Raise the Green RoofGus BracamontesCheryl GregoryTeddy HoAnuradha KumarJoe Ziomek
Introduction
Implementation
FeasibilityCosts & Benefits
Conclusions
Agenda2
Project Proposal
Questions
Introduction
3
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
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
Solution
6
• Green Roofing Anderson– Covering the Anderson Roofs with
vegetation and soil planted over a waterproofing membrane
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
Project Proposal
8
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
Green Roof Type AnalysisCriteria Extensi
veIntensive
Ease of Installation
Weight Considerations
Amenity Space
Plant Variety
Maintenance
Price
10
Result: Extensive Modular Green Roof Implementation
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
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
Benefit & Costs
13
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!
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%
Additional Benefits
16
- Green House Gas Absorption- Urban Heat Island Effect- Storm Water Run off- Credits towards Leed Certification
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
Cost Considerations
18
- Green Roof Installation- Labor- Membrane- Vegetation Modules
- Irrigation System Installation- On-going maintenance
- Labor- Water
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%
Feasibility
20
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
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
Implementation
23
Implementation Steps and Timeline
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
Construction Phase
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
Conclusion
28
The Green Roof is
29
• Feasible• Implementable• Scalable• Financially Beneficial
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
Questions?
31
Appendix
32
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
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
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
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
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
Top Related