UBC Undergraduate Research

A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building Connaghan, Jessica 2009

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Geography_Connaghan,J_2.pdf [ 4.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077974.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077974+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077974.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077974+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077974+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077974+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0077974 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0077974.txt
Citation
1.0077974.ris

Full Text

Connaghan  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building  Jessica Connaghan 3/27/2009 CIVL 498C  i  Connaghan ii  Abstract This life cycle analysis was performed on the UBC Geography Building, a 51883sf wood-frame academic building built in 1924, for the purpose of establishing a materials inventory and environmental impact reference to be applied in the assessment of potential upgrades. It was also completed simultaneously with 12 other academic and residential buildings at UBC for environmental performance comparisons across UBC buildings over time and between different materials, structural types and building functions. The building was modeled with On Center’s On-Screen Takeoff and Athena Sustainable Materials Institute’s Impact Estimator using architectural drawings provided. From this model, a Bill of Materials was determined, showing that the largest quantities of material were gypsum board, softwood plywood, 6mil polyethylene, cedar wood shiplap, and stucco. The determined summary measures were then compared to the average UBC academic building. It was found that the primary energy consumption, weighted resource use, global warming potential, acidification potential, human health respiratory effects potential, eutrophication potential, and smog potential ranged from 6.4%-30.0% of the average building, and the ozone depletion potential around 2 times the average building. It was determined through sensitivity analysis that the ozone depletion potential was high in comparison due to the amount of plywood. Finally, the building performance was modeled using R-values for the windows, exterior walls and roof. It was determined that adding 4.5” and 3.5” of polyisocyanurate insulation to the roof and exterior walls, respectively, and replacing the windows with low E tin argon filled glazing would have a 1.55 year energy payback period.  Connaghan iii  Table of Contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................... II TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... III LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................................... IV 1  INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................5  1  GOAL AND SCOPE...........................................................................................................................................3 1.1 GOAL OF STUDY ..............................................................................................................................3 1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY .............................................................................................................................4 1.2.1 Tools, Methodology and Data....................................................................................................4  2  BUILDING MODEL ..........................................................................................................................................7 2.1 TAKEOFFS ........................................................................................................................................7 2.1.1 Foundation .................................................................................................................................7 2.1.2 Walls ..........................................................................................................................................8 2.1.3 Columns and Beams...................................................................................................................8 2.1.4 Roof ............................................................................................................................................9 2.1.5 Floors .........................................................................................................................................9 2.1.6 Extra Material..........................................................................................................................10 2.2 BILL OF MATERIALS ......................................................................................................................10  3  SUMMARY MEASURES ................................................................................................................................14 3.1 PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION .................................................................................................14 3.2 WEIGHTED RESOURCE USE ............................................................................................................15 3.3 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL .....................................................................................................16 3.4 ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL ...........................................................................................................17 3.4.1 Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential ...........................................................................18 3.5 EUTROPHICATION POTENTIAL........................................................................................................19 3.6 OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL.......................................................................................................20 3.7 SMOG POTENTIAL...........................................................................................................................21 3.8 OVERALL IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................22 3.9 UNCERTAINTIES IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................25  4  BUILDING PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................................27 4.1 HEAT FLOW RESISTANCE...............................................................................................................27 4.1.1 Current Building ......................................................................................................................28 4.1.2 Improved Building....................................................................................................................29 4.2 ENERGY PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................30 4.3 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................................................33  5  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................34  BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................................35 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................................36 APPENDIX A: IMPACT ESTIMATOR INPUT TABLES .....................................................................................37 APPENDIX B: IMPACT ESTIMATOR INPUT ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENT ........................................................44  Connaghan iv  List of Figures Figure 1. Ground plan highlighting the sections of building torn down for firewall installation... 2 Figure 2. Roof detail for the Geography Building.......................................................................... 9 Figure 3. Sensitivity of primary energy consumption to changes in material quantities.............. 15 Figure 4. Sensitivity of weighted resource to changes in material quantities............................... 16 Figure 5. Sensitivity of global warming potential to changes in material quantities.................... 17 Figure 6. Sensitivity of acidification potential to changes in material quantities......................... 18 Figure 7. Sensitivity of human health respiratory effects potential to changes in material quantities ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 8. Sensitivity of eutrophication potential to changes in material quantities...................... 20 Figure 9. Sensitivity of ozone depletion potential to changes in material quantities ................... 21 Figure 10. Sensitivity of smog potential to changes in material quantities .................................. 22 Figure 11. Overall impacts of the Geography Building compared to average academic buildings........................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 12. Sensitivity of all summary measures to the change in material quantities.................. 24 Figure 13. Energy usage per month for the current and improved Geography Building ............. 31 Figure 14. Energy Usage vs. Time for the current and improved Geography Building............... 32 Figure 15. Close up of Energy Usage vs. Time for the current and improved Geography Building......................................................................................................................................... 33  List of Tables Table 1. Building Characteristics of the Geography Building........................................................ 5 Table 2. Bill of Materials for the Geography Building................................................................. 11 Table 3. Manufacturing and construction impacts of the original building.................................. 22 Table 4. Sample R-value calculation table ................................................................................... 27 Table 5. Exterior wall R-value calculation for the "current" building.......................................... 28 Table 6. Roof R-value calculation for the "current" building....................................................... 29 Table 7. Exterior wall R-value calculation for the "improved" building...................................... 30 Table 8. Roof R-value calculation for the "improved" building................................................... 30  Connaghan v  1 Introduction The Geography Building, located at 1984 West Mall, Vancouver on the University of British Columbia campus, was constructed in 1924 and was originally named the Applied Science Building. It was built in conjunction with eight other buildings—the old forestry, agriculture, arts and administration buildings, the electrical and mechanical laboratories, the auditorium, and the mining, metallurgy and hydraulics building—all of which were built as semi-permanent buildings, and the total cost for all nine buildings was $500,000 (Geography Building). The function of the building was to house the academic needs of Geology, Civil Engineering, Zoology, Forestry and Botany, and was originally composed of 13 laboratories, 17 offices, 13 research and prep rooms, 12 lecture rooms, eight storage rooms, five lavatories and three locker rooms, as well as a library, museum and common room. The following table outlines the major building characteristics of the original Geography Building.  Table 1. Building Characteristics of the Geography Building Building System Structure Floors  Interior Walls  Roof  Wood posts, girders and beams throughout Foundation: Concrete Slab on grade; Ground and First Floors: Wood joists, Concrete suspended slab  Exterior Walls  Windows  Specific Characteristics of Geography  Foundation: Cast-in-place walls; Ground and First Floors: Wood stud walls with stucco, cedar shiplap, laths on both sides, and plaster Foundation: Cast-in-place walls; Ground and First Floors: Lath and plaster on both sides of wood stud walls with plywood sheathing on hallway and lecture room walls All windows fixed with wood frame and no glazing Wood joist roof overlain by 2"x4" stud walls with cedar shiplap, roofing asphalt, and a 6mil polyethylene vapour barrier  Since its original construction, the Geography Building has undergone many renovations for a total of six phases of alterations. Some major alterations included wall, ceiling and room changes, additional fire exit stairwells, and the installation of two firewalls through the cross section of the building. The firewalls in particular required the two main stairwells to be demolished, as well as the walls on the ground and first floors between the front and rear entrances to be torn out (see Figure 1 below).  Connaghan 2  Figure 1. Ground plan highlighting the sections of building torn down for firewall installation  Overall, the building’s floors and exterior walls remain intact, but many of the interior walls have been altered to accommodate floor plan changes and new building requirements. This model, however, will represent the Geography Building as it was built in 1924, as if it were built today.  Connaghan 3  1 Goal and Scope The initial stage of a life cycle analysis study is to clearly define the goal and scope. Conclusions and recommendations can then be made in accordance with the goal and scope, which affects the detail and time frame of the LCA. Using the ISO 14044 definitions and requirements as seen in section 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 (Canadian Standards Association, 2006), the following goal and scope was defined.  1.1 Goal of Study This LCA of the Geography Building at the University of British Columbia was carried out as an exploratory study to determine the environmental impact of its design. This LCA of the Geography Building 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 Geography Building. An exemplary application of these references is in the assessment of potential future performance upgrades to the structure and envelope of the Geography Building. 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 Geography Building LCA can be seen as an essential part of the formation of a powerful tool to help inform the decision making process of policy makers in establishing quantified sustainable development guidelines for future UBC construction, renovation and demolition projects. The intended core audiences of this LCA study are those involved in building development related policy making at UBC, such as the Sustainability Office, who are involved in creating policies and frameworks for sustainable development on campus. Other potential audiences include developers, architects, engineers and building owners involved in design planning, as well as external organizations such as governments, private industry and other  Connaghan 4 universities whom may want to learn more or become engaged in performing similar LCA studies within their organizations.  1.2 Scope of Study The product system being studied in this LCA are the structure, envelope and operational energy usage associated with space conditioning of the Geography Building on a square foot finished floor area of academic 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 Geography Building, as well as associated transportation effects throughout the manufacturing and construction stages. 1.2.1 Tools, Methodology and Data Two main software tools are to be utilized to complete this LCA study; On Center’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, On-Screen 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 Appendices 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 Geography Building in the Vancouver region as an Institutional 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  Connaghan 5 bill of materials (BoM). This BoM then utilizes the Athena Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database, version 4.6, in order to generate a cradle-to-grave LCI profile for the building. In this study, LCI profile results focus on the manufacturing and transportation of materials and their installation in to the initial structure and envelope assemblies. As this study is a cradle-to-gate assessment, the expected service life of the Geography Building 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 Geography Building, all of the available TRACI impact assessment categories available in the IE are included in this study, and are listed as; •  Primary energy consumption  •  Weighted raw resource use  •  Global warming potential  •  Acidification potential  •  Human health respiratory effects potential  •  Eutrophication potential  •  Ozone depletion potential  •  Smog potential  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 Geography Building. Finally, using the UBC Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP) as a guide, this study then estimates the embodied energy involved in upgrading the insulation and window R-values to REAP standards and calculates the energy payback period of investing in a better performing envelope. The primary sources of data for this LCA are the original architectural drawings from when the Geography Building was initially constructed in 1924. Additional structural drawings from 2004 were also used to determine the live loading on the building. The assemblies of the  Connaghan 6 building that are modeled include the foundation, columns and beams, floors, walls and roofs, as well as the associated envelope and openings (i.e. 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 Appendix B.  Connaghan 7  2 Building Model In order to model the Geography Building for the purposes of completing this LCA study, On-Screen Takeoff and the IE Software were utilized. The initial materials quantity takeoffs were completed by measuring quantities available on the architectural drawings using On-Screen Takeoff. These materials were then inputted into the IE software and modeled, producing the subsequent the Bill of Materials, Summary Measures (impact assessment results) and Absolute Values (life cycle inventory results). The following sections discuss the methodology used with the On-Screen Takeoff and IE software, including assumptions and challenges associated with each of the programs.  2.1 Takeoffs The On Center On-Screen Takeoff software provided a simplified method of producing material quantity takeoffs, while improving accuracy and modeling time. This was done by using linear, area and count conditions to measure materials available on the imported architectural drawings. When modeled in On-Screen Takeoff, the material quantities were separated by floor level—foundation, ground and first floor—and by material type— footings, exterior walls, interior walls, windows, doors, roof, floors, beams, girders, posts, stairs, and additional material. These were then organized into the following assemblies in the Impact Estimator Input Tables (Appendix A) to be modeled using the IE software: foundation, custom wall, mixed columns and beams, roof, floors, and extra basic material. A complementary Impact Estimator Input Assumptions Document can also be seen in Appendix B to further explain the assumptions necessary to model the building assemblies. 2.1.1 Foundation For the foundation assembly, concrete footings were calculated using all three measurement conditions, and were assumed to be composed of concrete with 4000psi strength, #4 rebar reinforcement and average fly ash content. Column footings on the foundation were measured using the count condition with the width and length provided from drawing 401-06016, and the thickness provided from drawing 401-06-17. They were then labeled based on the dimensions—e.g. 4’x4’ Concrete Footing. The strip footing below the exterior concrete wall  Connaghan 8 was modeled using the width provided from drawing 401-06-016 and the linear condition used to measure the Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings, and was labeled accordingly. The concrete stairs on the ground level—which were modeled as footings and labeled as Ground Entrance Stairs—were measured using the area condition, with the average thickness estimated from the cross section as shown in drawing 401-06-020. Finally, Foundation Concrete Floor was modeled as a slab on grade using the area condition, with a thickness measurement of 4”. The concrete for the slab was assumed to have strength of 4000psi and average fly ash content. 2.1.2 Walls The walls on the foundation, ground and first floor levels were modeled using linear conditions labeled based on their thickness, material, floor level and if they were interior or exterior walls (e.g. Foundation 6” Interior Concrete Wall, Ground 2”x4” Stud Interior Wall, etc). The foundation concrete walls were assumed to have a height of 3.5ft, based on an average of measurements from drawings 401-06-019 and 401-06-020, as well as concrete with 4000psi strength, #5 rebar reinforcement and average fly ash content. In addition, the exterior walls on the ground and first floors appeared to have no insulation installed when the building was initially constructed, and were therefore assumed to have no insulation. Hallway walls were also assumed to have plywood sheathing, based on drawing 401-06-030, a drawing from a building renovation in 1963. The doors and windows within the ground and first floor walls were modeled using count conditions. All doors, except for the steel vestibule which was assumed to be a 32”x7’ steel interior door, were assumed to be 32”x7’ solid wood doors. The windows were assumed to be fixed windows with standard glazing, and were modeled as wood frames based on site inspections. Finally, all wood stud walls with lath and plaster required ½” of regular gypsum to be used as a surrogate material for the plaster, with the laths modeled as extra basic material based on 4’x2”x¼” dimensions and ¼” spacing (Lath and Plaster, 2008). 2.1.3 Columns and Beams The beams and girders were modeled in On-Screen Takeoff using linear conditions combined with cross section dimensions given by the drawing 401-06-016, 401-06-017 and 40106-18. The posts were also modeled using dimensions from the above drawings and drawing 401-06-020 for post heights, as well at count conditions. All beams, girders and posts were  Connaghan 9 labeled based on dimensions, floor level and material, and were modeled using extra basic materials to simplify calculations. 2.1.4 Roof The roof of the building was made up of two wood joist sections, as seen in Figure 2 below. The lower portion was modeled as a wood joist roof with a span of 10ft due to IE limitations, while the upper portion was modeled as 4 separate wall sections with 2”x4” wood studs. In addition, for sloped sections of the “wall sections,” the section was assumed to be flat. From the roof detail, cedar shiplap was added to the envelope, as well as roof asphalt based on site inspections. In addition, it was assumed there was a 6mil polyethylene layer to meet the vapour barrier requirements of a roof.  Figure 2. Roof detail for the Geography Building  2.1.5 Floors The floors in the Geography building were modeled using the area condition, and were labeled based on their material, floor level and location (e.g. Ground Concrete Floor, Ground Sloped Lecture Room). For all the floors, an assumed live load of 45psf was also used based on drawing 401-07-001, a list of specifications from a 2004 renovation. The concrete floor had an assumed 4000psi strength and average fly ash content. An assumed span of 16ft was also used to fit within the 11.8ft - 32.0ft span limitation of the IE software. The wood joist floors were  Connaghan 10 assumed to have ½” thick plywood decking based on knowledge of the decking being wood. In addition, the spans were assumed to be 10ft to fit within the 0.98ft - 15.0ft span limitation of the IE software. Finally, the sloped section of the lecture room was modeled to have a slope based on the dimensions of the risers and treads of the steps, as seen in drawing 401-06-019. A sloped wood joist floor was modeled, and the addition material used for the steps was added as extra basic material. This volume of material was calculated based on the number of steps, and the dimensions of the risers and treads. In addition, it was assumed that the steps had a width of 50ft, based on a drawing measurement, and the wood steps were ½” thick. 2.1.6 Extra Material The remaining materials, including the First Floor Truss and the wood stairwells, were modeled using extra basic material. The wood, steel rod and steel sheets of the truss were modeled based on the drawing 401-06-018. The stairwells were modeled similar to that of the truss, with volumes calculated basic on the number of steps, the dimensions of the risers and treads, and an assumed thickness of ½”. 2”x8” stringer boards were also considered in the quantity takeoff of the steps. Overall, the drawings were high quality, allowing the takeoffs to be performed with ease. There was lack of information concerning concrete properties, foundation assembly heights and wall cross-sections, and assumptions were made based on research. In addition, some material quantities required assemblies to be factored due to limitations with the IE software. Further detailed information and calculations on all assumptions made can be found in the Impact Estimator Input Assumptions Document (Appendix B).  2.2 Bill of Materials The BoM is a list generated from the material quantity takeoffs. As seen in Table 2, the five largest values by units of area were ½” regular gypsum board, softwood plywood, 6mil polyethylene, cedar wood shiplap siding, and stucco, and largest value by weight was joint compound.  Connaghan 11 Table 2. Bill of Materials for the Geography Building  Material 1/2" Regular Gypsum Board 6 mil Polyethylene Aluminium Batt. Fiberglass Cedar Wood Shiplap Siding Cold Rolled Sheet Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) EPDM membrane Galvanized Sheet Glazing Panel Joint Compound Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, Green Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried Nails Paper Tape Rebar, Rod, Light Sections Roofing Asphalt Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried Softwood Plywood Solvent Based Alkyd Paint Standard Glazing Stucco over porous surface Water Based Latex Paint Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire Wood Frame  Quantity 109073.9334 27342.16232 1.80844 617.36408 48016.5127 1.60263 282.91234 2356.71954 0.00327 0.04218 9.17297 26.99098 77.57556 2.8332 0.10631 5.01469 5279.14524 104.46044 91.85782 0.07789 7326.85389 21950.5196 246.78011 0.042 34.79803  Unit sf sf Tons sf (1") sf Tons yd3 pounds Tons Tons Tons Mbfm Mbfm Tons Tons Tons pounds Mbfm msf (3/8inch) US gallons sf sf US gallons Tons yd3  The amount of ½” regular gypsum board and joint compound is a result of the lath and plaster present on the inside of all exterior walls, as well as both sides of all interior walls—this includes assemblies 2.2.1 to 2.2.11 as seen in Appendix A. From the assumptions, it is known that the gypsum board was used as a surrogate for the plaster walls. The quantity of joint compound is also associated with this replacement, because joint compound is used to seal the joints between sheets of gypsum board. This assumption used on such a widely used material can then greatly affect the environmental impacts that this building will have, because gypsum board and joint compound do not have the same properties as plaster. In addition, the type of gypsum board and thickness were assumed based on research. As a result, if the plaster would have been better modeled at 5/8” gypsum board then the total volume would have been underestimated by 20%. This assumption could be a potential source of uncertainty in the model’s results.  Connaghan 12 The softwood plywood was generated in the BoM from its presence in the Ground Floor Area, Ground Level Lecture Room and the First Floor Floor Area, as well as the Ground 2''x4'' Stud Hallway Wall and Lecture Room Wall, and the First Floor 2''x4'' Stud Hallway Wall. The wood on the floors was assumed to be plywood due to lack in information in the drawings, however, they may have been solid wood. This could have resulted in an underestimation of wood volume, as well as an overestimation of wood adhesives. In addition, the plywood sheathing in the hallway walls was assumed based on drawing 401-06-030, a drawing from a 1963 renovation that may have not been cohesive with the original state of the building. Had there originally been no plywood sheathing, the modeled BoM would show an overestimation of the product. The plywood was also assumed to only be present within the hallways wall rather that all of the walls. If the sheathing was actually present in all of the walls, the quantity of plywood would have been an underestimation. Polyethylene was another material with a high quantity for the building; however, the use of this product was based solely on the need to meet a roof requirement for the Roof Area. As a result, if this is not the actual material, the impacts that the building has could be altered. The actual vapour barrier may have also had a different thickness and the assumption could have resulted in an over- or underestimation, depending on whether the original thickness was thinner or thicker, respectively. Finally, had this material not been present at all, as depicted in the architectural drawings, a 100% overestimation would have been quantified in the bill of materials. The cedar wood shiplap siding, which resulted from the wall cross sections of the Ground Exterior Wall and First Floor Exterior Wall, as well as the Roof Area, was input into the IE software by square foot, and the thickness was determined based on the IE software information. If the thickness used was ¾”, which is the same shiplap thickness given in drawing 401-06-028 from a 1962 renovation, then the error in volume approximations of this material for the exterior walls would be minimal; however, differences in this thickness could result in quantity over- or underestimations. Finally, the shiplap modeled for the Roof Area was on the upper portion of the roof, which was sloped (see Figure 2 above). This section of roof, however, was assumed to be flat causing an underestimation of the cedar wood shiplap siding area.  Connaghan 13 Stucco was present throughout the outside of the building for the ground and first floors on the Ground Exterior Wall and the First Floor Exterior Wall. Similar to the cedar wood shiplap siding, whether or not the material takeoff resulted in an over- or underestimation of stucco depends on the thickness used by the IE software. As one can see, all of the largest material quantities were subject to assumptions that could affect their amount and/or impacts to some degree. Some materials, such as the softwood plywood where the material quantity was assumed, could have resulted in quantity differences. Other material, such as the gypsum board and joint compound used as a surrogate for plaster, could have resulted in impact differences based on different material compositions. These considerations must therefore be taken into account when analyzing the results of the Geography Building model.  Connaghan 14  3 Summary Measures The summary measures that were considered for the purposes of this report include primary energy consumption, weighted resource use, global warming potential, acidification potential, human health (HH) respiratory effects potential, eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential and smog potential. These impacts are calculated by the impact assessment methodology, TRACI, given characterization factors for material emissions—e.g. 1kg CH4 release = 23kg CO2 release. In addition, they were considered over the manufacturing and construction life cycle stage of the Geography Building. Sensitivity analysis was also performed for each of the summary measures to determine their sensitivity to 10% increases in aluminum, concrete, asphalt, plywood and stucco. This can process can be helpful during the design or renovation stages of buildings to compare environmental tradeoffs between interchangeable products, such as different insulation and wall framing materials. It can also put emphasis on the need to waste as little material as possible, because even a 10% increase in a single material can have sizeable impacts on the overall building profile. In the following sections, the different impact categories are defined and their sensitivities are presented and discussed. Overall impacts and sensitivities are also presented, and the Geography Building is compared to an average of the academic buildings modeled. Finally, uncertainties inherent in these impact calculations are discussed.  3.1 Primary Energy Consumption Primary energy consumption, measured in MJ, is the total energy used during manufacturing and construction stages. This includes the amount of energy allocated to all of the components of a material—such as aggregates, cement, cementitious materials and water for concrete—for extraction, processing, transportation and installation. The increase in primary energy consumption can impact other summary measures, such as global warming potential, depending on the energy source that is being used.  Connaghan 15 As seen in Figure 3, all of the materials considered had a visible effect on the primary energy consumption, ranging from an additional 0.026% to 1.18%. This is because all of the materials require being manufactured and constructed. The 10% increase in concrete (originally 282.81yd3) had the highest effect on the primary energy, with the increase in plywood (originally 91.86msf) having the second highest effect. The increase in aluminum (originally 1.81tons) and asphalt (originally 2.64tons) both had approximately 0.14% increases in energy per ton, which was relatively high considering their low quantity. Finally, stucco caused a minor increase of 0.026%.  Figure 3. Sensitivity of primary energy consumption to changes in material quantities  3.2 Weighted Resource Use Weighted resource use, measured in kg, accounts for the all of the resource requirements for all of the components of a material. This includes the sum of all of the land, fossil fuel and water use required to manufacture and construct that material.  Connaghan 16 Figure 4 below shows the sensitivity of weighted resource use to changes in aluminum, concrete, asphalt, plywood and stucco. From the figure, it is clear from that the increase in concrete had the most significant impact on weighted resource use, with plywood having the second most significant impact. Aluminum and asphalt also had minor effects on the summary measure, while the increase in stucco had a negligible effect.  Figure 4. Sensitivity of weighted resource to changes in material quantities  3.3 Global Warming Potential Global warming potential, measured in kg CO2 equivalent, is the potential for the earth’s climate to change based on the buildup of chemicals, and subsequent heat entrapment. The chemicals that affect this summary measure include greenhouse gases, and the total effect is based on their “radiative forcing and lifetime” (Bare, Norris, Pennington, & McKone, 2003).  Connaghan 17 Figure 5 shows the sensitivity of the building’s global warming potential to the five materials observed. As seen above, the concrete had the highest effect on the global warming potential due to the high CO2 emissions that are caused during the calcinations and carbonation phases of cement production. Aluminum, asphalt and plywood had approximately equal increases in global warming potential per quantity, but had much lower effects than concrete. Stucco, however, had negligible effects on the summary measure.  Figure 5. Sensitivity of global warming potential to changes in material quantities  3.4 Acidification Potential Acidification, measured in moles of H+ equivalent, is the potential for an increase of acidity of water and oil systems to occur. This can occur through both wet and dry depositions, and is caused by SO2 and NOx emissions (Bare, Norris, Pennington, & McKone, 2003).  Connaghan 18 In Figure 6, it can be seen that the acidification potential of the Geography Building was most sensitive to an increase in concrete, while aluminum, asphalt and plywood had much lower effects than concrete. Once again, the 10% increase in stucco had negligible effects on the acidification potential.  Figure 6. Sensitivity of acidification potential to changes in material quantities  3.4.1 Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential HH respiratory effects potential is affected by the “total suspended particulates, particulate material (PM) less than 10µm in diameter (PM10), PM less than 2.5µm in diameter (PM2.5), and by emissions of SO2 and NOx” (Bare, Norris, Pennington, & McKone, 2003), and is measured in kg PM2.5 equivalent. These particles can have toxic effects on human health, including “chronic and acute respiratory symptoms, as well as mortality” (Bare, Norris, Pennington, & McKone, 2003). In Figure 7 below, the sensitivity of HH respiratory effects potential to changes in the five observed materials is shown. The 10% quantity increase of concrete had the greatest effect  Connaghan 19 on HH respiratory effect potential, with aluminum and plywood having the second and third higher effects, respectively. Finally, asphalt had very minimal effects and the increase in stucco had negligible effects.  Figure 7. Sensitivity of human health respiratory effects potential to changes in material quantities  3.5 Eutrophication Potential Eutrophication potential, which is measured in kg N equivalent, is the potential for materials and their emissions to fertilize surface waters with previously scarce nutrients. This can then cause an expansion of aquatic photosynthetic plant species, leading to possible odours, decrease in marine habitat and production of chemicals that could be a health hazard. In Figure 8, it can be seen that the eutrophication potential was highly sensitive to concrete, with an effect of 0.175%, and asphalt, with an effect of 0.112%. Plywood also had a significant impact of 0.102%, and aluminum had an effect of 0.033%. Finally, stucco had a negligible effect of the eutrophication potential.  Connaghan 20  Figure 8. Sensitivity of eutrophication potential to changes in material quantities  3.6 Ozone depletion potential Ozone depletion potential, measured in kg CFC-11 equivalent, is the potential for reduction of the protective ozone due to accelerated destructive chemical reactions caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons and other chemicals. This reduction can cause lower level ozone level, which can cause increased UVB levels and harmful effects on marine life, crops and human health—including cancer (Bare, Norris, Pennington, & McKone, 2003). As seen in Figure 9, the plywood had the largest effect on ozone depletion of 2.510%, with concrete having the second highest effect of 0.213%. In addition, aluminum, asphalt and stucco had negligible effect on the summary measure.  Connaghan 21  Figure 9. Sensitivity of ozone depletion potential to changes in material quantities  3.7 Smog potential Smog potential, which is measured in kg NOx equivalent, is the potential for material emissions to cause smog. This can cause harmful effect on human health, including asthma and mortality, and can be deleterious to plant life. As seen in Figure 10, smog potential was most sensitive to the increase in concrete, which caused an increase of 3.908%. Aluminum had the second greatest effect with 0.616%, and then asphalt had the third greatest effect with 0.371%. Finally, plywood had a minimal effect on smog potential with a change of 0.143% in the summary measure, and stucco is negligible.  Connaghan 22  Figure 10. Sensitivity of smog potential to changes in material quantities  3.8 Overall Impacts The overall impacts of the manufacturing and construction life cycle stages of the Geography are present in Table 3 below.  Table 3. Manufacturing and construction impacts of the original building  Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  Manufacturing Total  Construction Total  3254101.396  220370.0547  1750369.705  6002.468045  207751.8251  5182.253076  78961.93478  2730.497823  1013.510967  2.761592338  1.841440174  0.00143683  0.006051019  1.37544E-08  766.071318  47.74132725  Total Effects (Man. + Constr.) Overall Per Sq. Ft 3,474,471.45 67.03 1,756,372.17 33.89 212,934.08 4.11 81,692.43 1.58 1,016.27 0.02 1.84 0.00 0.01 0.00 813.81 0.02  Connaghan 23 To compare the Geography Building to other academic buildings on the UBC Vancouver campus, these impacts were then converted to a per square foot basis. This was done for all seven buildings considered—Geography, Henning’s, Buchanan, H. R. MacMillan, CEME, FSC and AERL—and then average impacts were found. Below, in Figure 11, the Geography Building was compared to the average academic building.  Figure 11. Overall impacts of the Geography Building compared to average academic buildings  As seen in Figure 11, the Geography Building’s primary energy consumption, weighted resource use, global warming potential, acidification potential, HH respiratory effects potential, and smog potential were approximately 25% of the average UBC academic building. This seems to be associated with the fact that the Geography Building is mainly constructed of wood, compared to the concrete and steel structures that are prevailing in the other buildings. In addition, the eutrophication potential was approximately 6% that of the average academic building. The ozone depletion potential, however, was 211% that of the average academic  Connaghan 24 building. This is likely due to the large use of plywood in the Geography Building, to which the ozone depletion potential was relatively sensitive to, as seen in Figure 9. The sensitivity of all of the summary measures to material quantity changes is also presented in Figure 12.  Figure 12. Sensitivity of all summary measures to the change in material quantities  It can be seen from the figure that the increase in aluminum caused the most effect on smog potential. The next highest summary measures impacted by aluminum were primary energy consumption, acidification potential and HH respiratory effects potential, which were all approximately equal. Finally, the global warming potential was slightly affected by aluminum, and eutrophication potential and weighted resource use were minimally affected. The summary measures that were more affected by concrete—in decreasing order—were smog potential, weighted resource use, global warming potential and acidification potential.  Connaghan 25 Primary energy consumption and HH respiratory effects potential were more affected summary measures, with approximately equal effects. Finally, eutrophication potential and ozone depletion potential were relatively minimal. Global warming potential, smog potential and primary energy consumption—in decreasing order—were most affect by the change in asphalt. Acidification potential and eutrophication potential were the following most affect summary measures, with weighted resource use, HH respiratory effects potential and ozone depletion potential relatively minimal. The summary measure that plywood most affected was ozone depletion potential. The next summary measures that were most affect were primary energy consumption and weighted resource use, then global warming potential and acidification potential. Finally, the increase in plywood had relatively minimal effects on HH respiratory effects potential, eutrophication potential and smog potential. Finally, the 10% increase in stucco had very minimal effects on all of the summary measures. The only summary measure that had a visible effect from the increase in stucco was primary energy consumption.  3.9 Uncertainties in Impact Assessment Due to the complex nature of summary measures, assumptions and uncertainties arise during the impact assessment process. These uncertainties can be due to the characterization of emissions, the location of the emissions, and the characteristics of the environment these emissions are subjected to. In addition, how the model was performed and over what scope can also affect the certainty of the impacts. The impact assessment methodology used for this study was a non-regionalized version of TRACI. As a result, the assessment did not take into account differing environmental conditions for different areas. This could cause uncertainty in how the emissions are absorbed by chemical sinks, such as trees and water, and the potential of the emissions to travel and affect the environment on different geographic scales. In addition, it was not taken into account whether or not the pollutants are emitted within the building or outside of the building. This makes a difference on the environmental impacts because if the pollutants are emitted where there are lots of people, they are more likely to have a negative impact on human health.  Connaghan 26 Not all characteristics of emissions are taken into account when doing an impact assessment. The impact assessment software converts specified amounts masses of emissions into their equivalent environmental and human impacts. Although this data had been collected through many environmental and health studies, the impacts are still dependent on an infinite number of factors—such as time, temperature, environment sensitivity, etc.— compromising the accuracy of these impact equivalencies. In addition, there are a number of chemicals within the environment that can react together to produce other chemicals. This reaction could potentially create more or less hazardous chemicals. Overall, this lack of detail could result in over- or underestimation of environmental impacts. The way that the emissions are converted to impacts can also cause uncertainty in the summary measures. TRACI, the impact assessment methodology used for this study, relates emissions to impacts through characterization factors. These factors, however, are linear and do not take into account the initial amount that the environment is able to absorb without effects, as well as the drop off of effects when there are so many emissions that further emissions do not cause any more harm. This could cause over- or underestimations of the impacts, depending on the relationship the each emission has with the environment. Finally, the way in which the impact assessment methodology allocates impacts to different products along the line of production can affect the overall results. Co-products from the same unit process can be quantified by mass, volume, economic value, etc. Depending on which method of quantification is used, the impacts allocated to each co-product will differ.  Connaghan 27  4 Building Performance The building performance of the current Geography Building was calculated based on the total areas and heat flow resistances (R-values) of the roof, windows and exterior walls, as well as the initial embodied energy of the building. This building performance was then compared to a theoretical improved Geography Building that met the Residential Environmental Assessment Program’s (REAP’s) insulation requirements. The following sections outline the method of calculating the R-values and subsequent energy performances, the materials to be replaced to increase building performance, and the energy payback period of such replacements.  4.1 Heat Flow Resistance The R-values of the current and improved buildings’ windows were determined from tables provided. The R-values for the exterior walls and roofs, however, needed to be calculated based on the components in the assemblies’ cross-sections and the area that they covered (RValue Table, 2008). For components that only covered the area of the assembly’s studs, the Rvalue was input into the “R-Value Studs” column as seen in Table 4. For components that only covered the area of the cavities between the studs, the R-value was input into the “R-Value Cavity” column. For components that covered the whole assembly area, the R-value was input into both the “R-Value Studs” and “R-Value Studs” columns.  Table 4. Sample R-value calculation table  Component  R-Value Studs R-Value Cavity  Assembly R-Value  Total Wall R-Values Wall U-Values Total Wall R-Value  The total R-values for the stud and cavity sections were determined by summing all of the R-values within the column. The U-values were then calculated by taking the reciprocal of  Connaghan 28 the R-values. Finally, the total R-value for the assembly was calculation by Equation 1, where the “%” variables are the percent area occupied by the studs and the cavities: Equation 1:  Once the R-values of each assembly was determined, the weighted average R-value for the whole building was calculated by taking the sum of the products of the R-values and areas for each assembly, and dividing the sum by the total area of all of the assemblies. The following sections outline how the R-value for each assembly was modeled. 4.1.1 Current Building The Geography Building had single-pane windows with assumed standard glazing. From the R-Value Table provided on the Colorado Energy website (R-Value Table, 2008), it was determined that this had an R-value of 0.91. The exterior wall cross section for the Geography Building included stucco, cedar shiplap siding, 2”x4” wood studs and plaster. Due to limitations, however, stucco could not be input into the R-value calculation, the cedar shiplap siding was assumed to be wood bevel siding, and the lath and plaster were assumed to be ½” drywall. Outside and inside air films were also added to the model. Finally, the studs were input as 3 ½” studs, and the total percent area of the studs was estimated to be 15%. These assumptions resulted in an exterior R-value of 3.36, as seen in Table 5.  Table 5. Exterior wall R-value calculation for the "current" building  Exterior Wall R-Value Calculation for "Current" Building Component R-Value Studs R-Value Cavity Assembly R-Value Wall - Outside Air Film 0.17 0.17 Siding - Wood Bevel 0.8 0.8 3 1/2" Stud 4.38 Air space (within stud cavities) 0 1 1/2" Drywall 0.45 0.45 Inside Air Film 0.68 0.68 Percent for 16" o.c. + Additional studs 15% 85% Total Wall R-Values 6.48 3.1 Wall U-Values 0.15 0.32 Total Wall R-Value 3.36  Connaghan 29  The roof cross section for the Geography Building included roofing asphalt, cedar shiplap siding, and two layers of 2”x4” wood studs with 26” of air space between them. Due to limitations, however, the cedar shiplap siding was assumed to be wood bevel siding and the roofing asphalt was assumed to be asphalt shingles. Outside and inside air films were also added to the model. Finally, the studs were input as 3 ½” studs, and the total percent area of the studs was estimated to be 5%. These assumptions resulted in an exterior R-value of 10.30, as seen in Table 6.  Table 6. Roof R-value calculation for the "current" building  Roof R-Value Calculation for "Current" Building Component R-Value Studs R-Value Cavity Wall - Outside Air Film 0.17 0.17 Siding - Wood Bevel 0.8 0.8 3 1/2" Stud 8.76 0 Air space (between stud assemblies) 6 6 Air space (within stud cavities) 0 2 Asphalt Shingles 0.44 0.44 Inside Air Film 0.68 0.68 Percent for 16" o.c. + Additional studs 5.0% 95.0% Total Wall Component R-Values 16.85 10.09 Wall Component U-Values 0.06 0.10 Total Wall Assembly R-Value  Assembly R-Value  10.30  4.1.2 Improved Building To improve the window insulation and meet the REAP window insulation standard of at least R-2.85, low E tin argon filled glazing was used, which have an R-value of 3.45 To improve the exterior walls’ energy performance and meet the REAP exterior wall insulation standard of at least R-18, 3.5” of polyisocyanurate insulation was added to the assembly. Because the wall cross section did not currently detail any insulation in the current building, the rest of the assembly was kept the same. The resulting exterior wall R-value was 18.42 as seen in Table 7.  Connaghan 30 Table 7. Exterior wall R-value calculation for the "improved" building  Exterior Wall R-Value Calculation for "Improved" Building Component R-Value Studs R-Value Cavity Assembly R-Value Wall - Outside Air Film 0.17 0.17 Siding - Wood Bevel 0.8 0.8 3 1/2" Stud 4.38 0 Polyisocyanurate (foil-faced) 0 25.2 1/2" Drywall 0.45 0.45 Inside Air Film 0.68 0.68 Percent for 16" o.c. + Additional studs 15% 85% Total Wall R-Values 6.48 27.3 Wall U-Values 0.15 0.04 Total Wall R-Value 18.42  To improve the roof’s energy performance and meet the REAP roof insulation standard of at least R-40, 4.5” of polyisocyanurate insulation was added to the assembly. Because the roof cross section did not currently detail any insulation in the current building, the rest of the assembly was kept the same. The resulting exterior wall R-value was 41.78 as seen in Table 8.  Table 8. Roof R-value calculation for the "improved" building  Roof R-Value Calculation for "Improved" Building Component R-Value Studs R-Value Cavity Assembly R-Value Wall - Outside Air Film 0.17 0.17 Siding - Wood Bevel 0.8 0.8 3 1/2" Stud 8.76 0 Air space (between stud assemblies) 5 5 Air space (within stud cavities) 0 2 Polyisocyanurate (foil-faced) 32.4 32.4 Asphalt Shingles 0.44 0.44 Inside Air Film 0.68 0.68 Percent for 16" o.c. + Additional studs 5.0% 95.0% Total Wall Component R-Values 48.25 41.49 Wall Component U-Values 0.0207 0.0241 Total Wall Assembly R-Value 41.78  4.2 Energy Performance Once the R-values were determined and assigned to each of the assemblies considered for the current and improved buildings, the energy performance for each month over a year was calculated. Each month’s energy use was calculated by determining the temperature difference  Connaghan 31 between the outside temperature and room temperature, and multiplying this by the hours in a month and the area per unit R-value, as seen in Equation 2:: Equation 2:  Below, in Figure 13, the energy performances for the current and improved buildings are presented. As seen in the figure, the energy use of the improved building would be approximately 25% that of the current building.  Figure 13. Energy usage per month for the current and improved Geography Building  The improved building was also modeled in the IE software. This was done by substituting the low E tin argon filled glazing for the standard glazing, and adding the specified polyisocyanurate insulation thicknesses to the roof and exterior walls. From the model, the primary energy consumption of the improved building was determined. This was then added to the cumulative energy use over 80 years—annual energy uses were determined by summing the  Connaghan 32 monthly energy uses. The cumulative energy use over the 80 year span, including primary energy consumption, was then plotted for both buildings and plotted in Figure 14 below.  Figure 14. Energy Usage vs. Time for the current and improved Geography Building  It can be seen from the figure above that the total energy savings of the improved building over 80 years is approximately 80,000GJ. In addition, in Figure 15—a close up of the graph in Figure 14—it can be seen that the two energy use lines cross at approximately 1.5 years. This time is the energy payback period needed to “recover” the additional 1,600GJ of energy required to build the improved building.  Connaghan 33  Figure 15. Close up of Energy Usage vs. Time for the current and improved Geography Building  4.3 Other Considerations Although the above figure shows that the energy payback period for the improved building would be approximately 1.5 years, the actual energy payback period would likely be longer. This is because, in order to upgrade the current building, the lath and plaster walls would need to be removed and replace in order to install the insulation in the exterior walls. This is also true for installing insulation in the roof. It is also important to note that the economic payback period would most likely be longer than the energy payback period due to higher costs for better insulation and window glazing. Finally, installing new windows and insulation would result in additional environmental impacts. In some cases, these impacts may outweigh the need to save energy. For this reason, it is important to do LCA’s on the current and improved buildings when considering doing a building renovation. It can also be useful during the design stage to determine the materials and insulation that should be used.  Connaghan 34  5 Conclusion After the building was modeled and the Bill of Materials was determined, it was found that the largest quantities of material by units of area were ½” regular gypsum board, softwood plywood, 6mil polyethylene, cedar wood shiplap siding, and stucco. When the summary measures of the Geography Building were compared to those of an average academic building, it was found that the primary energy consumption, weighted resource use, global warming potential, acidification potential, human health respiratory effects potential, eutrophication potential, and smog potential ranged were below the average building impacts, and the ozone depletion potential was above that of the average building. It was then determined through sensitivity analysis that the ozone depletion potential was large in comparison due to the amount of plywood in the building. Finally, through building performance calculations of the building’s windows, exterior walls and roof, it was determined that adding 4.5” and 3.5” of polyisocyanurate insulation to the roof and exterior walls, respectively, and replacing all standard glazing windows with low E tin argon filled glazing to meet REAP insulation requirements would have a 1.55 year energy payback period. Further studies in the LCA of the Geography Building could be completed by incorporating operational energy values to the model. In addition, doing a more detailed takeoff that includes permanent furniture within the Geography Building—including lab benches and lecture room desks—would provide further insight into the true impacts of the building. This modeling could be done not only for the original building, but also include renovations that have occurred over the past 85 years.  Connaghan 35  Bibliography Bare, J. C., Norris, G. A., Pennington, D. W., & McKone, T. (2003). TRACI: The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology . Canadian Standards Association. (2006). CSA Standard CAN/CSA-ISO 14040:06. International Organization of Standardization. Canadian Standards Association. (2006). CSA Standard CAN/CSA-ISO 14044:06. International Organization for Standardization. Geography Building. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2009, from UBC Library Archives: http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/bldgs/geog.html Lath and Plaster. (2008, December 12). Retrieved March 15, 2009, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lath_and_plaster R-Value Table. (2008, July 29). Retrieved March 2009, from Colorado Energy: http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm Wilson, A. (1993, March 1). Cement and Concrete: Environmental Considerations. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from Building Green: http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=020201b.xml Worral, R. (n.d.). Energy Savings in the Asphalt Manufacturing Industry. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from http://www.bestarticlesonnet.com/business-services/article5262.htm  Connaghan 36  Appendices  Connaghan 37  Appendix A: Impact Estimator Input Tables  ATHENA® Environmental Impact Estimator  General Description  Assembly Group  Project Name  Geography  Project Location Building Life Expectancy  Vancouver  Building Type Gross Floor Area (ft2) Operating Energy Consumption  Institutional  Assembly Type  60 years  51833  -TBA-  Assembly Name  Input Fields  Input Values Known/Measured  EIE Inputs  1 Foundation 1.1 Concrete Footing 1.1.1 - 2'3" Concrete Footings Length (ft)  175.500  175.500  Width (ft)  2.250  2.250  Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  -  #4  Length (ft)  22.000  22.000  Width (ft)  2.750  2.750  Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  -  #4  267.750  267.750  1.1.2 - 2'9" Concrete Footings  1.1.3 - 1'9" Concrete Footings Length (ft)  Connaghan 38 Width (ft)  1.750  1.750  Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  -  #4  Length (ft)  16.500  16.500  Width (ft)  2.250  2.250  Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  -  #4  Length (ft)  65.000  65.000  Width (ft)  3.250  3.250  Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  -  #4  Length (ft)  8.000  8.000  Width (ft)  4.000  4.000  Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  -  #4  1.1.4 - 2'3"x2'9" Concrete Footings  1.1.5 - 3'3" Concrete Footings  1.1.6 - 4'x4' Concrete Footings  1.1.7 - Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings Length (ft)  1091.000  1091.000  Width (ft)  1.667  1.667  Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  -  #4  Length (ft)  20.000  20.000  Width (ft)  5.667  5.667  Thickness (in)  8.000  8.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  1.1.8 - Ground Entrance Stairs  Connaghan 39 Rebar  -  #4  Length (ft)  29.000  29.000  Width (ft)  7.000  7.000  1.1.9 - Ground Entrance Stairs 2  Thickness (in)  12.000  12.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  -  #4  Length (ft)  7.500  7.500  Width (ft)  3.000  3.000  Thickness (in)  8.000  8.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  -  #4  Length (ft)  34.438  34.438  Width (ft)  1.1.10 - Ground Entrance Stairs 3  1.2 Slab on Grade 1.2.1 - Foundation Concrete Floor  16.000  16.000  Thickness (in)  4.000  4.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Length (ft)  1091.000  1363.750  Height (ft)  3.500  3.500  2 Custom Wall 2.1 Cast-inPlace 2.1.1 - Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings  Thickness (in)  10.000  8.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  Average  Rebar  -  #5  47.000  58.750  2.1.2 - Foundation Exterior Wall without Footings Length (ft) Height (ft)  3.500  3.500  Thickness (in)  10.000  8.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  Average  Rebar  -  #5  Connaghan 40 2.1.3 - Foundation 6'' Interior Concrete Wall Length (ft)  88.000  66.000  Height (ft)  3.500  3.500  Thickness (in)  6.000  8.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  Average  Rebar  -  #5  Length (ft)  342.000  342.000  Height (ft)  3.500  3.500  Thickness (in)  8.000  8.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  Average  Rebar  -  #5  Length (ft)  79.000  69.125  Height (ft)  3.500  3.500  Thickness (in)  7.000  8.000  Concrete (psi)  -  4000.000  Concrete flyash %  -  Average  Rebar  -  #5  2.1.4 - Foundation 8'' Interior Concrete Wall  2.1.5 - Foundation 7'' Interior Concrete Wall  2.2 Wood Stud 2.2.1 - Ground Exterior Wall Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  1096.000  274.000  Height (ft)  13.500  13.500  Sheathing  None  None  Stud thickness Stud Spacing Stud Type Window Opening  Number of Windows Total Window Area (ft2) Frame Type Glazing Type  Door Opening  Number of Doors Door Type  Envelope  Category Material Thickness Category  2x6  2x6  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  332.000  83.000  3229.722  807.431  Wood  Wood  -  Standard Glazing  10.000  10.000  -  Solid Wood  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  -  -  Cladding  Cladding  Connaghan 41  Material Thickness Category Material Thickness  Lath and Stucco  Stucco - Over porous sruface  -  -  Cladding Shiplap  Cladding Wood Shiplap Siding Cedar  -  -  2.2.2 - First Floor Exterior Wall Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  1050.000  262.500  Height (ft)  12.000  12.000  Sheathing  None  None  Stud thickness Stud Spacing Stud Type Window Opening  Number of Windows Total Window Area (ft2) Frame Type  Envelope  2x6  2x6  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  334.000  83.500  4024.583  1006.146  Wood  Wood  Glazing Type  -  Standard Glazing  Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  -  -  Cladding Lath and Stucco  Cladding Stucco - Over porous sruface  -  -  Cladding  Material Thickness Category Material Thickness Category  Shiplap  Cladding Wood Shiplap Siding Cedar  Thickness  -  -  Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length (ft)  617.000  617.000  Height (ft)  13.500  13.500  Material 2.2.3 - Ground 2''x4'' Stud Interior Wall  Sheathing Stud thickness Stud Spacing Stud Type Door Opening Envelope  Number of Doors  -  None  2x4  2x4  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  21.000  21.000  Door Type  -  Solid Wood  Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  -  -  Material Thickness  Connaghan 42  Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length (ft)  17.000  17.000  Material 2.2.4 - Ground 2''x4'' Stud Interior Wall with Steel Vestibule  Height (ft)  13.500  13.500  Sheathing  1/4" Ply. Both Sides  Plywood  2x4  2x4  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  1.000  1.000  Steel Vestibule  Steel Interior Door  -  Gypsum board  Stud thickness Stud Spacing Stud Type Door Opening  Number of Doors Door Type  Envelope  Category Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Category  -  Gypsum board  Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length (ft)  145.000  145.000  Height (ft)  13.500  13.500  Sheathing  -  None  2x6  2x6  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  2.2.5 - Ground 2''x6'' Stud Interior Wall  Stud thickness Stud Spacing Stud Type Envelope  Category Material Thickness Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  -  -  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length (ft)  919.000  919.000  Height (ft)  13.500  13.500  Sheathing  1/4" Ply. Both Sides  Plywood  2x4  2x4  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Material 2.2.6 - Ground 2''x4'' Stud Hallway Wall  Stud thickness Stud Spacing  Connaghan 43 Stud Type Door Opening Envelope  Number of Doors  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  44.000  44.000  Door Type  -  Solid Wood  Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Material Thickness  -  -  Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  -  -  Material Thickness 2.2.7 - Ground 2''x4'' Stud Lecture Room Wall Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length (ft)  126.000  126.000  Height (ft)  1.500  1.500  Sheathing  1/4" Ply. Both Sides  Plywood  2x4  2x4  Stud thickness Stud Spacing Stud Type Envelope  Category Material  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Category  -  Gypsum board  Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length (ft)  631.000  631.000  Height (ft)  12.000  12.000  2.2.8 - First Floor 2''x4'' Stud Interior Wall  Sheathing Stud thickness Stud Spacing Stud Type Door Opening Envelope  Number of Doors  -  None  2x4  2x4  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  16.000  16.000  Door Type  -  Solid Wood  Category  -  Gypsum board  Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gypsum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Material 2.2.9 - First Floor 2''x6'' Stud Interior Wall  Connaghan 44 Length (ft)  195.000  195.000  Height (ft)  12.000  12.000  Sheathing Stud thickness Stud Spacing Stud Type Door Opening Envelope  Number of Doors  -  None  2x6  2x6  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  7.000  7.000  Door Type  -  Solid Wood  Category  -  Gypsum board  Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length (ft)  37.000  74.000  Height (ft)  12.000  12.000  Sheathing  -  None  Material 2.2.10 - First Floor 2''x16'' Stud Interior Wall  Stud thickness  2 x 16  2x8  Stud Spacing  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  -  Gypsum board  Stud Type Envelope  Category Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Category  -  Material  Lath and Plaster  Thickness  -  Wall Type  Interior  Interior  Length (ft)  704.000  704.000  Height (ft)  12.000  12.000  Sheathing  1/4" Ply. Both Sides  Plywood  2x4  2x4  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  2.2.11 - First Floor 2''x4'' Stud Hallway Wall  Stud thickness Stud Spacing Stud Type Door Opening Envelope  35.000  35.000  Door Type  Number of Doors  -  Solid Wood  Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"  -  -  Material Thickness  Connaghan 45  Category  -  Gypsum board  Lath and Plaster  Gypsum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  63.000  63.000  Height (ft)  68.000  68.000  Sheathing  None  None  Stud thickness  2x4  2x4  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Stud Type  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  50.000  50.000  Height (ft)  19.000  19.000  Sheathing  None  None  Stud thickness  2x4  2x4  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Stud Type  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  17.300  17.300  Height (ft)  61.000  61.000  Sheathing  None  None  Material 2.2.12 - Roof Area  Stud Spacing  2.2.13 - Roof Area 2  Stud Spacing  2.2.14 - Roof Area 3  Stud thickness  2x4  2x4  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Stud Type  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  Wall Type  Exterior  Exterior  Length (ft)  45.500  45.500  Height (ft)  14.000  14.000  Sheathing  None  None  Stud Spacing  2.2.15 - Roof Area 4  Stud thickness  2x4  2x4  16 o.c.  16 o.c.  Stud Type  Kiln dried  Kiln dried  Roof Width (ft)  2577.500  2577.500  10.000  10.000  -  None  Stud Spacing 3 Roofs 3.1 Wood Joist 3.1.1 - Roof Area  Span (ft) Decking Type  Connaghan 46 Live load (psf) Decking Thickness Envelope  Category  45.000  45.000  -  1/2 in  Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier  Material  -  Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness (in)  -  -  Cladding Shiplap  Cladding Wood Shiplap Siding Cedar  -  -  Roof Envelopes  Roof Envelopes  Asphalt  Roofing Asphalt  -  -  Floor Width (ft)  19.938  19.938  Span (ft)  16.000  16.000  -  4000.000  Category Material Thickness (in) Category Material Thickness (in) 4 Floors 4.1 Suspended Slab 4.1.1 - Ground Concrete Floor  Concrete (psi) Live load (psf)  -  45.000  Concrete flyash %  -  average  2257.600  2257.600  10.000  10.000  Decking Type  Wood  Plywood  Live load (psf)  45.000  45.000  -  1/2 in  2493.000  2493.000  10.000  10.000  Decking Type  Wood  Plywood  Live load (psf)  45.000  45.000  -  1/2 in  253.200  253.200  10.000  10.000  Decking Type  None  None  Live load (psf)  45.000  45.000  -  1/2 in  4.2 Wood Joist Floor 4.2.1 - Ground Floor Area Floor Width (ft) Span (ft)  Decking Thickness 4.2.2 - First Floor Floor Area Floor Width (ft) Span (ft)  Decking Thickness 4.2.3 - Ground Sloped Lecture Room Floor Width (ft) Span (ft)  Decking Thickness 4.2.4 - Ground Level Lecture Room  Connaghan 47 Floor Width (ft)  92.500  92.500  Span (ft)  10.000  10.000  Decking Type  Wood  Plywood  Live load (psf)  45.000  45.000  -  1/2 in  27.991  27.991  25.706  27.706  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.444  1.444  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.515  1.515  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.345  0.345  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.064  1.064  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.507  0.507  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.345  0.345  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.170  0.170  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.116  0.116  Decking Thickness 5 Extra Basic Materials 5.1 Wood Total Softwood Lumber (small dim., kiln dried) (Mbfm) Softwood Lumber (large dim., kiln dried) (Mbfm) 5.1.1 - Ground 8''x18'' Wood Beam  5.1.2 - Ground 8''x16'' Wood Beam  5.1.3 - Ground 8''x14'' Wood Beam  5.1.4 - Ground 6''x8'' Wood Beam  5.1.5 - Ground 10''x16'' Wood Beam  5.1.6 - First Floor 8''x14'' Wood Beam  5.1.7 - First Floor 6''x10'' Wood Beam  5.1.8 - First Floor 6''x8'' Wood Beam  5.1.9 - First Floor 10''x16'' Wood Beam  Connaghan 48 Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.667  1.667  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.896  0.896  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.555  0.555  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  4.650  4.650  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  2.680  2.680  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.284  1.284  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  2.688  2.688  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  2.333  2.333  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.187  0.187  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.540  0.540  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.648  0.648  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.810  0.810  5.1.10 - First Floor 8''x16'' Wood Beam  5.1.11 - First Floor 10''x18'' Wood Beam  5.1.12 - Foundation 6''x6'' Wood Girder  5.1.13 - Foundation 6''x10'' Wood Girder  5.1.14 - Foundation 6''x8'' Wood Girder  5.1.15 - Foundation 6''x6'' Wood Post  5.1.16 - Foundation 8''x10'' Wood Post  5.1.17 - Foundation 8''x8'' Wood Post  5.1.18 - Ground 6''x8'' Wood Post  5.1.19 - Ground 8''x8'' Wood Post  5.1.20 - Ground 8''x10'' Wood Post  5.1.21 - First Floor 8''x8'' Wood Post  Connaghan 49 Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.024  1.024  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.384  0.384  Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.854  1.854  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  5.058  5.058  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  3.811  3.811  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  3.528  3.528  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.094  0.094  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.870  0.870  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  5.149  5.149  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.084  0.084  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  3.233  3.233  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.982  0.982  5.1.22 - First Floor 6''x8'' Wood Post  5.1.23 - First Floor Truss  5.1.24 - Ground Exterior Wall  5.1.25 - First Floor Exterior Wall  5.1.26 - Ground 2''x4'' Stud Interior Wall  5.1.27 - Ground 2''x4'' Stud Interior Wall with Steel Vestibule  5.1.28 - Ground 2''x6'' Stud Interior Wall  5.1.29 - Ground 2''x4'' Stud Hallway Wall  5.1.30 - Ground 2''x4'' Stud Lecture Room Wall  5.1.31 - First Floor 2''x4'' Stud Interior Wall  5.1.32 - First Floor 2''x6'' Stud Interior Wall  5.1.33 - First Floor 2''x16'' Stud Interior Wall  Connaghan 50 Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.197  0.197  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  3.464  3.464  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.096  0.096  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.139  0.139  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.109  0.109  Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.178  1.178  0.360  0.360  1.587  1.587  5.1.34 - First Floor 2''x4'' Stud Hallway Wall  5.1.35 - Ground Lecture Room Stairs  5.1.36 - Ground Interior Stairs Up  5.1.37 - FF Interior Stairs Down  5.1.38 - Ground Lecture Room  5.2 Steel 5.2.1 - First Floor Truss Rebar Rod Light Sections (Tons) Cold Rolled Steel (Tons)  Connaghan 44  Appendix B: Impact Estimator Input Assumptions Document  6 Geography Assumptions 1. Foundation Concrete footings were calculated using all three measurement conditions. Column footings on the foundation were measured using the count condition with the width and length provided from drawing 401-06-016, and the thickness provided from drawing 401-06-17. The strip footing below the exterior concrete wall was modeled using the width provided from drawing 401-06-016 and the linear condition used to measure the Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings. The concrete stairs on the ground level— which were modeled as footings and labeled as Ground Entrance Stairs—were measured using the area condition, with the average thickness estimated from the cross section as shown in drawing 401-06-020. Finally, Foundation Concrete Floor was modeled as a slab on grade using the area condition, with a thickness measurement of 4”. 1.1 Concrete Footing • Concrete strength was not given and was therefore assumed to be 4000psi • Rebar was not given and was therefore assumed to be #4 • Concrete fly ash content was not given and was therefore assumed to be average 1.1.1 2'3" Concrete Footings • Length of footing was calculated by multiplying the length of each footing by the number of footings of that type 1.1.2 2'9" Concrete Footings • Length of footing was calculated by multiplying the length of each footing by the number of footings of that type 1.1.3 1'9" Concrete Footings • Length of footing was calculated by multiplying the length of each footing by the number of footings of that type 1.1.4 2'3"x2'9" Concrete Footings  Connaghan 45 •  Length of footing was calculated by multiplying the length of each footing by the number of footings of that type  1.1.5 3'3" Concrete Footings • Length of footing was calculated by multiplying the length of each footing by the number of footings of that type 1.1.6 4'x4' Concrete Footings • Length of footing was calculated by multiplying the length of each footing by the number of footings of that type 1.1.7 Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings • Length of footing was given by the length takeoff from the Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings (2.1.1)  1.1.8 Ground Entrance Stairs • Concrete thickness assumed to be linear by estimating the average thickness between the crest and the trough of the step, as seen below 1.1.9 Ground Entrance Stairs 2 • Concrete thickness assumed to be linear by estimating the average thickness between the crest and the trough of the step, as seen below 1.1.10 Ground Entrance Stairs 3 • Concrete thickness assumed to be linear by estimating the average thickness between the crest and the trough of the step, as seen below  1.2 Slab on Grade 1.2.1 Foundation Concrete Floor • Concrete strength was not given and was therefore assumed to be 4000psi  Connaghan 46 •  Concrete fly ash content was not given and was therefore assumed to be average  2. Custom Wall The walls on the foundation, ground and first floor levels were modeled using linear conditions. The foundation concrete walls were assumed to have a height of 3.5’, based on an average of measurements from drawings 401-06-019 and 401-06-020. The exterior walls on the ground and first floors were modeled four times, due to limitations in the IE for number of windows. Hallway walls were also assumed to have plywood sheathing, based on drawing 401-06-030, a drawing from a building renovation in 1963. The doors and windows within the ground and first floor walls were modeled using count conditions. All doors, except for the steel vestibule which was assumed to be a 32”x7’ steel interior door, were assumed to be 32”x7’ solid wood doors. The windows were assumed to be fixed windows with standard glazing, and were modeled as wood frames based on site inspections. 2.1 Cast-in-Place • Concrete strength was not given and was therefore assumed to be 4000psi • Rebar was not given and was therefore assumed to be #5 • Concrete fly ash content was not given and was therefore assumed to be average 2.1.1 Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings • Thickness of 10” was given, however 8” was used due to IE limitations, therefore length of the exterior wall was multiplied by a factor of (10”/8”) for a total length of 1363.75’ to meet the concrete volume.  2.1.2 Foundation Exterior Wall without Footings • Thickness of 10” was given, however 8” was used due to IE limitations, therefore length of the exterior wall was multiplied by a factor of (10”/8”) for a total length of 58.75’ to meet the concrete volume. 2.1.3 Foundation 6'' Interior Concrete Wall • Thickness of 6” was given, however 8” was used due to IE limitations, therefore length of the exterior wall was multiplied by a factor of (6”/8”)  Connaghan 47 for a total length of 66.0’ to meet the concrete volume. 2.1.5 Foundation 7'' Interior Concrete Wall • Thickness of 7” was given, however 8” was used due to IE limitations, therefore length of the exterior wall was multiplied by a factor of (7”/8”) for a total length of 69.125’ to meet the concrete volume. 2.2 Wood Stud 2.2.5 Ground Exterior Wall • Length of the wall was divided by 4 (and modeled 4 times) to accommodate limits on the number of windows 6.1.1.1 Window Opening • • •  Number of windows was divided by 4 (and modeled 4 times) to accommodate limits on the number of windows Total area of the windows was divided by 4 (and modeled 4 times) to accommodate limits on the number of windows Window glazing was not given and was therefore assumed to be standard glazing  6.1.1.2 Door Opening • • •  All 10 door openings were modeled in the first copy of the wall, and each subsequent four wall copies had 0 door openings Door material was not given and was therefore assumed to be solid wood All doors were assumed to have dimensions of 32”x7’  6.1.1.3 Envelope • • •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations Shiplap siding was assumed to be cedar given that the laths in the building are cedar as well Batten and paper were not modeled due to IE limitations  2.2.6 First Floor Exterior Wall • Length of the wall was divided by 4 (and modeled 4 times) to accommodate limits on the number of windows 6.1.1.4 Window Opening •  Number of windows was divided by 4 (and modeled 4 times) to accommodate limits on the number of windows  Connaghan 48 • •  Total area of the windows was divided by 4 (and modeled 4 times) to accommodate limits on the number of windows Window glazing was not given and was therefore assumed to be standard glazing  6.1.1.5 Envelope • • •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations Shiplap siding was assumed to be cedar given that the laths in the building are cedar as well Batten and paper were not modeled due to IE limitations  2.2.7 Ground 2''x4'' Stud Interior Wall 6.1.1.6 Door Opening • •  Door material was not given and was therefore assumed to be solid wood All doors were assumed to have dimensions of 32”x7’  6.1.1.7 Envelope •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations  2.2.8 Ground 2''x4'' Stud Interior Wall with Steel Vestibule Door Opening • Steel vestibule was assumed to be steel interior door with dimensions of 32”x7’ 6.1.1.8 Envelope •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations  2.2.9 Ground 2''x6'' Stud Interior Wall Envelope • ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations 2.2.10 Ground 2''x4'' Stud Hallway Wall Door Opening • Door material was not given and was therefore assumed to be solid wood  Connaghan 49 6.1.1.9 Envelope •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations  2.2.11 Ground 2''x4'' Stud Lecture Room Wall • This wall was added to accommodate the additional wall height within the lecture room • A height of 1.5’ was assumed as the average increased wall height 6.1.1.10 Envelope •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations  2.2.12 First Floor 2''x4'' Stud Interior Wall Door Opening • Door material was not given and was therefore assumed to be solid wood 6.1.1.11 Envelope •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations  2.2.13 First Floor 2''x6'' Stud Interior Wall Door Opening • Door material was not given and was therefore assumed to be solid wood 6.1.1.12 Envelope •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations  2.2.14 First Floor 2''x16'' Stud Interior Wall • Stud thickness of 2”x16” was given, however 2”x8” was used due to IE limitations, therefore length of the exterior wall was multiplied by a factor of (16”/8”) for a total length of 74’ to meet the concrete volume  6.1.1.13 Envelope •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations  Connaghan 50 •  Gypsum board was only modeled once due to doubling in the wall length  2.2.15 First Floor 2''x4'' Stud Hallway Wall Door Opening • Door material was not given and was therefore assumed to be solid wood 6.1.1.14 Envelope •  ½” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to IE limitations  2.2.16 Roof Area • Width of roof area given by dividing the highlighted area by the length, as shown below • Area modeled twice to account for symmetric design  Connaghan 51  2.2.17 Roof Area 2 • Width of roof area given by dividing the highlighted area by the length, as shown below • Area modeled twice to account for symmetric design  2.2.18 Roof Area 3 • Width of roof area given by dividing the highlighted area by the length, as shown below • Area modeled twice to account for symmetric design  Connaghan 52  2.2.19 Roof Area 4 • Width of roof area given by dividing the highlighted area by the length, as shown below  Connaghan 53  3. Roofs The roof of the building was made up of two wood joist sections, as seen below. The lower portion was modeled as a wood joist roof, while the upper portion was modeled as 4 separate wall sections with 2”x4” wood studs. Sloped sections of the “wall sections” were assumed to be flat. 3.1 Wood Joist 3.1.5 Roof Area • Spans were assumed to be 10ft due to IE limitations • This roof area modeled the lower portion of the roof, as highlighted below (Note: the top portion of the roof was modeled as wall sections as seen in 2.2.12-2.2.15)  6.1.1.15 6.1.1.16 Envelope • •  Roofing asphalt assumed based on known asphalt roof Polyethylene 6mil vapour barrier assumed  4. Floors The floors were modeled using the area condition. An assumed live load of 45psf also used based on drawing 401-07-001, a list of specifications from a 2004 renovation. The wood joist floors were assumed to have ½” thick plywood decking based on knowledge of the decking being wood. Finally, the sloped section of the lecture room was modeled to have a slope based on the dimensions of the risers and treads of the steps,  Connaghan 54 as seen in drawing 401-06-019. A sloped wood joist floor was modeled, and the addition material used for the steps was added as extra basic material. 4.1 Slab on Grade 4.1.5 Ground Concrete Floor • Concrete strength was not given and was therefore assumed to be 4000psi • Live load assumed to be 45psf based on live load for roof and first floor • Concrete fly ash content was not given and was therefore assumed to be average • Span assumed to be 16ft due to IE limitations 4.2 Wood Joist Floor • Floors were assumed to have ½” plywood decking • Spans were assumed to be 10ft due to IE limitations 4.2.3 Ground Sloped Lecture Room • No plywood decking was added to this floor area because the steps were modeled using extra wood (5.1.35)  5. Extra Basic Materials 5.2 Wood •  Volumes of beams, posts and girders were calculated based on given dimensions and modeled length, and converted into Mbfm  •  Total lath volumes for the exterior and interior walls were calculated by multiplying the calculated lath volume per 1’x1’ area—as seen below with assumed lath dimensions and spacing—by the twice the total area of the wall, to account for laths on both sides of the walls  Dimensions Spacing Boards per 4'x4' 4'x2"x1/4" 1/4" 21.333  Boards per 1'x1' 1.333  Volume per Board (fbm) 0.167  Volume per 1'x1' (fbm) 0.222  5.1.23 First Floor Truss • Extra wood for the first floor truss was calculated at seen in the table below  Connaghan 55 # Material Dimension Length/Height (ft) 1 Wood Tie Beam 10"x10" 51.00 1 Wood Tie Beam 10"x12" 51.00 2 Wood Post 10"x12" 13.50 2 Diagonal Posts 10"x12" 15.05 2 Diagonal Posts 10"x8" 14.98 2 Diagonal Posts 10"x6" 14.84 Total V = 1854.03 fbm  Area (sqft) 42.50 51.00 13.50 15.05 9.98 7.42  Volume (fbm) 425.00 510.00 135.00 150.46 99.85 74.20  Rise 0.00 0.00 13.50 12.50 12.50 12.50  Run 51.00 51.00 0.00 8.38 8.25 8.00  5.1.35 Ground Lecture Room Stairs • Steps were assumed to have dimensions of 7’x½” • Stringer board (or diagonal) assumed to have dimensions of 2”x8” • Volumes were calculated based on wood dimensions and lengths, and were doubled to accommodate identical stairwells (Note: Lengths of treads, risers and diagonals given below) 1st Flight  # of Steps Tread (in) Rise (in) Diagonal (ft) 8 10 6  8  Volume (fbm) 48  5.1.36 Ground Interior Stairs Up • Steps were assumed to have dimensions of 5.5’x½” • Stringer board (or diagonal) assumed to have dimensions of 2”x8” • Volumes were calculated based on wood dimensions and lengths, and were doubled to accommodate identical stairwells (Note: Lengths of treads, risers and diagonals given below) 1st Flight  # of Steps Tread (in) Rise (in) Diagonal (ft) Volume (fbm) 14 10 6 13.5 69.33  5.1.37 FF Interior Stairs Down • Steps were assumed to have dimensions of 5.5’x½” • Stringer board (or diagonal) assumed to have dimensions of 2”x8” • Volumes were calculated based on wood dimensions and lengths, and were doubled to accommodate identical stairwells (Note: Lengths of treads, risers and diagonals given below) 2nd Flight  # of Steps Tread (in) Rise (in) Diagonal (ft) Volume (fbm) 11 10 6 10.5 54.33  5.1.38 Ground Lecture Room • Steps were assumed to have dimensions of 50’x½”  Total Volume 425.00 510.00 270.00 300.93 199.69 148.41  Connaghan 56 •  Volumes were calculated based on wood dimensions and lengths (Note: Lengths of treads and risers) 1st Flight  # of Steps Tread (in) Rise (in) Volume (fbm) 12 34 7 1178  5.2 Steel 5.2.1 First Floor Truss • Extra steel for the first floor truss was calculated at seen in the table below • Rods were assumed to be “Rebar Rod Light Sections” • Plates were assumed to be “Cold Rolled Sheet” # Material Dimension Length/Height (ft) 2 Rod (End upset) 2" 13.500 2 Rod (End upset) 1.5" 13.500 1 Rod (End upset) 1.25" 13.500 Total V= 1.473 ft3 Total W= 720.147 lbs Total W= 0.360 tons 6.1.1.17  # 2 6 4 6  6.1.1.18  Material Plate Plate Plate Plate Total V= Total W= Total W=  Dimension 1/2"x10" 3/8"x3"x10" 8"x8"x3/8" 6"x6"x3/8" 6.490 3173.562 1.587  Length/Height (ft) 5.750 ft3 lbs tons  Area (sqft) 0.022 0.022 0.022  Volume (fbm) 0.295 0.295 0.295  Total Volume 0.589 0.589 0.295  Area (sqft) 4.792 0.208 0.444 0.250  Volume (fbm) 2.396 0.078 0.167 0.094  Total Volume 4.792 0.469 0.667 0.563  Connaghan 55  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 7 0
China 4 55
France 2 0
Russia 1 0
Canada 1 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 7 0
Shenzhen 3 55
Unknown 2 9
Saint Petersburg 1 0
Tokyo 1 0
Fredericton 1 0
Beijing 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.18861.1-0077974/manifest

Comment

Related Items