UBC Undergraduate Research

LCA – Totem Park Residence Curtis, Trevor 2009-03-31

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Totem%20Park_Curtis,T_2_0.pdf [ 295.65kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0077963.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0077963-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0077963-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0077963-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0077963-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0077963-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0077963-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0077963-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0077963.ris

Full Text

          UBC Social, Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report            LCA – Totem Park Residence Trevor Curtis University of British Columbia CIVL 498C March 2009          Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.” March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Abstract  This study looks at the total environmental impact of the Totem Park residences located on the UBC Vancouver campus.  The study aims to get an idea of what the total embodied impact of the building complex is.  The goal and scope of an LCA must be clearly outlined in order to properly identify its uses and how it can be used by decision makers.  The findings of the study showed that the reinforced concrete structural system contributed the most to the final environmental impact of the constructed buildings.  An energy model was also constructed in order to compare the difference in operating energy of one of the residence buildings with its original insulation and window glazing, versus an upgraded insulation and windows.  It was noted that the upgraded insulation shows a dramatic improvement on the operational efficiency.   Introduction The Totem Park residence complex was built in 1963 making it one of the older residences on the UBC Vancouver campus.  It has a total of 1163 beds in six different buildings as well as three social buildings and one large common building that includes a cafeteria, work out area, and other such amenities.  The buildings have undergone a variety of renovations over the years, however these are outside the scope of this report.   Totem Park is constructed using primarily reinforced concrete.  The exterior walls consist of concrete with a brick veneer.  Interior walls are concrete blocks and cast in place concrete.  Suspended concrete slabs make up the floors and roof.  With all this concrete in the structure, it is anticipated that the total environmental impact of constructing it will be based largely on the concrete.  It was also noted that the building envelope consists of very little insulation (only 1 inch thick) and is consequently very inefficient in the way of heating.  Heating comes exclusively from steam that is piped in from the UBC central steam plant.  The windows are all single glazed, and the common block has a very large portion of the building that is covered entirely by floor to ceiling glass – contributing to the overall inefficiency of the building’s heating.   This report will show a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) conducted on the entire complex (with a few omissions – see goal and scope section) with the intent of showing as much detail as is practically possible, given the software that was employed.   March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES   Goal of Study This life cycle analysis (LCA) of the Totem Park residences at the University of British Columbia was carried out as an exploratory study to determine the environmental impact of the design of it’s six buildings.  This LCA of the Totem Park 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 Totem Park residences.  An exemplary application of these references are in the assessment of potential future performance upgrades to the structure and envelope of the Totem Park residences.  When this study is considered in conjunction with the twelve other UBC building LCA studies, further applications include the possibility of carrying out environmental performance comparisons across UBC buildings over time and between different materials, structural types and building functions.  Furthermore, as demonstrated through these potential applications, this Totem Park residences 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.  Scope of Study  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  The product system being studied in this LCA are the structure, envelope and operational energy usage associated with space conditioning of the Totem Park residences 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 Totem Park residences, as well as associated transportation effects throughout.   Tools, Methodology and Data  Two main software tools are to be utilized to complete this LCA study; OnCenter’s OnScreen TakeOff and the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute’s Impact Estimator (IE) for buildings.  The study will first undertake the initial stage of a materials quantity takeoff, which involves performing linear, area and count measurements of the building’s structure and envelope. To accomplish this, OnScreen TakeOff version 3.6.2.25 is used, which is a software tool designed to perform material takeoffs with increased accuracy and speed in order to enhance the bidding capacity of its users.  Using imported digital plans, the program simplifies the calculation and measurement of the takeoff process, while reducing the error associated with these two activities. The measurements generated are formatted into the inputs required for the IE building LCA software to complete the takeoff process.  These formatted inputs as well as their associated assumptions can be viewed in Annexes 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 Totem Park residences in the Vancouver region as an Multi-Unit Residential Rental 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).  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  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 Totem Park residences 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 Totem Park residences, all of the available TRACI impact assessment categories available in the IE are included in this study, and are listed as; • Global warming potential • Acidification potential • Eutrophication potential • Ozone depletion potential • Photochemical smog potential • Human health respiratory effects potential • Weighted raw resource use • Primary energy consumption  Using the summary measure results, a sensitivity analysis is then conducted in order to reveal the effect of material changes on the impact profile of the Totem Park residences. 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.  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  The primary sources of data for this LCA are the original architectural and structural drawings from when the Totem Park residences was initially constructed in 1963.  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.   Building Model – Takeoffs Using the OnScreen software package, material takeoffs were performed.  The Totem Park was split into three main building types:  The residences, the social units and the common building.  The residence building type is repeated six times, the social unit three times and the common building is unique.  Takeoffs were performed in a methodical manner, going floor by floor with each building being its own typical unit.  In order to obtain the entire bill of materials (BoM), each floor is simply multiplied by the respective number of times it is repeated.  In this way, the takeoff data is conveniently organized, and one can easily isolate each individual floor from the rest of the site.  Challenges that made the process difficult were primarily due to the quality of the drawings.  The drawings are hand made from the 1950’s and 60’s which were scanned into a computer and converted to .pdf format.  Because they are hand drawn and quite old, the quality is very March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  low and it was quite difficult to obtain much detailed information.  This meant that certain assumptions had to be made such as wall and floor thicknesses and door/window details.  The building was modeled with a number of simplifying assumptions.  Some of these assumptions apply to the entire park, these include:  • All residence and social floor loads are 75psf • Floor loads for Common building are 100psf • All roof loads are 45psf • All concrete is assumed to be 3000psi strength • All rebar is assumed to be #5 bar size • All windows are the same size (3’x2’)   A more detailed explanation of each assembly group can be found in Annex B.  Bill of Materials The BoM represents the sum of all materials used to create the building.  It is different from the input tables because it includes items taken from the materials database and is generated automatically from the EIE software.  For example, joint compound and nails are both materials used in construction but were not specified in the material takeoffs, yet they are included in the BoM.  Table 1.1 – Bill of Materials Material Quantity Unit 1/2"  Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 86090.0945 m2 Aluminium 95.0063 Tonnes Ballast (aggregate stone) 5934.0516 Kg Cold Rolled Sheet 2.5718 Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 15825.5496 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 3527.5931 m3 Concrete Blocks 141192.5037 Blocks EPDM membrane 3378.942 Kg Expanded Polystyrene 229.425 m2 (25mm) Extruded Polystyrene 49474.0214 m2 (25mm) Galvanized Sheet 5.7484 Tonnes March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Glazing Panel 37.7804 Tonnes Joint Compound 85.9195 Tonnes Mortar 819.8772 m3 Nails 107.935 Tonnes Ontario (Standard) Brick 13368.4584 m2 Paper Tape 0.9861 Tonnes PVC membrane 3637.756 Kg Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 775.2878 Tonnes Roofing Asphalt 5651.4777 Kg Screws Nuts & Bolts 0.4417 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 23.6563 m3 Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 8176.4574 L Standard Glazing 3151.1321 m2 Water Based Latex Paint 1185.3069 L Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 5.5382 Tonnes  Some of the most important materials used in the construction of Totem Park are concrete, reinforcing steel, clay brick, concrete blocks and mortar.  It is no surprise that concrete and steel are the most important, since all of the structures are made entirely of these materials.  Reinforced concrete is very versatile in its uses and allows a high degree of flexibility in design.  The biggest contribution to the total amount of concrete used comes from suspended slabs.  There are nearly 200,000 square feet of suspended slabs in the residences alone.  This is more than double the total concrete volume of the walls and slabs on grade for the entire park.  The output of the EIE model will depend very heavily on the reinforced concrete.  Steel reinforcing bars will play a very significant role as well.  Even slabs on grade require a minimum reinforcing to protect against temperature cracking, and some assemblies such as footings and stairs will have a much higher steel content. The accuracy of the figures shown is directly affected by the assumptions made such as slab thickness, wall thickness, beams and columns, etc.  The Impact Estimator has a built in structural estimator that will estimate member dimensions based on the span of a beam or height of a column.  These are rough estimates and are not considered exact.  In addition, sometimes it is not possible to input the exact thickness of a wall or slab.  For slabs on grade, the options are either 4” or 8”, and in this case the actual slabs were 6”.  This will have an effect on the final result of the model, but it should still be within a reasonable range.  Summary measures March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  This section will discuss the findings of the LCA – that is, the environmental impact resulting from the construction of Totem Park.  The summary measures shows data such as the total embodied energy, the global warming potential as well as a number of other impacts.  Here we are viewing the data by the life cycle stages of the entire building.  This is particularly useful if annual energy consumption data is available, as it would allow one to compare the embodied effects versus operating effects.  Note that a simple energy model was conducted and will be discussed in a later section of this report.    Table 2.1 – Summary measures – by Life cycle stages   Manufacturing Construction Total Effects   Material Transport Total Material Transport Total   Primary Energy Consumption MJ 104590169 2447453 107037622 4285048 13566388 17851436 12889057 Weighted Resource Use kg 60145270 72439 60217710 196854 308753 505607 60723317 Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq / kg) 8821743 4369 8826112 290427 17677 308104 9134216 Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq / kg) 2974251 1469 2975720 147635 5994 153629 3129349 HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg) 26007 2 26009 166 7 173 26182 Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg) 168 0 168 0 0 0 168 Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / kg) 39738 33 39771 3655 135 3789 43560  Sources of Uncertainty There is a long list of assumptions inherent in the LCA process, and this report is not aimed at exploring an exhaustive list of these assumptions and their uncertainties.  There are however several important points that should be considered.  For example, the Impact Estimator takes the data from the LCI data associated with the BoM and references it against a non- regionalized version of the impact assessment methodology TRACI.  The results are characterized and normalized so that similar pollutants can be expressed in the same units.  The example of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents can best illustrate this point - eventhough chemicals, such as methane, might have additional environmental interactions, when compared to carbon dioxide, the total impact is best described as a CO2 equivalent.  The chemicals are weighted according to the greenhouse effect of each chemical relative to carbon dioxide.  The same process of weighting chemicals and impacts is used for the other impact categories (ie. March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  eutrophication, acidification, etc.).  There is uncertainty in this process because there may be other important effects of the chemicals that are neglected when they are represented on equivalency scales.  Interactions between chemicals and the natural environment may be more complex.  They may also have a very short or very long life span.  All of these difficulties contribute to the uncertainty of the impact assessment, and over LCA.  The impact of a given product varies from one company to another and from one region of the world to another.  Differences in techniques, technologies, policies, resource availability, energy costs and a host of other inputs all play a role in determining the final impact of the product.  For example, in third world countries, projects use a lot of labour and less machinery to get the job done – this may have a significant impact on the environmental impact of construction.  For this reason, there are a number of databases from various parts of the world; each one is specific to the local and regional impacts of a given product or service.  A concrete building in Vancouver will have inputs that are very different than the exact same building if constructed in Brazil.  In addition, there is uncertainty regarding when and where the pollutants are released.  They may be released slowly over a period or all at once.  They may also be released in such a way as to facilitate dispersion over a wide area.  For example transportation produces pollutants from trucks/ships etc all along the transportation route.  These include air emissions as well as leaking fluids (lubricants, coolants etc) or solid materials such as blown out tires or broken parts.  The same principle of uncertainty may apply to many of the outputs of the model – these exact details of when and where emissions are released to air, water and land are simply not known.   There are also a number of uncertainties inherent in the Impact Estimator.  For example, the exact size of structural members such as beams, columns and suspended slabs are approximated automatically based on column height and span/bay sizes as well as live loads.  This gives a pretty good rough estimate but may not represent the actual building precisely.    Sensitivity Analysis The sensitivity analysis was carried out using a group of five materials.  An extra 10% of each material was added to the Impact Estimator one at a time, recording the output after each March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  change.  The result shows what happens to the model when each material is adjusted by ±10% of its original BoM value.  It should be noted that the IE takes into account construction waste factors.  These construction waste factors did not seem to affect the sensitivity analysis in a significant way.  Table 3– Sensitivity - % Variance of output when selected materials are adjusted by 10%  Concrete (%) Rebar (%) Brick (%) Insulation (%) Paint (%) Energy (MJ) 2.49 1.43 0.33 0.16 0.15 Resource Use 8.67 0.88 0.68 0.63 0.65 Global Warming 4.72 0.84 0.44 0.11 0.32 Acidification  4.70 0.13 0.46 0.13 0.31 Respiratory Effects 4.62 0.59 0.45 0.30 0.31 Eutrophication 0.17 9.48 0.02 0.00 0.01 Ozone Depletion 8.65 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 Smog 5.36 0.28 0.37 0.59 0.08  As expected, concrete seemed to have the greatest affect on the output.  This agrees with the observation that concrete is the most abundant material on the site.  It also indicates that concrete is the single greatest polluter of all the materials.  Interestingly, concrete did not have much of an effect on the eutrophication potential; in fact, the steel rebar had the greatest affect on eutrophication potential, the variance approached the maximum of 10% (which would mean that steel was the only material contributing to eutrophication potential)  Building Performance Totem Park is a very old building complex, and as such was not expected to be very efficient.  There have been a number of renovations over the years, and it is possible that the current state of the buildings is much better than its original efficiency, however these renovations are beyond the scope of this report.  An upgrade that could be made in regards to operational efficiency is the addition of extra insulation and more thermally efficient windows.  The use of a one inch rigid insulation is simply inadequate.  In addition, the single glazed windows are extremely inefficient. Embodied energy is a much harder question to answer.  Clearly the use of reinforced concrete for the entire park was a practical choice at the time.  It is a very versatile and practical March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  material to use.  It is not clear how the total impacts would change if the entire Park were to be built using a steel frame type construction.  Steel is less often used in residential low rise construction simply because it cannot compete with concrete in terms of economics and ease of use.  Timber frame generally has a lower impact compared to concrete but this was not practical for the residences because the building code limited conventional timber frame construction to four storeys at the time of construction, while the current buildings are six.  Timber frame is also less practical for large assembly buildings where floor loads are high.  The three social buildings would be the best choice to examine as they are only two storeys high and live loads are similar to the residences.  The following is a comparison of Totem Park as it was built, versus using timber frame construction for the three social buildings with the rest as is.  Table 4.1 – Environmental Effects with wood frame Social Buildings   Savings % Savings Material ID walls roof floor walls roof floor Primary Energy Consumption MJ 2,272,916 1,296,348 1,021,815 2.3 16.5 8.2 Weighted Resource Use kg 2,240,462 1,328,801 1,061,970 7.4 19.8 8.9 Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq / kg) 490,486 247,480 203,554 3.7 19.0 9.4 Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq / kg) 320,184 154,687 125,676 3.6 18.5 9.1 HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg) 235,923 118,786 95,479 3.6 18.3 8.9 Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg) 8,195 4,960 3,824 2.1 16.5 8.1 Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) 235,364 118,495 95,236 3.6 18.3 8.9 Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / kg) 236,871 119,120 95,785 3.6 18.3 8.9  The results show clearly that wood framed structures have a lower environmental impact than if concrete is used.  This data must also be considered with other factors such as lumber prices versus concrete and functional benefits such as acoustics, durability and so on.  It is difficult to say if going with timber framed social buildings would have been a better choice overall without knowing all of the constraints affecting the decision - but, based on the comparison shown, the timber frame is a better choice for these particular buildings.  Energy Consumption Model March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Energy consumption was roughly estimated for one of the six storey residence buildings.  Annual maximum, minimum and mean heat loss was calculated using the following equation:  Q = (1/R) x A x ∆T  Where,  R = Calculated R-Value in ft2 ºF h/BTU (these are the Imperial units)  A = Assembly of interest ft2  ∆T = Inside Temperature – Outside Temperature in ºF (these values were obtained using historic weather data for Vancouver)  Heat loss was then multiplied by the number of hours in each month and converted to the appropriate SI units (Joules).  This calculation was performed using the buildings actual insulation and window information, and then repeated using upgraded insulation and windows. The following table shows the average R-value of the existing versus proposed insulation/windows: March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Table 4.2 – R-Value of Current vs. Improved   R-Value (ft2.degF.h/BTU)   Area (ft2) 'Current' Building 'Improved' Building Exterior Wall 22837.5 5 20 Window 1194 0.91 2.81 Roof 6332 5 40 Weighted Average 30363.5 4.84 23.49    Figure 4.1 – Energy comparison   The slope of the lines represents the annual operating energy usage, where the red line represents a much lower annual cost.  Interestingly, the embodied energy of the insulation and windows was included in both scenarios, but was so low compared to the operating energy that it does not show up on the graph.  If embodied energy of the entire building had been included, both lines would simply be shifted upward by the same amount.  It should be noted that this is actually a very simple comparison and does not take into account the full environmental impacts of each design.  If for example, this type of insulation produces a highly toxic form of pollution, the total environmental effects of making more insulation could potentially be greater than simply using less insulation and more operating energy.  This could be especially March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  true in British Columbia where most electricity comes from hydro electric plants where pollution related to energy generation is minimal, thus making the impacts of energy saving materials relatively more prevalent.  The energy savings “payback” period is less than one year, however, this does not represent the economic payback.  An economic payback analysis would be the most useful since most decisions are made based on return on investment.  The economic analysis is beyond the scope of the report, but it is recommended for further study of the building.  Conclusion The environmental impacts of constructing the original buildings are heavily dependent on the reinforced concrete.  This is expected for a group of buildings of this size.  It is not practical to build six storey residences using timber frames, and steel is often too expensive and/or there are few contractors with the expertise to do it quickly and safely.  This is likely why reinforced concrete was chosen to begin with.  Its availability and workability make it a favorite for engineers and contractors alike.  As it was shown in the report, it may have been beneficial to build the social buildings using timber frame construction.  This would have reduced the total environmental impact of the park by a significant factor. The Totem Park residence complex is also very old and in need of some efficiency upgrades if they haven’t already been done since it’s initial construction.   It may be of significant economic benefit over the long term to invest in some insulation upgrades as well as windows.  Further analysis in this regard is recommended.           March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  ANNEX A – Impact Estimator Input Tables  Inputs for the Common Block - Totem Park             General Description             Project Name   Totem Park       Project Location   Vancouver       Gross square footage of entire site   309021.29       Building Life Expectancy   1 years       Building Type   Institutional       Operating Energy Consumption   -TBA-                Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Input Fields Input Values                    Known/Measured EIE Inputs 1 Foundation             1.1 Concrete Slab on Grade             1.1.1 - Unfinished slab on grade                          Length (ft) 65 0       Width (ft) 65 0       Thickness (in) 4         Concrete (psi) - 3000       Concrete flyash % - average   1.2 Concrete Footing             1.2.2 - Continuous footing             Length (ft) 715 715       Width (ft) 4 4       Thickness (in) 10 10       Concrete (psi)           Concrete flyash % average         Rebar - #4     1.2.3 - Continuous       March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  footing (Conc. Stairs)       Length (ft) 137 137       Width (ft) 12 12       Thickness (in) 8 8       Concrete (psi)           Concrete flyash % average         Rebar - #4     1.2.4 - Spread Footing             Count 35 1       Width (ft) - Square 4 140' x 4'       Thickness (in) 12 12       Concrete (psi)           Concrete flyash % average average       Rebar #4 #4 2 Custom Wall             2.1 Concrete Block Wall             2.1.1 - 8" Block wall             Wall Type Interior -       Length (ft) 16 0       Height (ft) 14 0     Envelope Category Gypsum board -       Material Gysum Regular 1/2" -       Thickness - -     2.1.2 - 6" Block wall             Wall Type Interior Interior       Length (ft) 1733 1820.43       Height (ft) 14 14     Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board       Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"       Thickness - -       Number of Doors 12 12     2.1.3 - 6" Block wall             Wall Type Interior -       Length (ft) 100 0 March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES        Height (ft) 10 0     Envelope Category Gypsum board -       Material Gysum Regular 1/2" -       Thickness - -   2.2 Cast-in-Place             2.2.1 - Interior Concrete wall 10'             Length (ft) 9 0       Height (ft) 10 0       Thickness (in) 6 0       Concrete (psi) - 0       Concrete flyash % - -       Rebar - -     Envelope Envelope Category Gypsum board -       Envelope Material Gysum Regular 1/2" -       Thickness - -     2.2.2 - Interior Concrete wall 14'             Length (ft) 164 170.43       Height (ft) 14 14       Thickness (in) 6 8       Concrete (psi) - 0       Concrete flyash % - Average       Rebar - 5     Envelope Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board       Envelope Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"       Thickness - -       Number of Doors 13         Door Type Wood, Solid core     2.3 Glass Curtain Wall             2.3.1 - Floor to ceiling glass wall             Wall Type Exterior Exterior       Length (ft) 785 785       Height (ft) 14 14       Glazing panel width (ft) 3 -       Thickness (in) 0.5 - March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES        Stud Type Aluminum Aluminum     Door Opening Number of Doors 50 50       Door Type Glass Metal, 80% glazing   2.4 Brick Wall             2.4.1 - Exterior Brick Veneer, Cast in Place Concrete             Length (ft) 498 748.85       Height (ft) 14.75 14.75       Thickness (in) 6 6       Concrete (psi) - 3000       Concrete flyash % - Average       Rebar - #5     Envelope Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board       Envelope Material Gypsum Regular 1/2" Gypsum Regular 1/2"       Insulation 1" Rigid 1" Rigid       Number of Doors 8 10       Door Type Metal, Solid core Metal, Solid core       Overhead Door (10'x10') 1 1       Number of Windows 4 4       Window size 3'x4' 3'x4'     2.4.2 - Exterior Brick Veneer, Cast in Place Concrete             Length (ft) 370 0       Height (ft) 10 0       Thickness (in) 6 0       Concrete (psi) - -       Concrete flyash % - -       Rebar - -     Envelope Envelope Category Gypsum board -       Envelope Material Gypsum Regular 1/2" -       Insulation 1" Rigid -       Number of Doors 2 -       Door Type Metal, Solid core - 3 Mixed           March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Columns and Beams   3.1  Concrete Column and Concrete Beam             3.1.1 - Interior Beams/Columns             Number of Beams 188 188       Number of Columns 122 122       Floor to floor height (ft) 14 14       Bay sizes (ft) 20 20       Supported span 20 20       Live load (psf) 100 100     3.1.2 - Exterior Balcony area             Number of Beams 19 19       Number of Columns 19 19       Floor to floor height (ft) 14 14       Bay sizes (ft) 11 11       Supported span 20 20       Live load (psf) 100 100 4 Roofs             4.1 Suspended Slab             4.1.1 - Gravel Roof             Roof Width (ft) 151 151       Span (ft) 151 151       Concrete (psi) 4000 4000       Concrete flyash % average average       Live load (psf) 45 45     Envelope Category Gravel roof Gravel roof       Material 1" Rigid insulation 1" Rigid insulation       Thickness (in) 3 3 5 Floors             5.1 Suspended Slab             5.1.1 - Finished Floor             Floor Width (ft) 137.5 590.8 March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES        Span (ft) 137.5 32       Concrete (psi) 3000 3000       Concrete flyash % average average       Live load (psf) 100 100   5.2 Concrete slab on grade             5.2.1 - Finished Floor - Slab on Grade             Floor Width (ft) 136.5 201.5       Floor Length (ft) 136.5 201.5       Thickness (in) 6 8       Topping Included not Included 6 Ceilings            6.1 Ceilings            Suspended Ceiling tiles            Area (SF) 21746 0    Plaster ceiling            Area (SF) 17426 0 7 Extra Basic Materials             7.1 Concrete             7.1.1 - Concrete Railing             Height (ft) 3 3       Length (ft) 421 421       Thickness (ft) 0.5 0.5       Total Volume (m^3) 17.90 17.90     7.1.2 - Concrete Balcony thingy             Height (ft) 4 4       Length (ft) 489 489       Thickness (ft) 0.75 0.75       Total Volume (m^3) 41.57 41.57     7.1.3 - Total Concrete by Volume             Total for Common building (m3) 59.47 59.47   7.2 Extra Material Other             7.2.1 - Collapsible partition wall -       March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Accordian type       Length (ft) 128 0       Height (ft) 13 0   Inputs for the Residence Units - Totem Park             EIE Input Values Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Input field Measured Quantities per building Per building *6 Buildings 1 - Footings  1.1 - Concrete Strip Footings   1.1.1 - Footings Length (ft) 1,118 1,118 6708     Width (ft) 4' 4' 4'     Thickness (in) 18" 18" 18"     Rebar #5      1.2 - Slab on Grade   1.2.1 - Slab on Grade Length (ft) 24 24 58.79     Width (ft) 24 24 58.79     Thickness (in) 6" 4" 4"  1.3 - Stairs    1.3.1 - Concrete stairs Length (ft) 120 120 720     Width (ft) 4' 4' 4'     Thickness (in) 10" 10" 10"     Rebar #5 #5 #5 2 - Floors  2.1 - Suspended Floors   2.1.1 - Finished, Suspended floor Width (ft) 1,647 1,647 9882     Average Span (ft) 20 20 20     Thickness (in) 6" Unknown Unknown     Load (psf) Unknown 75 75 3 - Custom Wall  3.1 - Brick Walls   3.1.2 - 8' 9"  Exterior Brick wall Length (ft) 2,610 2,610 15660     Height (ft) 8'9" 8'9" 8'9"     Type Concrete Concrete     Envelope Brick Ontario Brick     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors Unknown Metal with 50% glazing March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES      Number of Doors 7 7 42     Number of Windows 199 199 1194     Window area 1,602 1,602 9612     Window Type Aluminum, Operable Aluminum, Operable   3.2 - Cast In Place   3.2.2 - Interior Concrete wall - 8' 9" Length (ft) 3,986 3,986 23916     Height (ft) 8'9" 8'9" 8'9"     Type concrete concrete     Envelope Gypsum and paint Gypsum and paint     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors wood, hollow core wood, hollow core     Number of Doors 110 110 660             3.3 - Concrete Block   3.3.1 - 6" block wall - 8' 9" Length (ft) 1,468 1,468 8808     Height (ft) 8'9" 8'9" 8'9"     Type Concrete Block Concrete Block     Envelope Gypsum and paint Gypsum and paint     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors wood, hollow core wood, hollow core      Number of Doors 110 110 660    3.3.2 - 6" block wall - 10' Length (ft) 326 326 1956     Height (ft) 10' 10' 10'     Type Concrete Block Concrete Block     Envelope Gypsum and paint Gypsum and paint     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors none none   4 - Roof  4.1 Flat Roof System   8.1.1 - Gravel / Bitumen Average Span (ft) 32 32 32      Width (ft) 198 198 1187.4     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Envelope Gravel, Asphalt, aggregate, PVC March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Bitumen membrane 5 - Extra Materials  5.1 - Parapet wall   5.1.1 - Parapet wall Length (ft) 508 508 3048     Height (ft) 1.5 1.5 1.5     Thickness (in) 8 8 8     Envelope none none none     Volume of concrete (m^3)    86.38  5.2 - Suspended Ceiling   5.2.1 - Suspended acoustic tile Area (sq. ft) 33,242 - -      Thickness (in) 0.5 - -      Type Fiberboard - -   Inputs for the Social Units - Totem Park             Actual EIE Inputs Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Assembly Description (Dimensions) Measured Quantities Per building Inputs per Building *3 Buildings 1 - Footings  1.1 - Concrete Strip Footings   1.1.1 - Footings Length (ft) 857 857 2571     Width (ft) 4' 4' 4'     Thickness (in) 12" 12" 12"     Rebar #5 #5 #5  1.2 - Slab on Grade   1.2.1 - Slab on Grade Length (ft) 85.5 85.5 148.09     Width (ft) 85.5 85.5 148.09     Thickness (in) 6" 4" 4"  1.3 - Stairs    1.3.1 - Concrete stairs Length (ft) 60 60 180     Width (ft) 4' 4' 4'     Thickness (in) 10" 10" 10"     Rebar #5 #5 #5 2 - Floors  2.1 - Suspended Floors   2.1.1 - Finished, Width (ft) 442 442 1324.65 March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Suspended floor     Average Span (ft) 20 20 20     Thickness (in) 6" Unknown     Load (psf) Unknown 75 75 3 - Custom Wall  3.1 - Brick Walls   3.1.2 - 8' 9"  Exterior Brick wall Length (ft) 941 941 2823     Height (ft) 8'9" 8'9" 8'9"     Type Concrete Concrete     Envelope Brick Ontario Brick     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors Unknown Metal with 50% glazing     Number of Doors 21 21 63     Number of Windows 32 32 96     Window area 192 192 576     Window Type Aluminum, Operable Aluminum, Operable   3.2 - Cast In Place   3.2.2 - Interior Concrete wall - 8' 9" Length (ft) 940 940 2820     Height (ft) 8'9" 8'9" 8'9"     Type concrete concrete     Envelope Gypsum and paint Gypsum and paint     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors wood, hollow core wood, hollow core     Number of Doors 40 40 120    3.2.3 - Basement Wall Length (ft) 692 692 2,076     Height (ft) 10 10 10     Type Concrete concrete     Envelope Gypsum and paint Gypsum and paint     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors none none  3.3 - Concrete Block   3.3.1 - 6" block wall - 8' 9" Length (ft) 196 196 588     Height (ft) 8'9" 8'9" 8'9"     Type Concrete Block Concrete Block     Envelope Gypsum and paint Gypsum and paint March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES      Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors wood, hollow core wood, hollow core      Number of Doors 9 9 27    3.3.2 - 6" block wall - 10' Length (ft) 255 255 765     Height (ft) 10' 10' 10'     Type Concrete Block Concrete Block     Envelope Gypsum and paint Gypsum and paint     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors none none      3.3.2 - 8" block wall - 10' Length (ft) 142 142 426     Height (ft) 10 10 10     Type Concrete Block Concrete Block     Envelope Gypsum and paint Gypsum and paint     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Doors none none 4 - Roof  4.1 Flat Roof System   4.1.1 - Gravel / Bitumen Average Span (ft) 32 32 32      Width (ft) 182 182 547.2     Insulation 1" rigid 1" Extruded Poly     Envelope Gravel, Bitumen Asphalt, aggregate, PVC membrane 5 - Mixed Columns and Beams  5.1 - Concrete Columns   5.1.1 - Columns Number of Columns 16 16 48     Height (ft) 10 10 10     Number of Beams 8 8 24     Span (ft) 20 20 20      Bay size (ft) 20 20 20     Supported Load (psf) 45 45 45      Beam Type Concrete Concrete 6 - Extra Materials  6.1 - Parapet wall   6.1.1 - Parapet wall Length (ft) 390 390 1170     Height (ft) 1.5 1.5 1.5 March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES      Thickness (in) 8 8 8     Envelope none none none     Volume of concrete (m^3)   11.05 33.16  6.2 - Suspended Ceiling   6.2.1 - Suspended acoustic tile Area (sq. ft) 14,558 - -      Thickness (in) 0.5 - -      Type Fiberboard - -   6.2.2 - Concrete Fireplace Approx Vol. Of concrete (m^3) 0.68 1.36 4.08     Quantity 2 2 6   6.2.3 - Conc. Balcony railing Length (ft) 156 156 468     Height (ft) 4 4 4     Thickness (in) 8 8 8     Total Volume (m^3)   11.79 35.37                    March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  ANNEX B – Impact Estimator Imput Assumptions Documents  Assumptions for the Common Building - Applicable to all three building types 1 Foundation       1.1 Concrete Slab on Grade    1.1.1 - Unfinished slab on grade    This section was combined with section 5.2.1 - Finished floor Slab on Grade        1.2 Concrete Footing       1.2.2 - Continuous footing    Rebar type may vary, actual rebar details were not available    Concrete strength was not available.  Assume 3000psi         1.2.3 - Continuous footing (Conc. Stairs)    Stairs are modeled as a continuous footing in order to best match reinforcing    Actual Rebar details were not available and may vary         1.2.4 - Spread Footing    Spread footings are modeled as continurous strip footings of equivalent width and length    Rebar type may vary, actual rebar details were not available      2 Custom Wall       2.1 Concrete Block Wall    2.1.1 - 8" Block wall    Rebar type may vary, actual rebar details were not available         2.1.2 - 6" Block wall    6" concrete blocks were modeled as 8" blocks since there is no option to change it         2.1.3 - 6" Block wall    This section was included in section 2.1.2 - 14' x 6" block walls        2.2 Cast-in-Place    2.2.1 - Interior Concrete wall 10'    This section was included in section 2.2.2 - Interior Concrete wall 14'         2.2.2 - Interior Concrete wall 14'    These are load bearing walls and might not be accurately reinforced in the model    Envelope consists of gypsum and paint on both sides of the wall    Door information was unreadable. Assumed hollow core wood for interior March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES         2.3 Glass Curtain Wall    2.3.1 - Floor to ceiling glass wall    The model requires a thickness of insulation to be used. 0.001" was assumed        2.4 Brick Wall    2.4.1 - Exterior Brick Veneer, Cast in Place Concrete    Brick type was modeled as Ontario standard brick     Insulation type was not available beyond 1" rigid - Extruded Polystyrene was assumed    Door information was unreadable. Assumed metal with solid core         2.4.2 - Exterior Brick Veneer, Cast in Place Concrete    This section was added to section 2.4.1 - Exterior Brick 14.75'      3 Mixed Columns and Beams   3.1  Concrete Column and Concrete Beam       3.1.1 - Interior Beams/Columns       All Columns and Beams are approximated by the model.  Actual sizes and reinforcing information was not available         3.1.2 - Exterior Balcony area       All Columns and Beams are approximated by the model.  Actual sizes and reinforcing information was not available    Live loads assumed to be 75psf       4 Roofs     4.1 Suspended Slab       4.1.1 - Gravel Roof       Roof assembly was assumed to be stone aggregate with asphalt, a 1" layer of extruded polystyrene and a PVC membrane    Live loads assumed to be 45psf    Average span of suspended concrete assumed 20'       5 Floors     5.1 Suspended Slab       5.1.1 - Finished Floor    Average span of suspended concrete assumed 20'    All floor finishes omited    Actual thickness was not modeled.  The model approximates thickness based on span and load    Actual Rebar information was not available.  Model approximates this data        5.2 Concrete slab on grade March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES      5.2.1 - Finished Floor - Slab on Grade    Rebar type may vary, actual rebar details were not available    All floor finishes omitted Actual thickness was 6” but model uses 4”      6 Ceilings     6.1 Ceilings    6.1.1 - Suspended Ceiling tiles    This section was omited from the model    6.1.2 - Plaster ceiling     This section was omited from the model 7 Extra Basic Materials   7.1 Concrete       7.1.1 - Concrete Railing       An average thickness was assumed, and the volume of concrete calculated based on height and length         7.1.2 - Concrete Balcony thingy    Volume of concrete was calculated, rebar was assumed to be zero         7.1.3 - Total Concrete by Volume    This represent the sum of section 7   7.2 Extra Material Other      7.2.1 - Collapsible partition wall - Accordian type    This section was omited from the model          

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0077963/manifest

Comment

Related Items