18 • IIBEC Interface April 2022 ABSTRACT Recent changes in building model energy codes include enclosure criteria that minimize building enclosure thermal loads and, in turn, reduce a building’s energy consumption. These changes require modifications in traditional building enclosure designs to meet evolving energy code requirements. Unfortunately, some code-compliant energy-efficient designs may adversely impact a building’s durability. This paper compares how four green standards—the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED v4.1; the Green Building Initiative’s Green Globes, version 2019; the International Living Future Institute’s Living Building Challenge, version 4.0; and the International Code Council’s 2018 International Green Construction Code (IgCC)—address moisture durability of building enclosures across the project phases of material selection; design and procurement; construction activities; performance testing; operation and maintenance; and enclosure commissioning. Gaps and similarities in the rating systems are discussed, and strategies to use the best parts of each rating system to improve project performance related to moisture durability are recommended. INTRODUCTION There can be a perception in the market that a “green” building is a better building, and that the risks associated with “building differently” are inherently covered by the green certifications driving the industry forward from a sustainability standpoint. Both better buildings and risk mitigation can be accomplished through building green, and this paper will discuss some of the key principles to accomplish these objectives for building enclosures and roof assemblies. Moisture durability of enclosure systems focuses on the interaction of the materials, assemblies, and their design configurations in the building. The goals of managing moisture durability are to establish performance expectations, and to allow enclosures to perform as intended, continue to perform through the project life cycle, and be serviced or maintained in a way that minimizes risk of damage to the enclosure and performance of other critical building systems. This discussion focuses on the moisture durability aspects of buildings and how those aspects relate to energy performance and life-cycle expectations. Although other aspects of resilience are also important, moisture durability targets risks that are not necessarily related to climate change but are related to the design of enclosure and roof assemblies directly. MOISTURE DURABILITY IN CONTEXT The American Institute of Architects (AIA)1 defines resilience as “mitigating risk for hazards, shocks, and stresses and adapting to changing conditions.” Resilience goes beyond the minimum code requirements to address issues that influence long-term performance. The “hazards, shocks, and stressors” can come from external sources as well as from the design decisions of the built environment. Some external sources can be extreme events such as tornadoes and wildfires, and some are common and persistent adverse events from design decisions, resulting in moisture risks in the building enclosure. This perspective of moisture durability as a risk fits within many existing terms and goals that stem from sustainability, resilience, adaptability, and mitigation initiatives; moisture durability fits within these goals and is not separate from them, as demonstrated in Fig. 1. This paper was originally presented at the 2021 IIBEC International Convention and Trade Show. Photo by Michael Eggerl on Unsplash April 2022 IIBEC Interface • 19 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AS A MOVING TARGET The minimum or baseline energy efficiency in the code requirements and owner’s performance expectations has been a moving target over time. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) update ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.12 (one of the primary national energy standards) every three years, and each new edition has increased the cost-effective and validated energy savings. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory3 validated that ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 90.1-20192 provides an additional 5% of energy savings over the previous 2016 version. Green building rating systems generally require additional energy savings beyond the baseline and provide points for exceeding the baseline. In addition, the energy performance requirements within green certification systems are also improving. As highlighted in Fig. 2,2,4–6 the same energy savings that would have contributed 10 points to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) v3 rating system are roughly equivalent to the starting energy savings required in LEED v4.1,6 which was in the pilot phase at the time this paper was published. Not every local jurisdiction adopts the same base model codes and standards at the same time and rate, which leads to additional confusion in the design and construction industry. INTERACTIVE COMPLEXITY AND TIGHT COUPLING In Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, Charles Perrow explains how significant technological advancement can lead to failures.7 He describes two main components of “normal accidents.” The first component, “interactive complexity,” is a function of the number and degree of system interrelationships; when this factor is high, surprises are to be expected. The second component is “tight coupling,” the degree at which initial failures can concatenate rapidly to bring down other parts of the system; when failures are highly linked, surprises are not easily isolated and resolved. Perrow explains that if a system has only one of these two components, the risk of accidents is more easily managed. However, when interactive complexity and tight coupling are combined, accidents could be considered “normal” or expected. As more materials and additional requirements are added to enclosures, it is important to recognize when materials and assemblies must be changed to achieve higher energy performance. In a broad sense, as energy effiFigure 1. Moisture, durability, and energy efficiency are part of resilient design. Figure 2. Increasing efficiency requirements are compounded by green rating systems.2,4–6 20 • IIBEC Interface April 2022 ciency is improved in building enclosures, moisture risks can increase from decreased heat flow across the assemblies, as shown in Fig. 3. The changes in enclosures can manifest as generally lower exterior surface temperatures (during heating months) as the exterior is less dependent on the interior space conditioning. As we improve energy efficiency, we may also be increasing moisture risks in building enclosures. And the risk of “normal accidents” may increase as the result of more complex designs that are more tightly coupled to the building’s HVAC operations, structural elements, and occupant-use conditions. Consider the following real-world example of the “normal accidents” concept in practice and how it relates to a client’s awareness of, or willingness to accept, this risk for an innovative building. This relevant example comes from the first-ever LEED platinum building and a recently closed legal case.8 The example demonstrates the building enclosure’s technical complexity and tight coupling across various building systems. The court’s decision mirrors the components described in Normal Accidents, identifying “the inappropriate use of Parallams as structural support without proper weather protection” (it’s a complex system), and stating that “these beams would have failed … well before they got around to doing any remedial measures at all” (the systems are tightly coupled). The concept of predictable outcomes from Perrow’s book makes sense in theory, but in practice, it can be complicated, as this case demonstrates. Such case studies help bring awareness to potential issues and highlight the importance of establishing processes to manage unanticipated moisture risks as early as possible. It is important through this green rating system assessment to recognize the options and limitations that exist with the rating systems and their actual coverage to mitigate moisture risks in the face of complexity and system coupling. MOISTURE MANAGEMENT ACROSS THE PROJECT PHASES Although it is tempting to assume that the building enclosure will work perfectly and water will not go where it does not belong, such a belief can lead to a lack of risk mitigation for a very likely hazard (water) throughout the useful life of the building. A more realistic assumption is moisture intrusion cannot be completely avoided, so it must be managed. Enclosures should be designed and installed not only to keep out bulk water and drain it away but also to manage incidental water with minimal long-term impact. The key is for the enclosure design to have a greater capacity for drying than its risk of wetting.9 Figure 4 illustrates six primary categories for moisture durability assessment of an enclosure. Roughly working across the project life cycle, such an assessment can identify aspects moisture risk management that green building rating systems can address in specific phases. The following is a brief summary of the elements highlighted in this assessment. Figure 3. Energy efficiency improvements can lead to increased moisture risks in a building enclosure. Across the project phases, the project team can coordinate BECx efforts with the owner’s performance requirements through documentation reviews and installation observations, by guiding performance testing, and by establishing the ongoing commissioning plan for the enclosure. April 2022 IIBEC Interface • 21 Material Selection The material selection phase can start early in the project process. It can often carry over into a firm master specification, or even be dictated as a line-item budget before the schematic concept is complete. Material selection improvements can include above-code specification requirements such as exceeding minimums for attachments and roof edges, dedicated air barriers, and material properties like solar reflectivity. Single-source manufacturer systems for building enclosures does not mean only one manufacturer must be specified per product; rather, it involves considering together the bids for all components within an enclosure system, like a roof, and their ability to properly integrate with adjoining systems. In a roof system, all of the components, such as the membrane, cover board, insulation, air/vapor retarder, and structural deck, are tested by third parties as a system, and they should really be specified as a system, not separately. Coordinated manufacturer systems can be key to installed performance, such as prior system testing and single-source responsibility for future service and repair. Third-party product certifications, such as health product declarations and environmental product declarations, can be useful in the product selection process for green building ratings, but unless the product certification addresses performance in specific applications, it may not address moisture durability. Design and Procurement In the design and procurement phase, project teams solidify design decisions and look for unexpected building-system interactions. When designing an enclosure, it becomes very important to understand the overall system performance, such as expected resistance to anticipated extreme weather events, and clarifying the expected enclosure system service life. Rather than relying on heuristics and rules of thumb for long-term moisture performance of the building enclosure, it is preferable to perform a moisture analysis to identify areas where “tight coupling” of moisture mechanisms may be occurring in the building. Specifically, performing ASHRAE 16010 hygrothermal analysis early in the design process allows data and the outcomes to inform the project team.11 Also, it is important to engage professionals with specific expertise in moisture risk mitigation for third-party reviews such as consultant constructability reviews, manufacturer reviews for conformance with published requirement, and contractor shop drawing reviews across the enclosure systems. The inclusion of performance testing can lower the risks related to moisture durability. When these tests are specified with defined pass/fail criteria, the project team can vet performance at the intersection of design and construction. Potential risks, including air and water leaks, are identified early and can be addressed before the building is occupied. Construction Activities In the construction phase, project teams bring designs to reality. During the lengthy construction process, moisture can find its way into areas where it was never intended. To protect the building and the integrity of the enclosure, a temporary moisture protection plan is important. The plan should include measures for material storage and specifications for in-process protection during the many weeks or months when the enclosure systems, like roofs, are being applied. When installing materials on site, rather than in a controlled environment, it is important to identify whether conditions are appropriate to proceed. Site conditions can be qualified by substrate acceptance testing such as adhesion tests, compatibility qualification, and fastener withdrawal resistance methods. In addition to the general contractor’s quality control efforts, using a third-party quality assurance program—whether it is a system-based verification or involves specific third-party auditors, like the Air Barrier Association of America’s ABAA Quality Assurance Program12 or the IIBEC Registered Roof Observer (RRO) programs13—can also contribute to managing moisture risks. Performance Testing When performance testing is required, it is important that the owner’s expectations are taken into account early in the design and carried through to the trades in the field. The point of performance testing is not to make buildings “fail” after they‘re built, but to ensure the constructed building meets the initial minimum performance targets set by the owner and design team when they started the project. A whole building airtightness test is a good Figure 4. Moisture durability elements and assessment project life-cycle details. 22 • IIBEC Interface April 2022 example of this point. The test does not attempt to “overpressurize” the building; the objective is to uniformly pressurize the enclosure to identify inconsistencies in the overall construction. Stopping these air leaks can enable the mechanical systems to perform as designed during the use phase of the building, limiting leakage and potential occupant discomfort. Testing can also be performed on a smaller scale with field mock-up and sample tests. These can be useful to establish acceptable installation and sequencing methods on site and provide representative results, while avoiding the expense of comprehensive testing. Another set of moisture durability tests is integrity and moisture detection testing, such as infrared scans, electronic leak detection, or nuclear moisture surveys. These can be useful to demonstrate a moisture protection plan was successfully implemented—that there is no concealed moisture, and that systems are continuous where they are intended to manage rain, like in a roof or waterproofing system and at interfaces. Operation and Maintenance It is important to begin recognizing operational challenges early in the design phase. For example, the project team might wish to consider climate projections, such as the likelihood that the intensity of rainstorms will increase in the future, or explore how the project can adapt for changed uses at the end of the building’s expected life, such as capturing rainwater for irrigation. After the building is completed and the use phase has begun, installed systems training is important for occupants and facility managers; they will need to understand how enclosure systems are expected to operate and the associated maintenance requirements, such as the clearing of roof drains and care for rooftop solar installations. Use-phase training can also include the handoff of warranties and guarantees from the construction process to the building operators. This is important because it can help inform facility management of ongoing inspection schedules and long-term maintenance contracts necessary to meet the initial design expectations. Like most things, roofs and enclosure systems need to be maintained, and service contracts can be a critical part of scheduling and performing inspections to ensure that long-term guarantees are not voided. Building Enclosure Commissioning Unlike the previously described elements, building enclosure commissioning (BECx) is not a separate project phase. Rather, BECx is a holistic process that starts in predesign and continues through to the use phase of the completed building.14 Along the way, the commissioning process can manage moisture risks by identifying system complexities and helping the project team take steps to manage the tight coupling of the enclosure and related systems. Across the project phases, the project team can coordinate BECx efforts with the owner’s Figure 5. Project life-cycle phases of moisture durability assessment in green building rating systems. April 2022 IIBEC Interface • 23 performance requirements through documentation reviews and installation observations, by guiding performance testing, and by establishing the ongoing commissioning plan for the enclosure. When incorporated into the project, BECx can be a great tool to manage moisture durability and the associated risks. MOISTURE MANAGEMENT IN GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS For the moisture durability assessment, we have compared the four most common green building rating systems available for new construction projects against the six construction phase categories, as shown in Fig. 5. The green building rating systems reviewed are: • The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED v4.16 • The Green Building Initiative’s Green Globes, version 201915 • The International Living Future Institute’s Living Building Challenge (LBC), version 4.016 • The International Code Council’s 2018 International Green Construction Code (IgCC)17 SUMMARY OF GREEN RATING SYSTEM ASSESSMENT Compiled across the typical project life- cycle phases, the following is a summary of the notable factors that apply to moisture assessments across the highlighted green building rating systems. Material Selection In terms of material selection, there is some consistency across all four rating systems. Starting with above-code specifications in the top row of Fig. 5, all four are shown in yellow (partially or indirectly addressed). This is because all four have requirements for improved energy efficiency over the code minimum, including light-colored or reflective roofing. The enclosure is generally above the code minimum, but the rating systems do not consider direct above-code measures related to moisture durability mitigation. None of the four rating systems have measures that encourage comprehensively sourced products to mitigate future risks within and across enclosure systems. Though none of the ratings systems refer specifically to material moisture certifications, all four systems provide a mechanism to reward products for third-party certifications; in the last row of the material selection part of Fig. 5, this is shown in blue, indicating this element is clearly addressed in the green standards. Design and Procurement The design phase is where project specifications can enable success mitigating moisture throughout the later project phases and help align the design with the owner’s performance requirements. A number of items in this phase, including moisture analysis and third-party reviews, are “partially or indirectly addressed” by LEED v4.1 and Green Globes through enclosure commissioning credits (see additional discussion in the “Building Enclosure Commissioning” section later in this paper). The Green Globes rating system addresses system performance by providing credit for performing a building risk assessment of the design to resist extreme events. Green Globes also touches on moisture control design analysis; the credit is focused on managing interior-generated moisture, but it indirectly includes building enclosure components as part of an ASHRAE 16010 moisture analysis when interior moisture is expected. The 2018 IgCC addresses moisture control design analysis directly by requiring all designs to perform dynamic heat and moisture analysis, including ASHRAE 160, of the enclosure and across interior space conditions. The LBC rating system does not provide specific or prescriptive moisture mitigation requirements for many aspects of the design and procurement process. Construction Activities The construction phase is a period of the building’s life that is often not designed to manage moisture, although it can lead to a reduced life cycle if it is not performed well. All green rating programs except for LBC include measures to address temporary moisture protection during construction. None of the rating systems have minimum substrate acceptance to provide “stoplight conditions” for enclosure installations, such as moisture on the roof deck. The project specifications and the various construction trades are left to manage these acceptance handoffs. Notably, Green Globes provides direct measures for on-site quality assurance and verification, whereas LEED v4.1 indirectly captures this scope in its enhanced enclosure commissioning credit. The previous version of Green Globes also included the RRO program by reference, but Green Globes now generally refers to elements of a third-party observations verification program. Performance Testing The IgCC is the only one of the four green rating systems to directly address field performance testing by providing enhanced guidance on whole building airtightness testing. The comprehensive testing of the built enclosure can have broad performance impacts on achieving the intended energy efficiency from the design to the field, mitigating ongoing moisture accumulation caused by air leakage condensation, and enabling the HVAC design to deliver a comfortable space to the occupants. LEED v4.1 and Green Globes do not include specific measures for performance testing, but such testing can be a part of the Enhanced Commissioning credit of the Building Enclosure (see additional discussion in the “Building Enclosure Commissioning” section later in this paper). Because scope is not identified in the LEED and Green Globes enclosure commissioning credits and minimum performance requirements, field testing can lead to substantial variation in actual built outcomes. For this reason, Fig. 5 shows field testing to be “partially or indirectly addressed” by these rating systems The LBC rating system does not provide specific or prescriptive requirements for performance testing. Operation and Maintenance LEED v4.1 includes occupant training directly in the Enhanced Commissioning credit for the building enclosure. However, the inclusion of future assessments and specifically addressing manufacturer system documentation are left up to the project team. Green Globes provides additional points for evaluating the building’s operational continuity or for a recovery assessment in the event of extreme weather conditions. Green Globes also provides specific credit for enclosure systems training in the use phase. However, similar to LEED, it leaves manufacturer system documentation up to the project team. The IgCC includes requirements for a detailed service life plan (10.3.2.3), which includes documenting, planning, and providing access to the enclosure elements based on their expected service life. It does not, however, deal with future-use assessments or specific service, warranty, or guarantee documents of the building enclosure. The LBC rating system does not provide specific or prescriptive requirements for the operations and maintenance of the building’s use phase. Building Enclosure Commissioning Although LEED v4.1 and Green Globes provide additional points for enclosure commissioning, it is important to clarify that even though points are being given for enclosure commissioning, there are very few minimum tasks for project teams to accomplish. For many critical moisture durability aspects, decisions about how to proceed are left up to the project team. Compared to LEED v4.0, LEED v4.1 is notably improved by referencing ASTM E2947, Standard Guide for Building Enclosure Commissioning,14 which provides an exhaustive list of optional performance tests. It is incumbent upon the designer to establish a minimum scope to vet project performance and achieve credit for the enhanced commissioning credit. The LBC and IgCC do not include requirements or credits to include enclosure commissioning in the rating systems. The IgCC does have a commissioning requirements section (IgCC 10.3.1.2.1), but, unfortunately, the building enclosure is not included in the list of systems to be commissioned. Figure 6 summarizes each of the six individual detailed assessments reviewed across the project life-cycle phases. There is quite a range of results across the green building rating systems assessed. KEY TAKEAWAYS Overlooking one of the project phases may result in unmanaged risk for the long-term building performance. Therefore, when designing for moisture durability and energy efficiency in enclosures and roof systems, consider all project phases. This includes utilizing the building enclosure commissioning process to more formally ensure that an enclosure professional assesses the relevant moisture durability risks. Some of the green rating systems have direct coverage of individual elements of moisture risk mitigation, but reliance on the certification frameworks may not be sufficient to provide comprehensive moisture durability mitigation. In particular, all four rating systems have mandatory energy efficiency improvements beyond code-minimum requirements, but they all lack a complete set of mandatory credits to accommodate the increased moisture risk associated with the added enclosure complexity. To accomplish long-term durability, risk management is recommended when interactive complexity and tight coupling are inherent in a roof and enclosure system design. This assessment provides a framework for applying enclosure moisture risk elements that can be used to either supplement any of the green rating systems or just enhance a project’s performance. To shore up any project’s specification, using or borrowing the best features from each system is recommended. And if the owner is seeking a specific green rating system certification, be sure to look across the alternative rating systems to fill in any gaps regarding enclosure moisture durability. REFERENCES 1. American Institute of Architects. n.d. “AIA Resilience and Adaptation Online Certificate Program.” Accessed March 20, 2021. https://aiau.aia.org/aia-resilience-and-adaptation-online-certificate-program. 2. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). 2019. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019: Energy Efficiency Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Peach Tree Corners, GA: ASHRAE. 3. Rosenberg, M., J. Zhang, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. “Energy Savings Analysis of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 Final Progress Indicator.” Presented at ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 Winter Meeting, Orlando, FL, February 2, 2020. 4. International Code Council (ICC). 2017. 2018 International Energy Conservation Code. Country Club Hills, IL: ICC. 5. US Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2017. “Energy Savings Analysis: ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 24 • IIBEC Interface April 2022 Figure 6. Comparison of moisture durability aspects in green building rating systems. Standard 90.1-2016.” https://www. energ ycode s .gov/site s/default / f i l e s /do c ument s /0 2 2 2 2 018 _ Standard_90.1-2016_Determination_ TSD.pdf. 6. U.S. Green Building Council. n.d. “LEED Credit Library. LEED BD+C: New Construction, Version 4.1.” Accessed March 20, 2021. https://www. usgbc.org/leed/v41#bdc. 7. Perrow, C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies New York: Basic Books. 8. Kaplow, S. 2015 (December 13).“Lawsuit over First LEED Platinum Building Is Over.” Green Building Law Update. https://www.greenbuildinglawupdate. com/2015/12/articles/leed/lawsuitover- first-leed-platinum-building-isover. 9. Meyer, B. 2018 (Winter). “Addressing Moisture Management and Energy Performance in Wall Assemblies.” Journal of the National Institute of Building Sciences. 10. ANSI, ASHRAE, and IES. 2016. ANSI/ ASHRAE/IES Standard 160-2016: Criteria for Moisture-Control Design Analysis in Buildings. Peach Tree Corners, GA: ASHRAE. 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. “Moisture Control Guidance for Building Design, Construction and Maintenance.” EPA 402-F-13053. https://www.epa. gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/ documents/moisture-control.pdf. 12. Air Barrier Association of America. n.d. “Quality Assurance Program (QAP).” Accessed March 20, 2021. https://www. airbarrier.org/qap. 13. International Institute of Building Enclosure Consultants. n.d. “Registered Roof Observers—RRO.” Accessed March 21, 2021. https://iibec.org/ professional-registrations/rro. 14. ASTM International. 2016. Standard Guide for Building Enclosure Commissioning. ASTM E2947-16a. West Conshohocken, PA; ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/ E2947-16A. 15. Green Building Initiative. 2019. “Green Globes for New Construction: 2019 Technical Reference Manual, Version 1.0.” https://thegbi.org/files/training_ resources/Green_Globes_NC_ Technical_Reference_Manual.pdf 16. International Living Future Institute. 2019. “Living Building Challenge 4.0 Standard.” https://www2.living-future. org/LBC4.0?RD_Scheduler=LBC4. 17. ICC and ASHRAE. 2018. International Green Construction Code. Country Club Hills, IL: ICC, 2018. April 2022 IIBEC Interface • 25 Jennifer Keegan, AAIA, is the director of building and roofing science for Siplast | GAF in Philadelphia, Pa, focusing on overall roof system design and performance. She has over 20 years of experience as a building enclosure consultant specializing in assessment, design, and remediation of building enclosure systems. She is the chair of the ASTM D08.22 Roofing and Waterproofing Subcommittee, education chair for IIBEC, an executive board member of National Women in Roofing, and a board member of Women in Construction. Jennifer Keegan, AAIA Publish in IIBEC Interface INTRODUCTION In evaluating building enclosure problems, the author has encountered many newly constructed, wood-framed, low-slope roofs and exterior balconies and decks that exhibit excessive/sustained ponding of water (Figure 1). These conditions can lead to interior water damage through premature deterioration of roof coverings and/or excessive deflection of roof framing members. The ponding (and associated creep of the framing) can be so significant that it may ultimately lead to failure of the roof framing. The purpose of this article is to provide insight into the most likely causes of these problematic ponding conditions as they relate to commonly accepted design and construction methods. 36 • IIBEC IntErfaCE OCtOBEr 2019 Figure 1 – Excessive ponding water on a roof. Figure 2 – Ponding typically occurs prior to reaching discharge points. INTRODUCTION The concept of building for resilience has been increasingly adopted by various organizations over the past five years. Organizations use different definitions or phrases to describe resilience and the hazards that are included in resilient design. These definitions from six sources are compared and a single definition incorporating these is developed. RESILIENCE AS DEFINED BY SELECT ORGANIZATIONS Industry Statement Twenty-one organizations, including the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) issued an industry statement on resilience[1] that stated (the bold or red text is theirs): Representing more than 750,000 professionals, America’s design and construction industry is one of the largest sectors of this nation’s economy, generating over $1 trillion in GDP. We are responsible for the design, construction, and operation of the buildings, homes, transportation systems, landscapes, and public spaces that enrich our lives and sustain America’s global leadership. We recognize that natural and manmade hazards pose an increasing threat to the safety of the public and the vitality of our nation. Aging infrastructure and disasters result in unacceptable losses of life and property, straining our nation’s ability to respond in a timely and efficient manner. We further recognize that contemporary planning, building materials, and design, construction, and operational techniques can make our communities more resilient to these threats. Drawing upon the work of the National Research Council, we define resilience as the ability to prepare 8 • IIBEC IntErfaCE SEptEmBEr 2019 This article is reprinted with permission from Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2018, copyright ASTM International, 100 Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19429 www.astm.org. IIBEC Interface journal is seeking submissions for the following issues. Optimum article size is 2000 to 3000 words, containing five to ten high-resolution graphics. Articles may serve commercial interests but should not promote specific products. Articles on subjects that do not fit any given theme may be submitted at any time. Submit articles or questions to Executive Editor Christian Hamaker at 800-828-1902 or chamaker@iibec.org. ISSUE SUBJECT SUBMISSION DEADLINE September 2022 The Building Enclosure May 15, 2022 October 2022 Codes & Standards June 15, 2022 November 2022 Design of Cavity Walls July 15, 2022 December 2022 Technology August 15, 2022 Benjamin Meyer, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP, is building enclosure business director with Siplast in Richmond, Va. His previous experience includes serving as an enclosure consultant principal, technical management for enclosure products, commercial design, real estate development, and construction management on a range of residential, educational, office, and DuPont industrial projects. He is a voting member of the ASHRAE 90.1 Envelope and Project Committees, LEED Technical Committee member, past technical advisor of the LEED Materials (MR) TAG, and director of the Air Barrier Association of America. Benjamin Meyer, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP
