laterally unsupported length equal to two

stories must be used in the design or analysis of a

column or wall) was removed in the Current UFC.

The “Upward Load on Floors and Slabs” design

requirement (slab/floor system at each bay and all floors

had to withstand a net upward load) was removed in the

Current UFC.

BUILDING STRONG®

Changes in UFC 4-023-03 (cont.)

Tie Force Method was revised such that the floor

and roof system (i.e. slabs and decks) provide and

carry the internal and peripheral tie forces. Tie

forces are not carried by the beams, girders, etc.

The Enhanced Local Resistance (ELR)

requirements vary with the Occupancy Category.

Please refer to UFC 4-023-03 (14 July 2009) for

other changes.

BUILDING STRONG®

MECHANICAL

BUILDING AIR TIGHTNESS

REQUIREMENTS

BUILDING STRONG®

Building Air Tightness Requirements

Directive (ECB) issued 30 Oct 2009

All (FY10) new construction projects

All (FY10) renovation projects where costs

are greater/equal to 25% of replacement

Building envelope shall be designed and

constructed with a continuous air barrier to

control air leakage into (or out of) the

conditioned space

BUILDING STRONG®

Design (Drawing) Requirements

Clearly identify all air barrier components

of each envelope assembly and detail the

joints, interconnections, and penetrations

Clearly indentify the boundary limits of the

bldg air barriers, and of the zone or zones

to be tested for air tightness

Motorized dampers to close all intakes &

exhausts during inactive periods

BUILDING STRONG®

Bldg. Air Leakage Testing

Blow Door Testing:

Air leakage rate of the envelope doesn’t

exceed 0.25 CFM/sq ft @ pressure differential

of 0.3 iwg (75 Pa) i.a.w. ASTM E779 or ASTM

E1827

Accomplish tests using BOTH pressurization

and depressurization

Infrared Thermography Testing on the

completed bldg.

BUILDING STRONG®

Blow-door tests complemented by thermography

identify problems with building air tightness and

areas with poor insulation where leakage occurs

(red and white areas in photo)

BUILDING STRONG®

Identification of leakage pathways using smoke

pencil (left), theatrical fog (center), and infra-red

thermography (right).

BUILDING STRONG®

“U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Air Leakage Test Protocol For

Measuring Air Leakage In Buildings”

Available on the Whole Building Design Guide website

http://www.wbdg.org/references/pa_dod_energy.php

BUILDING STRONG®

MECHANICAL

ENGINEERED VENT & SOVENT

TYPE SYSTEMS

BUILDING STRONG®

Guidance Inconsistency

UFC 3-420-01FA (Plumbing)-Prohibited. A

Philadelphia (one pipe), air admittance

valve system, engineered vent system, or

a sovent (aerator) type system shall not be

permitted.

MILCON Transformation-Permitted

BUILDING STRONG®

BUILDING STRONG®

Advantages:

►Allowed by Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)

►Used in high-rise applications

►Reduced material & labor cost

Disadvantages:

►Mixed track record

►Manufacturer specific installation guidance

►Multiple systems in the same facility

►Potential for future modifications to be

connected incorrectly

BUILDING STRONG®

Resolution:

USACE HQ will revise the MILCON

Transformation requirements to reflect the

UFC prohibition.

BUILDING STRONG®

CONSTRUCTION QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

FUTURE CHANGES

BUILDING STRONG®

Engineering & Construction Bulletin

(ECB) to be issued

Joint policy by USACE and NAVFAC

Course Administration by USACE

Learning Center (ULC)

Registration

Record Keeping

BUILDING STRONG®

Recertification Options

Retake the instructor led course

Online course available at the ULC

website; Anticipated launch on 1 Oct 2010

Certificates

Valid for 5 years

Certificates may be revoked for poor

performance

BUILDING STRONG®

CIVIL

STORMWATER

BUILDING STRONG®

SECTION 438

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

& SECURITY ACT 2007

BUILDING STRONG®

SECTION 438

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) now

effectively mandates LID for federal projects

SEC. 438. STORM WATER RUNOFF REQUIREMENTS FOR

FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

The sponsor of any development or redevelopment project involving

a Federal facility with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet shall

use site planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies

for the property to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent

technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property

with regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow.

BUILDING STRONG®

DESIGN BUILD RFP

5.1.2.6 Stormwater Management. Employ design and construction

strategies (Best Management Practices) that reduce stormwater

runoff, reduce discharges of polluted water offsite and maintain or

restore predevelopment hydrology with respect to temperature, rate,

volume, and duration of flow to the maximum extent practicable.

See paragraph 6, Project Specific requirements for additional

information.

BUILDING STRONG®

DEFINITIONS

6.x.1 Definitions.

“Maximum Extent Technically Feasible (METF)”. Project site design

options shall be evaluated to achieve the design objective to the

maximum extent technically feasible. METF criterion requires full

employment of accepted and reasonable storm water retention and

reuse technologies (e.g., bio-retention areas, permeable pavements,

cisterns / recycling, and green roofs), subject to site and regulatory

constraints (e.g., site size, soil types, vegetation, demand for

recycled water, existing structural limitations, state or local

prohibitions on water collection). All site-specific technical

constraints that prohibit the full attainment of the design

objective shall be documented. If the design objective cannot be

met within the project footprint, LID measures may be applied on

nearby parcels of DoD property (e.g., downstream from the project)

within available resources.

BUILDING STRONG®

DEFINITIONS

6.x.1 Definitions.

“Predevelopment hydrology” is defined as the pre-project hydrologic

conditions of temperature, rate, volume, and duration of storm water

flow from the project site. The analysis of the predevelopment

hydrology must include site-specific factors (such as soil type,

ground cover, and ground slope) and use modeling or other

recognized tools to establish the design objective for the water

volume to be managed from the project site.

“Predevelopment” equals Pre-project equals the vegetative state.

BUILDING STRONG®

DESIGN TEAM

6.x.3 DESIGN TEAM

• Civil Engineer;

• Site grading

• Geotechnical Engineer;

• Exfiltration; methods to maintain or enhance.

• Geotextiles;

• Geogrids

• Landscape Architect

• Plant selection for low areas with longer saturation times;

• Plant selection for high areas

• Low P-index soil

• Upper soil mix (sand, compost, etc.)

BUILDING STRONG®

DESIGN CRITERIA

6.x.4 Pollutants To Reduce. The post construction Best

Management Practices (BMPs) shall reduce Total Suspended Solids;

both dissolved and particulate nutrients; suspended petroleum;

suspended metals; and temperature.

6.x.4.a Regulated Pollutants for Project in a Watershed with

Total Maximum Discharge Loads (TMDL). This project storm

drain system does discharge to a watershed with TMDL. The

regulated pollutants are total suspended solids, nutrients, etc. This

will require additional post construction BMPs to further reduce the

pollutant loads.

• TMDLs established for North and South Fork Kaukonahua

Stream.

• TMDLs expected late 2010 or 2011 for Waikele Stream.

BUILDING STRONG®

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.x.5 Operation and Maintenance Manual. Provide and O&M

manual for each post construction BMP used. Provide an estimate

of the annual maintenance costs in the O&M manual.

6.x.6 Plans and specifications. The plans and specifications shall

address protection of the BMP during construction to include

preventing damage and sediment accumulation. The plans and

specification shall address periodic and final cleaning of the BMPs

prior to project turnover.

6.x.7 Other Requirements. DOD is required to provide estimated

design and construction costs for implementing EISA Section 438.

Documented the project cost estimate as a separate line item. Final

implementation costs will be documented as part of the project

historical file. Post-construction analysis shall also be conducted to

demonstrate the effectiveness of as-built storm water features. I.e.,

apply water to the BMP and measure time to drain, etc.

BUILDING STRONG®

Ref: NC State University, A&T State University Cooperative Extension; Urban Waterways; Permeable Pavement: Research Update and Design Implications

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

PERMEABLE PAVERS

BUILDING STRONG®

Ref: EPA 841-B-09-001; Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act; December 2009

EPA Technical Guidenance

BUILDING STRONG®

Ref: EPA 841-B-09-001; Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act; December 2009

Comparison Water Volumes

Section

438

(in)

LEED 6.1

– 1 yr 24

hr

(in)

LEED 6.1

– 2 yr 24

hr

(in)

CCH

Detention

(in)

CCH

Water

Quality

(in)

1.8 4 6 1SB

BUILDING STRONG®

Ref: http://www.aquapave.com/

PERMEABLE PAVEMENT

PARTIAL EXFILTRATION

INTERNAL

WATER

STORAGE

EXFILTRATION

BUILDING STRONG®

HAWAII EXAMPLES

POROUS CONCRETE

EWA BEACH ELEMENTARY

PCP

PCP

AC

BUILDING STRONG®

HAWAII EXAMPLES

POROUS CONCRETE – AHFH KALAKAUA

PCP

BUILDING STRONG®

BIOSWALE IN PARKING LOT

Ref: Nancy White; William F. Hunt, P.E., Ph.D.; Urban

Waterways, Designing Rain Gardens (Bio-Retention Areas),

NC State University & A&T State University

BUILDING STRONG®

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT

BIOSWALE IN PARKING LOT

Ref1: Steve Thibaudeau, P.E, Putting the LID on Site Design,

COE Louisville District

Ref2: Nancy White; William F. Hunt, P.E., Ph.D.; Urban

Waterways, Designing Rain Gardens (Bio-Retention Areas),

NC State University & A&T State University

Ref1: Ref2:

GEOTEXTILE

BUILDING STRONG®

IMPROVEMENTS TO WATER QUALITY

Ref: William F. Hunt, P.E., Ph.D.; Bioretention Research

& Impacts on Design, NC State University

www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater

BUILDING STRONG®

Ref: Exfiltration from Pervious Concrete into a Compacted

Clay Soil, Wesley C. Wright, The University of Tennessee

MAINTAINING INSITU EXFILTRATION RATES

BUILDING STRONG®

Ref: Exfiltration from Pervious Concrete into a Compacted

Clay Soil, Wesley C. Wright, The University of Tennessee

MAINTAINING INSITU EXFILTRATION RATES

BUILDING STRONG®

Ref: Robert A. Brown, E.I.; William F. Hunt, P.E., Ph.D.; Urban

Waterways, Improving Exfiltration from BMPs: Research and

Recommendations, NC State University & A&T State

University

MAINTAINING INSITU EXFILTRATION RATES

BUILDING STRONG®

Ref: Donald D. Carpenter and Laura Hallam; An investigation

of rain garden planting mixture performance and the

implication for design; Low Impact Development 2008.

MIXTURES AFFECTING PERMEABILITY

BUILDING STRONG®

Ref: Donald D. Carpenter and Laura Hallam; An investigation

of rain garden planting mixture performance and the

implication for design; Low Impact Development 2008.

MIXTURES AFFECTING PERMEABILITY

BUILDING STRONG®

6.x.2.1 EPA 841-B-09-001; Technical Guidance on Implementing the

Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of

the Energy Independence and Security Act; December 2009.

6.x.2.2 EPA memorandum; Clarification on which stormwater infiltration

practices/technologies have the potential to be regulated as "Class V" wells

by the Underground Injection Control Program, 13 June 2008.

6.x.2.3 Memorandum for Assistant Secretary of the Army, DoD

Implementation of Storm Water Requirements under Section 438 of the

Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA); 13 October 2009.

6.x.2.4 UFC 3-230-06A; Subsurface Drainage; 16 January 2004.

6.x.2.5 Public Works Technical Bulletin 200-1-62, Low Impact Development

for Sustainable Installations: Stormwater Design and Planning Guidance for

Development Within Army Training Areas, 1 October 2008.

6.x.2.6 UFC 3-210-10, Low Impact Development, 25 October 2004.

REFERENCES

BUILDING STRONG®

6.x.2.7 Donald D. Carpenter and Laura Hallam, An investigation of rain

garden planting mixture performance and the implication for design, Low

Impact Development 2008.

6.x.2.8 Robert A. Brown, William F. Hunt, NC State University and A&T

State University Cooperative Extension, Urban Waterways, Improving

Exfiltration from BMPs: Research and Recommendations.

6.x.2.9 Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, Permeable Interlocking

Concrete Pavements, 3rd Edition.

STORMCON (annual)

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE (annual)

http://stormh2o.com/

REFERENCES

BUILDING STRONG®

QUESTIONS?