life cycle analysis and life cycle costing for post-frame building

Life Cycle Analysis and Life Cycle Costing Tools Applied to Post-frame Building Systems

April 2011

Final Report

Daniel P. Hindman

Associate Professor, Virginia Tech

Abstract

Green building has become one of the most dynamic market forces in the area of construction. While post-frame buildings are considered sustainable because of the efficient use of materials and other factors, little documentation of the reduced environmental and energy impacts of post-frame buildings exists. The purpose of this project is to develop life cycle analysis (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) tools with examples to account for the sustainable attributes of post-frame construction. Currently, no commercial LCA or LCC programs include post-frame construction. However, an equivalent LCA for post-frame buildings can be performed considering a 2x6 conventional wall structure and using the input elements of the LCA program. A spreadsheet application was developed for conversion of a post-frame building to an equivalent conventional construction wall and roof system. This same practice could not be duplicated for the LCC programs. Three example buildings showing different post-frame constructions were presented with an accompanying spreadsheet. The output environmental indicators and comparison tools of the LCA were also presented.

2

Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………….…. 2

1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 3

1.1 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Definition ……………………………………. 4

1.2 Life Cycle Costing (LCC) Definition …………………………………….. 6

2.0 Goals and Objectives ……………………………………………………………… 7

3.0 Methods and Results ……………………………………………………………. 8

3.1 Objective 1: LCA Models for Post-frame ……………………………….. 8

3.1.1 Conventional Construction Equivalency Idea ………………………. 9

3.1.2 Calculation of Post-frame Wall Volume ……………………….. 9

3.1.3 Calculation of 2x6 Equivalent Wall Volume …………………… 11

3.1.4 Roof Calculations ………………………………………………. 12

3.1.5 Spreadsheet Details ……………………………………………. 13

3.2 Objective 2: LCC Models for Post-frame ……………………………… 16

3.3 Objective 3: LCA Building Examples …………………………………. 17

3.3.1 Building #1 Description: Open Sided Machine Shed ……….. 17

3.3.2 Building #1 LCA Results …………………………………….. 21

3.3.3 Building #2 Description: Residential Home ……….………... 24


3.3.5 Building #3 Description: Addition to Church ……………….. 29


3.3.7 Comparison of LCA Results of Three Example Buildings ….. 34

4.0 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………….. 36

5.0 References ……………………………………………………………………… 37

6.0 Attachments ……………………………………………………………………. 38

3

1.0 Introduction

Green building has become one of the most dynamic market forces in the area of construction. Countless claims and colors of ‘green’ have been applied to products, systems and tools. Green building is based on producing more sustainable buildings, in terms of the environmental inputs and outputs, economic effects and social/human health effects. These concepts are difficult to translate to actual measures.

The current way that the building community has to translate these concepts into buildings is the various green building certification systems, including the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) suite of programs, Green Globes, National Green Building Standard, and the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) which is currently under development. These green building certification systems encourage the use of materials assumed to have lower environmental inputs and outputs, such as recycled materials, regionally produced materials and rapidly renewable materials. Trusty and Horst (2002) discuss the fact that some of these practices, such as the use of recycled products, do not guarantee that lower environmental inputs will always be used. There is a need for a quantitative measure of the environmental effects of alternative products or procedures in construction.

Of particular interest to the post-frame industry, many of the green building certification systems DO NOT give credit for using innovative building systems. Building systems that differ from conventional construction, such as post-frame, log homes, or even Passivhaus, currently receive no additional points versus conventional construction practices. In much of the discussion of green building materials, there is a decided lack of ‘systems thinking’ of how the building elements work together to create an efficient envelope and structural system. Most emphasis is placed upon the manufacture and assembly of individual materials.

The Post-frame Marketing Initiative (PFMI) has recognized that post-frame construction represents an efficient (and green) building construction method and further work should demonstrate the positive sustainable aspects of post-frame buildings. Recently, the NFBA Technical and Research committee authored a white paper on this subject (Putting the ‘Green’ Into Post-frame: Accounting for Post-frame Construction in Green Building Certification Systems http://www.nfba.org/files/public/Putting_the_Green_Into_Post_Frame_Final.pdf). The white paper concluded that current methods of post-frame construction already contain many green elements and builders should be aware and take advantage of these elements in their marketing strategies. Green building advantages of post-frame included reduced site disturbance, less use of wood to create the structural system, engineered systems for the roof structure, and a building cavity with room to accommodate insulation to meet International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requirements, a must for many green building systems.

http://www.nfba.org/files/public/Putting_the_Green_Into_Post_Frame_Final.pdf�

4

Subsequent white papers are planned to identify the specific green building certification system requirements that post-frame can take advantage of.

One area of study to help support the claims of post-frame construction as a green building method is the study of the building’s life cycle, using either life cycle analysis (LCA) or life cycle costing (LCC). The life cycle of the building is defined as the collection of all inputs (materials and energy) and outputs (product, waste, emissions) required by a structure for the intended service life of a building. Typically, the life cycle is divided into stages including manufacturing, construction, operation/maintenance, and end-of-life (deconstruction/demolition). The study of the life cycle of a building is a complex and difficult task, since each material has a separate and distinct life cycle. Any changes or different decisions made for the materials and building systems can affect the results. A set of assumptions about the structure must be made and the accuracy of life cycle assessment is directly related to the validity of these assumptions. Also, the limitations of any life cycle study must be carefully understood for accurate reporting.

1.1 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Definition

Life cycle analysis is the study and interpretation of the environmental inputs and outputs of a building. LCA is a cataloging of all materials and energy used in a system, as well as the products and waste created. An LCA system must be bounded much like a control volume in thermodynamics problems to provide an accurate scope. Schenk (2000) provided a description of the steps to complete an LCA. First, a life cycle inventory (LCI) must be prepared or accessed for all materials used in the manufacture or construction of the final product. Next, the LCI data is aggregated together using a particular set of equations depending upon the processing and manufacture of the final product. From the aggregated data, a set of indicators are developed. Finally, weighting factors are applied to each indicator to make decisions.

The LCI is the basic data set used to calculate a product LCA. For each individual material, the LCI details the energy, material and waste used. LCI data have been collected by some government organizations, but also many private organizations. LCI data must be kept current, as changes in materials sources, manufacturing or processing may affect the basic amounts of materials and energy used. One example of the need for current LCI data is the changing amount of green power (solar, wind) available in the power grid. The amount of green power versus fossil fuel power has a large effect upon the LCI data.

The aggregation phase of the data includes the compilation of the LCI data into a composite form. For a product produced in a linear process, the LCI data may be simply added together. However, building structures involve a more complex assembly of products. For whole-building LCA, a variety of commercial LCA software packages exist which include the LCI data (or access the data from various sources) and then aggregate the data. An LCA for a building is not simply an addition of the properties due to the use of energy during the life cycle of the structure

5

to heat and cool. The location and exposure of individual building elements in walls and roofs affects the individual material life cycles.

As a final step in the aggregation process, a series of environmental indicators are produced. These indicators, according to Schenk (2000) are “not a measurement of actual environmental effects. It [the indicator] is a measurement of something that most environmental scientists believe will correlate well with the actual effects”. Table 1 lists some common indicators determined by LCA programs. Most of the indicators are expressed as weights of specific chemicals or materials which are considered environmental pollutants or the causes of global environmental problems. Most commercial whole-building LCA programs produce these environmental indicators or similar quantities.

Table 1: Indicators Found From LCA

Indicator Name Units Global Warming Potential Tons CO2 Equivalents

Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Tons Halon Equivalents Ground Level Ozone Tons Projected Ozone

Acidification Tons SO2 Equivalents Eutrophication Tons Phosphate Equivalents

Aquatic Toxicity Tons Toxic Equivalents Human Health Tons Toxic Equivalent

Fossil Fuel Depletion Tons Oil Equivalent Mineral Depletion Tons Mineral Equivalent (by Mineral) Water Depletion Volume of Water Equivalent (surface and

groundwater) Landuse Equivalent area of endangered species and

non-endangered species habitat

The final step of conducting an LCA is the interpretation of these results. This is the most difficult and complicated portion of the LCA process. Depending upon the use of the building, geographical location, intended use, or other factors, the environmental indicators may be weighted in different ways. For instance, the Ground Level Ozone indicator, which is related to smog, may be weighted greater if a building is located in the Los Angeles, California area versus the Midwest, where prevailing winds prevent the accumulation of ozone to produce smog in large quantities. ISO 14040 is the international standard governing life cycle assessment claims. The standards applied within ISO 14040 must be adhered to in order to formulate claims of one product over another. The weighting system is another complication of comparing LCA results between different kinds of buildings, especially in different geographical locations.

The previous description of LCA provides a general background of what constitutes an LCA. As mentioned, there are a variety of commercial software tools available to help produce an LCA. Each of these tools uses an LCI database and perform some aggregation of the building components to produce a set of indicators similar to those in Table 1. LCA is not just considered

6

an ‘environmental need’ but has been used by some companies to help make decisions on creating efficient production. The reduction of energy and material use is also the study of manufacturing efficiency and reduction of waste. LCA results can be used for a variety of decision making efforts, some of which are listed below.

• Product Marketing • Supplier Decision Making • Design Choices or Product Use • Company Internal Benchmarking (Multiple Facilities or Divisions) • Year to Year Tracking of Energy and Material Use • Management and Policy (Importance of Environmental Indicators) • Green Building Certification Systems • Technical Data for Architects and Engineers

Several green building certification systems including the International Green Construction Code (IGCC), the National Green Building Standard (ICC-700) and Green Globes include a whole-building LCA as an elective. The inclusion of LCA in these green building certification systems has generated interest in attempting to create a quantifiable measure of sustainable buildings. While no green building certification system requires a whole-building LCA at this time, green building systems are undergoing constant evolution and growth with an increased need to document the environmental effectiveness of buildings.

It is important to point out that LCA is just a tool to help describe the attributes of a particular building system. LCA seems to lend itself to comparisons between types of buildings. While comparisons can be made, any assumptions used in the system need to be documented and any sources of bias must be eliminated. Comparisons of building types are difficult to conduct and subject to bias and differences of opinion. A better use of LCA is to refine the environmental inputs and outputs of building component choices – for instance, for two types of insulation with the same R-value, what is the difference in environmental indicators? These types of decisions tend to be more accurate and easier to interpret.

1.2 Life Cycle Costing (LCC) Definition

Life cycle costing is a method to determine the entire cost over a product’s intended life cycle. For buildings, the main factors considered are initial cost, operating costs, and maintenance/repair costs. LCC is an economic assessment, but it can involve detailed energy modeling of the structure. LCC does not include environmental impacts of the building and is not currently included in any of the green building certification systems. The main use for LCC is as a purchasing tool for predicting the expected costs of a structure, rather than focusing only on the initial construction costs. For instance, a building with low initial construction costs may require more maintenance or higher operating costs, wheras a building with a higher initial construction costs may have lower operating costs. Currently, many groups within the United

7

States government, including the U. S. Forest Service, require all new construction projects to apply LCC in order to plan for a cost effective structure (USDA 2008).

The U. S. Forest Service has published a document entitled Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Buildings is Easier Than You Thought (USDA 2008) to explain the reasoning for LCC and educate Forest Service personnel on how to conduct an LCC. The simplest form of an LCC is expressed by Equation 1, where the life cycle cost of the building is composed of the initial cost (I) plus the replacement cost (Repl) minus the residual sale of the building at the end of its service life (Res) plus the service life (L) times the cost of operations, maintenance and repair (OM&R) expressed on a yearly basis.

LCC = I + Repl – Res + L(OM&R) (1)

Equation 1 represents the simplest form of an LCC. While the equation looks simple, estimating many of these parameters can become very complex and is subject to the real estate market, which has demonstrated great volatility in the last several years. Many assumptions about future economic trends including inflation, depreciation rate, interest rates and energy prices must be made. The operations, maintenance and repair rates of a structure are subject to the geographic location, construction of the building envelope, amount and type of insulation in the structure, as well as the type of construction. As described in the LCA section, LCC results are separate and distinct for specific building needs and locations and are difficult to generalize.

The Forest Service article lists a series of different LCC computer models which incorporate all or some of the conditions described above to help produce values to estimate the LCC value of a building. Most of the models include assumptions on the economy as well as conduct a relatively detailed energy analysis of the building. More complex LCC models tend to yield more accurate results; however, the accuracy of the data and predictions used will ultimately govern the accuracy of the LCC cost results.

2.0 Goals and Objectives

The goal of this project is to develop LCA and LCC tools with examples to account for the sustainable attributes of post-frame construction. Currently, there is a lack of knowledge among post-frame professionals as to how to account for the sustainable attributes of their building methods. Detailed explanations of LCA and LCC concepts can help demonstrate ways to include the sustainable attributes of post-frame buildings. These tools and examples can help the PFMI substantiate sustainability and green building claims to establish a market advantage and also help individual companies establish credits for the various green building certification systems. Three objectives will be fulfilled to meet this goal.

1. Develop LCA procedures for assessing post-frame building systems as well as similar systems using wood or steel elements.

2. Explore LCC models for use with post-frame building systems.

8

3. Develop a set of LCA examples using three different post-frame buildings to serve as examples for the LCA tools and a practice exercise for future LCA use.

3.0 Methods and Results

3.1 Objective 1: LCA Models for Post-frame

A variety of LCA programs were initially surveyed. To create a simplified LCA template for the software, the type of construction must be known. Construction types included steel and concrete systems, as well as conventional wood frame systems with options for wood trusses, wood composites and wood I-joist members. However, NO LCA PROGRAM INCLUDED A CONSTRUCTION TYPE OF POST-FRAME. After consultation with technical experts, an equivalent post-frame construction was created through modifications to a structure using the conventional wood frame assumptions. This is an approximate method subject to the assumptions of the particular LCA program as well as the validity of assumptions used to convert the post-frame structure, which are explained in this report.

The Impact Estimator for Buildings from the ATHENA Institute, published by Morrison-Hershfield, was chosen for performing the LCA modeling. This program is a comprehensive LCA tool based on data from the U. S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database, maintained by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (www.nrel.gov/lci/database). The program is relatively inexpensive ($750 for a commercial single-use license per year) and produces a number of graphical and tabular results, as well as the option to compare up to five different buildings at once. The program can be obtained on a free 30-day trial basis with limited functionality (http://athenasmi.org/tools/impactEstimator/) and a user’s manual is available at the website http://athenasmi.org/tools/impactEstimator/tutorial.html. This report explains some of the basic functions and outputs of the Impact Estimator for Buildings, but it is recommended that anyone intending to conduct an LCA first become familiar with the software before use.

The Impact Estimator for Buildings contains an interface with a dropdown menu listing the sections of a building (Foundation, Walls, Mixed Columns and Beams, Roofs, Floors, Extra Basic Materials). The program contains a library of construction types and elements associated with these sections. The ‘Extra Basic Materials’ section allows the addition (or subtraction) of various construction materials. This ‘Extra Materials’ section is crucial to create an equivalent conventional construction LCA for post-frame construction. While it seems tempting to total the amount of material present in the structure and only use the ‘Extra Materials’ section, there are advantages to including the assemblies, so some functionality of the building elements should remain, especially with respect to insulation, windows, doors and cladding of the building.

http://athenasmi.org/tools/impactEstimator/�

http://athenasmi.org/tools/impactEstimator/tutorial.html�

9

3.1.1 Conventional Construction Equivalency Concept

Figure 1 shows the diagram of how the equivalent conventional construction was created based on the post frame structure. First, the dimensions of the post-frame structure are cataloged. Then, the spreadsheet is used to create the equivalent wall and roofs conventional wood frame structures which mimic the post-frame building. Any remaining addition or subtraction of materials was accounted for by using the ‘Extra Basic Materials’ category. The structure could then be used in the Impact Estimator for Buildings program.

Post Frame Structure

Spreadsheet to Create Equivalent Conventional Wood Structure

Walls Roofs

Impact Estimator for Buildings LCA Program

Extra Basic Materials

Figure 1: Diagram of the Process to Conduct an LCA of a Post-Frame Building Using the Impact Estimator for Buildings

To create an LCA of a post-frame structure, an equivalent conventional framed wood structure was used as the base. By assuming a conventional structure, which is included in the Impact Estimator for Buildings library of construction types, building envelope characteristics including insulation, cladding, windows and doors can be added appropriately. To approximate the post-frame structure, a 2x6 stud wall spaced 16 inches on center was used. The 6 inch nominal cavity is the minimum depth of the wall cavity associated with post-frame construction. This size and spacing was also chosen to reduce the differences in Extra Basic Materials required by the structure, which should help to reduce any potential for error by using this approximation.

The other difference between post-frame structures and the Impact Estimator for Buildings was in the roof section. The LCA program automatically assumes that all roofs have a layer of wood sheathing (either plywood or OSB). Since some post-frame structures use only steel cladding as the diaphragm for the roof, a set of calculations were created to remove the sheathing material from the roof section. Also, roof trusses were assumed to be spaced 2 feet on center.

10

Equation 2 shows the basic equality used to develop the post-frame structure in the Impact Estimator for Buildings program. The post-frame volume of lumber was approximated by the 2x6 Equivalent Wall, and the use of the Extra Basic Materials category to add/subtract materials.

{ } { } { }MaterialsBasicExtraonConstructialConventionVolumeFramePost ±= (2)

A spreadsheet was created to calculate the post-frame volume of materials, the volume of the 2x6 Equivalent Wall, removal of the roof sheathing, and a summary of all the quantities of Extra Basic Materials to be added to the Impact Estimator for Buildings program. The following sections detail the calculation procedures for determining the volume of wood materials in a typical post-frame wall section, a 2x6 wall section, roof sheathing and truss modifications.

3.1.2 Calculation of Post-frame Wall Volume

Figure 2 shows the elements considered in the post-frame wall. While the post is considered as a single unit, the length terms are divided into the length above and below the floor surface. If a concrete pier system or stem wall is used, the length of post below ground can be eliminated or modified and the extra concrete is added in the ‘Extra Concrete’ category for the wall. The post-frame structure includes a skirtboard at the bottom, a fascia board at the top, girts placed on one or both sides of the post and fireblocking. Fireblocking is placed between the outside edge of the post and girts to create a continuous barrier between wall cavities. All members except the post are assumed to be 2x nominal with options to modify the member depth.

Figure 2: Definition of Terms Associated with Post-frame Walls in Model

11

Equations 3 to 10 show the calculation of the wood material for each of the elements described above. These equations do not contain any unit conversions, but the input basis for all solid wood materials into the Impact Estimator for Buildings is thousand board feet (Mbf).

( )

++=

peppPost S

LHHdbV 1 (3)

LdV skSkirtboard 5.1= (4)

LdV fFascia 5.1= (5)

−= 15.1 Sg

HLdV girtExGirts (6)

+= 15.1 Sg

HLdV girtIntGirts (7)

−−−−

+= 15.11

ggfskfire

pngFireblocki S

HdddHdSLV (8)

ptPadWoodSuppor NLdV supsup3= (9)

pcc

ConcPad NHDV4

2π= (10)

Where

bp =width of post (in) dp = depth of post (in)

H = story height of post (above floor) (ft) SP = spacing of posts (ft)

L = length of wall section considered (ft) df = depth of fascia (in)

dsk = depth of skirtboard (in) dg = depth of girt (in)

dfire = depth of fireblocking (in) Dc = diameter of concrete pad (in)

dsup = depth of cleat at concrete pad (in) Lsup = length of cleat at concrete pad (in)

Hc = height of concrete pad (in) Sg = spacing of girts (ft)

Np = number of posts

He = embedded depth of post (concrete pad to top of foundation or floor) (ft)

12

3.1.3 Calculation of 2x6 Equivalent Wall Volume

Figure 3 shows the side view of a typical 2x wall section. All walls were composed of 2x material with a single bottom plate and double top plate. One row of fireblocking consisting of similar 2x material as the other wall elements was assumed. Equations 11 to 13 show the calculation of the volume of wall studs, top and bottom plate and fire blocking. Equation 10 assumes that the studs are doubled at either end of a wall. The fireblocking accounts for only the blocking in between the spaces of the studs in the wall. These equations do not show any conversions, but the standard input unit is thousand board feet (Mbf).

Figure 3: General Model of 2x Wall Section Used for Post-frame Equivalence

( )[ ]( )3)3 +−= SLbHbdVstuds (11)

bdLVplates 3= (12)

( )[ ]bhbSLLV ngfireblocki +−= 1 (13)

Where

b = width of stud (assumed to be 2 inches nominal (1.5 inches actual) (in)

d = depth of stud (in)

H = total height of wall (story height) (ft)

L = length of wall (ft)

S = spacing of studs (ft)

13

The equivalent wall used for the post-frame approximation is a 2x6 wall with studs spaced 16 inches on center. This wall contains 0.096551 Mbf of lumber per 10 foot long by 10 foot high section. The change in lumber volume between the 2x6 wall and the post-frame wall was added to the ‘Extra Basic Materials’ section as a negative or positive value, as appropriate.

3.1.4 Roof Calculations

The Impact Estimator for Buildings Roof category contains an option for ‘Light Frame Wood Truss.’ The user can select either a parallel or pitched chord truss. This option automatically assigns a layer of sheathing, either plywood or OSB, to the roofing system. This layer of sheathing is equal to the square footage of the roof section defined (roof width and truss span inputed for the roof section). Investigation using the bill of materials function found that the size of sheathing was directly proportional to the size of the roof and could be removed entirely. For simplicity, the ½” OSB category was used when the OSB was removed. This modification for the roof is for a metal sheathed roof ONLY.

Light frame wood roof trusses are typically spaced 2 feet on center. However, roof truss spacing in post-frame roof systems can vary up to 8 feet on center. The difference in wood material for these different truss configurations must be estimated. Investigation of the bill of materials function demonstrated that the amount of small dimension lumber (in Mbf) for the roofs is calculated as a function of the width of the roof and span of the truss. An estimation of wood weight in a truss is given in Equation 14 if the span of the truss (Lt) and spacing(T) are known. Using Equation 14, an adjustment for the volume of lumber in the truss lumber from a standard spacing (S=2 feet) to a new spacing (T) can be calculated in Equation 15. The constant term assumes wood materials have a specific gravity of 0.5 for the conversion of weight to volume. All volumes are given in thousand board feet (Mbf). This modification for the roof is only needed if the truss spacing is different than 2 feet on center.

+=

TLDL t

truss 1.01

(14)

−

+

+

= 1

1.01

1.01

3564.583SLTL

LLV

t

t

rttrussdiff

(15)

+= 1

PLbdLV t

rpurlins

(16)

14

Where

Lt = length of truss (ft) Lr = width of roof (ft)

T = truss spacing (ft) S = standard truss spacing (2 feet) (ft)

P = purlin spacing (ft)

3.1.3 Spreadsheet Details

The “LCA Tool for Post-frame Buildings” spreadsheet includes five pages to convert the post-frame structure into the equivalent conventional construction which can be assessed by the Impact Estimator for Buildings. The first page is a title page containing the project name, designer name, overall square footage, a disclaimer, and all assumptions made to produce these calculations. The spreadsheet is capable of calculating 8 walls, 4 walls with no equivalent, and 4 roofs. For data security, the spreadsheet formulas have been protected while the input cells can be changed. The spreadsheet can be used for different projects, including changes in the wall and roof sizes, but the underlying formula cells cannot be changed. If more wall and roof sections are needed, a second spreadsheet is needed and the post-frame professional will have to manually tabulate the Extra Basic Material values. Assumptions include:

• The basic structure considers 8 walls, 4 walls with no equivalent, and 4 roof sections. • All fireblocking, fascia, girts, embedded cleats and skirtboards are assumed to be 2x

nominal material (1.5 in. thick). • Floor elements are not discussed. Typical wood and concrete pad floor choices are

available and do not need modification. • Equivalent wall has a double top chord (2-2x6). • Skirtboards are single sided. • 16d nails are used for laminated posts. • PPT lumber is assumed to have the LCI data as untreated lumber.

The next three pages of the spreadsheet contain the inputs, calculations and outputs per element. The ‘Wall’ page is used for post-frame walls which will be converted to conventional 2x6 walls. This page calculates both the post-frame volume (Equations 3 to 10) as well as the 2x6 equivalent wall volume (Equations 11 to 13). The difference between these volumes is found for the ‘Extra Basic Materials’ section. Figure 4 shows a single wall from the ‘Wall’ spreadsheet.

15

Figure 4. One Wall from the ‘Wall’ Spreadsheet

Figure 5 shows a wall from the ‘Wall No Eq.’ spreadsheet. The ‘Wall No Eq.’ is for post-frame walls which will not be converted into equivalent 2x6 walls. Figure 5 is identical to Figure 4 execpt for the removal of the 2x6 equivalent wall. All post-frame wall volumes (Equations 3 to 10) were found for the ‘Extra Basic Materials’ section. Examples of these types of walls include a row of exterior or interior posts which do not need cladding, insulation or other features.

16

Figure 5. One Wall from the ‘Wall No Eq.’ Spreadsheet

Figure 6 shows a roof from the ‘Roof’ spreadsheet. The ‘Roof’ page is used only for substituting a post-frame metal sheathed roof for the ½” OSB sheathing (Equation 15) and modifying the spacing of trusses from 2 feet on center (Equation 16).

Figure 6. One Roof from the ‘Roof’ Spreadsheet

The last page ‘Output Summary’ summarizes all of the ‘Extra Basic Materials’ values needed for the Impact Estimator for Buildings and were shown in order for each material (Wood, Concrete, Steel). This page also has a reminder of the conventional wall and roof sections which should be used.

17

3.2 Objective 2: LCC Models for Post Frame

The majority of LCC models available use the same basic programming, called DOE-2. Differences in the LCC models include the inputs and graphical interface. LCC models usually consist of more energy-based calculations over the life of the structure, requiring more detailed inputs than the LCA models which include more product data and construction information. Hence, most of the LCC models do not have the flexibility present in the LCA models.

The LCC model chosen for this project was eQUEST (http://www.doe2.com/). This program is a popular format and provides good graphical input and output functions. However, there is NO SPECIFIC OPTION for post-frame construction within any LCC program. There is an option for “Wood Frame, Advanced”, but the term is not explained well. While the Excel spreadsheet developed for the LCA model can help alleviate the problem with the absence of post-frame construction as an option in the Impact Estimator for Buildings, the complexity of the energy modeling of the eQUEST program does not allow similar modifications.

The use of LCC seems to be limited for enhancing the post-frame market value in green building. LCC would most likely be used by an owner / buyer to compare building costs, but is not as useful to a builder or designer. It is important to establish procedures for post-frame construction if an LCC is needed. However, the degree of economic analysis and energy analysis for the building system are beyond the scope of this project.

3.3 Objective 3: LCA Building Examples

Plans for three different post-frame structures were obtained from Dwayne Borkholder. These plans were slightly modified to produce the three examples discussed below. This section will provide details about the use of the spreadsheet to convert the post-frame portion of the projects into a format for the LCA calculation. All other elements of the building (walls, roofs, floors, foundations, etc.) which are included in the Impact Estimator for Buildings program are not fully discussed here and several estimations of their quantities (such as the interior wall areas) have been made to simplify the examples. Zipped files for the three example buildings in the Impact Estimator for Buildings format (.AT4 extension) can be found at the following link. Alternatively, type http://www.postframeadvantage.com/elements/uploads/fckeditor/file/ImpactEstimatorforBuildingsdatafiles.zip into an internet browser to Again, any post-frame professionals wishing to conduct an LCA should be familiar with the general workings of the program before using the spreadsheet. The following sections provide a short description of each building and then a discussion of the LCA results. The files created are accessible for use as examples in conducting an LCA and listed in the ‘6.0 Attachments’ section at the end of this report.

3.3.1 Building #1 Description: Open Sided Machine Shed

http://www.doe2.com/�

http://www.postframeadvantage.com/elements/uploads/fckeditor/file/ImpactEstimatorforBuildingsdatafiles.zip�



18

Building #1 is shown in Figures 7 and 8. It is a 60 foot wide by 144 foot long rectangular building. Three of the walls (two 60 foot endwalls and one sidewall) have posts spaced 8 feet on center with a typical wall detail shown in Figure 8a. Posts are 5x6 nail laminated at 8 feet on center with a 2x8 skirtboard, 2x4 exterior girts spaced 2 feet on center, and a 2x6 fascia board. All posts were embedded 3.5 feet in the ground and sit upon concrete pads 20 inches in diameter and 8 inches deep. Two 2x6 cleats are attached to the bottom of each post. For simplicity, the length of the cleat was assumed equal to the 20 inch diameter concrete pad. The roof system is a series of trusses spaced 8 feet on center with purlins oriented on edge and spaced 2 feet on center supporting a corrugated metal roof.

Figure 7: Plan View of Building #1

The fourth wall is shown in Figure 8b and is a double 5x6 nail laminated posts covered with two 2x10s and two 2x12s for an actual dimension of 12 by 8.5 inches spaced 24 feet on center. There is no skirtboard, girts or fascia. The top of the posts are connected to a boxed header beam consisting of 2-1.5”x24” LVL sides with 2x6 members at the top and bottom.

19

(a) (b)

Figure 8: Typical Wall Sections of Building #1: (a) Wall 1 and 2, (b) Wall 3

Table 2 shows the inputs and values calculated for the walls of Building #1. This table follows the format of the ‘Wall’ spreadsheet input values in Figure 4. Wall#2 includes both endwalls together for a total length of 120 feet. Wall #2 had posts extending from the ground to the roofline, so the roof mean height was used for all posts within this wall. Wall #3 has an additional amount of wood which represents the LVL box beam over the posts in Figure 8b.

Table 2: Input Values for Building #1 Walls

Items Wall # 1 Wall #2 – Both Endwalls Wall #3 – Open Wall

Length of Wall 144 ft 120 ft ( 2 60 foot walls) 144 ft

Height of Wall 16.333 ft 21.333 ft 14.333 ft Spacing of Posts 8 ft 8 ft 24 ft

Width of Post 4.5 in 4.5 in 8.5 in Depth of Post 5.5 in 5.5 in 12 in

Embedment Depth of Post 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft

Type of Post Nail

Laminated (3-2x6)

Nail Laminated (3-2x6)

Nail Laminated (3-2x6 surrounding

2x10 and 2x12) Nail Density Per Foot 5 nails /ft 5 nails/ft 5 nails/ft Depth of Skirtboard 7.25 in 7.25 in N/A

Depth of Fascia 5.5 in 5.5 in N/A Girts Exterior or Double Sided ? Exterior Exterior N/A

Depth of Girt 3.5 in 3.5 in N/A Depth of Girts 3.5 in 3.5 in N/A

Spacing of Girts 2 ft 2 ft N/A Depth of Fireblocking N/A N/A N/A

Depth of Embedded Cleat 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in Length of Cleat 20 in 20 in 20 in

20

Diameter of Concrete Pad 20 in 20 in 20 in Height of Concrete Pad 8 in 8 in 8 in

Table 3 shows the calculated wall volume for the three walls in Building #1. This table follows the format of the calculated values in Figure 3 and 4. Notice that Wall 3 does not have an equivalent 2x6 section since Wall 3 used the ‘Wall No Eq.’ spreadsheet.

21

Table 3: Calculated Values for Wall Volume of Building #1

Items Wall # 1 Wall #2 – Both Endwalls

Wall #3 – Open Wall

Volume of Posts 0.777206 Mbf 0.819489 Mbf 1.061064 Mbf Volume of Skirtboard 0.1305 Mbf 0.10875 Mbf 0 Mbf Volume of Fascia 0.099 Mbf 0.0825 Mbf 0 Mbf Volume Girts 0.441 Mbf 0.4725 Mbf 0 Mbf Volume Cleat Embedded

0.043542 Mbf 0.036667 Mbf 0.016042 Mbf

Volume of fireblocking 0 Mbf 0 Mbf 0 Mbf Volume of Additional Wood Material

0 Mbf 0 Mbf 1.135 Mbf

Volumeof Equivalent Stud Wall

1.604428 Mbf 1.662182 Mbf N/A1

1 Wall 3 was calculated using the ‘Wall No Eq.’ Sheet, so no 2x6 wall was considered.

Table 4 shows the values for the ‘Extra Basic Materials’ category for the three walls of Building #1 from the spreadsheet. The negative values for softwood lumber from Walls #1 and #2 showed that these wall sections has less lumber than a 2x6 equivalent section. Table 4 also contains large dimension lumber and glulam values if these materials were used for posts, as well as the concrete and nails for the nail laminated posts. The nails used in the equivalent 2x6 wall are assumed to be consistent with the nailing of girts, skirt and fascia boards.

Table 4: ‘Extra Basic Materials’ Inputs for Walls from Building #1

Items Wall # 1 Wall #2 – Both Endwalls

Wall #3 – Open Wall

Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried

-0.11318 Mbf -0.142276 Mbf 2.2122545 Mbf

Glulam Beams 0 ft3 0 ft3 0 ft3

Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green

0 Mbf 0 Mbf 0 Mbf

3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash

0.96963 yd3 0.80802 yd3 0.323209 yd3

Nails 0.044999 tons 0.048979 tons 0.024863 tons

Table 5 shows the calculations for the roof of Building #1. The Impact Estimator for Buildings limits the length of a truss span to 48 feet, so this particular roof must be inputed as two segments each 30 feet wide. From investigating the bill of materials option, separating the roof into multiple segments does not change the program output. The changes in truss spacing and elimination of the OSB from the roof lead to negative lumber values in the ‘Extra Basic Materials’ for the roof section.

22

Table 5: Roof Volume Calculations from the ‘Roof’ Spreadsheet

Roof Inputs Truss Span 60 ft

Length of Building 144 ft Truss Spacing 8 feet on center Purlin Spacing 2 feet on center

Roof Outputs – Extra Materials Section Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension,

Kiln Dried -6.880652 Mbf

Oriented Strand Board -11.5049 msf (3/8” basis)

Table 6 presents the ‘Extra Basic Materials’ for Building #1. With the reductions in truss material and wall posts, there is an overall reduction in the amount of wood used in Building #1 compared to the conventional construction which was assumed for Walls #1,#2 and the roof. The negative OSB was from the removal of material covering the roof section. Additional nails were included for the nail laminated posts.

Table 6: Extra Basic Materials from the Spreadsheet for Building #1

Material Quantity Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried -4.92356 Mbf Oriented Strand Board -11.5049 msf, 38” basis Glulam Beams 0 ft3

Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0 Mbf 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 2.100859 yd3

Nails 0.11842 tons

3.3.2 Building #1 LCA Results

The attachment section contains the Impact Estimator for Buildings file for ‘Building #1’. This building used only the three walls and roof mentioned in the previous section and was the simplest example of a post-frame building in these LCA examples. Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 show some of the outputs from the program. Figure 9 is the bill of materials. This function is helpful to confirm that all LCA inputs have all been accounted for, and to check if materials were removed correctly.

23

Figure 9: Bill of Materials Report for Building #1 from the Impact Estimator for Buildings

Figure 10 shows the fossil fuel consumption for the building. Note that operation energy was NOT considered in these examples and can be added depending on the particular building energy use. Building #1 would probably have very little operational energy possibly including lighting and basic equipment depending upon the building function. The primary energy consumption is broken into life cycle stages of the building (manufacturing, construction, maintenance, operating energy, end-of-life).

Figure 10: Fossil Fuel Consumption for Building #1 from the Impact Estimator for Buildings

Figure 11 shows the global warming potential and Figure 12 shows the weighted resource use. Note that the greatest marker in the graph for all three indicators is the manufacturing and

24

maintenance processes. This is true of most wood products that require little energy for construction or end of life.

Figure 11: Global Warming Potential for Building #1 from the Impact Estimator for Buildings

Figure 12: Weighted Resource Use for Building #1 from the Impact Estimator for Buildings

Figures 10, 11 and 12 show only three of the environmental indicators reported by the Impact Estimator for Buildings program. These three were selected to show the general trends related to environmental indicators for the different life cycle phases of the building. Table7 shows the values of all of the environmental indicators produced by the Impact Estimator for Buildings. These values are separated by life cycle stage, but can also be displayed in other formats.

25

Table 7: Total Environmental Indicators for Building #1 for Each Life Cycle Stage and Total (Note: Operational Energy Not Considered)

Environmental Indicator Manufacturing Construction Maintenance End-of-Life Total Primary Energy

Consumption (MJ) 897643 30025 113721 8173 1049562

Weighted Resource Use (kg) 123962 1641 5622 172.6 131397.6 Global Warming Potential

(kg CO2 eq) 58121 1943 2308 478 62850

Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) 21218 780.6 1217 26.9 23243

HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq) 121.5 3.13 7.82 0.0258 132.5

Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) 21.1 0.142 0.202 0.0186 21.5

Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) 1.79E-04 1.68E-09 1.18E-06 2.15E-08 1.80E-4

Smog Potential (kg NOx eq) 94.7 3.35 151.1 0.351 249.5

3.3.3 Building #2 Description: Residential Home

Building #2 was a 3,712 square foot residential structure. The building area measures 80 feet long by 32 feet wide. Figure 13 shows an overview of the building with all of the walls defined. The leftmost portion of the building measuring 32 feet long by 32 feet wide is a garage. The middle section (Walls C) is a two story section that rises above the other portions. The 24 foot long by 32 foot wide section on the right hand side is a single story portion with the roof extending to Wall F, which is a row of posts. Wall G is another row of posts where the right and middle section first story roofs are supported for a front porch. The house contains a foundation under the 80 foot by 32 foot section and a second floor of 24 feet wide by 32 feet long.

Figure 13: Overview of Walls for Building #2

26

Figure 14 shows the roof overlayed onto the walls from Figure 13. The roofs along the main building had a 2 foot overhang, and a smaller overhang on the front and back porch roofs. The second story walls are conventional framing of 2x4 studs 16 inches on center and 7 feet high.

Figure 14: Plan View of Roofs for Building #2

This building used only the wall modification, since the roof was covered with OSB and metal sheathing with trusses spaced 2 feet on center. Walls A, B, C, D and E used the ‘Wall’ spreadsheet, while Walls F and G used the ‘Wall No Eq.’ spreadsheet. Table 8 shows the dimensions of each of the post-frame walls. Walls were covered with 30 gauge steel siding, unfaced fiberglass batt insulation (6 inches thick, R-19), and Type X drywall. Additional wood materials for some walls include additional fascia boards and a 2x6 at the top of the inside wall to support the upper edge of the drywall.

Table 9 shows the ‘Extra Basic Materials’ summarized from the post-frame walls in Building #2. Note that the additional wood materials as well as the double sided girts slightly increased the wood use versus the equivalent 2x6 walls. The large dimension lumber posts were sued for Walls F and G.

27

Table 8: Wall Sections in ‘Wall’ and ‘Wall No Eq.’ Spreadsheets for Building #2

Item Wall A Wall B Wall C Wall D Wall E Wall F Wall G Length of Wall 32 ft 64 ft 48 ft 24 ft 24 ft 48 ft Height of Wall 17 ft 10.333 ft 17 ft 10.333 ft 10.333 ft 8.333 ft Spacing of Posts 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft 12 ft Width of Post 4.5 in 4.5 in 4.5 in 4.5 in 4.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in Depth of Post 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in Embedment Depth of Post

3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft

Type of Post Nail Laminated (3-2x6)





6x6 Post 6x6 Post

Nail Density 5 nails/ft 5 nails/ft 5 nails/ft 5 nails/ft 5 nails/ft N/A N/A Depth of Skirt 7.25 in 7.25 in 7.25 in 7.25 in 7.25 in 0 in 0 in Depth of Fascia 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 0 in 0 in Girts Exterior of Double Sided?

Double Double Double Double Double N/A N/A

Depth of Girt 3.5 in 3.5 in 3.5 in 3.5 in 3.5 in 0 in 0 in Spacing of Girts 2 ft 2 ft 2 ft 2 ft 2 ft N/A N/A Depth of Fireblocking 1.5 in 1.5 in 1.5 in 1.5 in 1.5 in 0 in 0 in Depth of Cleat N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Length of Cleat N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Diameter of Concrete Pad

14 in 18 in 24 in 14 in 22 in 16 in 14 in

Height of Concrete Pad

6 in 8 in 10 in 6 in 10 in 8 in 6 in

Additional Wood 0.051 Mbf 0.102 Mbf 0.0765 Mbf 0 Mbf 0.0443 Mbf 0.072 Mbf 0.153 Mbf

Table 9: Extra Basic Materials for Building #2

Item Quantity Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried 1.014153 Mbf Oriented Strand Board 0 msf, 3/8” basis Glulam Beams 0 ft3

Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0.238632 Mbf 3000 psi Concrete, Average Flyash 1.461983 yd3

Nails 0.048163 tons


Figure 15 shows the bill of materials for Building #2 and Figures 16, 17 and 18 show the fossil fuel consumption, global warming potential and weighted resource use environmental indicators for Building #2. While this building was less than half the size of Building #1, note the complexity of the residential construction including the foundation, and second story compared to the machine shed of Building #1.

28



29



3.3.5 Building #3 Description: Addition to Church

Building #3 is a 12,912 square foot addition to a church consisting of a lobby and two-story classroom wing. Figure 19 shows the plan view of the structure outlining the walls which have post-frame components. All exterior walls were post-frame and used the ‘Wall’ spreadsheet. The two interior walls, Wall AB and Wall C(e) used the ‘Wall No Eq.’ spreadsheet since these walls were open. The two story section of the building contains a typical wood framed second story and a number of interior partition walls, which were included in the Impact Estimator for Buildings program. The roof system used an asphalt shingle applied over OSB with trusses 2 feet on center, so no modifications were made using the roof spreadsheet. Table 10 shows the post-frame wall details using the same format as Figure 8 and Tables 2 and 8.

30

(a) (b)

Figure 19: Plan View of Walls for Building #3, (a) Floor Plan Showing Post-frame Walls, (b) Side View from the East

Table 10: Wall Sections in ‘Wall’ and ‘Wall No Eq.’ Spreadsheets for Building #3

Item Wall Ae Wall As Wall Be Wall Bs Wall Cs Wall Ce Wall AB Length of Wall 96 ft 64 ft 48 ft 24 ft 24 ft 48 ft Height of Wall 22.333 ft 10.333 ft 17 ft 10.333 ft 10.333 ft 8.333 ft Spacing of Posts 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft 12 ft Width of Post 4.5 in 4.5 in 4.5 in 4.5 in 4.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in Depth of Post 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in Embedment Depth of Post

3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 3.5 ft

Type of Post Nail Laminated (3-2x6)





6x6 Post 6x6 Post

Nail Density 5 nails/ft 5 nails/ft 5 nails/ft 5 nails/ft 5 nails/ft N/A N/A Depth of Skirt 7.25 in 7.25 in 7.25 in 7.25 in 7.25 in 0 in 0 in Depth of Fascia 7.2.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 5.5 in 0 in 0 in Girts Exterior of Double Sided?

Double Double Double Double Double N/A N/A

Depth of Girt 3.5 in 3.5 in 3.5 in 3.5 in 3.5 in 0 in 0 in Spacing of Girts 2 ft 2 ft 2 ft 2 ft 2 ft N/A N/A Depth of Fireblocking 1.5 in 1.5 in 1.5 in 1.5 in 1.5 in 0 in 0 in Depth of Cleat N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Length of Cleat N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Diameter of Concrete Pad

14 in 18 in 24 in 14 in 22 in 16 in 14 in

Height of Concrete Pad

6 in 8 in 10 in 6 in 10 in 8 in 6 in

Additional Wood 0.051 Mbf 0.102 Mbf 0.0765 Mbf 0 Mbf 0.0443 Mbf 0.072 Mbf 0.153 Mbf

Table 11 shows the Extra Basic Materials for Building #3. As in Building #2, the double sided girts and additional wood material increase the amount of lumber use versus the 2x6 equivalent wall. Note that these comparisons with the 2x6 wall DO NOT include identical strength

31

elements, only a standardized 2x6 design which may or may not be adequate for the particular structural requirements.

Table 11: Extra Basic Materials for Building #2

Item Quantity Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried 2.894842 Mbf Oriented Strand Board 0 msf, 3/8” basis Glulam Beams 0 ft3

Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0 Mbf 3000 psi Concrete, Average Flyash 13.85678 yd3

Nails 0.187065 tons


Figure 20 shows the bill of materials for Building #3. Again, the complexity of Building #3 is much greater than the other two buildings due to the size and interior finish. Figures 21, 22, and 23 show the primary energy consumption, global warming potential, and weighted resource use for each life cycle stage for Building #3. Note the difference in the maintenance values between Building #3 and the other two buildings. The increase in maintenance materials seems related to the use of asphalt shingles, while the other two buildings used metal roofing with or without OSB.

32



33



Figure 24 shows a comparison of the global warming potential between Building #3 with asphalt shingles and with the asphalt shingles removed and metal roofing used instead. Note the large change in both the manufacturing and maintenance energy for using asphalt shingles. Figure 24 illustrates one of the features of the Impact Estimator for Buildings program to create comparisons for different building configurations.

34

Figure 24: Comparison of Global Warming Potential for Building #3 and Building #3 With a Metal Roof

3.3.7 LCA Comparison of Three Buildings

Table 12 shows the total environmental indicators from the three buildings. These values are the total environmental indicators considering both material and transportation for the manufacturing, construction, maintenance and end-of-life portions of the building life cycle. Operation energy was not considered for any of these examples. Building #2 was the smallest structure in square footage, but did not always have all of the smallest environmental indicators. Building #1 was better than Building #2 on some indicators due to the simplicity of the structure (no interior walls, no insulation). These indicators may sometimes be contradictory and require interpretation to illustrate the use of LCA analysis to compare different building material and construction options.

Table 12: Total Values for All Environmental Indicators of the Three Buildings

Indicator Building #1 Building #2 Building #3 Primary Energy Consumption, MJ 1.05x106 9.38x105 9.73x106

Weighted Resource Use, kg 1.31x105 2.23x105 1.11x106

Global Warming Potential, kg CO2 Eq. 6.29x104 6.12x104 4.76x105

Acidification Potential, moles H+ Eq. 2.32x104 3.18x104 2.565x105

Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential, kg PM2.5 Eq.

1.32x102 2.48x102 1.66x103

Eutrophication Potential, kg N Eq. 2.15x101 2.54x101 1.38x102

Ozone Depletion Potential, kg CFC-11 Eq. 1.80x10-4 1.26x10-4 3.54x10-4

Smog Potential, kg NOX Eq. 2.50x102 3.24x102 2.51x103

35

Figure 25 shows the fossil fuel consumption of the three buildings per life cycle stage. The fossil fuel consumption for Building #1 is greater than Building #2 due to the increased square footage. For both Buildings #1 and #2, the majority of the fossil fuel consumption per square meter of the building is in the manufacturing of the materials since operating costs were not included. However, for Building #3, a greater energy consumption is in the maintenance of the building most likely due to the use of asphalt shingles in place of metal cladding.

Figure 25: Comparison of Fossil Fuel Consumption for the Three Buildings Considering Life Cycle per m2 of Building Area (Operating Costs Not Considered)

Figure 26 shows the global warming potential of the three buildings per life cycle stage. The trends in Figure 26 are similar to Figure 25, with Building #1 being greater than Building #2 and both buildings having the majority of the global warming potential in the manufacturing stage. Building #3 shows a high global warming potential in both the manufacturing and maintenance phases. For the analysis of these three buildings, the trends in the energy consumption and global warming potential indicators are similar.

Figure 27 shows the comparison of the weighted resource use indicator for the three buildings per life cycle stage. Figure 27 shows a different trend than the previous two indicators, with Building #1 have less resource use than Building #2, which had less resource use than Building #3. The maintenance resources needed in Building #3 are about one-fourth of the manufacturing resources.

36

Figure 26: Comparison of Global Warming Potential for the Three Buildings Considering Life Cycle (Operating Costs Not Considered)

Figure 27: Comparison of Weighted Resource Use for the Three Buildings Considering Life Cycle (Operating Costs Not Considered)

37

These three environmental indicators give some idea of the type of results which are obtained from the Impact Estimator for Buildings. Depending on the weighting and importance of the different indicators, a particular choice for a building can be made. These three buildings demonstrate the wide range of post-frame structures possible and give a good introduction to the use of life cycle analysis.

4.0 Conclusions

This project demonstrated the use of LCA and LCC methods related to post-frame construction. LCA is a tool to measure the environmental inputs and outputs used by a building. Current LCA software packages do not include post-frame considerations. A spreadsheet demonstrating a way to create equivalent conventional construction walls and roof while using the extra basic materials options was created. LCC is a tool for examining the total cost of a structure over its lifetime. Software packages for LCC again do not include post-frame structures explicitly for energy modeling and seem too complex to repeat the equivalency created for LCA software. Three buildings were analyzed using the LCA software and spreadsheet. The example spreadsheets and the Impact Estimator for Buildings files are useful as training tools for helping post-frame designers perform LCA to demonstrate the sustainability of their structures.

5.0 References

Trusty, W. B. and S. Horst 2002. Integrating LCA Tools In Green Building Rating Systems. Published in “The Austin Papers: Best of the 2002 International Green Building Conference” compiled by Editors of Environmental Building News, BuildingGreen, Inc., p.53-57. http://www.athenasmi.org/publications/docs/LCA_Tool_Integr_Paper.pdf

Schenck, R. C. 2000. LCA for Mere Mortals: A Primer on Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. IERE.

USDA. 2008. Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Buildings is Easier Than You Thought. 0873-2839-MTDC. USDA Forest Service. Technology and Development Center. Missoula, MT.

http://www.athenasmi.org/publications/docs/LCA_Tool_Integr_Paper.pdf�

38

6.0 Attachments

Excel Spreadsheet “LCA Tool for Post-frame Buildings” This is the Excel Spreadsheet referred to in the report. The formula cells have been locked to protect the integrity of the project.

PDF Files “Building 1 Machine Shed.pdf” pdf of spreadsheet for Building #1

“Building 2 Home.pdf” pdf of spreadsheet for Building #2

“Building 3 Addition to Church.pdf” pdf of spreadsheet for Building #3

Impact Estimator for Buildings Files

“Building #1.AT4”



Title Page

Preparation Sheet for Post Frame Structures Using

ATHENA Institute's Impact Estimator for Buildings

Written by Daniel Hindman

National Frame Builders Association

Project Name: Building 1Designer: Hindman Square Footage: 8,640 ft^2

NOTE: This is only a design aid and is not meant to replace engineering decisions

ASSUMPTIONS:The basic structure considers 8 different walls and 4 roof sections All fireblocking ,fascia, girts, embedded cleats and skirtboards are assumed to be 2x material (1.5 in thick)Floor elements are not discussed. Typical wood and concrete pad floor choices are available and do not need modification.Equivalent wall has a double top chord (2-2x6).Skirtboards are single sided. 16d nails are used for nail laminated posts.

Wall Calculations for Post Frame Conversion

Walls

Project: Building 1Designer: Hindman SF: 8,640 ft^2

L Length of Wall 144 ft L Length of Wall 120 fth Height of Wall 16.333 ft h Height of Wall 21.333 ft

(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height) (For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ft Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 in Pb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 in Pd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ft E embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) n Post? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) nN nail density per foot per plane 5 nails N nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 7.25 in ds depth of skirt 7.25 indt depth of fascia 5.5 in dt depth of fascia 5.5 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? E Girt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? Edg depth of girt 3.5 in dg depth of girt 3.5 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ft sg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 0 in df depth of fireblocking 0 indc depth of cleat 5.5 in dc depth of cleat 5.5 inLc length of cleat 20 in Lc length of cleat 20 inDc diameter of concrete pad 20 in Dc diameter of concrete pad 20 inhc height of concrete pad 8 in hc height of concrete pad 8 in

b width of beam 0 in b width of beam 0 inh depth of beam 0 in h depth of beam 0 inL length of beam 0 ft L length of beam 0 ft

0 Mbf 0 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 0.777206 Mbf Vp volume of posts 0.819489 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0.1305 Mbf Vs volume of skirtboard 0.10875 MbfVf volume fascia 0.099 Mbf Vf volume fascia 0.0825 MbfVg volume girts 0.441 Mbf Vg volume girts 0.4725 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0.043542 Mbf Vc volume cleat embed 0.036667 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0 Mbf Vf volume fireblocking 0 MbfVa additional wood 0 Mbf Va additional wood 0 Mbf

Vs volume studs 1.217795 Mbf Vs volume studs 1.340002 MbfVtc volume top and bottom chord 0.297 Mbf Vtc volume top and bottom chord 0.2475 MbfVb volume blocking 0.089633 Mbf Vb volume blocking 0.07468 MbfV 2x4 1.604428 Mbf V 2x4 1.662182 Mbf

Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried -0.11318 Mbf Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried -0.142276 MbfWood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3 Wood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0 Mbf Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0 MbfConcrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 0.969627 yd^3 Concrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 0.808023 yd^3Steel Nails 0.044999 tons Steel Nails 0.048979 tons

Additional Wood Calculator

Equivalent Stud Wall Equivalent Stud Wall


These cells perform the calculation of wood volume in the wall.

the following values are the extra materials neededConsidering a 2x6 stud wall 16 inches on center, Considering a 2x6 stud wall 16 inches on center,

the following values are the extra materials needed


Wall 2 - Two 60 ft EndwallsInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall.

Wall 1- 144 ft SidewallInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall.


Walls No Eq.


L Length of Wall 144 fth Height of Wall 14.333 ft

(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 24 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 8.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 12 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) NN nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 0 indt depth of fascia 0 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? edg depth of girt 0 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 0 indc depth of cleat 5.5 inLc length of cleat 20 inDc diameter of concrete pad 20 inhc height of concrete pad 8 in

b width of beam 1.5 inh depth of beam 63 inL length of beam 144 ft

1.135 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 1.061064 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0 MbfVf volume fascia 0 MbfVg volume girts 0 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0.016042 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0 MbfVa additional wood 1.13544 Mbf

Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried 2.212545 MbfWood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0 MbfConcrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 0.323209 yd^3Steel Nails 0.024863 tons

Wall 3 - 144 ft Open SidewallInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall.


The following values are the extra materials needed for post frame wall


Roof

Roof Modifications

Follow all recommendations for for inserting roofs. If you are using a metal roofing, choose the 1/2" OSB option and then insert the negative OSB into the extra materials section

Lt Length of Truss 63.25 ftLl Length of roof section (perpendicular to trusses) 144 ft

Type of Roof (S) OSB/Plywood, (M) Sheet Metal MT Truss spacing 8 ftps purlin spacing 2 ft

b width of beam 0 inh depth of beam 0 inL length of beam 0 ftVa additional wood material 0 MbfVt volume of truss -8.896652 MbfVp volume of purlins 2.016 Mbf

Extra Materials for Roof 1 in Impact Estimator for BuildingsWood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried -6.880652 MbfWood Oriented Strand Board -11.5049 msf (3/8" basis)

Roof 1


Output Summary

Modification for the Post Frame portions of Wood Structure (i.e., walls and roofs)Follow all input commands for the Impact Estimator for Buildings with the Following Additions:

Walls RoofExterior walls are Wood Stud Walls Wood Truss

Load Bearing 1/2" OSBNo Sheathing16 in o.c. Stud SpacingGreen Lumber2x6

Extra MaterialsAdd the following extra materials to convert the walls, roof and concrete pads

Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried -4.92356 MbfWood Oriented Strand Board -11.5049 msf, 3/8" basisWood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0 MbfConcrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 2.100859 yd^3Steel Nails 0.118841 tons

Title Page









Walls


L Length of Wall 32 ft L Length of Wall 64 fth Height of Wall 17 ft h Height of Wall 10.333 ft

(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height) (For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ft Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 in Pb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 in Pd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ft E embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) n Post? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) nN nail density per foot per plane 5 nails N nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 7.25 in ds depth of skirt 7.25 indt depth of fascia 5.5 in dt depth of fascia 5.5 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? D Girt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? Ddg depth of girt 3.5 in dg depth of girt 3.5 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ft sg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 1.5 in df depth of fireblocking 1.5 indc depth of cleat 0 in dc depth of cleat 0 inLc length of cleat 0 in Lc length of cleat 0 inDc diameter of concrete pad 14 in Dc diameter of concrete pad 18 inhc height of concrete pad 6 in hc height of concrete pad 8 in

b width of beam 1.5 in b width of beam 1.5 inh depth of beam 12.75 in h depth of beam 12.75 inL length of beam 32 ft L length of beam 64 ft

0.051 Mbf 0.102 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 0.211406 Mbf Vp volume of posts 0.256775 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0.029 Mbf Vs volume of skirtboard 0.058 MbfVf volume fascia 0.022 Mbf Vf volume fascia 0.044 MbfVg volume girts 0.224 Mbf Vg volume girts 0.28 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0 Mbf Vc volume cleat embed 0 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0.013027 Mbf Vf volume fireblocking 0.013675 MbfVa additional wood 0.051 Mbf Va additional wood 0.102 Mbf


Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried 0.15598 Mbf Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried 0.233509 MbfWood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3 Wood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0 Mbf Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0 MbfConcrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 0.079186 yd^3 Concrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 0.349066 yd^3Steel Nails 0.010408 tons Steel Nails 0.012653 tons








Wall BInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall.

Wall AInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall.


Walls

Project: Building 2Designer: Hindman SF: 3712 ft^2


(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height) (For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ft Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 in Pb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 in Pd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ft E embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) n Post? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) nN nail density per foot per plane 5 nails N nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 7.25 in ds depth of skirt 7.25 indt depth of fascia 5.5 in dt depth of fascia 7.25 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? D Girt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? Ddg depth of girt 3.5 in dg depth of girt 3.5 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ft sg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 1.5 in df depth of fireblocking 1.5 indc depth of cleat 0 in dc depth of cleat 0 inLc length of cleat 0 in Lc length of cleat 0 inDc diameter of concrete pad 24 in Dc diameter of concrete pad 14 inhc height of concrete pad 10 in hc height of concrete pad 6 in

b width of beam 1.5 in b width of beam 0 inh depth of beam 12.75 in h depth of beam 0 inL length of beam 48 ft L length of beam 0 ft

0.0765 Mbf 0 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 0.295969 Mbf Vp volume of posts 0.114122 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0.0435 Mbf Vs volume of skirtboard 0.02175 MbfVf volume fascia 0.033 Mbf Vf volume fascia 0.02175 MbfVg volume girts 0.336 Mbf Vg volume girts 0.105 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0 Mbf Vc volume cleat embed 0 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0.018238 Mbf Vf volume fireblocking 0.005969 MbfVa additional wood 0.0765 Mbf Va additional wood 0 Mbf



Wall C



Considering a 2x6 stud wall 16 inches on center,


Considering a 2x6 stud wall 16 inches on center, the following values are the extra materials needed

Equivalent Stud Wall


Wall DInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall.


Input the following dimensions of the post frame wall.



Walls



(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) nN nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 7.25 indt depth of fascia 9.25 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? Ddg depth of girt 3.5 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 1.5 indc depth of cleat 0 inLc length of cleat 0 inDc diameter of concrete pad 22 inhc height of concrete pad 10 in

b width of beam 1.5 inh depth of beam 14.75 inL length of beam 24 ft

0.04425 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 0.114122 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0.02175 MbfVf volume fascia 0.02775 MbfVg volume girts 0.105 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0.005844 MbfVa additional wood 0.04425 Mbf

Vs volume studs 0.143769 MbfVtc volume top and bottom chord 0.0495 MbfVb volume blocking 0.014867 MbfV 2x4 0.208136 Mbf







Wall E


Walls No Eq.



(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height) (For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 12 ft Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 12 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 5.5 in Pb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 5.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 in Pd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ft E embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) S Post? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) SN nail density per foot per plane 5 nails N nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 0 in ds depth of skirt 0 indt depth of fascia 0 in dt depth of fascia 0 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? e Girt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? edg depth of girt 0 in dg depth of girt 0 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ft sg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 0 in df depth of fireblocking 0 indc depth of cleat 0 in dc depth of cleat 0 inLc length of cleat 0 in Lc length of cleat 0 inDc diameter of concrete pad 16 in Dc diameter of concrete pad 14 inhc height of concrete pad 8 in hc height of concrete pad 6 in

b width of beam 1.5 in b width of beam 1.5 inh depth of beam 24 in h depth of beam 25.5 inL length of beam 24 ft L length of beam 48 ft

0.072 Mbf 0.153 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 0.089487 Mbf Vp volume of posts 0.149145 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0 Mbf Vs volume of skirtboard 0 MbfVf volume fascia 0 Mbf Vf volume fascia 0 MbfVg volume girts 0 Mbf Vg volume girts 0 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0 Mbf Vc volume cleat embed 0 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0 Mbf Vf volume fireblocking 0 MbfVa additional wood 0.072 Mbf Va additional wood 0.153 Mbf

Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried 0.072 Mbf Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried 0.153 MbfWood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3 Wood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0.089487 Mbf Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0.149145 MbfConcrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 0.068951 yd^3 Concrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 0.079186 yd^3Steel Nails 0 tons Steel Nails 0 tons

Wall F Wall GInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall. Input the following dimensions of the post frame wall.

Additional Wood Calculator Additional Wood Calculator

The following values are the extra materials needed for post frame wallThe following values are the extra materials needed for post frame wall

These cells perform the calculation of wood volume in the wall. These cells perform the calculation of wood volume in the wall.

Output Summary





Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried 1.014153 MbfWood Oriented Strand Board 0 msf, 3/8" basisWood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0.238632 MbfConcrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 1.461983 yd^3Steel Nails 0.048163 tons

Title Page









Walls


L Length of Wall 96 ft L Length of Wall 148 fth Height of Wall 22.333 ft h Height of Wall 18 ft

(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height) (For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ft Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 in Pb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 in Pd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ft E embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) n Post? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) nN nail density per foot per plane 5 nails N nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 7.25 in ds depth of skirt 7.25 indt depth of fascia 7.25 in dt depth of fascia 7.25 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? D Girt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? Ddg depth of girt 3.5 in dg depth of girt 3.5 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ft sg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 1.5 in df depth of fireblocking 1.5 indc depth of cleat 5.5 in dc depth of cleat 5.5 inLc length of cleat 18 in Lc length of cleat 38 inDc diameter of concrete pad 18 in Dc diameter of concrete pad 38 inhc height of concrete pad 8 in hc height of concrete pad 16 in


0.393 Mbf 0.605875 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 0.692647 Mbf Vp volume of posts 0.842531 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0.087 Mbf Vs volume of skirtboard 0.134125 MbfVf volume fascia 0.087 Mbf Vf volume fascia 0.134125 MbfVg volume girts 0.924 Mbf Vg volume girts 1.1655 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0.026813 Mbf Vc volume cleat embed 0.082729 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0.044382 Mbf Vf volume fireblocking 0.051508 MbfVa additional wood 0.393 Mbf Va additional wood 0.605875 Mbf



Wall AsInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall.

Wall AeInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall.









Walls



(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height) (For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ft Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 in Pb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 in Pd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ft E embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) n Post? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) nN nail density per foot per plane 5 nails N nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 7.25 in ds depth of skirt 7.25 indt depth of fascia 7.25 in dt depth of fascia 7.25 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? D Girt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? Ddg depth of girt 3.5 in dg depth of girt 3.5 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ft sg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 1.5 in df depth of fireblocking 1.5 indc depth of cleat 5.5 in dc depth of cleat 5.5 inLc length of cleat 18 in Lc length of cleat 18 inDc diameter of concrete pad 18 in Dc diameter of concrete pad 18 inhc height of concrete pad 8 in hc height of concrete pad 8 in


0.059125 Mbf 0.0645 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 0.218629 Mbf Vp volume of posts 0.199714 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0.039875 Mbf Vs volume of skirtboard 0.0435 MbfVf volume fascia 0.039875 Mbf Vf volume fascia 0.0435 MbfVg volume girts 0.2695 Mbf Vg volume girts 0.21 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0.012375 Mbf Vc volume cleat embed 0.014438 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0.01261 Mbf Vf volume fireblocking 0.010445 MbfVa additional wood 0.059125 Mbf Va additional wood 0.0645 Mbf



Input the following dimensions of the post frame wall.Wall Be



Considering a 2x6 stud wall 16 inches on center,





Wall BsInput the following dimensions of the post frame wall.




Walls



(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 7 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) nN nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 7.25 indt depth of fascia 7.25 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? Ddg depth of girt 3.5 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 1.5 indc depth of cleat 5.5 inLc length of cleat 32 inDc diameter of concrete pad 32 inhc height of concrete pad 13 in

b width of beam 1.5 inh depth of beam 10.75 inL length of beam 88 ft

0.11825 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 0.370897 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0.07975 MbfVf volume fascia 0.07975 MbfVg volume girts 0.385 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0.047667 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0.019398 MbfVa additional wood 0.11825 Mbf

Vs volume studs 0.472383 MbfVtc volume top and bottom chord 0.1815 MbfVb volume blocking 0.054742 MbfV 2x4 0.708625 Mbf


Wall C(s)







Walls No Eq.



(For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height) (For sidewall, use height of wall; for endwall, use mean roof height)Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ft Sp Spacing of posts (center-to-center) 8 ftPb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 in Pb wdith of post (parallel to wall) 4.5 inPd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 in Pd depth of post (perpendicular to wall) 5.5 inE embedment depth of post 3.5 ft E embedment depth of post 3.5 ftPost? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) n Post? Solid (S), Naillam (N), Glulam (G) nN nail density per foot per plane 5 nails N nail density per foot per plane 5 nailsds depth of skirt 0 in ds depth of skirt 0 indt depth of fascia 0 in dt depth of fascia 0 inGirt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? e Girt? Are girts (E) exterior or (D) double sided? edg depth of girt 0 in dg depth of girt 0 insg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ft sg spacing of girts (center-to-center) 2 ftdf depth of fireblocking 0 in df depth of fireblocking 0 indc depth of cleat 5.5 in dc depth of cleat 5.5 inLc length of cleat 30 in Lc length of cleat 18 inDc diameter of concrete pad 30 in Dc diameter of concrete pad 18 inhc height of concrete pad 12 in hc height of concrete pad 8 in

b width of beam 0 in b width of beam 0 inh depth of beam 0 in h depth of beam 0 inL length of beam 120 ft L length of beam 84 ft

0 Mbf 0 Mbf

Vp volume of posts 0.7095 Mbf Vp volume of posts 0.313836 MbfVs volume of skirtboard 0 Mbf Vs volume of skirtboard 0 MbfVf volume fascia 0 Mbf Vf volume fascia 0 MbfVg volume girts 0 Mbf Vg volume girts 0 MbfVc volume cleat embed 0.055 Mbf Vc volume cleat embed 0.022688 MbfVf volume fireblocking 0 Mbf Vf volume fireblocking 0 MbfVa additional wood 0 Mbf Va additional wood 0 Mbf


Additional Wood Calculator Additional Wood Calculator

The following values are the extra materials needed for post frame wallThe following values are the extra materials needed for post frame wall

These cells perform the calculation of wood volume in the wall. These cells perform the calculation of wood volume in the wall.

Wall (AB) Wall C(e)Input the following dimensions of the post frame wall. Input the following dimensions of the post frame wall.

Output Summary





Wood Softwood Lumber, Small Dimension, kiln dried 2.894842 MbfWood Oriented Strand Board 0 msf, 3/8" basisWood Glulam Beams 0 ft^3Wood Softwood Lumber, Large Dimension, green 0 MbfConcrete 3000 psi Concrete, Average flyash 13.85678 yd^3Steel Nails 0.187065 tons

life cycle analysis and life cycle costing for post-frame building

Documents