Home
> Uncategorized > USACE Sustainability Resources
USACE Sustainability Resources
Today I discovered USACE’s Sustainability youtube channel. I though the channel would be of interest to PET students and PQEs alike.
I haven’t had chance to watch any of the videos/webinars (yet!) but have subscribed to the channel so I can watch later. The USACE/ERDC presentations are usually high quality and very informative.
Some questions to start some debate:
- How do you think we can make military engineering more sustainable?
- What should we do as a Corps to be better stewards of our resources and the environment?
- Can anyone provide examples where they have incorporated sustainability into Operational Infrastructure design and delivery? If so how did you secure funding and demonstrate value for money?
- What shouldn’t we incorporate into military engineering projects?
- For the students on attachment in Baltimore or about to head out that way – how do the videos compare to what you experience on site and in the District office?
Categories: Uncategorized
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
You might also be interested in the Inst RE sustainability forum chaired by WO1 Casper Egan WRT sustainability in military engineering
not sure if these links will work:
https://www.instre.org/knowledge-centre/climate-change/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/9026956/
I am currently working with an ex-university teacher (structural) who did his PhD study in Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) reinforcement. He delivered an in-house presentation on it’s benefits and setbacks.
Interestingly, it is 1/4 of the weight of steel reinforcement (logistical burden reduction and marginal decrease dead load), delivers twice the tensile strength, has better resistance to corrosion, requires less cover (especially in harsh environments) and shows better compatibility with concrete than your typical steel reinforcement. It can be sawn by hand to size but can not be bent and welded on site like steel (although mechanical joining and laps have been used). It also suffers from greater deflection with a much lower Young’s modulus, around 1/3 of steel (arguably less important in short-term construction where development of cracks in concrete to engage the reinforcement is permissible).
It is currently twice as expensive as steel reinforcement in Australia but I believe some of those costs are transportation (not locally produced in Australia yet). Standards exist (see https://www.madewellproducts.com/pages/gfrp-design-codes) but are yet to be incorporated properly into design in Australia.
Having worked on some of our projects overseas where ships and flatbeds deliver resource over huge distances, just the density reduction alone should offer a more sustainable approach to construction.
GRP can be provided to shape but only by manufacturing specifically not by bending so curved or bent up bars etc to a shape code are easy enough but have to be manufactured and transported as such. bulk not density is the more lilely issue with transport. One of the up sides of GRP reinfoicrment is in tunneling with TBMs: it is easy to provide a break out wall that doesn’t destroy the machine head. in other applications, a potential disavantege to GRP reinforcement is low ‘E’ because deflection rises (approx x3) meaning that serviceablity might then become the limiting factor; this would suggest design reinforcement for the serviceability case and check for the ulitimate condition rather than vise versa.
@daveytempz interesting – I did my undergrad thesis on fiber reinforcement, the main drama / barrier for industry adoption I found was being able to guarantee with any real confidence that there was an even distribution of reinforcement throughout the concrete matrix, so that you don’t get parts of a concrete element that are over reinforced and parts that are under reinforced. What did the guy your talking to make of that issue as he no doubt would have had to consider it also?
Difference between fibre refinfoircement using polymer fibres added to the mix versus GRP reinforcement, which is essentially a fibre glass bar instead of steel.
I haven’t had time to check out the site and voideos yet either but in answer to how do you make military engineering more sustainable I think there are several quick wins.
First and foremest is to have sustainbility on the agenda at every stage of the design process. If when considering a statement of need the questions “do we need new or can we convert/retrofit (think T, C, Q with sustainbility as a Q criteria)”, “Is there an eqully operationally effective solution that is more sustainble (less resource to create, maitain, operate, decomission – measure material and carbon footprint)”, “How are we measuring mission sucess and does that have a long term impact on the plant factored into it; if not, why not”. These question alone should ask the client to consider sustainbility and demand that the engineering side can explain sustainbility as a concept and not necessarily a cost or burden.
Beyond that sustainbility improvement in military engineering can most effectively be delivered by better design and delivery. Stop wasting resource! Which should also deliver a return of the same resource to be used elsewhere whther that is material, plant or labour so it is also a force multiplier…
What you shouldn’t do its think of sustainbility as something ‘other’ that means a need for additional work or cost and is only represented by ‘things’ like solar panels instead of material selcetion and quality.
I’m currently attached to USACE working on some sites within Fort Meade. I can’t say much yet from the design perspective, but in terms of my initial observations at the start of Phase 2, USACE really seem to be driving sustainability within their projects.
They are governed by a huge amount of legislation from the US Government on sustainable design, construction, and operation. A lot of the Professional Engineers and site engineers I have been interacting with seem to get behind sustainability as well, something that surprised me in the country of 10mpg pick up trucks everywhere. This seems quite a stark difference compared to the UK military side that often talks about sustainability, but sure in practice how much sustainable design and delivery actually take place.
The Construction Division for USACE put a lot of pressure of sustainable engineering onto the principle contractor as well. The design and construction of a project follow the High Performance and Sustainable Buildings (HPSB) Guiding Principles from the EPA, nicely summarised in this document (https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/guiding_principles_for_sustainable_federal_buildings.pdf). USACE requires the contractors produce the following for each project:
-Sustainability Action Plan (analysis of the HPSB guiding principles and how the project aligns to them during construction and then during operation).
-Indoor Air Quality Plan for during construction and the finished project.
-Construction & demolition waste management plan with justification that will be reviewed for any waste that needs to be removed from site.
-Sustainability eNotebook; this is the system for documented submissions that monitor the project’s progress on sustainable measures and practices.
There are several more documents that are required from the contractor, but these are the main I’ve picked out so far. Notably, if the contractor fails to update any of these documents throughout the project, or fails to update the eNotebook at the end of the month, USACE can legally withhold payments. Additionally, if the contractor submits a variation or change order that will detrimentally affect sustainability, despite saving time or project cost, then the contractor must bear all the costs. From what I’ve seen so far, sustainability is a major factor to USACE’s projects, and can enforce it easily on sites by holding the contractor accountable for it, or otherwise take away the one thing they care about the most; money.
I can update further into the project to see how sustainable practices are actually measured on the QA side, and if the contractual terms of withholding payments if the contractor fails on any sustainability measures are enforced.
Please do updare as you see more. One question I have at present is: When tendering works what is the simplest or most effective way of ensuring the contractor is orientated towards sustainbility. It is easy for them to say their products are sustainable and they work towards net zero but very diffoclt to measure this. I have no handy metrics…. Anyone seen any?
Rich, the way we monitor sustainable products here is through LEED v4. Similar to BREEAM in a way, LEED is based on points through a number of systems, for example; the more recycled material within a product the more points awarded, or amount and way waste is recycled the more points awarded again.
For the products a contractor submits, they must include recycled content for post consumer and post industrial. We then check this to what LEED requirements are, and continually monitor the number of points to ensure the contractor achieves at least LEED Silver status. Each of the products were determined during contract negotiations as to whether they should be suing recycled material or not. If they submit something that is not up to the required standard, we reject that product, which happens quite a lot, and the contractor must source a product that meets the required recycled content at their own cost.
They know this during tendering so the contractor takes it on risk really. But several times they submit items below the required standard for LEED v4, I think they definitely try and sneak it in without us noticing to save cost on their end.