Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Building Life Cycle Assessment: Marine Drive Residence at The University of British Columbia McNicholl, Duncan 2009

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
MarineDrive_McNicholl,D_2.pdf [ 346.49kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077962.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077962+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077962.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077962+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077962+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077962+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0077962 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0077962.txt
Citation
1.0077962.ris

Full Text

Building Life Cycle Assessment: Marine Drive Residence at The University of British Columbia  QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.  QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.  Duncan McNicholl CIVL 498C March 27, 2009  McNicholl 1  Abstract A Life Cycle Assessment of thirteen buildings on UBC campus was conducted as part of a 4th year Civil Engineering undergraduate course in order to assess the environmental impacts generated by the buildings. This paper represents one of the thirteen studies, which was conducted on the Marine Drive Student Residence. Quantity takeoffs were performed using OnScreen Takeoff software on both structural and architectural drawings to generate determine quantities and types of materials used in building construction. These assemblies were then inputted into Athena Environmental Impact Estimator (IE) software to determine the impacts generated by the building. Eight different impact categories were measured using the software and the results for Marine Drive Residence were compared with other residences studied on a per square foot basis, which indicated that this residence has exceptionally high impacts in most categories.  Assumptions, input values, and areas of uncertainty have also been outlined in the report and a sensitivity analysis has been conducted to examine the effects of errors and determine how different assemblies correlate to different impact categories. Uncertainties with column and beam assemblies are particularly uncertain. Although calculations were made to model these assemblies as accurately as possible, results seem to be much to high. This may be do to the fact that this study used a version of the IE that was not completely finished being developed (ie. build 51 of version 4).  In addition, an energy model was prepared in order to assess heat losses and the potential effects that material upgrades could have to reduce these.  McNicholl 2  Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables .................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Goal And Scope ............................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Scope of Study .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Tools, Methodology and Data................................................................................... 6 3.0 Building Model ............................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Takeoffs .................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 On Grade and Suspended Slabs ......................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Ceiling................................................................................................................ 9 3.1.3 Walls .................................................................................................................. 9 3.1.4 Doors................................................................................................................ 10 3.1.5 Roofs ................................................................................................................ 10 3.1.6 Footings............................................................................................................ 10 3.1.7 Column and Beam Assemblies ........................................................................ 10 3.1.8 Windows .......................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Assumptions............................................................................................................ 11 3.2.1 Floor Assumptions ........................................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Roof Assumptions............................................................................................ 12 3.2.3 Column and Beam Assumptions...................................................................... 12 3.2.4 Footings and Stairs Assumptions..................................................................... 13 3.2.5 Wall Assumptions............................................................................................ 14 3.3 Bill of Materials ...................................................................................................... 14 4.0 Summary Measures..................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Impact Comparisons ............................................................................................... 20 4.1.1 Primary Energy Consumption.......................................................................... 20 4.1.2 Weighted Resource Use................................................................................... 20 4.1.3 Global Warming Potential ............................................................................... 21 4.1.4 Acidification Potential ..................................................................................... 22 4.1.5 HH Respiratory Effects Potential..................................................................... 23 4.1.6 Eutrophication Potential................................................................................... 23 4.1.7 Ozone Depletion Potential ............................................................................... 24 4.1.8 Smog Potential ................................................................................................. 25 4.2 Impacts By Assembly ............................................................................................. 26 4.3 Impact Assessment Uncertainties ........................................................................... 26 5.0 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................... 29 5.1 Gypsum Board Sensitivity ...................................................................................... 29 5.2 Fiberglass Sensitivity.............................................................................................. 30 5.3 Concrete Sensitivity................................................................................................ 32 5.4Rebar, Rod, and Light Sections Sensitivity ............................................................. 33 5.5 Glazing Sensitivity.................................................................................................. 34 6.0 Building Performance ................................................................................................. 35  McNicholl 3 7.0 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 38 Appendix A: EIE Input Tables ......................................................................................... 40 Appendix B: Detailed Assumptions.................................................................................. 51 Appendix C: Aggregated Summary Measures for Residences at UBC............................ 62  List of Tables Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table  1-1 - Marine Drive Square Footage Tables............................................ 4 1-2 - Bulding Characteristics....................................................................... 5 4 - Bill of Materials ........................................................................................ 16 4 -1 – Marine Drive Summary Measures.............................................. 19 5-1 – Materials Added for Sensitivity Analysis ................................... 29 5-2 – Gypsum Board Sensitivity Results............................................... 30 5-3 – Fiberglass Sensitivity Results ........................................................ 31 5-4– Concrete Sensitivity Results............................................................ 32 5-5 – Rebar, Rod, and Light Sections Sensitivity Results .............. 33 6-1 – Material R-Values............................................................................... 36 6-2 - Exterior Assembly Areas.................................................................. 36 6-3 – Current and Improved R-Values.................................................. 37 6-4 – Insulation Wastes .............................................................................. 37 6-5 – Embedded Energy ............................................................................. 37  List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure  4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8  – – – – – – – –  Primary Energy Consumption...................................................... 20 Weighted Resource Use................................................................. 21 Global Warming Potential ............................................................. 22 Acidification Potential ..................................................................... 22 HH Respiratory Effects Potential ................................................ 23 Eutrophication Potential ................................................................ 24 Ozone Depletion Potential ............................................................ 25 Smog Potential.................................................................................. 25  McNicholl 4  1.0 Introduction Located near Wreck Beach on the west side of UBC's Point Grey Campus, Marine Drive Residence is the newest student residence and exhibits the urban modernity of chic glass high rises. The development has generated some controversy and was halted by Wreck Beach advocates in 2004 who refused to allow the construction of 20 -storey towers that would be in view of nudes on the beach below. The towers were then re-designed to not exceed 18 storeys and construction resumed in 2005. The residence was designed by Hotson Bakker Boniface Haden Associated Architects and structural consultation was provided by Read Jones Christoffersen Consluting Engineers. Information on the total cost of the complex was unavailable.  The residence consists of a combination of high-rise towers and lower structures (called podiums) for a total of six buildings, which includes a commons block that does not house students. The units housing students have been completed and are occupied but the commons block is still under construction and is expected to be completed this year. A summary of the buildings and their sizes is presented below. Table 1-1 - Marine Drive Square Footage Tables  Building Building Building Building Building Building Building  1 2 3 ( Commons Block) 4 5 6  Marine Drive Sqaure Footage Tables Type Floors Beds Tower 18 344 Podium 5 223 Amenity omitted from study Tower 18 405 Tower 17 368 Podium 7 294 TOTAL = 65 1634  Square Ft 126021 202796 148119 129297 115120 721353  There is no indication that a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has ever been conducted on the Marine Drive Residence before; this report will be the first evaluation of the environmental impacts created by the development. Due to limitations on resources and therefore scope, for the purpose of this study Tower 4 is the only one modeled and this model will be used to represent the entire complex on an impact per square foot basis. Tower 4 is an 18-storey high-rise with a concrete superstructure and a heavily glazed exterior. A summary of the building's composition, which forms the basis for the LCA, is presented in the table below.  McNicholl 5 Table 1-2 - Bulding Characteristics Building System Structure  Specific Characteristics of Marine Drive Tower 4 Concrete and structural steel columns supporting concrete suspended slabs  Floors Basement: Concrete slab on grade; Ground: combination of Suspended slabs and slabs on grade; All other floors (Floors 2-18): Suspended slabs Exterior Walls Basement: Cast in place walls; Ground: Cast in place walls with concrete block cladding and acoustic batt insulation; aluminum framed curtain wall with standard glazing; steel stud exterior walls with commercial steel cladding, acoustic batt insulation; Floors Two, Three, Four, and Five: Cast in place walls with concrete block cladding and acoustic batt insulation; steel stud exterior walls with commercial steel cladding, acoustic batt insulation; All other Floors (Floors 7-18):Cast in place walls with acoustic batt insulation; steel stud exterior walls with commercial steel cladding, acoustic batt insulation Interior Walls Basement: cast in place concrete walls; All Other Floors (Floors Ground-18) : gypsum on steel stud walls (some double thickness) with acoustic batt insulation Windows  All windows and curtain walls standard glazed  Roof Floors Six and Seven: Inverted Membrane Roofing with aggregate ballast, 4" polyisocyanurate insulation on suspended concrete slab; metal roof with 4" polyisocyanurate insulation and waterproofing membrane; Floor 18 Roof: Inverted Membrane Roofing with aggregate ballast, 4" polyisocyanurate insulation on suspended concrete slab; Membrane Roofing System with 4" polyisocyanurate insulation, vapour barrier on suspended concrete slab  2.0 Goal And Scope This life cycle analysis (LCA) of the Marine Drive Residence at the University of British Columbia was carried out as an exploratory study to determine the environmental impact of it’s design. The residence consists of five residence buildings, which are referred to collectively as Marine Drive Residence in this report. This LCA of the Marine Drive 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 Marine Drive Residence. An exemplary application of these references are in the assessment of potential future performance upgrades to the structure and envelope of the Marine Drive 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  McNicholl 6 performance comparisons across UBC buildings over time and between different materials, structural types and building functions. Furthermore, as demonstrated through these potential applications, this Marine Drive 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 audience 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.  2.1 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 Marine Drive Residence 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 Marine Drive Residence, as well as associated transportation effects throughout.  2.2 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  McNicholl 7 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 Appendixes 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 Marine Drive Residence in the Vancouver region as an MURB rented 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 cradle-to-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 Marine Drive Residence is set to 1 year, which results in the 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 Marine Drive 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  McNicholl 8 •  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 Marine Drive 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 Marine Drive Residence was initially constructed in 2005. 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 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 BoM 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.  McNicholl 9  3.0 Building Model 3.1 Takeoffs Building materials and their quantities were determined by performing quantity takeoff calculations on architectural and structural drawings of Tower 4 using OnCenter’s OnScreen TakeOff software. Both sets of drawings were obtained from the UBC records department on West Mall of the Point Grey Campus. The drawings were then imported into On-Screen Takeoff Pro, a program that performs quantity takeoffs using different conditions to calculate areas, lengths, and counts of different assemblies.  The program itself is fairly intuitive and the files associated with the takeoff software are included on the CD included with this document. The names of the assemblies correspond to either a description or their names as specified in the drawings. The names are also identical to the names used in the IE input values spreadsheet (included in the Appendix A). A basic breakdown of how different assemblies were modeled is presented below. In some cases, calculations were involved to transform On-Screen Takeoff values into final input values. A complete list of these calculations is presented for reference in Appendix B.  3.1.1 On Grade and Suspended Slabs Concrete slab areas were calculated using an area condition in On-Screen. In the cases where multiple floors were identical, one floor was modeled as a single assembly and then multiplied by the number of identical floors later on to determine the total area.  3.1.2 Ceiling The ceiling area was calculated using an area condition. This was only done on drawings that specifically indicated extra material use in the ceilings.  3.1.3 Walls Wall lengths were calculated using a linear condition in On-Screen. In the cases where multiple floors were identical, one floor was modeled as a single assembly and then  McNicholl 10 multiplied by the number of identical floors later on to determine the total area. OnScreen was only used to determine lengths. Other dimensions such as height and thickness were translated directly from drawings into the IE.  3.1.4 Doors Doors were categorized by type and floor set and then counted using count conditions. In the cases where floors were identical, one floor was modeled as a single assembly and then multiplied by the number of identical floors to determine the total number of doors.  3.1.5 Roofs Roofs were broken down by type as specified by the architectural drawings. Areas were then determined using an area condition.  3.1.6 Footings Count conditions were used to count the total number of columns of each type in the building. Dimensions for the footings were translated directly from structural drawings into the IE and are not included in On-Screen.  3.1.7 Column and Beam Assemblies Takeoffs for columns and beams were determined in a three-step process. First, the total supported column areas were determined using an area condition. Most floors were broken into three conditions in order for areas to be more or less rectangular. The number of columns and beams were then counted using count conditions, although the location of beams was often estimated. These three conditions were then combined to determine IE software inputs.  3.1.8 Windows Windows were counted by type and floor series using count conditions and nomenclature specified in the architectural drawings. In the cases of repeated floors, the number of windows was multiplied by the number of identical floors to determine the final IE inputs. Dimensions for the windows were also entered into On-Screen in order to produce  McNicholl 11 a secondary calculation of the cumulative window area. Both the window counts and the total window areas were used to calculate final IE inputs.  3.2 Assumptions The following sections detail the general assumptions that were made in order to model each assembly in the IE. A further detailed breakdown of both the general and assembly specific assumptions can be found in Appendix B.  Perhaps the largest assumption made in modeling the environmental impacts of the Marine Drive Residence was the method used to extrapolate impacts determined for a single building to represent the entire complex. Originally, assemblies similar between different buildings were replicated in the IE so that the software would be modeling the entire complex.  Only Tower 4 has been modeled in the IE software and the final impacts were then calculated using summary measures on a per square foot basis and then multiplied by the total complex square footage in order to determine the overall impacts. Although this will likely be a reasonably accurate means of modeling the other two towers, which are quite similar, there is significant uncertainty around how effectively this model can be extended to include the two podium buildings. Without drawings of the podium buildings it is difficult to verify any estimated degrees of uncertainty.  3.2.1 Floor Assumptions In consistency with other concrete bodies in the structure, since there is no indication of increased fly ash content, it was assumed that all concrete contained only average concentrations of fly ash. One slight modification was made to the concrete in order to fit IE input fields: the strength of concrete was adjusted from 3500 to 4000 psi. Although this will likely result in a higher overall global warming potential in the model, the magnitude of this increase is unknown and therefore not adjusted for.  McNicholl 12 Two other general assumptions were also made due to lack of specific information available from the drawings. No floor envelope specifications were provided and since flooring such as carpeting is beyond the scope of this study, floors were assumed to not have envelopes. The other source of uncertainty is related to floor loading specifications, which were indicated in the structural drawings as having a point load of 2 kips. It is unusual to attribute a point load to a floor area, so this was assumed to translate into a uniform area load of 100 psf in order to fit IE input fields.  3.2.2 Roof Assumptions Similarly to the floors, no unusual concrete fly ash concentrations were specified and loading specifications were also given as point loads, specifically as 0.3 kips. In an attempt to be proportionally consistent with other loading assumptions, 0.3 kips was correlated to 45 psf in the IE software. Also, roof concrete strengths were specified as 3500 psi in structural drawings but had to be rounded up to 4000 to fit IE input fields, likely resulting a slightly increased global warming potential for the overall model.  3.2.3 Column and Beam Assumptions Due to the rigidity of the IE inputs and the non-uniformity of the column assembly within the tower, modeling this part of the structure required the largest assumptions and appears to be the greatest source of error within the model. The Athena Environmental Impact Estimator models column and beam assemblies in a grid format, which assumes that bay areas and spans are uniform. It also places minimum values on bay areas and span lengths and will round up to these minimums if an input value is outside the range.  In order to conform to this input format, the number of columns and beams were counted, the supported area was determined, and then transformed mathematically into a rectangular grid where length = 2 x width. (See Appendix B for calculation details) Since no drawings detailing beams were available the location of certain beams had to be assumed; beams were only assumed to exist if the length of a span between two columns exceeded 10 ft. Although all beams and columns counted in the quantity takeoffs are  McNicholl 13 represented in the model, the values for supported spans are below the minimum required input value, which means that the software may be rounding up the lengths of beams even if this is not evident in the input fields. If rounding is occurring, span values will be rounded up to approximately 20 ft. This cannot be changed without reducing the value for bay areas, which would result in a value below the valid input range and cause the model to not function.  Also, input fields in the IE do not allow for concrete strengths to be specified, only live loads. This may be missing an important component in environmental impacts since the concrete strengths change from 25 MPa to 35 MPa from the top of the structure to the bottom respectively. Since these strengths have a significant affect on greenhouse gas emissions, the assumption that all column strengths are the same may not be valid.  3.2.4 Footings and Stairs Assumptions Concrete fly ash content was again assumed to be average and the concrete strength of 5,333 psi had to be changed to 4,000 psi in order to match available input options for all footings. Again, this rigidity in input format contributed to inaccuracies in greenhouse gas emissions estimated by the model. In some cases, the size of rebar also had to be changed to match available input fields.  One point of uncertainty is a lack of information on footing envelopes. Structural drawings specify that some envelope material may be necessary but this decision was to be made at the discretion of geotechnical experts at the time of excavation. For the purposes of this model it was assumed that no footing envelopes existed.  There is no input category in the IE that represents stairs. Stairs were modeled as footings in order to have more control over concrete volumes and reinforcement dimensions in the model.  McNicholl 14  3.2.5 Wall Assumptions Door types specified in the model have been confirmed through drawings and a site visit but the generic terms used in the IE make it uncertain if doors used in the model are an accurate representation of the actual ones. However, it seems likely that this assumption is a minor one since the type of materials has been confirmed and it is only the volume that remains uncertain.  Windows were accounted for by counting the number of each type of assembly and then matching them to the areas specified in the window schedule in the architectural drawings. In cases where the window assembly did not match any detailed in the window schedule, an assumption was made based on size and the number of windows and the new assembly was equated to one specified in the window schedule. A complete breakdown of these assumptions and count for the total number of windows can be referenced in Appendix B. Two more assumptions related to the window assemblies were made when the architect was unable to verify drawing ambiguities. The windows were assumed to be of standard glazing with aluminum frames.  There was also limited information about the envelopes of the metal stud walls immediately surrounding the windows. These envelopes were assumed to be the same as the single stud drywall partition envelopes that the metal stud walls join to except with a commercial grade steel exterior cladding. Also, due to a few missing specifics in the architectural drawings, steel studs in drywall partitions were assumed to be light (25 Ga) and acoustic batt insulation was interpreted as fiberglass.  3.3 Bill of Materials The following Bill of Materials (BoM) states the estimated types and quantities of materials used in the construction of Tower 4 of the Marine Drive Residence. This BoM was generated using the IE after all assemblies had been inputted from On-Screen calculations. By doing so, material quantities are slightly higher than takeoff values and also present some slightly different materials. This is because the IE software accounts for waste material generated during construction by estimating typical waste amounts and  McNicholl 15 adding this to the total quantities. It also breaks down some assemblies into smaller components that are part of their fabrication or associated with construction such as paper tape.  McNicholl 16 Table 3 - Bill of Materials  Quantity Unit Material 58.2502 m2 1/2" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 423.7181 m2 3 mil Polyethylene 22304.11 m2 5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board 5/8" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 772.4108 m2 36.3141 m2 5/8" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 65.0757 m2 5/8" Regular Gypsum Board 191.8635 m2 6 mil Polyethylene 397.0517 Tonnes Aluminium 231834 Kg Ballast (aggregate stone) 46579.05 m2 (25mm) Batt. Fiberglass 0.2143 Tonnes Cold Rolled Sheet 2723.986 m2 Commercial(26 ga.) Steel Cladding 399.8188 m3 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 28407.46 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 13502.87 Blocks Concrete Blocks 1114.098 m2 Concrete Brick 34443.73 Kg EPDM membrane 882.1856 m2 (25mm) Foam Polyisocyanurate 1.8828 Tonnes Galvanized Sheet 48.5197 Tonnes Galvanized Studs 16.4079 Tonnes Glazing Panel 3671.973 m2 (25mm) Isocyanurate 23.132 Tonnes Joint Compound 8.5693 m3 Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 751.1945 Kg Modified Bitumen membrane 63.5739 m3 Mortar 25.003 Tonnes Nails 0.2655 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.817 Tonnes Polyester felt 0.2418 Tonnes Polyethylene Filter Fabric 1564.151 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 2.7169 Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts 7.7807 m3 Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 3.8268 m2 (9mm) Softwood Plywood 209.7064 L Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 15606.27 m2 Standard Glazing 1483.879 L Water Based Latex Paint 2.0728 Tonnes Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire  McNicholl 17 Because the BoM does not use consistent units it is not immediately obvious which assemblies account for the greatest resource usage. Predictably, materials such as concrete, aggregate, rebar, glazing, and insulation are present in high quantities. Concrete, aggregate, and rebar are used throughout all assemblies in the superstructure such as columns, beams, slabs, floors, and roofs. Concrete is also used extensively for walls throughout the building. Because of the high degree of uncertainty with the concrete modeling as outlined in the assumptions, it seems likely that these numbers may be an overestimate, particularly if the IE is indeed rounding up beam spans in the estimating process.  Other than concrete and its associated components, wall materials such as fiberglass insulation, gypsum drywall, and exterior glazing accounts for the other high material use assemblies. Although assumptions were also made here, most assumptions were related to the type of materials; there is little uncertainty in the volumes used. Although fiberglass insulation thickness was estimated in the metal stud walls around window assemblies, the relative area of this is small and therefore any error would have a proportionally small impact. Similarly, with windows there is little relative uncertainty around the window areas when compared to uncertainty around material used as outlined in the window assumptions section of this document.  4.0 Summary Measures From the final BoM compiled through the different assemblies by the IE the software cross-references an extensive database to determine estimations of environmental impacts in eight impact categories, namely: •  Global warming potential (MJ)  •  Acidification potential (kg)  •  Eutrophication potential (kg CO2 eq / kg)  •  Ozone depletion potential (moles of H+ eq / kg)  •  Photochemical smog potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg)  •  Human health respiratory effects potential (kg N eq / kg)  McNicholl 18 •  Weighted raw resource use (kg CFC-11 eq / kg)  •  Primary energy consumption (kg NOx eq / kg)  As described in the goal and scope section of this document, impacts are determined using mid-point impact assessment methodology, meaning that the potential for environmental harm in terms of equivalent standardized units is determined but the final impacts are not (ie. endpoint effects). Determining final impacts is heavily dependent upon context and current software lacks both the complexity and information required to undertake such a model. As specified in the goal and scope, the impact assessment only includes the manufacturing and construction phases of the building’s life cycle. Impact values for both Tower 4 and the extrapolated values representing the entire complex are presented below:  Impact Summary Table - Tower 4 Manufacturing Construction Total Effects (Man. + Constr.) Impact Category Units Material Transport-ation Total MaterialTransport-ation Total Overall Per Sq. Ft Primary Energy Consumption MJ 109,000,000.00 3,430,000.00 112,430,000.00 5,640,000.00 18,800,000.00 24,440,000.00 136,870,000.00 924.05 Weighted Resource Use kg 84,300,000.00 104,000.00 84,404,000.00 259,000.00 429,000.00 688,000.00 85,092,000.00 574.48 Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq10,700,000.00 / kg) 5,950.0010,705,950.00 383,000.00 35,400.00 418,400.00 11,124,350.00 75.10 Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq 3,700,000.00 / kg) 2,030.003,702,030.00 177,000.00 11,300.00 188,300.00 3,890,330.00 26.26 HH Respiratory Effects (kgPotential PM2.5 eq /38,100.00 kg) 2.45 38,102.45200.00 13.60 213.60 38,316.050.26 Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg)284.00 0.01 284.01 0.00 0.09 0.09 284.10 0.00 Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / 56,000.00 kg) 45.80 56,045.804,390.00 253.00 4,643.00 60,688.800.41 Table 4 -1 – Marine Drive Summary Measures  Complex Total Total Effects (Man. + Constr.) Manufacturing Construction Impact Category Units Material Transport-ation Total MaterialTransport-ation Total Overall Per Sq. Ft Primary Energy Consumption MJ 530,839,912.50 16,704,411.93 547,544,324.43 27,467,312.90 91,557,709.68 119,025,022.58 666,569,347.01 924.05 Weighted Resource Use kg 410,548,666.28 506,489.46 411,055,155.73 1,261,353.55 2,089,269.01 3,350,622.57 414,405,778.30 574.48 Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq52,109,973.06 / kg) 28,977.04 52,138,950.10 1,865,244.83 172,401.22 2,037,646.05 54,176,596.15 75.10 Acidification Potential (moles of H+ 18,019,336.48 eq / kg) 9,886.28 18,029,222.76 862,006.10 55,032.03 917,038.12 18,946,260.89 26.26 HH Respiratory Effects (kgPotential PM2.5 eq 185,550.46 / kg) 11.93 185,562.40 974.02 66.23 1,040.25186,602.65 0.26 Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg) 1,383.11 0.07 1,383.18 0.00 0.42 0.43 1,383.600.00 Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 Smog Potential (kg NOx eq /272,725.09223.05 kg) 272,948.14 21,379.701,232.1322,611.83295,559.98 0.41  McNicholl 19  McNicholl 20  4.1 Impact Comparisons Even when presented in graphical format it is difficult to comprehend the true meaning of such abstract numbers. In order to add some perspective, impacts for each category have been graphed with impact values for other residences at UBC. To normalize the data, impacts have been compiled on a per square foot basis and represent both manufacturing and construction stages, the latter of which is mostly transportation. The data table of values used to generate the following graphs can be found in Appendix C.  4.1.1 Primary Energy Consumption Primary energy consumption simply refers to the estimated amount of power consumed. In this case, the energy demand created by Marine Drive is staggering, outstripping all other residences and amounting to nearly double the average. Primary Energy Consumption  Average  MarineDrive  Energy (MJ)  Thunderbird  Fariview  Gage  Totem  Vanier  0.00  100.00  200.00  300.00  400.00  500.00  600.00  700.00  800.00  900.00  1,000.00  Figure 4-1 – Primary Energy Consumption  4.1.2 Weighted Resource Use Again, Marine Drive residence dramatically outstrips the resource demand of other residences, more than doubling the average value. Although some uncertainty related to column and beam modeling may be disproportionately elevating the value for Marine  McNicholl 21 Drive’s resource use, the vast difference between this complex and all other residences is too great to be attributed entirely to model error. Weighted Resource Use  Average  Weighted Use (kg)  MarineDrive  Thunderbird  Average MarineDrive Thunderbird Fariview Gage Totem Vanier  Fariview  Gage  Totem  Vanier  0.00  100.00  200.00  300.00  400.00  500.00  600.00  Figure 4-2 – Weighted Resource Use  4.1.3 Global Warming Potential Global warming potential is determined by calculating the equivalent of CO2 released into the atmosphere and is highly influenced by the amount of concrete in a structure. Again, error in concrete volume, likely attributed to column and beam assembly assumptions could be resulting in falsely high values, but the discrepancy between the Marine Drive residence and the other complexes appears to be indicating a trend.  McNicholl 22  Global Warming Potential  Average  kg / CO2 eq / kg  MarineDrive  Thunderbird  Average MarineDrive Thunderbird Fariview Gage Totem Vanier  Fariview  Gage  Totem  Vanier  0.00  10.00  20.00  30.00  40.00  50.00  60.00  70.00  80.00  Figure 4-3 – Global Warming Potential  4.1.4 Acidification Potential Acidification potential refers to the equivalent estimated amount of H+ released into the environment. This value is also exceptionally high for the Marine Drive residence with more than double the value of the average. Acidification Potential  Average  moles of H+ eq / kg  MarineDrive  Thunderbird  Average MarineDrive Thunderbird Fariview Gage Totem Vanier  Fariview  Gage  Totem  Vanier  0.00  5.00  10.00  15.00  20.00  25.00  Figure 4-4 – Acidification Potential  30.00  McNicholl 23  4.1.5 HH Respiratory Effects Potential This index measures the potential for human health respiratory effects as quantified by PM2.5 eq kg. Once again, the impact created by the Marine Drive residence is significantly above that of any other residence at UBC.  HH Respiratory Effects Potential  Average  kg/ PM2.5 eq / kg  MarineDrive  Thunderbird  Average MarineDrive Thunderbird Fariview Gage Totem Vanier  Fariview  Gage  Totem  Vanier  0.00  0.05  0.10  0.15  0.20  0.25  0.30  Figure 4-5 – HH Respiratory Effects Potential  4.1.6 Eutrophication Potential Eutrophication potential refers to the likelihood that the release of nitrogen into an aquatic environment will promote plant an algae growth to the point where the nutrients that were previously scarce are consumed so rapidly that other life is “choked out”. In this case, Thunderbird residence exceeds Marine Drive’s potential for impact, which also may suggest that data in other categories might not be unacceptably skewed.  McNicholl 24  Eutrophication Potential  Average  MarineDrive  kg N eq/ kg  Thunderbird  Average MarineDrive Thunderbird Fariview Gage Totem Vanier  Fariview  Gage  Totem  Vanier  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00  Figure 4-6 – Eutrophication Potential  4.1.7 Ozone Depletion Potential Although impact values are relatively low in this category, Marine Drive residence appears to be closer to the expected average value. However, it still seems somewhat surprising that the value is above average. With advancements in material technology aimed at reducing ozone depletion (such as reduction of CFC use) it seems logical to assume that ozone depletion potential should be lower than the average especially when compared to older buildings.  McNicholl 25  Ozone Depletion Potential  Average  kg CFC-11 eq / kg  MarineDrive  Thunderbird  Average MarineDrive Thunderbird Fariview Gage Totem Vanier  Fariview  Gage  Totem  Vanier  0.00E+00 2.00E-08  4.00E-08  6.00E-08  8.00E-08 1.00E-07  1.20E-07  1.40E-07 1.60E-07  Figure 4-7 – Ozone Depletion Potential  4.1.8 Smog Potential The final impact category, smog potential, once again shows Marine Drive as having the most significant potential for impact. Although it is the newest of the residences, it appears to be having the most significant environmental effects. Smog Potential  Average  kg NOx eq / kg  MarineDrive  Thunderbird  Average MarineDrive Thunderbird Fariview Gage Totem Vanier  Fariview  Gage  Totem  Vanier  0.00  0.05  0.10  0.15  0.20  0.25  0.30  0.35  Figure 4-8 – Smog Potential  0.40  0.45  McNicholl 26  4.2 Impacts By Assembly Impacts were also categorized by assembly type, which allows for comparisons between different parts of the building. A summary of the values generated is presented in the table below. These values are the initial outputs and therefore only represent Tower 4. Table 4-2– Impacts by Assembly Type  Material ID Foundations Walls Beams and Columns Roofs Floors Extra Basic MaterTotal Primary Energy Consumption MJ 2036179.99 61469052 -584660.7187 19797648 77141874 298616.0428 160158708.9 Weighted Resource Use kg 2690477.04 9783018 -49652.66733 5489407 65958388 412785.343 84284422.54 Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq521319.327 / kg) 7084204 -35653.37857 1407003 15231942 84229.25422 24293044.38 Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq347296.865 / kg) 5545763 -15424.86545 906098.7 9824409 56217.91803 16664360.46 HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq /3554619 kg) 259177.832 -17671.30757 699885.5 7568992 41834.21128 12106836.89 Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg)8840.92663 361645.1 -2015.299008 33481.95 306691.7 1411.584918 710055.9652 Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11258571.142 eq / kg) 3524049 -17648.12989 6981167552454 41734.44095 12057277 Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / kg) 259952.747 3554027 -17634.8713 7012167589458 41953.78588 12128973.18  However, all output values for beams and columns appear as negative numbers, which indicates that an error is occurring somewhere in the software. This seems unusual since all other aspects of the model appear to be functioning properly and producing seemingly reasonable impact estimations. Because of this abnormality, comparisons by assembly type were not explored more thoroughly.  4.3 Impact Assessment Uncertainties In addition to uncertainties resulting from the assumptions made while conducting this study, uncertainty is further generated during the stage of impact assessment in a variety of ways. This next section outlines some of the uncertainty generated in the process of determining impacts from values inputted into the IE.  Impact assessment software aims to be as comprehensive and sophisticated as possible but is limited by the amount that can be packed into a program and the memory storage capacity of a computer. Impact assessment experiences tension in two opposing directions since it attempts to simultaneously be sophisticated while being accessible to the average person and therefore the average PC. This broader limitation results in three key areas of uncertainty being generated.  McNicholl 27 The first, as touched on previously in this document, is related to spatial linking. Not only does the database of supporting information need to exist, but a program capable of compiling such information through a geographical information system would be required to assess the related impacts of a specific material source located 20km away over a windy mountain road as compared to a similar facility 100km away across rolling plains. While impact estimators such as IE do take location into account, the true modeling potential that could be realized with more advanced software and processing capacity is not achieved.  There is also issue of modeling techniques, which are also limited by the processing capacity of the average PC. Ideally, the most advanced modeling techniques would be used for each impact category, but the depth of each technique varies depending on the history of research in each respective field. One example of advanced modeling that the average computer may not be capable of is related to toxicology. While it may be relatively easy to quantify toxicity released from a given process, further translating that into health impacts and contamination potential is dependent upon determining the probability of toxicity migration through available pathways. This step, from outputs to impacts, is much more difficult to make and consequently outputs are commonly deemed sufficient impact estimation results. However, this means that, even though quantities of a contaminant released may be known, there remains a great deal of uncertainty as to how this will impact either human or environmental health without pathway modeling.  The final limitation of software is related to actually modeling uncertainty itself using such techniques as the Monte Carlo simulation. As has been pointed out previously, certain aspects of an LCA make even uncertainty difficult to quantify, but in order to maintain transparency, both uncertainty and a sensitivity analysis should be modeled. If two products were being compared for environmental impact and ranked similarly but the uncertainty of each study could be modeled with reasonable accuracy, this would provide valuable insights for decision makers choosing between the two. However, due to both available data and PC processing capacity, advanced modeling techniques in this field are not currently feasible.  McNicholl 28  It should also be noted that the background research in each impact category is not consistent across all fields. Certain areas such as toxicology have much more supporting research than resource usage, which is still emerging. Because of this, it should be recognized that the modeling that impact assessment software uses could be based on new or uncertain research that may prove to be flawed in the future as more is learned in that field. For example, current indicators for resource usage may prove to be incorrect in coming years, which would cause impacts estimated from previous LCA’s to be incorrect as well. This type of uncertainty, uncertainty in the very science impact estimation is base on, is difficult to quantify.  Typically, uncertainty tends to propagate as impacts become more specific. The terminology used to address this is commonly midpoint versus endpoint selection. For example, ozone depletion potential is relatively easy to quantify provided that data on such chemical omissions is correct. This would be considered a midpoint case with the endpoint being the true impact on human health such as potential for skin cancer. Since the science correlating to the latter point is less certain, most impact estimators assess impacts based on midpoint criteria. The true effects on human or environmental health remain somewhat uncertain.  Finally, the weighting of different impact categories will have an overall effect on the final impact assigned during an assessment. After data is normalized and characterized it is typically grouped into high, medium, and low impact categories and then sometimes aggregated in order to produce a single impact index value. Either a panel of experts of through stakeholder input typically determines weighting of priorities. Regardless, of the method, a high degree of subjectivity is involved at this stage and if the incorrect impact categories are selected as low impact the true validity of the entire study may be thrown into question. Uncertainty could be reduced if anthropocentric prioritization was omitted but, since use of the study will likely rest upon decision makers at some point, this omission may achieve little in the overall reduction of uncertainty.  McNicholl 29  5.0 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was conducted on five of the most commonly used materials in the structure in order to estimate the overall sensitivity of the model to errors from assumptions. Conversely, sensitivity can be used to optimize design in order to minimize environmental impacts most effectively. A sensitivity analysis can clearly indicate how significantly different assemblies affect different impacts. For example, if it is found that ozone depletion potential is very sensitive to the use of polyisocyanurate insulation, this may guide a decision to use less of this kind of insulation, resulting in a significant decrease in ozone depletion potential.  To conduct the sensitivity analysis 10% material was added as extra basic material and impact summary measures were generated using the IE in separate models. Changes were then plotted as percent differences to show sensitivity. The x-axis represents the percent change in material and the y-values represent the corresponding percent change in impact values for each impact category. The most sensitive impacts can be identified as the ones having the steepest slopes. Table 5-1 – Materials Added for Sensitivity Analysis Material  Quantity  Addition (+10%)  Units  5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board  22304.1  2230.41  m2  Batt. Fiberglass  46579.1  4657.91  m2 (25mm)  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) Rebar, Rod, Light Sections  3354664 1152869  335466.4 115287  Standard Glazing  15606.3  1560.63  5.1 Gypsum Board Sensitivity Using the method described above, gypsum sensitivity was analyzed, yielding the following results.  m3 tonnes m2  McNicholl 30 Table 5-2 – Gypsum Board Sensitivity Results  Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  Units MJ 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)  Initial 142,760,000.00 88,460,000.00 11,535,160.00 4,004,100.00 39,120.14 295.12 0.02 62,476.40  Overall Impacts + 10% Material 142,300,000.00 88,553,000.00 11,529,000.00 4,012,000.00 39,218.00 295.10 0.02 62,530.00  % Difference -0.32 0.11 -0.05 0.20 0.25 -0.01 0.00 0.09  Gypsum Board Sensitivity 0.40  0.30  0.20  0.10  0.00  -0.10  -0.20  -0.30  -0.40 -15.00  -10.00  -5.00  0.00  5.00  10.00  15.00  % Change in Materials Primary Energy Consumption Acidification Potential Ozone Depletion Potential  Weighted Resource Use HH Respiratory Effects Potential Smog Potential  Global Warming Potential Eutrophication Potential  Figure 5-1 - Gypsum Board Sensitivity  The results are both interesting and unexpected since the magnitude of impacts should only increase as the amount of materials used increases. However, it should be recognized that the percent changes in impacts are very small – all less than 1%. Therefore it can likely be concluded that impacts are not very sensitive to the amount of gypsum used and the negative slopes are possibly the result of internal rounding errors within the IE software.  5.2 Fiberglass Sensitivity The following results were found after running a sensitivity analysis on the material.  McNicholl 31 Table 5-3 – Fiberglass Sensitivity Results Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  Units MJ 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)  Initial 142,760,000.00 88,460,000.00 11,535,160.00 4,004,100.00 39,120.14 295.12 0.02 62,476.40  Overall Impacts + 10% Material 142,300,000.00 88,553,000.00 11,529,000.00 4,012,000.00 39,218.00 304.00 16.90 62,530.00  % Difference -0.32 0.11 -0.05 0.20 0.25 3.01 89,308.85 0.09  Batt Fiberglass Sensitivity 100,000.00 80,000.00 60,000.00 40,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 -20,000.00 -40,000.00 -60,000.00 -80,000.00 -100,000.00 -15.00  -10.00  -5.00  0.00  5.00  10.00  15.00  % Change in Materials Primary Energy Consumption Acidification Potential Ozone Depletion Potential  Weighted Resource Use HH Respiratory Effects Potential Smog Potential  Global Warming Potential Eutrophication Potential  Figure 5-2 - Batt Fiberglass Sensitivity  All impacts appear to be fairly unaffected by changes in batt fiberglass insulation volumes with the exception of ozone depletion potential. At an incredible change in impact magnitude of almost 90,000 %, the value seems erroneous. However, the input was checked repeatedly; if an error is occurring it is within the IE estimator in the category.  In the event that this output is in fact correct then it is clear that the volume of fiberglass batt insulation in a structure dramatically affects the ozone depletion potential, perhaps more so than any other material. Changes in other impacts appear to be almost negligible in comparison.  McNicholl 32  5.3 Concrete Sensitivity Concrete sensitivity was analyzed and found to yield the following results. Table 5-4– Concrete Sensitivity Results Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  Units MJ 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)  Initial 142,760,000.00 88,460,000.00 11,535,160.00 4,004,100.00 39,120.14 295.12 0.02 62,476.40  Overall Impacts + 10% Material 778,800,000.00 1,031,810,000.00 106,519,000.00 36,420,000.00 262,252.00 345.32 0.22 555,360.00  % Difference 445.53 1,066.41 823.43 809.57 570.38 17.01 1,058.64 788.91  Concrete Sensitivity 1,500.00  1,000.00  500.00  0.00  -500.00  -1,000.00  -1,500.00 -15.00  -10.00  -5.00  0.00  5.00  10.00  15.00  % Concrete Addition Primary Energy Consumption Acidification Potential Ozone Depletion Potential  Weighted Resource Use HH Respiratory Effects Potential Smog Potential  Global Warming Potential Eutrophication Potential  Figure 5-3 - Concrete Sensitivity  From the above graph and table values, it is clear that concrete has a significant impact on all impacts; a rather small difference in concrete added results in higher all around impacts. This suggests that potentially invalid assumptions made as a result of the rigidity of the input fields for assemblies such as concrete beams and columns could be a serious challenge in accurately assessing a building’s impacts. Conversely, this data highlights how smart design resulting in either reduced concrete volumes or more environmentally forms of concrete can significantly reduce the environmental impacts associated with a project.  McNicholl 33  5.4Rebar, Rod, and Light Sections Sensitivity An analysis of the sensitivity of rebar, rod, and light sections yielded the following results. Table 5-5 – Rebar, Rod, and Light Sections Sensitivity Results  Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  Units MJ 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)  Initial 142,760,000.00 88,460,000.00 11,535,160.00 4,004,100.00 39,120.14 295.12 0.02 62,476.40  Overall Impacts + 10% Material 2,373,000,000.00 296,290,000.00 80,207,000.00 5,151,000.00 127,324.00 20,600.78 0.02 10,490.00  % Difference 1,562.23 234.94 595.33 28.64 225.47 6,880.58 0.59 -83.21  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections Sensitivity 8,000.00  6,000.00  4,000.00  2,000.00  0.00  -2,000.00  -4,000.00  -6,000.00  -8,000.00 -15.00  -10.00  -5.00  0.00  5.00  10.00  15.00  % Change in Materials Primary Energy Consumption Acidification Potential Ozone Depletion Potential  Weighted Resource Use HH Respiratory Effects Potential Smog Potential  Global Warming Potential Eutrophication Potential  Figure 5-4 – Rebar, Rod, and Light Sections Sensitivity  Although eutrophication potential clearly stands out as an impact highly sensitive to changes in rebar, rod, and light section material volumes, the magnitude of other changes should also be noted. For example, the change in global warming potential, 595%, is nothing to be overlooked. There is also the unusual negative slope of change in smog potential, which seems highly counterintuitive and may suggest that certain bugs embedded in the program are affecting output values.  It appears that reductions in rebar, rod, and light section usage in buildings also have high potential for reducing overall building impacts.  McNicholl 34  5.5 Glazing Sensitivity The final assembly analyzed for sensitivity was glazing, yielding the following results. Table 5-6 - Glazing Sensitivity Results  Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  Units MJ 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)  Initial 142,760,000.00 88,460,000.00 11,535,160.00 4,004,100.00 39,120.14 295.12 0.02 62,476.40  Overall Impacts + 10% Material 142,300,000.00 88,553,000.00 11,529,000.00 4,032,000.00 39,718.00 295.10 0.02 62,730.00  % Difference -0.32 0.11 -0.05 0.70 1.53 -0.01 0.00 0.41  Glazing Sensitivity 2.00  1.50  1.00  0.50  0.00  -0.50  -1.00  -1.50  -2.00 -15  -10  -5  0  5  10  15  % Change in Materials Primary Energy Consumption Acidification Potential Ozone Depletion Potential  Weighted Resource Use HH Respiratory Effects Potential Smog Potential  Global Warming Potential Eutrophication Potential  Figure 5-5 – Glazing Sensitivity  Similarly to the gypsum board sensitivity analysis, glazing sensitivity shows a range of different slopes that are all relatively minor (mostly with changes less than 1%) but some of these are negative. Once again, it is uncertain whether or not this is due to internal rounding within the IE impact generation calculations or if there may be a bug within the software somewhere.  Interestingly, changes in window surface area appear to do little to affect the overall impact of a building. However, it should be noted that the impacts generated are only analyzing the manufacturing and construction phases of life cycles and windows will have a much larger effect on building energy consumption during the operating phase of  McNicholl 35 a building’s life as a result of heat loss. The next section of this report will explore building performance as related to heat loss through exterior surfaces and their materials.  6.0 Building Performance The LCA for Marine Drive Residence does not account for operating life or end of life disposal. However, energy usage during operation is still significant and has not been overlooked. The average estimated energy consumption for Tower 1, which is quite similar to Tower 4, is shown here.  Average Energy Consumption kWh 700,000  600,000  500,000  400,000  300,000  200,000  100,000  0 October-08 December- February08 09  March-09  May-09  July-09  August-09 October-09 December- January-10 09  Month  Figure 6-1 – Average Energy Consumption  Building performance for the operating life of Tower 4 is modeled using a heat loss equation and the areas and types of building envelope materials. Because accurate exterior envelope information was only available for Tower 4, results here are not extrapolated to include the entire complex.  In this model, the existing building is compared with another “idealized” building with a few material upgrades that reduce the rate of building heat loss. The idealized building has all of the same material volumes and areas; only the kind of material has been  McNicholl 36 substituted. The two buildings are compared to determine energy savings and the energy payback period of installing upgraded materials. Heat loss is calculated using the following equation: Q = (1/R) x A x ∆T Where: R = Calculated R-Value in ft2 ºF h/BTU (Imperial units) A = Assembly of interest ft2 ∆T = Inside Temperature – Outside Temperature in º The following table outlines the R-values used calculating heat losses in both the old and improved buildings: Table 6-6 – Material R-Values  Material 3" Fiberglass Batt Insulation 4" Polyisocyanurate Insulation Low E silver argon filled glazing (3mm glass with 1/2" airspace) Standard glazing (double panes, 1/2” airspace)  R-Values 9.42 21.6 3.75 2.04  Using values from the table above, the exterior envelope of Tower 4 can be summarized as follows. Table 7 - Exterior Assembly Areas  Area (ft2) 6131 6414 10673 11171 34389  R-value 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04  North Walls South Walls East Walls West Walls TOTAL  6694 7378 7815 7432 29319  9.42 9.42 9.42 9.42  Roof 1 Roof 3 Roof 4 TOTAL  2278 2026 7376 11680  28.8 28.8 28.8  South Windows North Windows East Windows West Windows TOTAL  McNicholl 37 Two changes have been made to the existing structure to create the ‘Improved’ building, which was then modeled to determine both embedded energy in material production and heat losses over time. All heating values and surface areas were kept the same but two materials were substituted: •  3” polyisocyanurate insulation was substituted for fiberglass batt insulation in all exterior walls  •  all exterior windows with standard glazing were substituted with low E silver argon filled glazing  The resulting changes in R-values due to these substitutions are summarized in the table below: Table 8 – Current and Improved R-Values  Windows Walls  R-value: Old Building 2.04 9.42  R-Value New Building 3.75 21.6  Embedded energy was calculated by creating two new IE models that contained only window and insulation assemblies: one for the current building and one for the improved building. The first table shows how the two insulation types were initially compared to ensure that they used the same waste percent additions and therefore could have their volumes interchanged without adjustments having to be made. Table 9 – Insulation Wastes  Material Batt Fiberglass Polyisocyanurate  input amount 2 100 m 100 m2  output amount 2 105m 105m2  waste addition 5% 5%  Then, the energy difference between the two sets of basic materials was calculated and added to the embedded energy in the current building to determine the embedded energy in the improved structure. A summary of these values is presented in the table below. Table 10 – Embedded Energy  Embedded Energy Current Basic Materials Improved Basic Materials Current Building Improved Building  kWh 1370000 1550000 8548250 8728250  Joules 4.932E+12 5.58E+12 3.07737E+13 3.14217E+13  McNicholl 38  Energy Usage Over Time Current Building  'Improved Building'  45,000,000  40,000,000  35,000,000  30,000,000  25,000,000  20,000,000  15,000,000  10,000,000  5,000,000  0 0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80  90  Years  Figure 6-2 – Energy Usage Over Time  From the graph showing cumulative energy usage over time, it is apparent that the energy payback period is almost instantaneous; net energy begins to be saved immediately. However, although this does appear appealing from an energy perspective, this does not account for other factors such as initial cost and overall environmental impacts. Furthermore, even though it is clear that using better exterior envelope materials can save that energy, it would have to be further investigated to figure out whether it is financially, practically, or environmentally beneficial to replace existing materials with improved ones at this point since construction has already been completed.  7.0 Conclusions There is an appreciable utility in determining average baseline impacts for residences. There is the potential that future decisions on new developments may be able to draw on these results as an environmental reference point. Furthermore, assumptions and  McNicholl 39 methodologies documented in this report may be used to provide insight on how future LCAs might be conducted.  From impact comparisons, the Marine Drive Residence appears to be responsible for significantly larger environmental impacts than any other residence at UBC. This is surprising since, being the newest residence, one would expect it to be the most environmentally friendly since building policies at UBC continue to shift in that direction. Although uncertainty in the model makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions, it appears that concrete high rises with extensive exterior glazing are the worst option from an environmental perspective, regardless of how modern the technologies or designs incorporated are.  McNicholl 40  Appendix A: EIE Input Tables  McNicholl 41  All input values are specified for only Tower 4, not the entire complex. Highlighted cells indicate an assumption. General Description Project Location Building Life Expectancy Building Type Assembly Group SLABS  Assembly Type 8" 10M reinforced slab  Vancouver 1 year Residential Input Fields  Ideal Inputs  Ideal Building Total  EIE Input  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash %  103.6 103.6 8 3000 average  103.6 103.6 8 3000 average  103.6 103.6 8 3000 average  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash %  74.6 74.6 8 3000 average  74.6 74.6 8 3000 average  74.6 74.6 8 3000 average  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  91.6 91.6 4 3000 average 7.5 7.5 26 5333 average #6  91.6 91.6 4 3000 average 15 7.5 26 5333 average #6  91.6 91.6 4 3000 average 30 7.5 13 4000 average #6  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  7.5 6 18 5333 average #5  45 6 18 5333 average #5  45 6 18 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  5.25 14.5 48 5333 average #9, #6, #5  5.25 14.5 48 5333 average #9, #6, #5  21 14.5 16 4000 average #6  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  5.5 3.5 16 5333 average #5  5.5 3.5 16 5333 average #5  5.5 3.5 16 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  9 7 30 5333 average #6  9 7 30 5333 average #6  18 7 15 4000 average #6  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  8 8 28 5333 average #6  16 8 28 5333 average #6  32 8 14 4000 average #6  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  13 11 42 5333 average #7  26 11 42 5333 average #7  78 11 14 4000 average #6  8" slab on grade  4" Slab on Grade unreinforced *basement level  FOOTINGS  Footing F1 * 2 per building  Footing F2 * 6 per building  Footing F8  Footing F9  Footing F11  Footing F13 * 2 per building  Footing F14 * 2 per building  McNicholl 42  McNicholl 43 Footing F15 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  6.5 5.5 18 5333 average #5  6.5 5.5 18 5333 average #5  6.5 5.5 18 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  7 8.5 30 5333 average #6  7 8.5 30 5333 average #6  14 8.5 15 4000 average #6  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  5.5 4.5 16 5333 average #5  49.5 4.5 16 5333 average #5  49.5 4.5 16 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  6.5 4.5 12 5333 average #5  6.5 4.5 12 5333 average #5  6.5 4.5 12 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  9 4.25 18 5333 average #5  45 4.25 18 5333 average #5  45 4.25 18 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  7.5 7.5 30 5333 average #7  30 7.5 30 5333 average #7  60 7.5 15 4000 average #6  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  15 10 36 5333 average #7  15 10 36 5333 average #7  30 10 18 4000 average #6  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  8.5 8 30 5333 average #6  8.5 8 30 5333 average #6  17 8 15 4000 average #6  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  9 1.5 10 5333 average #5  99 1.5 10 5333 average #5  99 1.5 10 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  8 3.5 12 5333 average #5  56 3.5 12 5333 average #5  56 3.5 12 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  7 5.25 18 5333 average #5  35 5.25 18 5333 average #5  35 5.25 18 4000 average #5  Footing F16  Footing F20 * 9 per building  Footing F21  Footing F22 * 5 per building  Footing F23 * 4 per building  Footing F24  Footing F25  Footing SF1 * 11 per building  Footing SF2 * 7 per building  Footing SF3 * 5 per building  McNicholl 44 Footing SF4 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  15 2.5 10 5333 average #5  15 2.5 10 5333 average #5  15 2.5 10 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  19 9 36 5333 average #7  57 9 36 5333 average #7  114 9 18 4000 average #6  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  24 4 18 5333 average #6  72 4 18 5333 average #6  72 4 18 4000 average #6  Length (ft) *assumed to only exist in the tower structures Width (ft) (3 in total complex) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 18" footing w/ 20M * 2 per building Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar Stairs Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar Stairs Floors 3-5 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar Stairs floors 8-17 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar Stairs 18+ Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  44 44 60 5333 average #5  44 44 60 5333 average #5  176 44 15 4000 average #5  24 4 18 5333 average #6  48 8 18 5333 average #6  48 8 18 4000 average #6  14 4 8 3500 average #5  69.0 19.7 8 3500 average #5  69 19.7 8 4000 average #5  14 4 8 3500 average #5  117.6 11.2 8 3500 average #5  117.6 11.2 8 4000 average #5  14 4 8 3500 average #5  24.4 7.0 8 3500 average #5  244 7 8 4000 average #5  14 4 8 3500 average #5  33.9 9.7 8 3500 average #5  33.9 9.7 8 4000 average #5  Footing SF5 * 3 per building  Footing SF6 * 3 per building  Core Footing  STAIRS  McNicholl 45 General Description Project Location Building Life Expectancy Building Type Assembly Group WALLS Concrete Cast In Place  Assembly Type concrete walls floors 8-17  Vancouver 1 year Residential Input Fields  Complex Multiplier Complex Multiplier  Ideal Inputs  Building Total  EIE Input  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (Mpa) Concrete Flyash % Reinforcement  224 9 8 4000 average #5  2240 9 8 4000 average #5  2240 9 8 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (Mpa) Concrete Flyash % Reinforcement  596 9 8 4000 average #5  596 9 8 4000 average #5  596 9 8 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (Mpa) Concrete Flyash % Reinforcement Door Type Number of Doors  363 9 16 4000 average #5 25  363 9 16 4000 average #5 25  363 9 12 4000 average #5 Steel Interior Door 25  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (Mpa) Concrete Flyash % Reinforcement Door Type Number of Doors  94 9 16 4000 average #5 8  282 9 16 4000 average #5 24  282 9 12 4000 average #5 Steel Interior Door 24  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (Mpa) Concrete Flyash % Reinforcement Door Type Number of Doors  97 9 16 4000 average #5 5  970 9 16 4000 average #5 50  970 9 12 4000 average #5 Steel Interior Door 50  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (Mpa) Concrete Flyash % Reinforcement Door Type Number of Doors  139 9 16 4000 average #5 4  139 9 16 4000 average #5 4  139 9 12 4000 average #5 Steel Interior Door 4  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (Mpa) Concrete Flyash % Reinforcement  459 9 8 4000 average #5  9 8 4000 average #5  9 8 4000 average #5  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (inches) Concrete (Mpa) Concrete Flyash % Reinforcement  2580 9 8 4000 average #5  2580 9 8 4000 average #5  9 8 4000 average #5  concrete walls 18+  thick wall  thick walls floors 3-5  thick walls floors 8-17  thick walls 18+  Concrete Wall floors 3-5 1377  1377  Concrete Wall 2580  Concrete block wall Envelope Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar (m)  Concrete Brick Cladding Concrete Brick Cladding Concrete Brick Cladding 1269 1269 1269 9 9 9 #7 #7 #5  McNicholl 46 Steel Stud  Metal Stud Wall Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Door Type Number of Doors Total opening area (ft Number of window units Frame Type Glazing Type Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Type Thickness (inches)  2  )  Exterior 1027 9 wooden door 6 6688 716 none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. Insulation batt 3  Exterior 1027 9 wooden door 6 6688 716 none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. Insulation batt 3  Exterior 1027 9 wooden door 38 42335.0 4532 Aluminum Frame Standard Glazing none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. Light (25 Ga) insulation fiberglass batt 3  Metal Stud wall 3-5 Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Total opening area (ft Number of window units Frame Type Glazing Type Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Type Thickness (inches)  2  Exterior Exterior 379 9 2888 288  ) -  Exterior 1137 9 8664 864 -  none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. Insulation batt 3  none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. Insulation batt 3  1137 9 8664 864 Aluminum Frame Standard Glazing none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. Light (25 Ga) insulation fiberglass batt 3  Metal Stud Wall 8- 17 Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Total opening area (ft Number of window units Frame Type Glazing Type Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Type Thickness (inches)  2  Exterior 226 9 1641 168  ) -  none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. Insulation batt 3  Exterior Exterior 2260 2260 9 9 16410 16410 1680 1680 Aluminum Frame Standard Glazing none none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. 16 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Insulation insulation fiberglass batt batt 3 3  Metal Stud Wall lv 18 Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Total opening area (ft Frame Type Glazing Type Number of window units Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Type Thickness (inches) Metal Stud - interior  2  Exterior 238 9 1503  ) -  174 none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. Insulation batt 3  Exterior Exterior 238 238 9 9 1503 4509 Aluminum Frame Standard Glazing 174 174 none none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 16 o.c. 16 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Insulation insulation fiberglass batt batt 3 3  Drywall Partition Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Door Type Number of Doors Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Category Material Type Thickness (inches)  interior - steel stud interior - steel stud interior - steel stud 2832 2832 2832 9 9 9 Hollow Core Wood Interior Hollow Core Wood Interior Hollow Core Wood Interior 165 165 165 none none none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 24 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Insulation Insulation insulation fiberglass batt batt batt 3 3 3  Drywall Partition 3-5  Drywall Partition 8-17  Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Door Type Number of Doors Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Category Material Type Thickness (inches) Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Door Type Number of Doors Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Category Material Type Thickness (inches)  interior - steel stud  interior - steel stud 3429 9 9 Hollow Core Wood Interior Hollow Core Wood Interior 69 207 none none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Insulation Insulation batt batt 3 3 interior - steel stud interior - steel stud 556 1668 9 9 Hollow Core Wood Interior Hollow Core Wood Interior 36 108 none none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Insulation Insulation batt batt 3 3  interior - steel stud  1143  3429 9  cHollow Core Wood Interior  M Nicholl 47 207 none  1 5/8 x 3 5/8 24 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" insulation fiberglass batt 3 interior - steel stud 1668 9 Hollow Core Wood Interior 108 none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 24 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" insulation fiberglass batt 3  Drywal partition lv 18 Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Door Type Number of Doors Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Category Material Type Thickness (inches)  interior - steel stud  interior - steel stud interior - steel stud 304 304 9 9 9 Hollow Core Wood Interior Hollow Core Wood Interior Hollow Core Wood Interior 30 30 30 none none none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 24 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Insulation Insulation Insulation fiberglass batt batt batt 3 304  Double Stud Drywall Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Door Type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Category Material Type Thickness (inches)  interior - steel stud  interior - steel stud interior - steel stud 2220 2220 9 9 9 Hollow Core Wood Interior Hollow Core Wood Interior Hollow Core Wood Interior 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 24 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Insulation Insulation Insulation fiberglass batt batt batt 3 2220  Double Stud Drywall 3-5 Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Category Material Type Thickness (inches)  interior - steel stud  interior - steel stud 918  interior - steel stud 2754  9 none  9 none  1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Insulation Insulation batt batt -  2754 9 none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 24 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" insulation fiberglass 3  Double Stud Drywall 8-17 Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Category Material Type Thickness (inches)  interior - steel stud  interior - steel stud 456 9 none  interior - steel stud 4560 9 none  1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Insulation Insulation batt batt -  4560 9 none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 24 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" insulation fiberglass batt 3  Double Stud Drywall lvl 18 Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Sheathing type Stud thickness Stud spacing Stud weight Category Material Category Material Type Thickness (inches) Curtain Wall  interior - steel stud  interior - steel stud  interior - steel stud  366  366  9 none  9 none  1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" Gypsum Type X 5/8" Insulation Insulation batt batt -  366 9 none 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 24 o.c. Light (25 Ga) Gypsum Board Gypsum Type X 5/8" insulation fiberglass batt 3  Ground Floor Curtain Wall Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) 2 Total opening area (ft ) Number of window units Number of Doors Door Type Panel Type Percent Viewable Glazing Percent Spandrel Panel Thickness of Insulation (inches)  Exterior 125 14.91 6405 138 3 wooden door metal spandrel panel  Exterior 125 14.91 6405 138 3 wooden door metal spandrel panel  71.5 28.5 -  3  71.5 28.5 -  Exterior 125 14.91 6405 138 wooden door metal spandrel panel 71.5 28.5 3  McNicholl 48  Assembly Group FLOORS  Assembly Type  Input Fields  Ideal Inputs 1  Ideal Building Total  EIE Input  Concrete Suspended Slab Floor2 Total Floor width (ft) Span (ft) Live load (kips) Type Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Envelope  64 127.7 2 Floor 3500 Average none  64 127.7 2 Floor 3500 Average none  272.43 30 100 psf Floor 4000 Average none  Floor width (ft) Span (ft) Live load (kips) Type Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Envelope  78.6 157.2 2 Floor 3500 Average none  235.8 471.6 2 Floor 3500 Average none  235.8 471.6 100 psf Floor 4000 Average none  Floor width (ft) Span (ft) Live load (kips) Type Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Envelope  88 176 2 Floor 3500 Average none  88 176 2 Floor 3500 Average none  88 176 100 psf Floor 4000 Average none  Floor width (ft) Span (ft) Live load (kips) Type Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Envelope  55.5 111 2 Floor 3500 Average none  555 1110 2 Floor 3500 Average none  555 1110 100 psf Floor 4000 Average none  Floor width (ft) Span (ft) Live load (kips) Type Concrete (psi) Concrete Flyash % Envelope  72.8 145.5 2 Floor 3500 Average none  72.8 145.5 2 Floor 3500 Average none  72.8 145.5 100 psf Floor 4000 Average none  Concrete Suspended Slab Floor3-5  Concrete Suspended Slab Floor6 & 7 Total  Concrete Suspended Slab Floor 8-17  Concrete Suspended Slab Floor18+  ROOFING  R4 Type Roofing Roofing Type Concrete Suspended Slab Concrete Suspended Slab Concrete Suspended Slab Floor width (ft) 85.9 85.9 85.9 Span (ft) 85.9 85.9 85.9 Live load (kips) 0.3 0.3 0.3 Concrete (psi) 3500 3500 4000 Concrete Flyash % Average Average Average Envelope Roof envelope Roof envelope Roof envelope Material Ballast (aggregate stones) Ballast (aggregate stones) Ballast (aggregate stones) Envelope EPDM Inverted EPDM Inverted EPDM Inverted Material Polyisocyanurate Polyisocyanurate Polyisocyanurate Thickness 4" 4" 4" R3 Type Roofing Roofing Type Concrete Suspended Slab Concrete Suspended Slab Concrete Suspended Slab Floor width (ft) 21 31.82 31.82 Span (ft) 48.2 63.63 63.63 Live load (kips) 0.3 0.3 0.3 Concrete (psi) 3500 3500 4000 Concrete Flyash % Average Average Average Envelope Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier Material 3mil Poly Envelope EDPM Membrane EDPM Membrane EDPM Membrane Material Polyisocyanurate Polyisocyanurate Polyisocyanurate Thickness 4" 4" 4" R1 Type Roofing Roofing Type Concrete Suspended Slab Concrete Suspended Slab Concrete Suspended Slab Floor width (ft) 33.7 33.7 33.7 Span (ft) 67.5 67.5 67.5 Live load (kips) 0.3 0.3 0.3 Concrete (psi) 3500 3500 4000 Concrete Flyash % Average Average Average Envelope Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier Material 3mil Poly Envelope Insulation Insulation Insulation Material Polyisocyanurate Polyisocyanurate Polyisocyanurate Thickness 4" 4" 4" Envelope Steel Roof System Steel Roof System Steel Roof System Material Commercial Trellis Soffit Roof Width (ft) Roof Length (ft) Decking Live load (psf)  10 74 none -  10 74 none -  10 74 none 45  McNicholl 49  Assembly Group COLUMNS Concrete Beams and Columns  Assembly Type  Input Fields  Ideal Inputs  Building Total  EIE Input  Ground Floor South Podium Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  9 8 9  9 8 9  9 8 9  10.97 4.87 2  10.97 4.87 2  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  14 11 9 10 3.91 2  14 11 9 10 3.91 2  14 11 9 10 3.91 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  7 8 9 10 5.21 2  7 8 9 10 5.21 2  7 8 9 10 5.21 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  9 5 9 10 4.43 2  9 5 9 10 4.43 2  9 5 9 10 4.43 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  7 5 9  7 5 9  7 5 9  20.94 7.48 2  20.94 7.48 2  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  10 9 9 10 4.11 2  10 9 9 10 4.11 2  10 9 9 10 4.11 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  9 7 9 11.39 4.43 2  27 21 9 11.39 4.43 2  27 21 9 11.39 4.43 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  17 11 9 10.84 3.51 2  51 33 9 10.84 3.51 2  51 33 9 10.84 3.51 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  6 6 9 12.11 6.05 2  18 18 9 12.11 6.05 2  18 18 9 12.11 6.05 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  13 5 9 11.46 4.46 2  13 5 9 11.46 4.46 2  13 5 9 11.46 4.46 100 psf  10.97 4.87 100 psf  Ground Floor Tower Center  Ground Floor North Podium  Floor 2 South Podium  Floor 2 Tower Center  20.94 7.48 100 psf  Floor 2 North Podium  Floors 3-5 South Podium  Floors 3-5 Tower Center  Floors 3-5 North Podium  Floor 6 South Podium  McNicholl 50 Floor 6 Tower Center Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  15 9 9 12.69 3.81 2  15 9 9 12.69 3.81 2  15 9 9 12.69 3.81 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  5 7 9 10 6.63 2  5 7 9 10 6.63 2  5 7 9 10 6.63 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  10 10 9 11.63 3.5 2  9 8 9 10.97 4.87 2  9 8 9 10.97 4.87 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  17 6 9 19.2 3.39 2  9 5 9 17 18 2  57 32 9 17 18 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  17 9 9 12.84 3.4 2  170 90 9 12.84 3.4 2  170 90 9 12.84 3.4 100 psf  Number of columns Number of beams Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (kips)  16 8 9 14.06 3.52 2  9 5 9 17 18 2  57 32 9 17 18 100 psf  Floor 6 North Podium  Floors 7 South Podium  Floors 7 Tower Center  Floors 8-17 Tower Center  Floor 18 Tower Center  Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Input Fields  Ideal Inputs 1  Building Total  EIE Input  EXTRA BASIC MATERIALS 5c Gypsum Board  1/2" regular gypsum board (ft 2) 4000 psi Average Flyash Concrete (yrd  570 3  )  194.89  570 194.89  570  194.89  McNicholl 51  Appendix B: Detailed Assumptions  McNicholl 52 Assembly Group COLUMNS  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Specific Assumptions  Due to the rigidity of the impact modeling software and the non-uniformity of the column assembly within the tower, modeling this part of the structure required the largest assumptions and appears to be the greatest source of error within the model. Athena Impact Estimator models column and beam assemblies in a grid format, which assumes that bay areas and spans are uniform. It also places minimum values on bay areas and span lengths and will round up to these minimums if an input value is outside the range. In order to conform to this input format, the number of columns and beams were counted, the supported area was determined, and then transformed mathematically into a rectangular grid where length = 2 x width. Since no drawings detailing beams were available the location of certain beams had to be assumed; beams were only assumed to exist if the length of a span between two columns exceeded 10 ft. Although all beams and columns counted in the quantity takeoffs are represented in the model, the values for supported spans are below the minimum required input value, which means that the software may be rounding up the lengths of beams even if this is not evident in the input fields. If rounding is occurring, span values will be rounded up to approximately 20 ft. This cannot be changed without reducing the value for bay areas, which would result in a value below the valid input range and cause the model to not function. Also, input fields in Athena do not allow for concrete strengths to be specified, only live loads. This may be missing an important component in environmental impacts since the concrete strengths change from 25 MPa to 35 MPa from the top of the structure to the bottom. Since these strengths have a significant affect on greenhouse gas emissions, the assumption that all column strengths are the same may not be valid. Concrete Beams and Columns  Ground Floor South Podium  The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(3847/2) / 9 = 4.87 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(3847/2) / 8 = 10.97 ft  Ground Floor Tower Center  The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(6006/2) / 14 = 3.91 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(6006/2) / 11 = 10 ft  Ground Floor North Podium  The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams, whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(2659/2) / 7 = 5.21 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(2659/2) / 8 = 10 ft  Floor 2 South Podium  The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(3184/2) / 9 = 4.43 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(3184/2) / 5 = 10 ft The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(5484/2) / 7 = 7.48 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(5484/2) / 5 = 20.94 ft  Floor 2 Tower Center  Floor 2 North Podium  The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(3376/2) / 10 = 4.11 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(3376/2) / 9 = 10 ft  Floor 3-5 South Podium  The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(3179/2) / 9 = 4.43 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(3179/2) / 7 = 11.39 ft Since this represents one of three identical floors, the number of beams and columns were each multiplied by three to get the final input.  McNicholl 53 Floor 3-5 Tower Center  Floor 3-5 North Podium  Floor 6 South Podium  Floor 6 Tower Center  Floor 6 North Podium  Floor 7 South Podium  The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(7111/2) / 17 = 3.51 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(7111/2) / 11 = 10.84 ft Since this represents one of three identical floors, the number of beams and columns were each multiplied by three to get the final input. The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(2638/2) / 6 = 6.05 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(2638/2) / 6 = 12.11 ft The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(3220/2) / 13 = 4.46 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(3220/2) / 5 = 11.46 ft The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(6525/2) / 15 = 3.81 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(6525/2) / 9 = 12.69 ft The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(2201/2) / 5 = 6.63 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(2201/2) / 7 = 10 ft The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(3179/2) / 10 = 3.5 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(3179/2) / 10 = 11.63 ft  Floor 7 Tower Center  The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(6637/2) / 17 = 3.39 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(6637/2) / 6 = 19.2 ft  Floors 8-17 Tower Center  The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(6678/2) / 17 = 3.4 ft 2 x sqrt(area/2) / # of beams = Bay Size 2 x sqrt(6678/2) / 9 = 12.84 ft The number of columns and supported areas were determined in onscreen, as well as the number of beams whose positions were approximated. The assembly was modeled as a grid with dimensions calculated in the following way to ensure that values were within acceptable ranges for EIE input software (ie bay size > 10ft). sqrt(area/2) / # of columns = Span sqrt(6327/2) / 16 = 3.52  Floor 18 Tower Center  Assembly Group FLOORS  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Specific Assumptions  McNicholl 54  In consistency with other concrete bodies in the structure, since there is no indication of increased fly ash content it was assumed that all concrete contained only average concentrations of flyash. One slight modification was made to the concrete in order to fit EIE input fields: the strength of concrete was adjusted from 3500 to 4000 psi. Although this will likely result in a higher overall global warming potential in the model, the magnitude of this increase is unknown and therefore not adjusted for. Two other general assumptions were also made due to lack of specific information available from the drawings. No floor envelope specifications were provided and since flooring such as carpeting is beyond the scope of this study, floors were assumed to not have envelopes. The other source of uncertainty is related to floor loading specifications, which were indicated in the structural drawings as having a point load of 2 kips. It is unusual to attribute a point load to a floor area, so this was assumed to translate into a uniform area load of 100 psf in order to fit EIE input fields. Concrete Suspended Slab  Concrete Suspended Slab Floor2 Total  The slab was area was determined in the takeoffs and then adjusted in size to fit within the parameters of the impact estimation software, which limits the span to no more than 30 ft. Span Length = Area / 30 ft 2  = 8172.9 ft = 272.43 ft  / 30 ft  Concrete Suspended Slab Floor3-5 The slab was area was determined in the takeoffs and then adjusted in size to fit within the parameters of the impact estimation software, which limits the span to no more than 30 ft. The area modeled in the takeoff software represents one of three identical floors so the area of one floor has been multiplied by 3 to obtain the final area. Area x 3 = Total Area 2  37067.8 ft x 3 = 111203.4 Span Length = Total Area / 30 ft 2  = 111203.4 ft / 30 ft Concrete Suspended Slab Floor6 & 7 Total= 3706.78 ft The slab was area was determined in the takeoffs and then adjusted in size to fit within the parameters of the impact estimation software, which limits the span to no more than 30 ft. Span Length = Area / 30 ft 2  = 15488.1 ft = 516.27 ft  / 30 ft  Concrete Suspended Slab Floor 8-17 x 10 The slab was area was determined in the takeoffs and then adjusted in size to fit within the parameters of the impact estimation software, which limits the span to no more than 30 ft. The area modeled in the takeoff software represents one of ten identical floors so the area of one floor has been multiplied by 10 to obtain the final area. Area x 10 = Total Area 2 205350 ft x 10 = 616050 ft Span Length = Total Area / 30 ft  = 616050 ft  2  2  / 30 ft  Concrete Suspended Slab Floor18+ The slab was area was determined in the takeoffs and then adjusted in size to fit within the parameters of the impact estimation software, which limits the span to no more than 30 ft. Span Length = Area / 30 ft = 10592.4 ft = 353.08 ft ROOFING  2  / 30 ft  Similarly to the floors, no unusual concrete flyash concentrations were specified and loading specifications were also given as point loads, specifically as 0.3 kips. In an attempt to be proportionally consistent with other loading assumptions, 0.3 kips was correlated to 45 psf in the EIE software. Also, roof concrete strengths were specified as 3500 psi in structural drawings but had to be rounded up to 4000 to fit EIE input fields, likely resulting a slightly increased global warming potential for the overall model.  Concrete Suspended Slab  R4 Type Roofing * approximated to be a square  Roof schedules are well detailed in architectural drawings. Area determined in takeoff software was approximated as a square for EIE input. Sqrt(area) = length sqrt(7378.8 ft  R3 Type Roofing * 2 slabs of this  ) = 85.9 ft  Roof schedules are well detailed in architectural drawings. The vapour barrier was assumed to be made of 3 mil poly. Area determined in takeoff software was approximated as a rectangle of 2w = l for EIE input. The total area of two identical slabs was found by multiplying the dimensions of one by a factor of 2. area x 2 = total area 1012.2 x2 = 2024.4 ft width 31.82 ft  Trellis Soffit  2  2  Sqrt(total area /2 ) = sqrt(2024.4 ft l = 2 x w = 63.63 ft  R1 Type Roofing  Roof schedules are well detailed in architectural drawings. The vapour barrier was assumed to be made of 3 mil poly. Area determined in takeoff software was approximated as a square for EIE input. Sqrt(area) = length sqrt( ft2) = 85.9 ft  Trellis Soffit  The trellis soffit is a decorative structure arching over the tower entrance. It has no decking and carries no load, but a minimum load of 45 psf was specified in order to comply with EIE input fields.  2  ) =  McNicholl 55 Assembly Group WALLS  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Specific Assumptions  Door types specified in the model have been confirmed through drawings and a site visit but the generic terms used in the EIE make it uncertain if doors used in the model are an accurate representation of the actual ones. However, it seems likely that this assumption is a minor one since the type of materials has been confirmed and it is only the volume that remains uncertain. Windows were accounted for by counting the number of each type of assembly and then matching them to the areas specified in the window schedule in the architectural drawings. In cases where the window assembly did not match any detailed in the window schedule, an assumption was made based on size and the number of windows and the new assembly was equated to one specified in the window schedule. A complete breakdown of these assumptions and count for the total number of windows can be referenced later in this Appendix. Two more assumptions related to the window assemblies were made when the architect was unable to verify drawing ambiguities. The windows were assumed to be of standard glazing with aluminum frames. There was also limited information about the envelopes of the metal stud walls immediately surrounding the windows. These envelopes were assumed to be the same as the single stud drywall partition envelopes that the metal stud walls join to except with a commercial grade steel exterior cladding. Also, due to a few missing specifics in the architectural drawings, steel studs in drywall partitions were assumed to be light (25 Ga) and acoustic batt insulation was interpreted as fiberglass. concrete walls floors 8-17  This wall represents one of 10 identical floors. Total wall length was multiplied by 10 to account for all repeated wall units. Length * 10 = Input Length 224 ft * 10 = 2240 ft  thick wall  Wall thicknesses are limited to 8" or 12" in the EIE input fields. To account for the extra concrete in this 16" wall, the missing volume was added to extra basic materials. Length * (4/3 ft - 1 ft) * height = volume added 3  363 ft * 1/3 ft * 9 ft = 1089 ft thick walls floors 3-5 * 3 identical floors per building  This wall represents one of 3 identical floors. Total wall length was multiplied by 3 to account for all repeated wall units. Length * 3 = Input Length 224 94ft * 3 = 282 ft Wall thicknesses are limited to 8" or 12" in the EIE input fields. To account for the extra concrete in this 16" wall, the missing volume was added to extra basic materials. Length * (4/3 ft - 1 ft) * height = volume added  thick walls floors 8-17 * 10 identical floors per tower  3 282 ft * 1/3 ft * 9 ft = 846 ft This wall represents one of 10 identical floors. Total wall length was multiplied by 10 to account for all repeated wall units. Length * 10 = Input Length 97 * 10 = 970 ft  Wall thicknesses are limited to 8" or 12" in the EIE input fields. To account for the extra concrete in this 16" wall, the missing volume was added to extra basic materials. Length * (4/3 ft - 1 ft) * height = volume added thick walls 18+ *floor 18 and roof  3 970 ft * 1/3 ft * 9 ft = 2910 ft Wall thicknesses are limited to 8" or 12" in the EIE input fields. To account for the extra concrete in this 16" wall, the missing volume was added to extra basic materials. Length * (4/3 ft - 1 ft) * height = volume added 3  Concrete Wall floors 3-5 * 3 identical floors per building  Concrete block wall  139 ft * 1/3 ft * 9 ft = 417 ft This wall represents one of 3 identical floors. Total wall length was multiplied by 3 to account for all repeated wall units. Length * 3 = Input Length 459ft * 3 = 1377 ft Rebar is specified as #7 in drawings but was rounded down to the maximum input value of #5 in the EIE.  McNicholl 56 Metal Stud  Double Stud Drywall This wall is twice the thickness of the standard drywall partitions, * the wall is double thickness (ie 2 studs) which has been modeled by doubling the length of the wall modeled by doubling the length of the determined actual wall through takeoffs. Consequently, gypsum board drywall *consequently, only one layer of drywall was modeled has only been modeled on one side of the wall. Length * 2 = input length 1110 ft * 2 = 2220 ft The thickness of insulation, 3", was assumed to be consistent with that of the single stud drywall partitions.  Double Stud Drywall 3-5 This wall is twice the thickness of the standard drywall partitions, *3 identical floors per building which has been modeled by doubling the length of the wall * the wall is double thickness (ie 2 studs) determined through takeoffs. Consequently, gypsum board drywall modeled by doubling the length of the has actual wall only been modeled on one side of the wall. Length * 2 = input length 459 ft * 2 = 918 ft Since this represents one of three identical floors, this length was multiplied by three to obtain the final input. Input length * 3 = final input 918 ft * 3 = 2754 ft The thickness of insulation, 3", was assumed to be consistent with that of the single stud drywall partitions. Double Stud Drywall 8-17 This wall is twice the thickness of the standard drywall partitions, * 10 identical floors per tower which has been modeled by doubling the length of the wall * the wall is double thickness (ie 2 studs) determined through takeoffs. Consequently, gypsum board drywall modeled by doubling the length of the has actual wall only been modeled on one side of the wall. Length * 2 = input length 228 ft * 2 = 456 ft Since this represents one of three identical floors, this length was multiplied by three to obtain the final input. Input length * 3 = final input 456 ft * 10 = 4560 ft The thickness of insulation, 3", was assumed to be consistent with that of the single stud drywall partitions. Double Stud Drywall lvl 18 This wall is twice the thickness of the standard drywall partitions, * the wall is double thickness (ie 2 studs) which has been modeled by doubling the length of the wall modeled by doubling the length of the determined actual wall through takeoffs. Consequently, gypsum board drywall has only been modeled on one side of the wall. Length * 2 = input length 183 ft * 2 = 366 ft Thickness of insulation was assumed to be consistent with that of the single stud drywall partitions. Ground Floor Curtain Wall  The thickness of insulation was assumed to be consistent with that of the other metal walls surrounding windows: 3"  McNicholl 57 Assembly Group SLABS  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Specific Assumptions  Concrete flyash content was again assumed to be average and the concrete strength of 5333 psi had to be changed to 4000 psi in order to match available input options for all footings. Again, this rigidity in input format is contributing to inaccuracies in greenhouse gas emissions estimated by the model. In some cases, the size of rebar also had to be changed to match available input fields. There is no input category in the EIE that represents stairs. Stairs were modeled as footings in order to have more control over concrete volumes and reinforcement dimensions in the model. Slab On Grade  8" 10M reinforced slab  Since there are no rebar inputs in the modeling software, it was assumed that all concrete slabs on grade contain minimum reinforcement in the form of #10M bars. Modeled as a square area. Sqrt (area) = length = width 2  sqrt(10733 ft  8" slab on grade  sqrt(5565 ft 4" Slab on Grade unreinforced  FOOTINGS  Concrete Footing  Footing F1  Footing F2  Footing F8  Footing F11  Footing F13  Footing F14  Footing F16  ) = 103.6 ft  Modeled as a square area. Sqrt (area) = length = width 2  ) = 74.6 ft  Modeled as a square area. Sqrt (area) = length = width sqrt(8391 ft2) = 91.6 ft Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 26 in. / 2 = 13 in. 7.5 ft *2 = 15 ft Since there are two identical footings, the length is muliplied by 2 to find the final input length. input length * 2 = final input length 15 ft * 2 = 30 ft Since there are six identical footings, the length is muliplied by 6 to find the final input length. input length * 6 = final input length 7.5 ft * 6 = 45 ft This footing has a combination of different rebar sizes that were averaged to #6 size.Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 48 in. / 4 = 16 in. 5.25 ft *4 = 21 ft Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 30 in. / 2 = 15 in. 9 ft *2 = 18 ft Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 28 in. / 2 = 14 in. 8 ft *2 = 16 ft Since there are two identical footings, the length is muliplied by 2 to find the final input length. input length * 2 = final input length 16 ft * 2 = 32 ft Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 42 in. / 3 = 14 in. 13 ft *3 = 39 ft Since there are two identical footings, the length is muliplied by 2 to find the final input length. input length * 2 = final input length 39 ft * 2 = 78 ft Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 30 in. / 2 = 15 in. 7 ft *2 = 14 ft  McNicholl 58 Footing F20  Since there are nine identical footings, the length is muliplied by 9 to find the final input length. length * 9 = final input length 5.5 ft * 9 = 49.5 ft  Footing F22  Since there are five identical footings, the length is muliplied by 5 to find the final input length. length * 5 = final input length 9 ft * 5 = 45 ft Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 30 in. / 2 = 15 in. 7.5 ft *2 = 15 ft Since there are four identical footings, the length is muliplied by 4 to find the final input length. input length * 4 = final input length 15 ft * 4 = 60 ft  Footing F23  Footing F24  Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 36 in. / 2 = 18 in. 15 ft *2 = 30 ft  Footing F25  Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 30 in. / 2 = 15 in. 8.5 ft *2 = 17 ft  Footing SF1 * 11 per building  Since there are eleven identical footings, the length is muliplied by 11 to find the final input length. length * 11 = final input length 9 ft * 11 = 99 ft  Footing SF2 * 7 per building  Since there are seven identical footings, the length is muliplied by 7 to find the final input length. length * 7 = final input length 8 ft * 7 = 56 ft  Footing SF3 * 5 per building  Since there are five identical footings, the length is muliplied by 5 to find the final input length. length * 5 = final input length 7 ft * 5 = 35 ft  Footing SF5 * 3 per building  Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 36 in. / 2 = 18 in. 19 ft *2 = 38 ft Since there are three identical footings, the length is muliplied by 3 to find the final input length. input length * 3 = final input length 38 ft * 3 = ft Since there are three identical footings, the length is muliplied by 3 to find the final input length. length * 3 = final input length 24 ft * 3 = 72 ft  Footing SF6 * 3 per building  McNicholl 59  STAIRS  Concrete Footing  Core Footing  Limitations on maximum footing thickness forced changes in footing dimensions. The volume of concrete within the footing has been kept constant by increasing footing length and reducing footing thickness simultanously. original thickness / = input thickness original length * = input length 60 in. / 4 = 15 in. 44 ft *4 = 176 ft  18" footing w/ 20M * 2 per building  Since there are two identical footings, the length is muliplied by 2 to find the final input length. length * 2 = final input length 24 ft * 2 = 48 ft  Stairs  The total area of stairs was determined and modeled as a single footing for each set. Dimensions were determined as follows using the length to width ratio for a single flight of stairs. Thickness was averaged across the length of the stairs. All other specs are from the structural drawings. sqrt(area *4 / 14) = length length * 4 / 14 = width sqrt (1361*4/14) = 69 ft 69 ft *4 / 14 = 19.7 ft The total area of stairs was determined and modeled as a single footing for each set. Dimensions were determined as follows using the length to width ratio for a single flight of stairs. Thickness was averaged across the length of the stairs. All other specs are from the structural drawings. sqrt(area *4 / 14) = length length * 4 / 14 = width sqrt (438*4/14) = 39.2 ft ft *4 / 14 = 11.2 ft Since this represents one of three identical floors length is then multiplied by three. Length = 39.2 * 3 = 117.6 ft  Stairs Floors 3-5  Stairs floors 8-17  Stairs 18+  Assembly Group BASIC MATERIALS  Assembly Type Concrete Cast In Place  The total area of stairs was determined and modeled as a single footing for each set. Dimensions were determined as follows using the length to width ratio for a single flight of stairs. Thickness was averaged across the length of the stairs. All other specs are from the structural drawings. sqrt(area *4 / 14) = length length * 4 / 14 = width sqrt (170*4/14) = 24.4 ft ft *4 / 14 = 7 ft Since this represents one of ten identical floors length is then multiplied by 10 Length = 24.4 * 10 = 244 ft The total area of stairs was determined and modeled as a single footing for each set. Dimensions were determined as follows using the length to width ratio for a single flight of stairs. Thickness was averaged across the length of the stairs. All other specs are from the structural drawings. sqrt(area *4 / 14) = length length * 4 / 14 = width sqrt (1361*4/14) = 69 ft 69 ft *4 / 14 = 19.7 ft  Assembly Name Specific Assumptions 4000 psi Average Flyash Concrete (yrdVolume added is the sum of the volumes remainin from the thick concrete walls: 1089 ft 27 ft  3  5262 ft  3  + 846 ft  = 1 yrd 3  3  +2910 ft  3  + 417 ft  3  /27 ft 3 /yrd  3  = 194.89 yrd  3  3  = 5262 ft  3  McNicholl 60 Window Assumptions and Calculations  Window Assemblies  # Windows  1 2 3 5 6 6A 7 8 9 4  16 42 3 7 14 3 3 21 3 6  2 3 15 9 12 16 6 6 6 12  32 126 45 63 168 48 18 126 18 72 716  Floors 8-17 6 8 2  8 4 16  12 6 3  96 24 48 168  6 2 2 8 6  12 3 6 6 6  72 6 12 48 36 174  12 8 8 4 3 7 2  2 3 15 12 6 6 6  24 24 120 48 18 42 12 288  Floor 18 6 2 9 8 7 Floors 3-5 1 2 3 6 7 8 9  Subwins/Wins  Total Wins  Window equivalents in window schedule for unspecified window units: 36 22 18 35 23  = = = = =  type type type type type  6 2 8 6 2  12 windows total 3 windows total 8 windows total 12 windows total 3 windows total  McNicholl 61 29 52 28 41 26 39 38 37 19 20 45 46 48 21 32 43 33 23 25 28 31  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  type 2 3 windows total type 8 8 windows total type 1 2 windows total type 6 12 windows total type 2 3 windows total type 9 6 windows total type 6 12 windows total 3 x type 7 6 windows each type 9 6 windows total type 2 3 windows total type 8 8 windows total type 8 8 windows total type 1 2 windows total type 2 and type 1 5 total type 3 15 windows total type 3 15 windows total type 3 15 windows total type 2 3 windows total type 2 3 windows total type 2 3 windows total type 2 3 windows total  McNicholl 62  Appendix C: Aggregated Summary Measures for Residences at UBC  Residences Vanier Totem Gage Fariview Thunderbird MarineDrive Average Impact Category Units 1959,1961,19681964 1972 1985 1995 2005 Primary Energy Consumption MJ 288.43 404.14 328.49 282.91 495.45 924.05 453.91 Weighted Resource Use kg 116.42 196.50 182.15 99.98 182.69 574.48 225.37 Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq / kg) 20.11 29.56 25.64 16.74 28.40 75.10 32.59 Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq / kg) 3.66 10.13 10.65 7.03 6.10 26.26 10.64 HH Respiratory Effects Potential(kg PM2.5 eq / kg) 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.26 0.12 Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) 1.81E-083.27E-08 4.92E-08 1.55E-07 1.58E-07 1.23E-078.94E-08 Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / kg) 0.06 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.41 0.16  McNicholl 63  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 14 0
China 4 14
Canada 1 1
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Clarks Summit 7 0
Ashburn 3 0
Kansas City 2 0
Shenzhen 2 14
Redmond 1 0
Hangzhou 1 0
Unknown 1 0
Boardman 1 0
Guangzhou 1 0
Tokyo 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

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.18861.1-0077962/manifest

Comment

Related Items