Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Whole building Life Cycle Assessment : three Olympic venues presentation slides Burtwistle, Jason; Kutyn, Kenneth; Miller, Adam; Ross, Zack; Zemcov, Clare; Postole, Radu; Thomas, Darren; Fan, Dennis; Geyer, Sean; Kernahan, Hillary; Ruddock, Josh 2011

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
Burtwistle_J_et_al_Whole_Building_SEEDS_2011.pdf [ 4.03MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077965.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077965+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077965.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077965+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077965+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077965+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0077965 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0077965.txt
Citation
1.0077965.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report  Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment: Three Olympic Venues Presentation Slides  Jason Burtwistle Kenneth Kutyn Adam Miller Zack Ross Clare Zemcov Radu Postole Darren Thomas Dennis Fan Sean Geyer Hillary Kernahan Josh Ruddock  University of British Columbia CIVL 498C April 6, 2011  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”.  CIVL 498C: WHOLE BUILDING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT  April 6 th ,2011  OVERVIEW • Introduction • What is LCA? • How can it help? • Goal and Scope • Tools and methodology • Software • Results • Environmental impact potential • Sensitivity analysis • Uncertainties • Conclusion • London 2012 • Recommendations • Where do we go from here?  WHAT IS LCA?  L ife C ycle A ssessment  A technique used to analyze and assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product's life within a chosen system boundary Goal and Scope  Inventory Analysis  Impact Assessment  Interpretation  EVERY PRODUCTS LIFE CYCLE IS CREATED BY THE CONNECTIONS BET WEEN PROCESSES…  AND EACH PROCESS HAS INPUTS AND OUTPUTS TO WHICH IMPACT CAN BE ASSOCIATED  WHAT IS LCA? • We can quantify and group these impacts into different environmental impact categories • “Environmental accounting” • Gaining attention as environmental stewardship increases • ISO 14040, ISO 14044  GOAL HOW CAN LCA HELP? Emissions to air  Material System Boundary Energy  Emissions to land Emissions to water  •  Evaluate the potential impacts associated with these emissions  •  Interpreting the results within the context and scope of the study  •  Get LCA data to facilitate more LCA data  SCOPE  3 Olympic Venues  Cradle to gate  Structure and envelope  AUDIENCE  Everyone !!!  BACKGROUND Richmond Olympic Oval  Of ficially opened on December 12, 2008  Built to LEED Silver standards  Maintained a 400m skating surface during the Olympics  Hosted all speed skating events  Now serves as a general athletics and convention center  BACKGROUND Doug Mitchell Thunderbird Sports Center  Opened on July 7, 2008  Built to LEED Silver standards  Renovation and Reconstruction of the Thunderbird Winter Sports Complex   Hosted Ice and Sledge Hockey Events  Home of the UBC Thunderbirds Hockey Teams  BACKGROUND Thunderbird Winter Sports Center  Originally opened in 1963  Expanded in 1968/1969  3 full-size rinks, curling arena and squash/handball courts  Home of Canada’s first national hockey team (1963)  Father Bauer Arena was retained by the Doug Mitchell Center and used as a practice rink for the Olympics  BACKGROUND  The Father Bauer Arena is a portion of the current Doug Mitchell Thunderbird Sports Centre that remains from the original Thunderbird Arena construction.  Life Cycle Impacts of Father Bauer Arena apportioned to LCA of Old Thunderbird as it was a part of the initial development.  METHODOLOGY   Goal and Scope  Inventory Analysis  Impact Assessment  Interpretation  METHODOLOGY    METHODOLOGY – TOOLS USED – Takeoffs  Using On-Screen Takeoff  METHODOLOGY – TOOLS USED – Takeoff Examples  Area Condition  Count Condition  METHODOLOGY – TOOLS USED – Takeoff Examples  Linear Conditions  METHODOLOGY – TOOLS USED – Athena Inputs  Athena Impact Estimator 4.1 Inputs from Inputs Assumption Document  Findings entered into IE Used to generate BoM  METHODOLOGY – TRANSPARENCY–   ASSEMBLY NAME  INPUT FIELD  MEASURED  • Helps with Impact Estimator Inputs • Provides transparency for all assumptions used during the project  IE INPUT  METHODOLOGY  Bill of Materials Output  METHODOLOGY What do we do with all this information?? • Select impact categories • Category indicators  METHODOLOGY Selected Impact Categories include: • Fossil Fuel Consumption  • Weighted Resource Depletion • Smog Formation • Global Warming Potential • Ozone Layer Depletion • Eutrophication Potential • Human Health Respiratory Effects • Acidification Potential Source: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/  METHODOLOGY • Fossil Fuel Consumption Category Indicator: MJ  • All fossil fuel, direct and indirect, used to transform or transport raw materials into products and buildings • Characterized by Athena • Expressed in fossil fuel consumption  METHODOLOGY • Weighted Resource Use Category Indicator: kg of Resources  • The ecological weight of resources used on site • Characterized by: • Land use and areas impacted • Duration of impacts • Ecological significance  METHODOLOGY • Smog Formation Category Indicator: kg NOx equivalent • Ground level ozone created through reaction of VOCs and NOx in the presence of sunlight • Effects human health • Can reduce crop yield due to lack of sufficient photosynthesis  • Smog is worse in densely populated regions, especially in valley areas = VANCOUVER http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/environment/smog.html  METHODOLOGY • Global Warming Potential Category Indicator: kg CO2 equivalent • Capacity to absorb infrared radiation, which heats the atmosphere • Characterized by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) • 11 of the past 12 years are among the warmest since 1850 • Arctic may have its first icefree summer by 2040 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news  METHODOLOGY • Ozone Layer Depletion Category Indicator: kg CFC-11 equivalent  • Destruction of the upper atmospheric ozone column due to the emissions of substances (HFCs and Halons) relative to CFC-11 • Characterized by World Meteorological Organization (WMO)  • Increased UVB reaching the earth  www.dilg.gov.ph  METHODOLOGY • Eutrophication Potential Category Indicator: kg Nitrogen equivalent  • Aquatic Eutrophication occurs when bodies of water are enriched with nutrients from waste water discharge resulting in algae over growth • Characterized by US EPA • Kills fish and shellfish  • Toxicity to human, marine mammals, livestock • Effects recreation, industry, and ecosystem  METHODOLOGY • Human Health Respiratory Effects Category Indicator: kg PM2.5 equivalent  • Exposure to airborne particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in size • Characterized by USA EPA • Effects human health • Coughing, wheezing • Worsens asthma, heart disease, pneumonia  http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/78657/E88189.pdf  METHODOLOGY • Acidification Potential Category Indicator: moles of H+ equivalent  • Capacity to form H+ ions from SO2 and NOx, increasing acidity of soil and water systems • Characterized by US EPA • Ecosystem changes • Plant and animal mortality  METHODOLOGY • Interpreting Results • Grouping Impacts • Local, Regional, Global  • Normalizing Impacts • Benchmark comparisons  • Completeness Check – Sensitivity Analysis • How sensitive/responsive certain categories are to changes in the model • What contribute most to the system (extraction, manufacturing, end of life)  Study Results Building Characteristics  BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS - Thunderbird Old -  Building System  Specific Building Characteristics  Structure  Concrete and steel columns supporting concrete suspended slabs  Floors  Ground Floor: Concrete slab on grade; First Floor: Suspended slab  Exterior Walls  8” Concrete block with several smaller sections of cast-in-place walls  Interior Walls  8” and 6” Concrete block construction with some wood stud partitions  Windows  All windows assumed to be standard glazing  Roof  Built-up roofs, Glulam and steel trusses  BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS - Thunderbird New -  Building System  Specific Building Characteristics  Structure  Reinforced Concrete Frame, Concrete Block  Floors  Foundation: Concrete Slab on grade; floors are precast concrete double T  Exterior Walls  Foundation: Cast-in-place walls; Ground and the rest of the floors: concrete tilt-up and block, and wood stud  Interior Walls  Foundation: Cast-in-place walls; Ground and First Floors: wood stud with plywood sheating  Windows  All windows operable with aluminum frame and standard glazing  Roof  Concrete Precast Double T  BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS - Richmond Oval -  Building System  Specific Building Characteristics  Structure  Concrete columns support concrete suspended slabs and concrete buttresses all with steel reinforcement  Floors  Floors are a concrete slab and slab band system, with hollow core concrete panels supporting a significant portion of the activities deck.  Exterior Walls  North and South sides: fixed curtain wall with no glazing and aluminum frame. On the third floor of the South side, polycarbonate cladding overlays the glass.  Interior Walls  Mainly steel stud walls with various amounts and types of gypsum board. Also concrete block walls with no envelope material and concrete cast-in-place walls.  Windows  Interior doors are either solid wood or hollow metal. Exterior doors are either hollow metal or sliding glass.  Roof  Concrete Precast Double TComposite beams composed of Glulam and structural steel support the main span of the roof, WoodWave engineered structural panels composed mainly of softwood lumber span between the composite beams and are filled with fibrous mineral wool insulation.  BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS - Bill of Materials -  Study Results Impact Categories  IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Global Warming Potential per Building Global Warming Potential  Tonnes CO 2 Equivalent  25  20  15 Earthworks Construction Manufacturing  10  5  0  Thunderbird Old  Thunderbird New  Richmond Olympic Oval  IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Global Warming Potential per Sq.Ft. Global Warming Potential  50  kg CO2 equivalent/ft 2  45 40 35 30 Earthworks Construction Manufacturing  25 20 15 10 5 0  Thunderbird Old  Thunderbird New  Richmond Olympic Oval  IMPACT ASSESSMENT - UBC Average Comparison Global Warming Potential  2  kg CO equivalents/ft  2  40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 UBC Academic Building Average  Thunderbird Old  Thunderbird New  Richmond Olympic Oval  IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Weighted Resource Use per Building Weighted Resource Use  600  500  Tonnes  400 Earthworks Construction Manufacturing  300  200  100  0  Thunderbird Old  Thunderbird New  Richmond Olympic Oval  IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Weighted Resource Use per Sq.Ft. Weighted Resource Use  1,200  1,000  kg/ft2  800 Earthworks Construction Manufacturing  600  400  200  0  Thunderbird Old  Thunderbird New  Richmond Olympic Oval  IMPACT ASSESSMENT - UBC Average Comparison Weighted Resource Use 700 600  kg/ft  2  500 400 300 200 100 0 UBC Academic Building Average  Thunderbird Old  Thunderbird New  Richmond Olympic Oval  IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Fossil Fuel Consumption per Building Primary Energy Use  350 300  Terajoules  250 200  Earthworks Construction Manufacturing  150 100 50 0  Thunderbird Old  Thunderbird New  Richmond Olympic Oval  METHODOLOGY • Where do we go from here?? • Normalization • Benchmark against average  Fossil Fuel Consumption Thunderbird Arena (New)  =  582 Houses Annual Energy Use  http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tablestren s2/res_ca_1_e_4.cfm?attr=0  IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Fossil Fuel Consumption per Sq.Ft. Primary Energy Use  700  Megajoules/ft 2  600 500 400  Earthworks Construction Manufacturing  300 200 100 0  Thunderbird Old  Thunderbird New  Richmond Olympic Oval  IMPACT ASSESSMENT - UBC Average Comparison Primary Energy Consumption 600  megajoules/ft  2  500 400 300 200 100 0 UBC Academic Building Average  Thunderbird Old  Thunderbird New  Richmond Olympic Oval  Sensitivity Analysis  Study Results  SENSITIVIT Y ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis of the Thunderbird Arena (New) 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%  Fossil Weighted Global Acidificati HH Eutrophic Ozone Smog Fuel Resource Warming on Respirato ation Depletion Potential Consump Use Potential Potential ry Effects Potential Potential  + 10% Rebar  0.84%  0.18%  0.39%  0.39%  0.30%  2.02%  0.00%  0.10%  + 10% 30MPa Concrete  1.73%  6.87%  3.22%  3.81%  3.72%  2.06%  5.94%  5.27%  + 10% Foam, PolyIso  0.24%  0.02%  0.32%  0.22%  0.12%  0.05%  0.04%  0.14%  + 10% Concrete Block  0.33%  0.03%  0.45%  0.57%  0.54%  0.23%  0.62%  0.58%  + 10% PVC Membrane  0.90%  0.07%  0.38%  0.97%  0.39%  0.13%  0.00%  0.44%  SENSITIVIT Y ANALYSIS Global Warming Potential 4%  3%  2%  1%  0%  Effect  + 10% PVC Membrane  + 10% Concrete Block  + 10% Foam, PolyIso  + 10% 30MPa Concrete  + 10% Rebar  0.38%  0.45%  0.32%  3.22%  0.39%  SENSITIVIT Y ANALYSIS - Functional Areas -  OUTCOMES • First ever life cycle assessment of Olympic Venues • To be included in Olympic Games Impact (OGI) Study…  • Addition of Thunderbird to the UBC LCA Database • Richmond Oval the beginning of extension into GVRD 1000%  600%  Primary Energy Consumption (MJ)  Weighted Resource Use (kg)  Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq)  Acidification Potential (moles H+ eq)  HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq)  Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq)  Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq)  Smog Potential (kg NOx eq)  400%  200%  0%  ny en io K B m he C C n S a F ill M ac S n M S/C i ti o d IC d IC s A th ti u ur o s C - S sic S y O h E P m he e C err ss La L R k E o A br o es W th H or N N F b yeb tr H mi s t s he a C - E Al l S n O a E n th ha ou uc S B n yen tr H is m he C r se ai K s u ng A s ti y ur tr C mi s he C E M E C k li n K fe r ca S c n i i us a M -M S hy O p E ra g eo G h at  M  Difference from Average Impact (%)  800%  -200%  -400%  -600%  GLOBAL APPLICATIONS: LONDON 2012 How do we compare?  LONDON 2012 Entire Scope of Carbon Study - Pre-games (venues, structures etc.) - Games (spectators, operations…) - Legacy (use after Olympics) Identified 4 venue `biggest hitters`: - Olympic Park Works = 48% - Olympic Village = 23% - Media Centre = 8% - Stadium/Aquatics Centre = 7%  LONDON 2012 These buildings do not serve the same function, however... RICHMOND OVAL  LONDON 2012 STADIUM  Seating: 8000 CO2eq: 23 kilo-tonnes Tonnes/seat: 2.875  Seating:80,000 CO2eq: 129 kilo-tonnes Tonnes/seat: 1 .6125  Given that 55,000 seats in the London Stadium are temporary (and lighter structure), and the heavy earthworks required in Richmond.  Conclusions  CONCLUSIONS LCA is a symptom of the change in the way we design products.  • Our reports are publicly available at the UBC SEEDS Library! http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/seeds -library  CONCLUSIONS LCA data shows us the link between decisions, products, processes and the environment.  CONCLUSIONS “You can’t manage what you can’t measure”  CONCLUSIONS  “Call yourself green? Prove it.”  RECOMMENDATIONS • LCA is ideally applied during the design process • Cost Effective • Change the way we make building design decisions  • An LCA is only as good as the methods used and databases available • Still plenty of chances for uncertainty to accumulate • Improve the methodology • Improve the databases  • Provide the tools for specialists to contribute  • Create online tool to more easily share reports and results  GLOBAL APPLICATIONS Globally, LCA is currently being integrated at all scales of sustainable development guidelines. The most recent developments include: • LEED for New Construction 2009: Innovation & Design Credit 1  • LEED 2012 Pilot • ASHRAE 189.1 • International Green Construction Code (IgCC)  • ISO 21931-1: Sustainability in Building Construction  THANK YOU!  CIVL 498C 2008/09  CIVL 498C 2009/10  Kasian Architects, Cannon Design, City of Richmond Dr. Paul McFarlane, Department of Civil Engineering, UBC SEEDS Program, UBC Sustainability Office, UBC Records Department  THANK YOU! • Introduction • What is LCA? • How can it help? • Goal and Scope • Tools and methodology • Software • Results • Environmental impact potential • Sensitivity analysis • Uncertainties • Conclusion • London 2012 • Recommendations • Where do we go from here?  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 15 2
Canada 15 0
China 5 0
Germany 2 5
Ukraine 1 0
Australia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 9 5
Edmonton 8 0
Dallas 7 0
Ashburn 6 0
Beijing 4 0
Vancouver 3 0
Shenzhen 1 0
Burlington 1 0

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

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0077965/manifest

Comment

Related Items