Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Life Cycle Assessment of Vanier Residence in University of British Columbia Shiu, Laurent Mar 27, 2009

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Vanier_Shiu,L_2.pdf [ 731.14kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0077961.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0077961-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0077961-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0077961-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0077961-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0077961-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0077961-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0077961-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0077961.ris

Full Text

Life Cycle Assessment of Vanier Residence in University of British Columbia Building Performance and Environmental Impacts  Submitted to Rob Sianchuk, B.Sc. WPP By, Laurent Shiu  March 27, 2009  Shiu II  Abstract This case study represents a portion of twelve individual buildings for the University of British Columbia (UBC). The buildings are divided into residential and academic for a functionally comparative view. Two programs: the Athena Environmental Impact Estimator (Impact Estimator or IE) and OnCenter’s OnScreen TakeOff were used to create an LC model of the Vanier Residence.  For this case study, a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted on the Vanier Residence. The LCA conducted looks into the life cycle stages of manufacturing and construction only; commissioning, maintenance and operational effects are outside the scope.  The Vanier Residential primary energy consumption is estimated to be 288.43 2  MJ/ ft . Of this, 96.23% of the primary energy comes from the material manufacturing, while 3.77% comes from the transportation. To assess the reliability of the impact assessment, a sensitivity analysis ±10% was then conducted for the five largest material quantities. Consequently, concrete was found to be the major contributor in all environmental impact categories. To emphasize this, the environmental impacts of concrete were then compared as a function of the whole residence. It was found that the use of concrete as a percentage of the building, generates 89.56% ozone depletion, 72.8% acidification potential, 72.02% weighted resource use and 65.4% smog potential. Lastly, the building was assessed for operation energy reduction by upgrading the insulation with polyisocyanurate and calculating an energy payback period, which was 14 years.  The significance of developing an LCA model of Vanier Residence is explored in this case study, with future design implications and modeling methods discussed.  Shiu III  Table of Content 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Case Study Building Description.............................................................................. 1 2.0 Goal of Study ................................................................................................................ 2 3.0 Scope of Study .............................................................................................................. 3 4.0 Tools, Methodology and Data....................................................................................... 4 5.0 Building Model ............................................................................................................. 6 5.1 Takeoffs .................................................................................................................... 6 5.1.1 Foundation ......................................................................................................... 7 5.1.2 Floors ................................................................................................................. 7 5.1.3 Wall.................................................................................................................... 8 5.1.4 Roof.................................................................................................................... 8 5.1.5 Stairs .................................................................................................................. 9 5.1.6 Extra Base Material............................................................................................ 9 5.2 Bill of Material.......................................................................................................... 9 6.0 Summary Measure ...................................................................................................... 11 6.1 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................ 13 7.0 Building Performance ................................................................................................. 15 8.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 20 References......................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A: EIE Inputs.................................................................................................... 23 Appendix B: EIE Assumptions......................................................................................... 46 Appendix C: Summary Measures ..................................................................................... 56 Appendix D: British Columbia Building Code................................................................. 57 Appendix E: Concrete Block Versus Wood ..................................................................... 58 Appendix F: Energy Modeling ......................................................................................... 60  List of Figures Figure 1: Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................................... 13 Figure 2: Concrete Versus Wood Frame (A).................................................................... 14 Figure 3: Concrete Versus Wood Frame (B) .................................................................... 15 Figure 4 Monthly Energy Consumption ........................................................................... 16 Figure 5: Building Performance - Payback Period ........................................................... 17 Figure 6: Top View of Brick Plaster Column.................................................................. 55  List of Tables Table 1 Building Characteristic .......................................................................................... 2 Table 2 Bill of Materials ................................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Percentage Impacts Per Assembly Group........................................................... 12 Table 4: Normalized Concrete Impacts of Whole Building ............................................. 13 Table 5: Improved Insulation Environmental Impacts ..................................................... 17 Table 6: Residence Aggregated Summary Measures ....................................................... 18  Shiu  1  1.0 Introduction Worldwide- residential, commercial and institutional buildings play a major role in resource consumption. Consequently, environmental impacts from building material manufacture and production can be tied in as well. With the diminishing discovery of unscathed resources and increase awareness of environmental issues, it has pushed new designers and developers into sustainable and improved construction practices, mainly in the area of material choice. This case study investigates the design implication regarding heat lost and complexities in material selections for whole buildings.  1.1 Case Study Building Description The case study is Vanier Residence which is built over a time period of 19591961 with a further expansion in 1968. Given the limited timeframe the expansion was not modeled. The Residence of interest consists of twelve building over a surface area of 600,000 ft2 and contains 1,370 beds. Room size varies from 108 ft2 and 194 ft2 respectively. The building names of interest are as followed:  Co-ed Houses: Cariboo, Hamber, Okanagan, Sherwood Lett, Tweedsmuir, and Mawdsley Women’s Houses: Kootenay and Ross Men’s Houses: Mackenzie and Robson  The facilities in each house include a study area, dining room, fitness room, and game room. Outside these building, a tennis and basketball court is located conveniently in the middle of the residence. The Residence is divided into three different building units: Building A, Building B with lounges and Building C with lounges and elevators. Each Vanier Residence contains a basement, ground, second, third and fourth floor with a building footprint of  Shiu 4844 ft2 and 4991 ft2 (Unit B) respectively. The ten residential buildings modeled in this report excludes the common block. A building description is shown as followed:  Table 1 Building Characteristic Building System Structure  Specific Characteristics of Vanier  Floors  Basement: Concrete slab on grade; Ground, First, Second, Third and Fourth Floors: Suspended slabs Basement: Cast in place; Ground, Second, Third and Fourth Floors: Concrete tilt up with brick - concrete cladding, extruded polystyrene, polyethylene 3mil, 5/8" plaster and aluminum frame doors Basement, Ground, First, Second, Third and Fourth Floors: Concrete tilt up walls and brick plaster wall with aluminum frame doors.  Exterior Walls  Interior Walls  Mainly concrete, with concrete bearing wall supporting the suspended slab  Windows  All windows are aluminum frame with a wood stud window sill. Roof  Main Roof: 20 year bonded built up roof with precast trellis beam over hang. Insulation include polystyrene expanded  2.0 Goal of Study This LCA of the Vanier Residence at the University of British Columbia was carried out as an exploratory study to determine the environmental impact of its design. This LCA of the Vanier Residence is also part of a series of twelve others being carried out simultaneously on respective buildings at UBC with the same goal and scope.  The main outcomes of this LCA study are the establishment of a materials inventory and environmental impact references for the Vanier buildings. Exemplary applications of these references are in the assessment of potential future performance upgrades to the structure and envelope of the Vanier residence. When this study is considered in conjunction with the twelve other UBC building LCA studies, further applications include the possibility of carrying out environmental performance comparisons across UBC buildings over time and between different materials, structural types and building functions. Furthermore, as demonstrated through these potential  2  Shiu  3  applications, this Vanier residence LCA can be seen as an essential part of the formation of a powerful tool to help inform the decision making process of policy makers in establishing quantified sustainable development guidelines for future UBC construction, renovation and demolition projects.  The intended core audiences of this LCA study are those involved in building development related policy making at UBC, such as the Sustainability Office, who are involved in creating policies and frameworks for sustainable development on campus. Other potential audiences include developers, architects, engineers and building owners involved in design planning, as well as external organizations such as governments, private industry and other universities whom may want to learn more or become engaged in performing similar LCA studies within their organizations.  3.0 Scope of Study The product system being studied in this LCA are the structure, envelope and operational energy usage associated with space conditioning of the Vanier Residential on a square foot finished floor area of residence building basis. In order to focus on design related impacts, this LCA encompasses a cradle-to-gate scope that includes the raw material extraction, manufacturing of construction materials and construction of the structure and envelope of the Vanier Residence, as well as associated transportation effects throughout.  Shiu  4  4.0 Tools, Methodology and Data Two main software tools are to be utilized to complete this LCA study; OnCenter’s OnScreen TakeOff and the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute’s Impact Estimator (IE) for buildings.  The study will first undertake the initial stage of a materials quantity takeoff, which involves performing linear, area and count measurements of the building’s structure and envelope. To accomplish this, OnScreen TakeOff version 3.6.2.25 is used, which is a software tool designed to perform material takeoffs with increased accuracy and speed in order to enhance the bidding capacity of its users. Using imported digital plans, the program simplifies the calculation and measurement of the takeoff process, while reducing the error associated with these two activities. The measurements generated are formatted into the inputs required for the IE building LCA software to complete the takeoff process. These formatted inputs as well as their associated assumptions can be viewed in Appendix A and B respectively.  Using the formatted takeoff data, version 4.0.51 of the IE software, the only available software capable of meeting the requirements of this study, is used to generate a whole building LCA model for the Vanier residence in the Vancouver region as a residential building type. The IE software is designed to aid the building community in making more environmentally conscious material and design choices. The tool achieves this by applying a set of algorithms to the inputted takeoff data in order to complete the takeoff process and generate a bill of materials (BoM). This BoM then utilizes the Athena Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database, version 4.6, in order to generate a cradleto-grave LCI profile for the building. In this study, LCI profile results focus on the manufacturing and transportation of materials and their installation in to the initial structure and envelope assemblies. As this study is a cradle-to-gate assessment, the expected service life of the Vanier Residence is set to 1 year, which results in the  Shiu  5  maintenance, operating energy and end-of-life stages of the building’s life cycle being left outside the scope of assessment.  The IE then filters the LCA results through a set of characterization measures based on the mid-point impact assessment methodology developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) version 2.2. In order to generate a complete environmental impact profile for the Vanier Residence, all of the available TRACI impact assessment categories available in the IE are included in this study, and are listed as; •  Global warming potential  •  Acidification potential  •  Eutrophication potential  •  Ozone depletion potential  •  Photochemical smog potential  •  Human health respiratory effects potential  •  Weighted raw resource use  •  Primary energy consumption  Using the summary measure results, a sensitivity analysis is then conducted in order to reveal the effect of material changes on the impact profile of the Vanier Residence. Finally, using the UBC Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP) as a guide, this study then estimates the embodied energy involved in upgrading the insulation and window R-values to REAP standards and calculates the energy payback period of investing in a better performing envelope.  The primary sources of data for this LCA are the original architectural and structural drawings from when the Vanier Residence was initially constructed in 1962. The assemblies of the building that are modeled include the foundation, columns and beams, floors, walls and roofs, as well as the associated envelope and openings (ie. doors and windows) within each of these assemblies. The decision to omit other building  Shiu  6  components, such as flooring, electrical aspects, HVAC system, finishing and detailing, etc., are associated with the limitations of available data and the IE software, as well as to minimize the uncertainty of the model. In the analysis of these assemblies, some of the drawings lack sufficient material details, which necessitate the usage of assumptions to complete the modeling of the building in the IE software. Furthermore, there are inherent assumptions made by the IE software in order to generate the bill of materials and limitations to what it can model, which necessitated further assumptions to be made. These assumptions and limitation will be discussed further as they energy in the Building Model section and, as previously mentioned, all specific input related assumption are contained in the Input Assumptions document in Annex B.  5.0 Building Model The Vanier 1960 blueprints were obtained in the UBC Building Development Archives. From this, the building was modeled using two software: OnScreen, a takeoff software and Athena Environmental Impact Estimator.  The following sections describe the assumptions made in converting the material takeoff file into a suitable format for the IE software. From here a Bill of Materials was generated from the IE to be used for material assessment. The top five materials are discussed in terms of theirs assemblies and the uncertainties associated with it. Finally, the building model will be summarized as a whole life cycle stage and by assembly groups.  5.1 Takeoffs During the modeling progress there were certain challenges from the old blueprints. Readability became the sources of some issues, such as writing legibility. OnScreen was incorporated to fill in missing dimensions as well as improving takeoff efficiency. A combination of Onscreen and legible dimensions were used in our building model. From quantifying to qualifying on the IE, it was noted that some materials were  Shiu  7  not in the database. Attempts to model the material as alternative materials were incorporated into the take off file. Materials that possess modest amount or distinct attribute that were not included in IE were omitted; example of this includes light weight concrete overlay and bolts.  The Vanier Residential Building is divided into three building units with Building A as the base model. Unit C has the addition of one lounge per level with each lounge taking the place of two rooms. For Unit B, the lounges are also a factor as well an elevator installment that increases the building exterior wall and concrete foundations. Concrete specifications on fly-ash percentage were modeled using industrial averages due to missing information. Other global assumptions were made in regard to unfinished architectural drawings. For the basement plans of Unit A, three walls were included in the basement by inspections that were not mentioned in the drawings.  The main assembly assumptions are listed as follows. For a detail listing of these assumptions please refer to Appendix B.  5.1.1 Foundation The foundation of Vanier Residence is made of slab on grade. The thickness was rounded from 6” to 8” because of Athena software limitation. In this way, the over estimation would be more suitable to adjust for overlooked concrete in the building model, such as light weight concrete. Specification on the slab requires water proofing; a 6 mil polyethylene vapour barrier was chosen due to IE solitary vapour barrier selection.  5.1.2 Floors The floors consist of suspended slab with #5 Rebar. Details on flyash percentages were modeled using industrial averages due to missing data. Additionally, the suspended slabs loading and live load were unspecified. As a result, consultation from a civil  Shiu  8  engineer suggests that these values be maximized, due to weight distribution from the above floors.  5.1.3 Wall For Vanier there are two exterior and two interior walls. The two exterior wall for Vanier was limited by thickness. Correspondingly the 10” thick concrete wall was rounded up to 12,” while concrete part of the concrete brick wall was rounded down from 6” to 5 ½”. The larger area represented by the concrete brick wall is more then enough to create an underestimation in the total concrete volume in the wall, which is then compensated by the overestimation in the foundation.  Lastly an assembly for a 4” brick plaster wall was unavailable in IE. The brick plaster wall was modeled by tons with the plaster omitted.  5.1.4 Roof The roof was modeled as a concrete suspended slab roof. It was assume that the light weight concrete overlay is equivalent to concrete topping. As discussed, this concrete will be compensated by the foundation. The specification for the roof loading was unspecified. Contrary to this, a civil engineer was consulted for the possible loading specification. The loading was minimize because no structural integrity was intended for public use.  The upper and lower roof both contains a precast trellis beam overhang. This beam over hang was superimposed as a roofing assembly due to its similarities to a concrete precast double T roof.  Shiu  9  5.1.5 Stairs The stairs were modeled as concrete footing foundation for consistency between the residential in UBC. This assumption was made because the stairwell is used only for walking such that no possessions are meant to be located on the stairwells. Consequently, a lower grade concrete can be used; for this case, concrete footing foundation was selected based on the minimal load requirements.  5.1.6 Extra Base Material The extra base material was used to model some building components that were not included in IE. One example was acoustic T. OH Gypsum which was model as gypsum board. Another structure was the column supporting the lower roof over hang. The columns were divided into concrete and brick volume. For the brick, this volume was then multiplied into tons in order to be inputted into IE.  5.2 Bill of Material Using the IE inputs developed from the takeoffs a Bill of Materials (BoM – Table 2) was generated in the IE. Looking at the largest five materials, we can associate it with the walls which compose of Concrete 60 Mpa, polyethylene, regular gypsum board and polyethylene. A close second is concrete 20 Mpa which is the slab on grade and the roofing material.  The Concrete 20 Mpa was overestimated due to limitation in thickness in IE. The thickness of 6” was rounded to 8” and consequently an over estimation in thickness is about 33.3%. Since the concrete is specified in volume this over estimation results in an error of concrete volume by an equivalent amount, 33.3%. This amount is offset by the reduction in 6”concrete in the exterior wall to 5 ½”. Despite this, it is believe that the overall concrete volume is slightly overestimated. On the other hand, concrete 60 Mpa  Shiu 10 refers to suspended slab and has an arbitrary thickness. It is believe that this number is an over estimation since suspended slab requirement is tougher then slab on grade which suggest a thickness greater then 6”. Table 2 Bill of Materials Material 3 mil Polyethylene 5/8" Regular Gypsum Board 6 mil Polyethylene Aluminum Batt. Fiberglass Brick Type 2 Cold Rolled Sheet Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) Concrete 60 MPa (flyash av) Concrete Brick EPDM membrane Expanded Polystyrene Extruded Polystyrene Glazing Panel Joint Compound Mortar Nails Paper Tape Rebar, Rod, Light Sections Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, Green Softwood Plywood Standard Glazing Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire  Quantity 191671.8242 91218.90872 335813.899 101.1286 3391.500439 7773.4056 1.027 274361.9566 280.4655529 381319.2869 57464.35118 9651.539765 48489.15831 82946.08361 62.9694 8.1283 3500.594606 2435.2574 0.0933 658.219 328.9843737 12492.2145 75452.26853 26.7728  Unit ft2 ft2 ft2 Tonnes ft2 ( 1in) Tonnes Tonnes ft3 ft3 ft3 ft2 lbs ft2 (1in) ft2 (1in) Tonnes Tonnes ft3 Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes ft3 ft2 ( 1in) ft2 Tonnes  For the polyethylene it was noted that 6 mil polyethylene has a area of 335813.9 ft2 while 3mil polyethylene has 191671.82 ft2. Knowing that the 6 mil polyethylene comes only from the slab on grade and that this area is smaller then the exterior wall covered by the 3 mil polyethylene it shows a significantly larger waste factor associated with the 6 mil polyethylene.  Shiu 11  6.0 Summary Measure Based on the assemblies inputted into the IE, the Summary Measures were generated in Appendix C. Looking at the primary energy consumption Vanier Residential is estimated to consume 288.43 MJ/ ft2. Of this energy consumption, material constitute for 96.23% of the energy consumption with 3.77% resulting from transportation. The percentages of these total impact categories were then divided by assembly group Table 3 to show the sources of the impacts. In this case, the walls and floors were the main components to these impacts with 78% of the embodied energy consumptions.  One of the major assumptions made was modeling the 4” brick plaster interior walls as Brick in tons and omitting the plaster. Because of this, there is a significant underestimation in terms of plaster content.  To check the reliability of the final results and conclusion the uncertainties in the data were verified by a sensitivity analysis of ±10% of individual materials. The materials that were chosen were based on the largest quantity in volume, weight, and area (Table 2).  Shiu 12 Table 3: Percentage Impacts Per Assembly Group Material ID Primary Energy Consumption MJ Weighted Resource Use kg Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq / kg) Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq / kg) HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC11 eq / kg) Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / kg)  Foundations  Walls  Roofs  Extra Basic Material  Floors  7.27  75.48  2.54  14.67  0.31  23.31  38.59  5.78  32.19  0.13  11.62  63.44  3.02  21.85  0.07  13.16  59.50  3.25  24.02  0.08  11.60  63.54  3.02  21.79  0.07  6.13  79.59  1.95  12.28  0.06  11.60  63.52  3.02  21.80  0.07  11.63  63.45  3.02  21.84  0.07  Shiu 13  6.1 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was conducted by individually varying the material content in the Vanier building model. A 5% waste reduction was included for polystyrene insulation due to the additional insulation added by the IE to compensate for wastes during insulation installations.  Figure 1: Sensitivity Analysis  Looking at the Sensitivity Analysis in Figure 1, concrete 20  Table 4: Normalized Concrete Impacts of Whole Building  Legend  % Concrete  % Percentage  Mpa and 60 Mpa constitute for  1  1.900  19.003  most of the environmental impacts  2  7.202  72.024  in all categories except for  3  3.972  39.717  eutrophication, which is the least  4  7.283  72.832  impacted overall. The IE uses a  5  3.717  37.172  linear model; correspondingly, we  6  0.0382  0.382  can manually subtract 100% of the  7  8.957  89.568  quantity to determine the impact of  8  6.542  65.420  each material category. To this regard, percentage changes in impact category were divided by the percentage material change in order to calculate the net impact of the material as a function of the building impact. The concrete impacted are summarized in Table 4. From the table, concrete constitutes for more then 89.56% of ozone depletion, 72.8% acidification potential,  Shiu 14 72.02% weighted resource use and 65.4% smog potential. On the other hand brick extruded polystyrene and 5/8” regular gypsum board have almost non-existent impacts on the overall buildings. Taking a step back, and looking at the global aspects of the building. The use of concrete as the main building components has a significantly large amount of the environmental impacts of the whole building. An LCA performed in the design stage may be able swap the concrete for other equivalent materials such as steel and wood. One study compares the embodied energy, global warming potential, air emission index, water emission index and solid waste to wood substitution in concrete and steel frame. As noted by CORRIM (Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials), “all of the index measures had considerably lower environmental risk for the wood frame designs in Atlanta and Minneapolis compared to the non-wood frame designs”. There is also no regulation prohibiting such wooden framework for Vanier Housings. For the British Columbia Building Code 2006, a four storey wooden building can be built up to an area of 1800m2which is lower then the foundation area 4844 ft2 - 473 m2 (Appendix D). A rough simulation of the exterior wall in concrete block and wood stud were compared over a 60 year period in the IE and verifies CORRIM assessment (Figure 2 & 3, Appendix E).  Concrete Block Versus Wood Stud 7000 6000 5000 4000  Concrete  3000  Wood  2000 1000 0 Primary Energy Consumption MJ  Weighted Resource Use kg  Figure 2: Concrete Versus Wood Frame (A)  Shiu 15  Concrete Block Versus Wood Stud 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0  Concrete Wood  Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq / kg)  Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq / kg)  HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg)  Figure 3: Concrete Versus Wood Frame (B)  Currently the use of wood framing can be done, but is not widely use due to public concerns on earthquakes stability, fire rating and environmental protection. For a full spectrum in wall equivalency, an LCA swapping the concrete for a wood-concrete frame will require additional expertise that is out of the scope of this report. Nether less, the sensitivity analysis shows the large impacts in using concrete. With the embodied energy from manufacturing and construction quantified, we can begin to look at operational energy over time.  7.0 Building Performance In order to reduce operational energy the building was assessed for new insulation and new windows to meet UBC REAP standards.  Residential Environmental Assessment Program’s (REAP’s) insulation requirements; •  EA 1.1; Roof – minimum R-40  •  EA 1.2; Exterior Wall Insulation – minimum R-18  •  EA 1.3; Energy Star Windows – minimum R-3.2  Shiu 16 To meet these standards, 1” and 4.34” polysocyanurate was added to the walls and roof respectively. The windows were upgraded from standard glazing single to Low E silver argon filled glazing (3mm glass with 1/2" airspace). The energy loss was then modeled using the following formula with average historical temperature taken from the Civil 498 database for consistency. The results were shown in Appendix Figure 4.  Energy Equation: Q = (1/R) x A x ∆T  Assembly Exterior Wall 10"C Window Exterior Wall 6"C 4"B Window Roof Weighted Average  Area (ft2) 2903.75 101.2695313 12667.08333 2175.744792 4407 22254.84766  R-Value (ft2.degF.h/BTU) 'Current' Building 'Improved' Building 11.23 18 1.68 3.75 12.32 18 1.68 3.75 8.765 40 10.39 20.90  Mega-joules Loss  Monthly Heating Loss 60,000.00 50,000.00 40,000.00 30,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 0.00  Current Improve  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Months  Figure 4 Monthly Energy Consumption  The energy modeled showed that the improve insulation had reduced the energy loss by about 50%, but because we have chosen energy intensive materials, the initial embodied energy will be greater and will be paid off in time. Using the IE, the building was modeled for the insulated and improved insulated case for a span of 80 years. For this case, the payback period was fourteen years as shown in Figure 5.  Shiu 17  30000 25000 20000 Current  15000  Improved  10000 5000 77  70  63  56  49  42  35  28  21  14  7  0 0  Energy Consumption (GJ)  Building Perform ance  Years  Figure 5: Building Performance - Payback Period  As well as the cost of embodied energy the cost of improved insulation will also cause additional environmental consequences. Currently these environmental impacts are unregulated and unaccounted for in insulation design. These environmental impacts will have to be accounted for in future insulation sizing. For this case the additional polyisocyanurate environmental impacts are summed up in Table 5. Table 5: Improved Insulation Environmental Impacts  Impact Catagory  Difference  Primary Energy Consumption MJ  2481491.63  Weighted Resource Use kg  145631.92  Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq / kg)  249239.69  Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq / kg)  50511.79  HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / kg)  185.072 0.24 0.00021 326.46  It is important to understand that environmental designs were almost non-existent in historical buildings due to limited awareness. Presently, these environmental costs are still largely unpaid for and are steadily increasing as a result of a one sided view in  Shiu 18 operating savings. The other residential building and their higher embodied effects is believed to follow the same one sided view, which explains the increasing trend in the residence energy consumption per square feet. A study into 1970s and modern home built to R2000 standards show that a relatively small increase in embodied material effects are more than offset by significant reductions in related operating energy burdens (Meil 2002). For the residences, it appears that the same tradeoff is being made (Table 6); further studies will be needed to verify this claim. By looking into the impacts of differing insulation it can provide guidelines in benchmarking insulation materials in terms of environmental friendless. In the case of Vanier Residence, the additional insulation could be added on top of the insulated area, while windows, it may be better leave untouched due to the cost in un-installment and installment of the new windows. Table 6: Residence Aggregated Summary Measures  Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  Vanier  Totem  Gage  Fariview  Thunder bird  MarineDr ive  1968  1964  1972  1985  1995  2005  MJ  288.43  404.14  328.49  282.91  495.45  963.82  460.54  kg (kg CO2 eq / kg) (moles of H+ eq / kg) (kg PM2.5 eq / kg) (kg N eq / kg) (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) (kg NOx eq / kg)  116.42  196.50  182.15  99.98  182.69  597.22  229.16  20.11  29.56  25.64  16.74  28.40  77.88  33.05  3.66  10.13  10.65  7.03  6.10  27.03  10.77  0.05  0.08  0.13  0.09  0.07  0.26  0.12  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.06  0.14  0.18  0.09  0.10  0.42  0.16  Units  It is inherent that most decisions logistically are determined by cost factors. As a contractor do you lower your material quality to reduce your bid cost? Or do you increase your cost at risk of losing your bid? This financial cost for contractors can be easily diverted by differing this cost to the owner. One method that differ these cost are the use  Average  Shiu 19 of green labeling which provides incentives for owners to reduce their building ecological footprint, which will appeal to the market and offer a return in investment in subsequent years.  To conclude, the cost of improved insulation will require a pay back period of fourteen years and additional environmental impacts; following this, a return on investment will occur in future years. To make this tradeoff on environmental impacts and cost, a LCA practitioner can help owners make informed decisions.  Shiu 20  8.0 Conclusion An LCA study was conducted on Vanier Residence which constitute from ten buildings. The product system in the LCA of Vanier encompasses a cradle-to-gate scope that results in a 96.23% energy consumption that arises from the material manufacturing effects with 3.77% resulting from transportation effects. Because of the large consumption of energy that arises from the material manufacturing, the production of material becomes a significant concern in impact assessment. By setting comparative standards for the all the impact categories: primary energy consumption, weighted resource use, global warming potential, acidification potential, HH respiratory effects, ozone depletion potential smog potential and eutrophication potential. LCA practitioners can begin to make trade-off between materials for assembly use.  From the assessment, it was discovered that there is a large impact that arises from the main structure of the building; for this case, it was concrete. An overview comparing wood and concrete exterior wall shows that the environmental impacts resulting from concrete use is much larger then a wood frame in terms of global warming potential, acidification potential and primary energy use. This implication suggests that we look into alternative materials that offer the same structural integrity as concrete but offer a lower impact across all the impact categories. Development for future green practices should start on the largest material impact in order to reduce the impact of the overall buildings.  For Vanier Residence a sensitivity analysis was conducted to see the significance of a ±10% change in five of the largest material quantities. The tables point out that concrete is the largest contributor in most categories. Since the IE uses a linear modeling of impact assessment, the normalized result showed that concrete constitutes for more then 89.56% of ozone depletion, 72.8% acidification potential, 72.02% weighted resource use and 65.4% smog potential as a percentage of the whole building. The implications of alternative materials such as wood or steel frame were discussed. A summary of the  Shiu 21 impacts comparing wood and concrete frame work show that a wood frame can reduce the ecological footprint of Vanier.  Lastly, the building performance was assessed for operational usage by upgrading the insulation to REAP standards. •  EA 1.1; Roof – minimum R-40  •  EA 1.2; Exterior Wall Insulation – minimum R-18  •  EA 1.3; Energy Star Windows – minimum R-3.2  To meet REAP standards the installation of polyisocyanurate insulation was used. On assessment, polyisocyanurate insulation offers a fourteen year embodied energy payback period with an increase in environmental impacts. This LCA on Vanier Residence explores the uses of alternative framing material as well as materials for improve envelope performance. The discussion signifies the importance of additional research into material selection for reduce environmental impacts. Future guidelines on environmental impacts amounts would do well in limiting impacts from buildings by pushing more sustainable designs. In addition, further comparison on cost will be needed to accompany the environmental impacts in order to select the most appropriate materials for our buildings.  Shiu 22  References British Columbia Building Code 2006. Ministry of Forest and Range and Minister responsible for Housing. Div 3 – Part 3 pg 91. CORRIM Report on Environmental Performance Measures for Renewable Building Materials. Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials. 2005. College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington. Retrieved on March 24, 2009. http://www.corrim.org/factsheets/fs_02/index.asp  Environmental management – Life cycle assessment- Principles and framework. December 2006. National Standard of Canada CAN/CSA-ISO 14040:06  Environmental management – Life cycle assessment- Requirements and guidelines. December 2006. National Standard of Canada CAN/CSA-ISO 14044:06  Meil, Jamie. 2002. A Life Cycle Environmental Impact Comparison of 1970s & R2000 House Designs. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Retrieved on March 13, 2009.<www.athenasmi.ca/publications/docs/Athena%20Inst%20R2000%20comp ariso.pdf> Grech, Rog. 2008. Warming up to certified kiln-dried lumber. The Working Forest. Retrieved on February 17, 2009 < http://www.workingforest.com/content/warming-certified-kiln-dried-lumber>  Shiu 23  Appendix A: EIE Inputs ATHENA® Environmental Impact Estimator Typical Floor (234)  General Descriptio n Project Name  Vanier  Project Location Building Life Expectancy  UBC 1  Building Type Operating Energy Consumption Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Residential N/A  Assembly Name  Input Fields  Input Values Known/Measu red  2 Floors  IE Inputs  2.1 Suspended Slab 2.1.1 - Suspended Slab 4 1/2" Roof Width (ft)  58.67  58.67  Span (ft)  58.67  58.67  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  2.2.2 - Suspended Slab 5" Roof Width (ft)  24.88  24.88  Span (ft)  24.88  24.88  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  2.2.3 - Suspended Slab 6" Roof Width (ft)  10.2  10.2  Span (ft)  10.2  10.2  Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Live Load (psf) 3 Custom  9000 average 100  Shiu 24 Wall 3.2 Concrete Tilt Up 3.1.2 - Exterior 6" Concrete 4" Brick Wall Type  Exterior  Length (ft)  363  363  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  6"  5 1/2"  Exterior  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash % Rebar Status Number of window units  Opening Types Envelope  Frame Type Glazing Type (double pane glazings) Envelope Category  Avg 8  6  Operable  Operable  31 Aluminum Frame  31 Average  -  Standard Glazing  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness  Gypsum Board Plaster 5/8  Envelope Category  Insulation  Envelope Material  Styrofoam  Thickness Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Polystyrene Extruded  1"  1"  Cladding Brick  Brick - Concrete  4"  -  3.1.3 - Interior 6" Concrete Wall Type  Exterior  Length (ft)  289  289  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  6  5 1/2"  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash % Rebar Door Type Door # Envelope  Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness  Exterior  Avg 8 Aluminum Frame  5 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  27  27  Water proof  Vapour Barrier polyethylene 3 mil  Shiu 25  3.2 Extra Material 3.2.1 - Interior 4" Brick Plaster Envelope Material  Brick Plaster 4"  Brick Type 2  673.2963  673.2963  Weight (Tons) 3.2 Wood Stud 3.2.1 Window Sill Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length  74.6  74.6  Height  4  4  Sheathing Type  Plywood  Plywood  Stud Spacing  25 o.c.  Stud Type Stud Thickness  Green Lumber 2x6  2x6  Inputs to Model Single Unit A  General Descriptio n Project Name  Vanier  Project Location Building Life Expectancy  UBC 1  Building Type Operating Energy Consumption Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Residential -TBA-  Assembly Name  Input Fields  Input Values Known/Measu red  IE Inputs  1 Foundatio n 1.1 Concrete Slab on Grade 1.1.1 - Concrete Slab on Grade 6" Length (ft)  69.27481505  69.27481505  Width (ft)  69.27481505  69.27481505  Thickness (in)  6  8  Concrete (psi)  3000  3000  Shiu 26 Concrete Flyash % Define Envelop  average  Category Material  Vapour barrier Water proof  polyethylene  Thickness 2 Floors  6 mil -  2.1 Suspended Slab 2.1.1 - Suspended Slab 4 1/2" Roof Width (ft)  118.6296759  118.6296759  Span (ft)  118.6296759  118.6296759  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  Extra basic Material (ceiling) Envelope Category Envelope Material Area  Gypsum Board 3/4" Acoustic T. OH Gypsum  5/8" Regular Gypsum Board  323  323  Envelope Category  Insulation  323  Envelope Material  Batt. Fiberglass  Batt. Fiberglass  323  323  Roof Width (ft)  49.65883607  49.65883607  Span (ft)  49.65883607  49.65883607  Area 2.1.2 - Suspended Slab 5"  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  2.1.3 - Suspended Slab 6" Roof Width (ft)  20.39607805  20.39607805  Span (ft)  20.39607805  20.39607805  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  3 Custom Wall 3.1 Cast In Place 3.1.1 - Exterior 10" Concrete Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  345  345  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  10  Concrete Concrete Flyash %  12 9000 Avg  Shiu 27  Reinforcement Door Type Door # Status Number of window units  Opening Types Envelope  Frame Type Glazing Type (double pane glazings) Envelope Category  Aluminum Frame  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  4  4  Inoperable  Inoperable  9 Aluminum Frame  9 Average  -  Standard Glazing  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness Envelope Category  Gypsum Board Plaster  Gypsum Regular  5/8  5/8"  Insulation Styrofoam  Polystyrene Extruded  1"  1"  Cladding  -  3.2 Concrete Tilt Up 3.2.1 - Exterior 6" Concrete 4" Brick Wall Type  Exterior  Length (ft)  1505  1505  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  6"  5 1/2"  Exterior  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash % Rebar Door Type Door # Status Number of window units  Opening Types Envelope  Frame Type Glazing Type (double pane glazings) Envelope Category  Avg 8 Aluminum Frame  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  3  3  Inoperable  Inoperable  123 Aluminum Frame  123 Average  -  Standard Glazing  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness  Gypsum Board Plaster 5/8  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Shiu 28 Envelope Category  Insulation  Envelope Material  Styrofoam  Thickness  Polystyrene Extruded  1"  Envelope Category  1"  Cladding  Envelope Material  Brick  Thickness  Brick - Concrete  4"  -  3.2.2 - Interior 6" Concrete Wall Type  Exterior  Length (ft)  1439  1439  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  6  5 1/2"  Exterior  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash %  Avg  Rebar  8 Aluminum Frame  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  121  121  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Door Type Door # Envelope  Envelope Category Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  3.3 Extra Material 3.3.1 - Interior 4" Brick Plaster Envelope Material Weight (Tons) Unit A, C  Brick Plaster 4"  Brick Type 2  673.2963  673.2963  Weight (Tons) Unit B  643.8447  643.8447  3.4 Wood Stud 3.4.1 Window Sill Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length  29.91  29.91  Height  29.91  29.91  Sheathing Type  Plywood  Plywood  Stud Spacing  25 o.c.  Stud Type  Green Lumber  Stud Thickness  2x6  2x7  4 Roof 4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof 4.1.1 Upper Roof Floor/roof width (ft)  68.16  68.16  Span (ft)  68.16  68.16  Live load (psia)  -  45  Concrete (psi)  -  3000  Shiu 29  Type  Define Envelope  Bonded Built Up Roof  Concrete Suspended Slab Roof  Flyash %  average  Category  Insulation  Material  Rigid Insulation  Polystyrene Expanded  1"  1"  594  594  Span (ft)  1  1  Live load (psia)  -  45  Concrete (psi)  -  3000  Flyash %  -  average  Thickness 4.1.2 Lower Roof Floor/roof width (ft)  4.2 Concrete Precast Double T Roof 4.2.1 Upper Roof Overhang Type Number of Bays  Precast Trellis Beam  Precast Double T Roof  25  594  5.083333333  5.083333333  Span (ft)  1  1  Live Load With or W/out Concrete Topping  -  45  With  With  Bay Size (ft)  4.2.2 Lower Roof Overhang Type Number of Bays  Precast Double T Roof  16  16  3.833333333  3.833333333  0.5  0.5  -  45  With  With  Length (ft)  73  73  Width (ft)  4.1666  4.1666  Thickness  6  7.5  Bay Size (ft) Span (ft) Live Load With or W/out Concrete Topping  5 Stairs  Precast Trellis Beam  5.1 Concrete Footing Foundation 5.1.1 Stairs  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash % Rebar 6 Column 6.1 Extra Basic Materials  Avg 5  5  Shiu 30  6.1.1 Column Core Concrete (yd3) 3000 psi, Average Flyash  4.09  4.09  Concrete Brick (Ton)  673.2963  673.2963  6.1.2 Brick Plaster 4"  Inputs to Model Single Unit B  General Descriptio n Project Name  Vanier  Project Location Building Life Expectancy  UBC 1  Building Type Operating Energy Consumption Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Residential -TBA-  Assembly Name  Input Fields  Input Values Known/Measu red  IE Inputs  1 Foundatio n 1.1 Concrete Slab on Grade 1.1.1 - Concrete Slab on Grade 6" Length (ft)  70.328  70.328  Width (ft)  70.328  70.328  Thickness (in)  6  8  Concrete (psi)  3000  3000  Concrete Flyash % Define Envelop  average  Category Material  Vapour barrier Water proof  Thickness 2 Floors  polyethylene 6 mil  2.1 Suspended Slab 2.1.1 - Suspended Slab 4 1/2" Roof Width (ft)  118.6296759  118.6296759  Span (ft)  118.6296759  118.6296759  Shiu 31 Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  Extra basic Material (ceiling) Envelope Category  Gypsum Board 3/4" Acoustic T. OH Gypsum  5/8" Regular Gypsum Board  323  323  Envelope Category  Insulation  323  Envelope Material  Batt. Fiberglass  Batt. Fiberglass  323  323  Roof Width (ft)  49.65883607  49.65883607  Span (ft)  49.65883607  49.65883607  Envelope Material Area  Area 2.2.2 - Suspended Slab 5"  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  2.2.3 - Suspended Slab 6" Roof Width (ft)  23.73  23.73  Span (ft)  23.73  23.73  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  3 Custom Wall 3.1 Cast In Place 3.1.1 - Exterior 10" Concrete Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  345  345  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  10  12  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash %  Avg  Reinforcement Door Type Door # Status Number of window units Frame Type Glazing Type (double pane glazings) Opening Types  Envelope Category  Aluminum Frame  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  4  4  Inoperable  Inoperable  9 Aluminum Frame  9 Average  -  Standard Glazing  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Shiu 32  Envelope  Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness  Gypsum Board Plaster  Gypsum Regular  5/8  5/8"  Envelope Category  Insulation  Envelope Material  Styrofoam  Polystyrene Extruded  1"  1"  Cladding  -  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  1675.625  1675.625  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  6"  5 1/2"  Thickness Envelope Category 3.2 Concrete Tilt Up 3.2.1 - Exterior 6" Concrete 4" Brick  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash % Rebar Door Type Door # Status Number of window units Frame Type Glazing Type (double pane glazings) Envelope Category Opening Types Envelope  Avg 8 Aluminum Frame  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  3  3  Inoperable  Inoperable  123 Aluminum Frame  123 Average  -  Standard Glazing  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  Envelope Category Envelope Material  Gypsum Board Plaster  Gypsum Regular  5/8  5/8"  Envelope Category  Insulation  Envelope Material  Styrofoam  Polystyrene Extruded  1"  1"  Cladding  -  Brick  Brick - Concrete  4"  -  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  1471.5  1471.5  Thickness  Thickness Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness 3.2.2 - Interior 6" Concrete  Shiu 33  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  6  5 1/2"  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash % Rebar Door Type Door # Envelope  Envelope Category  Avg 8 Aluminum Frame  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  121  121  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  3.3 Extra Material 3.3.1 - Interior 4" Brick Plaster Envelope Material Weight (Tons)  Brick Plaster 4"  Brick Type 2  643.8447  643.8447  Interior  Interior  29.91  29.91  3.4 Wood Stud 3.4.1 Window Sill Wall Type Length Height Sheathing Type  29.91  29.91  Plywood  Plywood  Stud Spacing  25 o.c.  Stud Type Stud Thickness  Green Lumber 2x6  2x7  4407  4407  4 Roof 4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof 4.1.1 Upper Roof Floor/roof width (ft) Span (ft)  1  1  Live load (psia)  -  45  Concrete (psi)  -  3000 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof  Type  Define Envelope  Bonded Built Up Roof  Flyash %  average  Category  Insulation  Material  Rigid Insulation  Polystyrene Expanded  1"  1"  Thickness 4.1.2 Lower Roof Floor/roof width (ft)  594  594  Span (ft)  1  1  Live load (psia)  -  45  Shiu 34 Concrete (psi)  -  3000  Flyash %  -  average  4.2 Concrete Precast Double T Roof 4.2.1 Upper Roof Overhang Type Number of Bays  Precast Trellis Beam  Precast Double T Roof  25  594  5.083333333  5.083333333  Span (ft)  1  1  Live Load With or W/out Concrete Topping  -  45  With  With  Bay Size (ft)  4.2.2 Lower Roof Overhang Type Number of Bays  Precast Trellis Beam  Precast Double T Roof  16  16  3.833333333  3.833333333  0.5  0.5  -  45  With  With  Length (ft)  73  73  Width (ft)  4.1666  4.1666  Thickness  6  7.5  Bay Size (ft) Span (ft) Live Load With or W/out Concrete Topping 5 Stairs 5.1 Concrete Footing Foundation 5.1.1 Stairs  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash % Rebar  Avg 5  5  Concrete (yd3) 3000 psi, Average Flyash  4.09  4.09  Concrete Brick (Ton)  588.623  588.623  6 Column 6.1 Extra Basic Materials 6.1.1 Column Core  6.1.2 Brick Plaster 4"  Shiu 35  Inputs to Model Single Unit C  General Descriptio n Project Name  Vanier  Project Location Building Life Expectancy  UBC 1  Building Type Operating Energy Consumption Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Residential -TBA-  Assembly Name  Input Fields  Input Values Known/Measu red  IE Inputs  1 Foundatio n 1.1 Concrete Slab on Grade 1.1.1 - Concrete Slab on Grade 6" Length (ft)  69.275  69.275  Width (ft)  69.275  69.275  Thickness (in)  6  8  Concrete (psi)  3000  Concrete Flyash % Define Envelop  Category Material  Vapour barrier Water proof  Thickness 2 Floors  3000 average  polyethylene 6 mil  2.1 Suspended Slab 2.1.1 - Suspended Slab 4 1/2" Roof Width (ft)  118.6296759  118.6296759  Span (ft)  118.6296759  118.6296759  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  Extra basic Material (ceiling) Envelope Category Envelope Material  Gypsum Board 3/4" Acoustic T. OH Gypsum  5/8" Regular Gypsum Board  Shiu 36 Area  323  323  Envelope Category  Insulation  323  Envelope Material  Batt. Fiberglass  Batt. Fiberglass  323  323  Roof Width (ft)  49.65883607  49.65883607  Span (ft)  49.65883607  49.65883607  Area 2.2.2 - Suspended Slab 5"  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  2.2.3 - Suspended Slab 6" Roof Width (ft)  20.4  20.4  Span (ft)  20.4  20.4  Concrete (psi)  9000  Concrete Flyash %  average  Live Load (psf)  100  3 Custom Wall 3.1 Cast In Place 3.1.1 - Exterior 10" Concrete Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  345  345  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  10  12  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash %  Avg  Reinforcement Door Type Door # Status Total opening area (ft2) Number of window units  Opening Types Envelope  Frame Type Glazing Type (double pane glazings) Envelope Category  Aluminum Frame  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  4  4  Inoperable  Inoperable  101.27  101.27  9 Aluminum Frame  9 Average  -  Standard Glazing  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness  Gypsum Board Plaster  Gypsum Regular  5/8  5/8"  Shiu 37 Envelope Category  Insulation  Envelope Material  Styrofoam  Polystyrene Extruded  1"  1"  Cladding  -  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  1505  1505  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  6"  5 1/2"  Thickness Envelope Category 3.2 Concrete Tilt Up 3.2.1 - Exterior 6" Concrete 4" Brick  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash % Rebar Door Type Door # Status Total opening area (ft2) Number of window units  Opening Types Envelope  Frame Type Glazing Type (double pane glazings) Envelope Category  Avg 8 Aluminum Frame  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  3  3  Inoperable  Inoperable  2175.75  2175.75  123 Aluminum Frame  123 Average  -  Standard Glazing  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  Envelope Category Envelope Material  Gypsum Board Plaster  Gypsum Regular  5/8  5/8"  Envelope Category  Insulation  Envelope Material  Styrofoam  Polystyrene Extruded  1"  1"  Thickness  Thickness Envelope Category  Cladding  -  Brick  Brick - Concrete  4"  -  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  1439  1439  Height (ft)  8.416666667  8.416666667  Thickness  6"  5 1/2"  Envelope Material Thickness 3.2.2 - Interior 6" Concrete  Concrete  9000  Shiu 38  Concrete Flyash % Rebar Door Type Door # Envelope  Envelope Category  Avg 8 Aluminum Frame  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  121  121  Water proof  Vapour Barrier  Envelope Material  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  3.3 Extra Material 3.3.1 - Interior 4" Brick Plaster Envelope Material Weight (Tons)  Brick Plaster 4"  Brick Type 2  673.2963  673.2963  Interior  Interior  29.91  29.91  3.4 Wood Stud 3.4.1 Window Sill Wall Type Length Height Sheathing Type  29.91  29.91  Plywood  Plywood  Stud Spacing  25 o.c.  Stud Type Stud Thickness  Green Lumber 2x6  2x7  4407  4407  4 Roof 4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof 4.1.1 Upper Roof Floor/roof width (ft) Span (ft)  1  1  Live load (psia)  -  45  Concrete (psi)  -  3000 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof  Type  Define Envelope  Bonded Built Up Roof  Flyash %  average  Category  Insulation  Material  Rigid Insulation  Polystyrene Expanded  1"  1"  594  594  Thickness 4.1.2 Lower Roof Floor/roof width (ft)  4.2 Concrete Precast Double T Roof  Span (ft)  1  1  Live load (psia)  -  45  Concrete (psi)  -  3000  Flyash %  -  average  Shiu 39 4.2.1 Upper Roof Overhang Type  Precast Trellis Beam  Bay Size (ft)  5.083333333  Precast Double T Roof 5.083333333  Span (ft)  1  1  Live Load With or W/out Concrete Topping  -  45  With  With  4.2.2 Lower Roof Overhang Type Number of Bays  Precast Trellis Beam  Precast Double T Roof  16  16  3.833333333  3.833333333  0.5  0.5  -  45  With  With  Length (ft)  73  73  Width (ft)  4.1666  4.1666  Thickness  6  7.5  Bay Size (ft) Span (ft) Live Load With or W/out Concrete Topping 5 Stairs 5.1 Concrete Footing Foundation 5.1.1 Stairs  Concrete  9000  Concrete Flyash % Rebar  Avg 5  5  Concrete (yd3) 3000 psi, Average Flyash  4.09  4.09  Concrete Brick (Ton)  588.623  588.623  6 Column 6.1 Extra Basic Materials 6.1.1 Column Core  6.1.2 Brick Plaster 4"  Shiu 40  Inputs to Model Whole Building Complex  Gener al Descri ption Project Name Project Location Building Life Expectancy Building Type Operating Energy Consumption  Vanier UBC 1 Residential  -TBAInput Values  Assem bly Group  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Input Fields Known/Mea sured (Unit A x 4)  Known/Mea sured (Unit B x 2)  Known/Mea sured (Unit C x 4)  Known/Mea sured  70.328  69.275  1609.47192 2  70.328  69.275  30  8  8  8  8  3000  3000  3000  3000  average Vapour barrier  average Vapour barrier  average Vapour barrier  average Vapour barrier  polyethylene  polyethylene  polyethylene  polyethylene  6 mil  6 mil  6 mil  6 mil  1 Found ation 1.1 Concrete Slab on Grade 1.1.1 Concrete Slab on Grade 6" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Define Envelop  Category Material Thickness  69.2748150 5 69.2748150 5  Shiu 41 2 Floors 2.1 Suspended Slab 2.1.1 Suspended Slab 4 1/2" Roof Width (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Live Load (psf)  118.629675 9 118.629675 9  118.629675 9 118.629675 9  118.629675 9 118.629675 9  9000  9000  9000  9000  average  average  average  average  100  100  100  100  Insulation 5/8" Regular Gypsum Board  Insulation 5/8" Regular Gypsum Board  Insulation 5/8" Regular Gypsum Board  Insulation  323  323  323  3230  Insulation Batt. Fiberglass  Insulation Batt. Fiberglass  Insulation Batt. Fiberglass  Insulation Batt. Fiberglass  323  323  323  3230  49.6588360 7 49.6588360 7  49.6588360 7 49.6588360 7  49.6588360 7 49.6588360 7  9000  9000  9000  9000  average  average  average  average  100  100  100  100  23.73  20.4  148.495526 7  23.73  20.4  30  9000  9000  9000  9000  average  average  average  average  100  100  100  100  4691 30  Extra basic Material (ceiling) Envelope Category Envelope Material Area Envelope Category Envelope Material Area 2.2.2 Suspended Slab 5" Roof Width (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Live Load (psf)  822 30  2.2.3 Suspended Slab 6" Roof Width (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Live Load (psf) 3 Custo m Wall 3.1 Cast In Place 3.1.1 Exterior 10" Concrete  20.3960780 5 20.3960780 5  Shiu 42  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft) Height (ft)  345 8.41666666 7  345 8.41666666 7  345 8.41666666 7  3450 8.41666666 7  Thickness  12  12  12  12  9000  9000  9000  9000  Avg  Avg  Avg  Avg  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  4  4  4  40  Status Total opening area (ft2) Number of window units  Inoperable  Inoperable  Inoperable  Inoperable  101.27  101.27  101.27  1012.7  9  9  9  90  Frame Type Glazing Type (double pane glazings) Envelope Category Envelope Material  Average  Average  Average  Average  Standard Glazing Vapour Barrier  Standard Glazing Vapour Barrier  Standard Glazing Vapour Barrier  Standard Glazing Vapour Barrier  polyethylene  polyethylene  polyethylene  polyethylene  3 mil Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular  3 mil Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular  3 mil Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular  3 mil Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular  5/8"  5/8"  5/8"  5/8"  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  1"  1"  1"  1"  -  -  -  -  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft) Height (ft)  1505 8.41666666 7  1505 8.41666666 7  1505 8.41666666 7  15050 8.41666666 7  Thickness  5 1/2"  5 1/2"  5 1/2"  5 1/2"  Concrete Concrete Flyash %  9000  9000  9000  9000  Avg  Avg  Avg  Avg  6  6  6  6  Concrete Concrete Flyash % Reinforcemen t  Door Type Door #  Opening Types Envelope  Thickness Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness Envelope Category 3.2 Concrete Tilt Up 3.2.1 Exterior 6" Concrete 4" Brick  Rebar  Shiu 43 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  3  3  3  30  Status Total opening area (ft2) Number of window units  Inoperable  Inoperable  Inoperable  Inoperable  2175.745  2175.745  2175.745  21757.45  123  123  123  1230  Frame Type Glazing Type (double pane glazings) Envelope Category Envelope Material  Average  Average  Average  Average  Standard Glazing Vapour Barrier  Standard Glazing Vapour Barrier  Standard Glazing Vapour Barrier  Standard Glazing Vapour Barrier  polyethylene  polyethylene  polyethylene  polyethylene  3 mil Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular  3 mil Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular  3 mil Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular  3 mil Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular  5/8"  5/8"  5/8"  5/8"  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  Door Type Door #  Opening Types Envelope  Thickness Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness Envelope Category Envelope Material  1"  1"  1"  1"  Brick Concrete  Brick Concrete  Brick Concrete  Brick Concrete  Thickness  -  -  -  -  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft) Height (ft)  1439 8.41666666 7  1471.5 8.41666666 7  1439 8.41666666 7  14455 8.41666666 7  Thickness  5 1/2"  5 1/2"  5 1/2"  5 1/2"  Concrete Concrete Flyash %  9000  9000  9000  9000  Avg  Avg  Avg  Avg  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  6 Aluminum exterior frame 80% glazing  3.2.2 Interior 6" Concrete  Rebar  Door Type  Envelope  Door # Envelope Category Envelope Material  121 Vapour Barrier  121 Vapour Barrier  121 Vapour Barrier  1210 Vapour Barrier  polyethylene  polyethylene  polyethylene  polyethylene  Thickness  3 mil  3 mil  3 mil  3 mil  Shiu 44 3.3 Extra Material 3.3.1 Interior 4" Brick Plaster Envelope Material  Brick Type 2  Brick Type 2  Brick Type 2  Brick Type 2  2.313  2.212  2.212  22.524  Interior  Interior  Interior  Length  29.91  29.91  29.91  Height Sheathing Type  29.91  29.91  29.91  94.5837248 2 94.5837248 2  Plywood  Plywood  Plywood  Plywood  25 o.c. Green Lumber  25 o.c. Green Lumber  25 o.c. Green Lumber  25 o.c. Green Lumber  2x7  2x7  2x7  2x7  68.16  69.23  68.16  1558.39568 7  68.16  69.23  68.16  30  45  45  45  45  3000 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof  3000 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof  3000 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof  3000 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof  Flyash %  Avg  Avg  Avg  Avg  Category  Insulation Polystyrene Expanded  Insulation Polystyrene Expanded  Insulation Polystyrene Expanded  Insulation Polystyrene Expanded  Thickness  1"  1"  1"  1"  Floor/roof width (ft)  22.67  22.67  22.67  171.309633 3  Span (ft) Live load (psia)  22.67  22.67  22.67  30  45  45  45  45  Concrete (psi)  3000  3000  3000  3000  average  average  average  average  Weight (Tons) 3.4 Wood Stud 3.4.1 Window Sill Wall Type  Stud Spacing Stud Type Stud Thickness 4 Roof 4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof 4.1.1 Upper Roof Floor/roof width (ft) Span (ft) Live load (psia) Concrete (psi)  Type Define Envelope  Material 4.1.2 Lower Roof  Flyash % 4.2 Concrete Precast Double T Roof 4.2.1 Upper Roof  Shiu 45 Overhang  Type Number of Bays  Precast Double T Roof  Precast Double T Roof  Precast Double T Roof  Precast Double T Roof  26 5.08333333 3  26 5.08333333 3  26 5.08333333 3  260 5.08333333 3  Span (ft)  1  1  1  1  Live Load With or W/out Concrete Topping  -  -  -  -  With  With  With  With  Bay Size (ft)  4.2.2 Lower Roof Overhang  Type Number of Bays  Precast Double T Roof  Precast Double T Roof  Precast Double T Roof  Precast Double T Roof  16 3.83333333 3  16 3.83333333 3  16 3.83333333 3  160 3.83333333 3  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  -  -  -  -  With  With  With  With  Length (ft)  73  73  73  730  Width (ft)  4.1666  4.1666  4.1666  4.1666  Thickness  6  7.5  7.5  7.5  9000  9000  9000  Avg  Avg  Avg  5  5  5  5  Concrete (yd3) 3000 psi, Average Flyash  4.09  4.09  4.09  40.9  Concrete Brick (Ton)  673.2963  643.8447  673.2963  6674.0598  Bay Size (ft) Span (ft) Live Load With or W/out Concrete Topping 5 Stairs 5.1 Concrete Footing Foundation 5.1.1 Stairs  Concrete Concrete Flyash % Rebar 6 Column 6.1 Extra Basic Materials 6.1.1 Column Core  6.1.2 Brick Plaster 4"  Shiu 46  Appendix B: EIE Assumptions 1. Foundation The foundation of Vanier Residence is made of slab on grade. The thickness was rounded from 6” to 8” because of Athena software limitation. This over estimation is expected to be offset by missing concrete in the custom walls.  1.1. Concrete Slab on Grade 1.1.1. Concrete Slab on Grade 6” Details on Concrete Slab on Grade were modeled using industrial averages due to missing data in concrete Flyash percentage. The thickness of the slab was rounded from 6” to 8” because of Athena software limitations. In this way the over estimation would be more suitable to adjust for overlooked concrete in the building model. A vapour barrier was selected because of waterproof specification. In Athena there is only one viable selection, consequently a 6 mil polyethylene vapour barrier was chosen.  2. Floors The floors consist of suspended slab with #5 Rebar. Details on flyash percentages were modeled using industrial averages due to missing data. Additionally, the suspended slabs loading and live load were unspecified. As a result, consultation from a civil engineer suggests that these values be maximized, due to weight distribution from the above floors.  2.1. Suspended Slab 2.1.1. Suspended Slab 4 ½” Details on Suspended Slab were modeled using industrial averages due to missing data in concrete Flyash percentage. The thickness of the slab could not be modeled due to software limitation; in this case the thickness was arbitrary. The loading of the slab was unspecified and maximized at a live load 100psf and concrete  Shiu 47 9000psi. Consultations from a civil engineer suggest that these values be maximized, due to weight distribution from the above floors. 2.1.2. Suspended Slab 5” Details on Suspended Slab were modeled using industrial averages due to missing data in concrete Flyash percentage. The thickness of the slab could not be modeled due to software limitation; in this case the thickness was arbitrary. The loading of the slab was unspecified and maximized at a live load 100psf and concrete 9000psi. Consultations from a civil engineer suggest that these values be maximized, due to weight distribution from the above floors.  2.1.3. Suspended Slab 6” Details on Suspended Slab were modeled using industrial averages due to missing data in concrete Flyash percentage. The thickness of the slab could not be modeled due to software limitation; in this case the thickness was arbitrary. The loading of the slab was unspecified and maximized at a live load 100psf and concrete 9000psi. Consultations from a civil engineer suggest that these values be maximized, due to weight distribution from the above floors.  3. Custom Wall  For Vanier there are two exterior and two interior walls. The two exterior walls for Vanier were limited by thickness. Correspondingly the 10” thick concrete wall was rounded up to 12,” while concrete part of the concrete brick wall was rounded down from 6” to 5 ½”. The larger area represented by the concrete brick wall is more then enough to create an underestimation in the total concrete volume in the wall, which is then compensated by the overestimation in the foundation.  Shiu 48  Lastly an assembly for a 4” brick plaster wall was unavailable in IE. The brick plaster wall was modeled by tons with the plaster omitted.  3.1. Cast in Place 3.1.1. Exterior 10” Concrete Details on the Exterior 10” Concrete assembly methods were not specified, consequently a choice between concrete block, cast in place and concrete tilt up was needed. In this case it is known that the exterior concrete does no include rebar. Of the available choices, only cast in place does not include a rebar option. The loading of the slab was unspecified and maximized at 9000psi and reinforced at #6 for structural integrity. The thickness of the slab was rounded from 10” to 12” because of Athena software limitations. In this way the over estimation would be more suitable to adjust for overlooked concrete in the building model. Lastly, due to missing data in concrete Flyash percentages, industrial averages were chosen.  Envelope for the wall includes 1” rigid insulation, waterproof and 5/8” plaster. Due to composition similarities the rigid insulation was modeled as polystyrene extruded while the plaster was model as regular gypsum board. A vapour barrier was selected because of waterproof specification. In Athena there is only one viable selection, consequently a 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier was chosen. Lastly window glazing type (double pane) was chosen as industrial standards due to window detailing deficits.  3.2.  Concrete Tilt Up  3.2.1. Exterior 6” Concrete 4” Brick  Shiu 49 Details on the Exterior 6” Concrete 4” Brick assembly methods were not specified, consequently a choice between concrete block, cast in place and concrete tilt up was needed. Looking at the individual assembly components, concrete block has a large degree of uncertainty due to its arbitrary values not shown to the user; the only available choices are the rebar number. As such, the concrete tilt up assembly was selected based on the degree of control given to the practitioner. The loading of the wall was unspecified and maximized at 9000psi for structural integrity, while the rebar was reduced from #8 to #6 because of AIE software limitation. The thickness of the slab was rounded from 6” to 5 1/2” due to limitation as well. In this way the under estimation would be compensated by the Exterior 12” (10” actual) Concrete in the building model. Due to missing data in concrete Flyash percentages, industrial averages were chosen. Lastly, a brick envelope was added to model the 4” brick plaster. For this scenario, there are some uncertainties in the arbitrary thickness used by the AIE software. .  Envelope for the wall includes 1” rigid insulation, waterproof and 5/8” plaster. Due to composition similarities the rigid insulation was modeled as polystyrene extruded while the plaster was model as regular gypsum board. A vapour barrier was selected because of waterproof specification. In Athena there is only one viable selection, consequently a 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier was chosen. Lastly window glazing type (double pane) was chosen as industrial standards due to window detailing deficits.  In AIE the Exterior 6” Concrete 4” Brick wall was separated into ten walls because of software errors. The software error limits the  Shiu 50 maximum number of door and window to 100. To adjust for this error the wall was divided into ten sections. In AIE the codename follow by the wall specification represents - A(area)W(number)D(number). In this way, the codename provides an additional tallying method for the user, to ensure consistency with the takeoff file.  3.2.2. Interior 6” Concrete Details on the Interior 6” Concrete assembly methods were not specified, consequently a choice between concrete block, cast in place and concrete tilt up was needed. Of the available choices, concrete block and concrete tilt up were available. Looking at the individual assembly components, concrete block has a large degree of uncertainty due to its arbitrary values not shown to the user; the only available choices are the rebar number. As such, the concrete tilt up assembly was selected based on the degree of control given to the practitioner. The loading of the wall was unspecified and maximized at 9000psi for structural integrity, while the rebar was reduced from #8 to #6 because of AIE software limitation. The thickness of the slab was rounded from 6” to 5 1/2” due to limitation as well. In this way the under estimation would be compensated by the Exterior 12” (10” actual) Concrete in the building model. Lastly, due to missing data in concrete Flyash percentages, industrial averages were chosen.  From waterproof specification a vapour barrier had to be selected. In Athena there is only one viable selection, consequently a 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier was chosen. Lastly, the aluminum frame door was modeled as aluminum exterior frame 80% Glazing because the selection contained one single aluminum frame.  Shiu 51  In AIE the Interior 6” Concrete wall was separated into ten walls because of software errors. The software error limits the maximum number of door and window to 100. To adjust for this error the wall was divided into ten sections. In AIE the codename follow by the wall specification represents - A(area)W(number)D(number). In this way, the codename provides an additional tallying method for the user, to ensure consistency with the takeoff file.  3.3. Extra Basic Material 3.3.1. Interior 4” Brick Plaster Currently in AIE there is no assembly unit for brick plaster. The brick plaster wall was modeled as brick tons by industrial averages, of 2.7 kg per brick block, while the volume of the brick block obtain from architectural drawings: 2”x 2” x 4”. In this way the brick weight was obtained by subdividing the volume of the wall by the volume of the block and multiplying by the weight. Because of a lack of IE assemblies, the plaster specifications were omitted from the modeled wall.  3.4. Wood Stud 3.4.1. Window Sill Details on the window sill show a wood stud wall assembly. The stud type was rounded from 2 x 6 to 2 x 7. The stud type was chosen as green lumber due to the main use in pre-existing buildings (The Working Forest, 2008). The stud spacing was maximized to reduce loading support, because the integrity of the window sill does not offer structural support.  4. Roof  Shiu 52 The roof was modeled as a concrete suspended slab roof. It was assume that the light weight concrete overlay is equivalent to concrete topping. As discussed, this concrete will be compensated by the foundation. The specification for the roof loading was unspecified. Contrary to this, a civil engineer was consulted for the possible loading specification. The loading was minimized because no structural integrity was intended for public use.  The upper and lower roof both contains a precast trellis beam overhang. This beam over hang was superimposed as a roofing assembly due to its similarities to a concrete precast double T roof.  4.1. Concrete Suspended Slab Roof 4.1.1. Upper Roof Currently in AIE there is no assembly for Bonded Built Up Roof in the envelope category or assembly group. A 6” Concrete layer was seen as roofing material which suggests the use of a suspended concrete slab roof, of which was chosen. The loading of the slab was unspecified and therefore minimized at 3000psi with a live load of 45 psia because no structural integrity was intended for excessive public use.  Envelope for the roof includes 1” rigid insulation or otherwise termed polystyrene expanded. The insulation equivalency is assumed.  4.1.2. Lower Roof Currently in AIE there is no assembly for Bonded Built Up Roof in the envelope category or assembly group. A 6” Concrete layer was seen as roofing material which suggests the use of a suspended concrete slab roof, of which was chosen. The loading of the slab was unspecified and therefore minimized at 3000psi with a live  Shiu 53 load of 45 psia because no structural integrity was intended for excessive public use.  Envelope for the roof includes 1” rigid insulation or otherwise termed polystyrene expanded. The insulation equivalency is assumed.  4.2. Concrete Precast Double T Roof 4.2.1. Upper Roof Overhang The precast trellis beam overhang was superimposed as a roofing assembly due to its similarities to a concrete precast double T roof. For the building model, it is believed that this assumption had to be made due to the overhang significance in material quantity. The loading of the slab was unspecified and therefore minimized at a live load of 45 psia because excessive structural integrity would not be required for weather conditions such as snow. A layer of concrete topping was included to simulate the lightweight concrete specified.  4.2.2. Lower Roof Overhang The precast trellis beam overhang was superimposed as a roofing assembly due to its similarities to a concrete precast double T roof. For the building model, it is believed that this assumption had to be made due to the overhang significance in material quantity. The loading of the slab was unspecified and therefore minimized at a live load of 45 psia because excessive structural integrity would not be required for weather conditions such as snow. A layer of concrete topping was included to simulate the lightweight concrete specified.  Shiu 54 5. Stair The stairs were modeled as concrete footing foundation for consistency between the residential in UBC. This assumption was made because the stairwell is used only for walking such that no possessions are meant to be located on the stairwells. Consequently, a lower grade concrete can be used; for this case, concrete footing foundation was selected based on the minimal load requirements.  5.1. Footings 5.1.1. Stairs The complete details of the stairs were not specified, accordingly the load was maximized at 9000psi for structural integrity. Lastly, due to missing data in concrete Flyash percentages, industrial averages were chosen.  6. Column The 26 brick plaster column was modeled as two individual parts: the column core and the brick exterior. It is noted that the column could be modeled as a tilt-up wall with brick cladding. However, in this scenario it was deemed inappropriate because of the significantly larger amount of brick to concrete ratio that is not seen in standard walls.  6.1. Extra Basic Material The extra base material was used to model some building components that were not included in IE. One example was acoustic T. OH Gypsum which was model as gypsum board. Another structure was the column supporting the lower roof over hang. The columns were divided into concrete and brick volume. For the brick, this volume was then multiplied into tons in order to be inputted into IE.  Shiu 55  Figure 6: Top View of Brick Plaster Column  6.1.1. Column Core The concrete in the column core were not specified, as a result averages in Flyash were chosen. The loading was minimized at 3000 psi because the column core is designed to hold the roof. For this case a maximum loading would be inappropriate since the roof does not function as a platform for public use. 6.1.2. 4” Brick Plaster Currently in AIE there is no assembly unit for brick plaster. The brick plaster wall was modeled as brick tons by industrial averages, of 2.7 kg per brick block, while the volume of the brick block obtain from architectural drawings: 2”x 2” x 6”. The brick plaster was model by a layer by layer basis, three blocks per layer (Refer to Figure 6). In this way the brick weight was obtained by subdividing the height of the bricks by the height of the block and multiplying by the weight. Because of a lack of construction knowledge as well as AIE assemblies, the plaster was omitted from the modeled wall and is not subsidized by standardized gypsum board.  Shiu  56  Appendix C: Summary Measures Manufacturing Vanier Residence Summary Measure Primary Energy Consumption MJ Weighted Resource Use kg  Material  Construction  Trans  Material  Trans  163,074,425 2,828,978.57 3,473,115.25 3,688,638.14  Overall  Per / ft2  Mat %  Trans %  96.23  3.77  173,065,157  288.44  69,520,351.30  91,730.51  159,551.62  83,944.40  99.75  0.25  69,855,578  116.42  Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq / kg)  11,818,531.7  4,979.49  234,452.01  6,939.14  99.90  0.099  12,064,902  20.11  Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq / kg)  2,076,594.13  1,705.58  114,140.58  2,197.044  99.82  0.18  2,194,637.3  3.66  HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg)  30,629.01  2.06  129.33  2.64  99.98  0.015  30763.04  0.052  689.047  0.012  3.20E-05  0.0169 99.996 0.00422  689.0762  0.0012  0.01086  2.05E-07  9.77E-12  34,406.98  38.48  2808.62  Eutrophication Potential eq / kg)  (kg N  Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) Smog Potential NOx eq / kg)  2.84E-07 99.995  0.005  0.010865 1.81E-08  (kg 49.06  99.77  0.23  37,303.12  0.062  Shiu 57  Appendix D: British Columbia Building Code  Shiu  58  Appendix E: Concrete Block Versus Wood Concrete  Manufacturing Material  Primary Energy Consumption MJ Weighted Resource Use kg Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq / kg) Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq / kg) HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / kg)  Construction Total  Material  5851.72  Transportation 42.65  5894.4  1168.41  1.11  560.35  Maintenance Total  Material  124.89  Transportation 307.14  432.03  1169.5  5.74  6.99  0.08  560.4  8.71  115.86  0.02  115.9  0.94  0.00  0.02  End - Of - Life Total  Material  124.89  Transportation 0.00  124.89  12.73  5.74  0.00  0.59  9.31  8.71  3.77  0.19  3.96  0.94  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.02  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.95  0.00  0.95  Operating Energy Annual Total  Total Effects  Total  13.65  Transportation 85.36  99.01  0.00  0.00  6550.31  5.74  0.31  1.94  2.25  0.00  0.00  1190.23  0.00  8.71  0.89  0.16  1.05  0.00  0.00  579.50  3.77  0.00  3.77  0.05  0.05  0.10  0.00  0.00  123.72  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.95  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.02  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.12  0.00  0.12  0.12  0.00  0.12  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  1.20  Shiu  Wood Primary Energy Consumption MJ Weighted Resource Use kg Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq / kg) Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq / kg) HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq/ kg Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / kg)  Manufacturing  Construction  Material  Transportation  Total  59  Maintenance  Material  Transport-ation  Total  Material  End - Of - Life  Transport-ation  Total  Material  Operating Energy  Transport-ation  Total  Annual  Total  765.84  34.53  800.38  54.81  222.43  277.23  54.81  0.00  54.81  0.12  5.97  6.09  0.00  0.00  558.45  0.79  559.24  6.16  5.06  11.22  6.16  0.00  6.16  0.00  0.14  0.14  0.00  0.00  24.13  0.07  24.19  4.94  0.27  5.22  4.94  0.00  4.94  0.01  0.01  0.02  0.00  0.0  6.95  0.02  6.97  2.01  0.09  2.10  2.01  0.00  2.01  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.07  0.00  0.07  0.01  0.00  0.01  0.01  0.00  0.01  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.10  0.00  0.10  0.00  0.00  0.01  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  Shiu  60  Appendix F: Energy Modeling CURRENT  Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual  Days in Month 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 30  Historical Avg. (deg C) 3.6 4.9 6.6 9.1 12.3 14.7 16.9 17.1 14.5 10.3 6.1 3.8 10.0  Temperature Historical Avg. (deg F) 38.48 40.82 43.88 48.38 54.14 58.46 62.42 62.78 58.1 50.54 42.98 38.84 49.99  Temp.Diff. (deg F) 29.52 27.18 24.12 19.62 13.86 9.54 5.58 5.22 9.90 17.46 25.02 29.16 18.02  (BTU used per month) 47,065,254.70 39,140,813.70 38,455,756.89 30,272,105.21 22,097,711.05 14,719,464.00 8,896,481.07 8,322,514.55 15,274,915.47 27,837,376.26 38,603,877.28 46,491,288.18 337,177,558.36  Energy Loss (kWh used per month) 13,793.47 11,471.04 11,270.27 8,871.88 6,476.20 4,313.85 2,607.30 2,439.09 4,476.64 8,158.33 11,313.68 13,625.25 98,816.99  (MJ used per month) 49,656.47 41,295.75 40,572.97 31,938.76 23,314.32 15,529.86 9,386.28 8,780.72 16,115.89 29,369.99 40,729.25 49,050.91 355,741.17  Shiu  61  IMPROVED  Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual  Days in Month 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 30  Historical Avg. (deg C) 3.6 4.9 6.6 9.1 12.3 14.7 16.9 17.1 14.5 10.3 6.1 3.8 10.0  Temperature Historical Avg. (deg F) 38.48 40.82 43.88 48.38 54.14 58.46 62.42 62.78 58.1 50.54 42.98 38.84 49.99  Temp.Diff. (deg F) 29.52 27.18 24.12 19.62 13.86 9.54 5.58 5.22 9.90 17.46 25.02 29.16 18.02  (BTU used per month) 23,388,263.95 19,450,350.12 19,109,922.99 15,043,198.88 10,981,075.15 7,314,582.94 4,420,952.33 4,135,729.60 7,590,604.94 13,833,302.46 19,183,528.85 23,103,041.22 167,554,553.44  Energy Loss (kWh used per month) 6,854.42 5,700.34 5,600.57 4,408.73 3,218.24 2,143.69 1,295.65 1,212.06 2,224.59 4,054.14 5,622.14 6,770.83 49,105.39  (MJ used per month) 24,675.93 20,521.21 20,162.04 15,871.42 11,585.65 7,717.29 4,664.35 4,363.43 8,008.51 14,594.91 20,239.70 24,375.00 176,779.42  Shiu 62  Annual Energy Usage (MJ) Year  Current'  Improved'  Year  Current'  Improved'  173060.49  175546.65  40  14229.65  9557.34  0  0.00  2486.16  41  14585.39  9734.12  1  355.74  2662.94  42  14941.13  9910.90  2  711.48  2839.72  43  15296.87  10087.68  3  1067.22  3016.50  44  15652.61  10264.46  4  1422.96  3193.28  45  16008.35  10441.23  5  1778.71  3370.06  46  16364.09  10618.01  6  2134.45  3546.84  47  16719.84  10794.79  7  2490.19  3723.62  48  17075.58  10971.57  8  2845.93  3900.40  49  17431.32  11148.35  9  3201.67  4077.18  50  17787.06  11325.13  10  3557.41  4253.96  51  18142.80  11501.91  11  3913.15  4430.73  52  18498.54  11678.69  12  4268.89  4607.51  53  18854.28  11855.47  13  4624.64  4784.29  54  19210.02  12032.25  14  4980.38  4961.07  55  19565.76  12209.03  15  5336.12  5137.85  56  19921.51  12385.81  16  5691.86  5314.63  57  20277.25  12562.59  17  6047.60  5491.41  58  20632.99  12739.37  18  6403.34  5668.19  59  20988.73  12916.15  19  6759.08  5844.97  60  21344.47  13092.93  20  7114.82  6021.75  61  21700.21  13269.71  21  7470.56  6198.53  62  22055.95  13446.49  22  7826.31  6375.31  63  22411.69  13623.26  23  8182.05  6552.09  64  22767.44  13800.04  24  8537.79  6728.87  65  23123.18  13976.82  25  8893.53  6905.65  66  23478.92  14153.60  26  9249.27  7082.43  67  23834.66  14330.38  27  9605.01  7259.21  68  24190.40  14507.16  28  9960.75  7435.98  69  24546.14  14683.94  29  10316.49  7612.76  70  24901.88  14860.72  30  10672.24  7789.54  71  25257.62  15037.50  31  11027.98  7966.32  72  25613.36  15214.28  32  11383.72  8143.10  73  25969.11  15391.06  33  11739.46  8319.88  74  26324.85  15567.84  34  12095.20  8496.66  75  26680.59  15744.62  35  12450.94  8673.44  76  27036.33  15921.40  36  12806.68  8850.22  77  27392.07  16098.18  37  13162.42  9027.00  78  27747.81  16274.96  38  13518.16  9203.78  79  28103.55  16451.74  39  13873.91  9380.56  80  28459.29  16628.51  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0077961/manifest

Comment

Related Items