UBC Undergraduate Research

LCA – Totem Park Residence Curtis, Trevor Mar 31, 2009

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

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 cradleto-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 1/2" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board Aluminium Ballast (aggregate stone) Cold Rolled Sheet Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) Concrete Blocks EPDM membrane Expanded Polystyrene Extruded Polystyrene Galvanized Sheet  Quantity 86090.0945 95.0063 5934.0516 2.5718 15825.5496 3527.5931 141192.5037 3378.942 229.425 49474.0214 5.7484  Unit m2 Tonnes Kg Tonnes m3 m3 Blocks Kg m2 (25mm) m2 (25mm) Tonnes  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES Glazing Panel Joint Compound Mortar Nails Ontario (Standard) Brick Paper Tape PVC membrane Rebar, Rod, Light Sections Roofing Asphalt Screws Nuts & Bolts Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried Solvent Based Alkyd Paint Standard Glazing Water Based Latex Paint Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire  37.7804 85.9195 819.8772 107.935 13368.4584 0.9861 3637.756 775.2878 5651.4777 0.4417 23.6563 8176.4574 3151.1321 1185.3069 5.5382  Tonnes Tonnes m3 Tonnes m2 Tonnes Kg Tonnes Kg Tonnes m3 L m2 L 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  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  26007  2  26009  166  7  173  26182  168  0  168  0  0  0  168  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  39738  33  39771  3655  135  3789  43560  HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq / kg) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) Smog Potential (kg NOx eq / kg)  Total  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 nonregionalized 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%  Energy (MJ) Resource Use Global Warming Acidification Respiratory Effects Eutrophication  Concrete (%) 2.49 8.67 4.72 4.70  Rebar (%) 1.43 0.88 0.84 0.13  Brick (%) 0.33 0.68 0.44 0.46  Insulation (%) 0.16 0.63 0.11 0.13  Paint (%) 0.15 0.65 0.32 0.31  4.62 0.17 8.65 5.36  0.59 9.48 0.59 0.28  0.45 0.02 0.59 0.37  0.30 0.00 0.59 0.59  0.31 0.01 0.58 0.08  Ozone Depletion Smog  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 Material ID  % Savings  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  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  Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq / kg)  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  Exterior Wall Window Roof Weighted Average  Area (ft2) 22837.5 1194 6332 30363.5  R-Value (ft2.degF.h/BTU) 'Current' Building 'Improved' Building 5 20 0.91 2.81 5 40 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 Project Location Gross square footage of entire site Building Life Expectancy Building Type Operating Energy Consumption Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Totem Park Vancouver  309021.29 1 years Institutional -TBA-  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) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash %  65 65 4 -  0 0 3000  -  average  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  715 4 10  715 4 10  average -  #4  1.2 Concrete Footing 1.2.2 Continuous footing  1.2.3 Continuous  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES footing (Conc. Stairs) Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar  137 12 8  137 12 8  average -  #4  35  1  4 12  140' x 4' 12  average #4  average #4  Interior 16 14 Gypsum board Gysum Regular 1/2" -  0 0 -  Interior 1733 14 Gypsum board Gysum Regular 1/2" 12  Interior 1820.43 14 Gypsum board Gysum Regular 1/2" 12  Interior 100  0  1.2.4 - Spread Footing Count Width (ft) Square Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 2 Custom Wall 2.1 Concrete Block Wall 2.1.1 - 8" Block wall  Envelope  Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Category Material Thickness  -  2.1.2 - 6" Block wall  Envelope  Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Category Material Thickness Number of Doors  2.1.3 - 6" Block wall Wall Type Length (ft)  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Envelope  Height (ft) Category Material Thickness  10 Gypsum board Gysum Regular 1/2" -  0 -  9 10 6 -  0 0 0 0  -  -  Gypsum board Gysum Regular 1/2" -  -  164 14 6 -  170.43 14 8 0  -  Average 5  Gypsum board Gysum Regular 1/2" 13 Wood, Solid core  Gypsum board Gysum Regular 1/2" -  Exterior 785 14  Exterior 785 14  3 0.5  -  -  2.2 Cast-in-Place 2.2.1 - Interior Concrete wall 10'  Envelope  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness  -  2.2.2 - Interior Concrete wall 14'  Envelope  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar Envelope Category Envelope Material Thickness Number of Doors Door Type  2.3 Glass Curtain Wall 2.3.1 - Floor to ceiling glass wall Wall Type Length (ft) Height (ft) Glazing panel width (ft) Thickness (in)  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  Door Opening  Stud Type Number of Doors  Aluminum 50  Door Type  Glass  Aluminum 50 Metal, 80% glazing  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar Envelope Category  498 14.75 6 -  748.85 14.75 6 3000  -  Average #5  Gypsum board Gypsum Regular 1/2" 1" Rigid 8 Metal, Solid core  Gypsum board Gypsum Regular 1/2" 1" Rigid 10 Metal, Solid core  1  1  4 3'x4'  4 3'x4'  370 10 6 -  0 0 0 -  -  -  Gypsum board Gypsum Regular 1/2" 1" Rigid 2 Metal, Solid core  -  2.4 Brick Wall 2.4.1 - Exterior Brick Veneer, Cast in Place Concrete  Envelope  Envelope Material Insulation Number of Doors Door Type Overhead Door (10'x10') Number of Windows Window size 2.4.2 - Exterior Brick Veneer, Cast in Place Concrete  Envelope  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar Envelope Category Envelope Material Insulation Number of Doors Door Type  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 Number of Columns Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (psf)  188  188  122  122  14 20 20 100  14 20 20 100  19  19  19  19  14 11 20 100  14 11 20 100  151 151 4000  151 151 4000  average 45 Gravel roof 1" Rigid insulation 3  average 45 Gravel roof 1" Rigid insulation 3  137.5  590.8  3.1.2 - Exterior Balcony area Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span Live load (psf) 4 Roofs 4.1 Suspended Slab 4.1.1 - Gravel Roof  Envelope  Roof Width (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Live load (psf) Category Material Thickness (in)  5 Floors 5.1 Suspended Slab 5.1.1 - Finished Floor Floor Width (ft)  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Live load (psf)  137.5 3000  32 3000  average 100  average 100  Floor Width (ft) Floor Length (ft) Thickness (in) Topping  136.5 136.5 6 Included  201.5 201.5 8 not Included  Area (SF)  21746  0  Area (SF)  17426  0  3 421 0.5  3 421 0.5  17.90  17.90  5.2 Concrete slab on grade 5.2.1 - Finished Floor - Slab on Grade  6 Ceilings 6.1 Ceilings Suspended Ceiling tiles Plaster ceiling 7 Extra Basic Materials 7.1 Concrete 7.1.1 - Concrete Railing Height (ft) Length (ft) Thickness (ft) Total Volume (m^3) 7.1.2 - Concrete Balcony thingy Height (ft) Length (ft) Thickness (ft) Total Volume (m^3)  4 489 0.75  4 489 0.75  41.57  41.57  Total for Common building (m3)  59.47  59.47  7.1.3 - Total Concrete by Volume  7.2 Extra Material Other 7.2.1 - Collapsible partition wall -  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES Accordian type Length (ft) Height (ft)  128 13  0 0  Inputs for the Residence Units - Totem Park  Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Input field  Measured Quantities per building  EIE Input Values Per building  *6 Buildings  1 - Footings 1.1 - Concrete Strip Footings 1.1.1 - Footings  1.2 - Slab on Grade 1.2.1 - Slab on Grade  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Rebar  1,118 4' 18" #5  1,118 4' 18"  6708 4' 18"  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in)  24 24 6"  24 24 4"  58.79 58.79 4"  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Rebar  120 4' 10" #5  120 4' 10" #5  720 4' 10" #5  Width (ft) Average Span (ft) Thickness (in) Load (psf)  1,647 20 6" Unknown  1,647 20 Unknown 75  9882 20 Unknown 75  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope Insulation Doors  2,610 8'9" Concrete Brick 1" rigid Unknown  2,610 8'9"  1.3 - Stairs 1.3.1 - Concrete stairs  2 - Floors 2.1 - Suspended Floors 2.1.1 - Finished, Suspended floor  3 - Custom Wall 3.1 - Brick Walls 3.1.2 - 8' 9" Exterior Brick wall  15660 8'9" Concrete Ontario Brick 1" Extruded Poly Metal with 50% glazing  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES Number of Doors Number of Windows Window area Window Type 3.2 - Cast In Place 3.2.2 - Interior Concrete wall - 8' 9"  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope Insulation Doors Number of Doors  3.3 - Concrete Block 3.3.1 - 6" block wall - 8' 9"  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope Insulation Doors Number of Doors  3.3.2 - 6" block wall - 10'  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope Insulation Doors  7  7  42  199 1,602  199 1,602  1194 9612  Aluminum, Operable  3,986 8'9" concrete Gypsum and paint 1" rigid wood, hollow core  110  Aluminum, Operable  3,986 8'9"  23916 8'9" concrete  Gypsum and paint 1" Extruded Poly wood, hollow core 110 660  1,468 8'9" Concrete Block Gypsum and paint 1" rigid wood, hollow core 110  1,468 8'9"  326 10' Concrete Block Gypsum and paint 1" rigid none  326 10'  8808 8'9"  Concrete Block Gypsum and paint 1" Extruded Poly wood, hollow core 110 660 1956 10' Concrete Block Gypsum and paint 1" Extruded Poly none  4 - Roof 4.1 Flat Roof System 8.1.1 - Gravel / Bitumen  Average Span (ft) Width (ft) Insulation Envelope  32 198 1" rigid Gravel,  32 32 198 1187.4 1" Extruded Poly Asphalt, aggregate, PVC  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES Bitumen 5 - Extra Materials 5.1 - Parapet wall 5.1.1 - Parapet wall  5.2 - Suspended Ceiling 5.2.1 Suspended acoustic tile  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (in) Envelope Volume of concrete (m^3)  508 1.5 8 none  Area (sq. ft) Thickness (in) Type  33,242 0.5 Fiberboard  membrane  508 1.5 8 none  3048 1.5 8 none 86.38  -  -  Inputs for the Social Units - Totem Park  Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Assembly Description (Dimensions)  Measured Quantities Per building  Actual EIE Inputs Inputs per Building  *3 Buildings  1 - Footings 1.1 - Concrete Strip Footings 1.1.1 - Footings  1.2 - Slab on Grade 1.2.1 - Slab on Grade  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Rebar  857 4' 12" #5  857 4' 12" #5  2571 4' 12" #5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in)  85.5 85.5 6"  85.5 85.5 4"  148.09 148.09 4"  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Rebar  60 4' 10" #5  60 4' 10" #5  180 4' 10" #5  Width (ft)  442  442  1324.65  1.3 - Stairs 1.3.1 - Concrete stairs  2 - Floors 2.1 - Suspended Floors 2.1.1 - Finished,  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES Suspended floor Average Span (ft) Thickness (in) Load (psf)  20 6" Unknown  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope Insulation Doors Number of Doors Number of Windows Window area  941 8'9" Concrete Brick 1" rigid Unknown 21  20  20 Unknown  75  75  3 - Custom Wall 3.1 - Brick Walls 3.1.2 - 8' 9" Exterior Brick wall  Window Type 3.2 - Cast In Place 3.2.2 - Interior Concrete wall - 8' 9"  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope Insulation Doors Number of Doors  3.2.3 - Basement Wall  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope Insulation Doors  3.3 - Concrete Block 3.3.1 - 6" block wall - 8' 9"  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope  32 192 Aluminum, Operable  940 8'9" concrete Gypsum and paint 1" rigid wood, hollow core  40 692 10 Concrete Gypsum and paint 1" rigid none  196 8'9" Concrete Block Gypsum and paint  941 2823 8'9" 8'9" Concrete Ontario Brick 1" Extruded Poly Metal with 50% glazing 21 63 32 192  96 576  Aluminum, Operable  940 8'9"  2820 8'9" concrete  Gypsum and paint 1" Extruded Poly wood, hollow core 40 120 692 10  2,076 10 concrete  Gypsum and paint 1" Extruded Poly none  196 8'9"  588 8'9"  Concrete Block Gypsum and paint  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES Insulation Doors Number of Doors 3.3.2 - 6" block wall - 10'  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope Insulation Doors  3.3.2 - 8" block wall - 10'  Length (ft) Height (ft) Type Envelope Insulation Doors  1" rigid wood, hollow core 9 255 10' Concrete Block Gypsum and paint 1" rigid none 142 10 Concrete Block Gypsum and paint 1" rigid none  1" Extruded Poly wood, hollow core 9 27 255 10'  765 10'  Concrete Block Gypsum and paint 1" Extruded Poly none 142 10  426 10  Concrete Block Gypsum and paint 1" Extruded Poly none  4 - Roof 4.1 Flat Roof System 4.1.1 - Gravel / Bitumen  Average Span (ft) Width (ft) Insulation Envelope  32 182 1" rigid Gravel, Bitumen  32 32 182 547.2 1" Extruded Poly Asphalt, aggregate, PVC membrane  5 - Mixed Columns and Beams 5.1 - Concrete Columns 5.1.1 - Columns  6 - Extra Materials 6.1 - Parapet wall 6.1.1 - Parapet wall  Number of Columns Height (ft) Number of Beams Span (ft) Bay size (ft) Supported Load (psf) Beam Type  Length (ft) Height (ft)  16 10  16 10  48 10  8 20 20  8 20 20  24 20 20  45 Concrete  45  390 1.5  390 1.5  45 Concrete  1170 1.5  March 18, 2009 LCA – TOTEM PARK RESIDENCES  6.2 - Suspended Ceiling 6.2.1 Suspended acoustic tile  6.2.2 - Concrete Fireplace 6.2.3 - Conc. Balcony railing  Thickness (in) Envelope Volume of concrete (m^3)  8 none  8 none  8 none  11.05  33.16  Area (sq. ft) Thickness (in) Type Approx Vol. Of concrete (m^3) Quantity  14,558 0.5 Fiberboard  -  -  0.68 2  1.36 2  4.08 6  Length (ft) Height (ft) Thickness (in) Total Volume (m^3)  156 4 8  156 4 8  468 4 8  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