UBC Undergraduate Research

Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Buildings: The Buchanan Building Cortese, Andrew 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]
Buchanan_Cortese,A_2.pdf [ 797.45kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077975.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077975+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077975.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077975+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077975+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077975+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0077975 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0077975.txt
Citation
1.0077975.ris

Full Text

Cortese i  CIVL 498C - LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF UBC BUILDINGS THE BUCHANAN BUILDING  Prepared by: Andrew Cortese  March 27, 2009  Cortese ii ABSTRACT The following report is an analysis of the environmental impacts created by the University of British Columbia’s Buchanan building. The analysis was done by creating a material model in the Athena Environmental Impact Estimator. Takeoffs for the model were done using OnScreen Takeoff 3. The Buchanan building’s primary energy consumption was found to be 208.21 MJ / ft2. The weighted resource use was found to be 149.88 kg / ft2. The global warming potential was found to be 19.46 kg CO2 eq. / kg / ft2. The acidification potential was found to be 6.43 moles of H+ eq. / kg / ft2. The human health respiratory effects potential was found to be 0.06 kg PM2.5 eq. / kg / ft2. The eutrophication potential was found to be 0.00 kg N eq. / kg / ft2. The ozone depletion potential was found to be 0.00 kg CFC-11 eq. / kg / ft2. Finally, the smog potential was found to be 0.10 kg NOx eq. / kg / ft2. In addition, a series of sensitivity analyses were carried out to discover which materials created the largest impacts. As expected, it was found that concrete had the biggest influence on the buildings emissions. Moreover, it was discovered that rebar had the largest impact on the eutrophication potential of the Buchanan building. An operating energy analysis was also carried out on the Buchanan building. It was discovered that by increasing the building’s insulation to meet the Residential Environmental Assessment Program’s insulation requirements 464 520 422 MJ of energy would be saved over an 80 year building lifespan.  Cortese iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 GOAL AND SCOPE................................................................................................... 3 3.1 GOAL OF STUDY ......................................................................................................... # 3.2 SCOPE OF STUDY ........................................................................................................ # 3.3 TOOLS, METHODOLOGY AND DATA ............................................................................ # 3.0 BUILDING MODEL .................................................................................................. 7 3.1 TAKEOFFS ................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 ASSEMBLY GROUPS .................................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Columns and Beams ............................................................................................ 9 3.2.2 Floors .................................................................................................................. 9 3.2.3 Roofs.................................................................................................................. 10 3.2.4 Foundations....................................................................................................... 10 3.2.5 Walls.................................................................................................................. 11 3.2.6 Extra Basic Materials ....................................................................................... 13 3.3 BILL OF MATERIALS ................................................................................................. 14 4.0 SUMMARY MEASURES ........................................................................................ 16 4.1 EMBODIED EFFECTS .................................................................................................. 16 4.2 OBTAINED VALUES ................................................................................................... 18 4.3 UNCERTAINTY RELATED TO VALUES........................................................................ 19 4.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 20 5.0 BUILDING PREFORMANCE................................................................................ 24 5.1 ENERGY PERFORMANCE IMPROVING MATERIALS ..................................................... 24 5.2 ENERGY PERFORMANCE PAYBACK PERIOD .............................................................. 24 5.3 ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUCHANAN ................................................................... 25 6.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX A: EIE INPUT TABLES .......................................................................... 30 APPENDIX B: EIE INPUT ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENT....................................... #  Cortese iv LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1. The Buchanan building....................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Percent change of embodied effects due to a 10% change in a given material amount................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3. Percentage of embodied effects due to porcelain panels .................................. 22 Figure 4. Total energy use by actual and idealized buildings .......................................... 27  LIST OF TABLES  Table 1. Buchanan building characteristics........................................................................ 2 Table 2. Bill of materials.................................................................................................. 14 Table 3. Embodied effects at different life stages............................................................ 18 Table 4. Material R-values ............................................................................................... 25 Table 5. Surface areas and R-values ................................................................................ 25  Cortese 1 1.0  INTRODUCTION The Buchanan building is located at 1866 Main Mall on the Vancouver campus of the  University of British Columbia (UBC). It is a concrete framed building that is heavily influenced by the modern movement in architecture, specifically Mies Van Der Rohe, Walter Gropius, and the master plan of Illinois Institute of Technology. Original design work was carried out by the architecture firm of Thompson, Berwick & Pratt. Construction of the building began in 1956 and continued steadily through until 1960. The original cost of construction was $2 650 000. The main function of the Buchanan building is to serve as office and teaching space for members of the UBC Arts Department. The Buchanan building consists of five blocks: A, B, C, D and E. These five blocks are arranged in a sideways S-shape as shown in Figure 1 below.  Figure 1. The Buchanan building. Block A consists of 30 820 ft2 divided between two floors. Block B consists of 53 820 ft2 divided between three floors. Block C consists of 31 200 ft2 divided between four floors. Block D consists of 54 020 ft2 divided between three floors. Block E consists of 21 280 ft2 divided between four floors. The Buchanan building has a total area of 190 940 ft2.  Cortese 2 Block A’s main floor consists of three large lecture halls; its second floor consists of four large classrooms, a student lounge and an office for the Dean of the Arts Department. Blocks B and D both consist of approximately thirty classrooms spread out over three floors. Blocks C and E both consist of approximately ninety offices spread out over four floors. The structural and envelope inputs related to the Buchanan building are detailed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Buchanan building characteristics. Building System Structure  Specific Characteristics of Buchanan Block A: Concrete beams and columns supporting concrete suspended slabs Block B and D: Concrete beams and columns supporting concrete suspended slabs Block C and E: Concrete beams and columns supporting concrete suspended slabs  Floors Block A: Foundation: Concrete slab on grade; Second floor: Suspended slabs Block B and D: Foundation: Concrete slab on grade; Second and third floor: Suspended slabs Block C and E: Foundation: Concrete slab on grade; Second, third and floor: Suspended slabs Exterior Walls Block A: Glazing dominated curtain walls and concrete block walls with batt insulation Block B and D: Mix of cast-in-place and concrete block walls with batt insulation Block C and E: Mix of cast-in-place and concrete block walls with batt insulation Interior Walls Block A: Gypsum on wood stud walls Block B and D: Gypsum on wood stud walls Block C and E: Gypsum on wood stud walls Windows Block A: Standard glazing with aluminum framing Block B and D: Standard glazing with aluminum framing Block C and E: Standard glazing with aluminum framing Roof Block A: Suspended slab with 2-ply modified bitumen membrane roofing and rigid insulation Block B and D: Suspended slab with 2-ply modified bitumen membrane roofing and rigid insulation Block C and E: Suspended slab with 2-ply modified bitumen membrane roofing and rigid insulation HVAC/heating All Blocks: Steam generated by natural gas  Cortese 3 2.0  GOAL AND SCOPE  The following section outlines the goals and scope of this project. 2.1  Goal of Study  This life cycle analysis (LCA) of the Buchanan building at the University of British Columbia was carried out as an exploratory study to determine the environmental impact of it’s design. The Buchanan building consists of five blocks named Block A, Block B, Block C, Block D, and Block E. This LCA of the Buchanan 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 Buchanan building. An exemplary application of these references are in the assessment of potential future performance upgrades to the structure and envelope of the Buchanan 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 Buchanan 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 audience of this LCA study are those involved in building development related policy making at UBC, such as the Sustainability Office, who are involved in creating policies and frameworks for sustainable development on campus. Other potential audiences include developers, architects, engineers and building owners involved in design planning, as well as external organizations such as governments, private industry and other universities whom may want to learn more or become engaged in performing similar LCA studies within their organizations.  Cortese 4  2.2  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 Buchanan 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 Buchanan building, as well as associated transportation effects throughout. 2.3  Tools, Methodology and Data  Two main software tools are to be utilized to complete this LCA study; OnCenter’s OnScreen TakeOff and the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute’s Impact Estimator (IE) for buildings. The study will first undertake the initial stage of a materials quantity takeoff, which involves performing linear, area and count measurements of the building’s structure and envelope. To accomplish this, OnScreen TakeOff version 3.6.2.25 is used, which is a software tool designed to perform material takeoffs with increased accuracy and speed in order to enhance the bidding capacity of its users. Using imported digital plans, the program simplifies the calculation and measurement of the takeoff process, while reducing the error associated with these two activities. The measurements generated are formatted into the inputs required for the IE building LCA software to complete the takeoff process. These formatted inputs as well as their associated assumptions can be viewed in Annexes A and B respectively. Using the formatted takeoff data, version 4.0.51 of the IE software, the only available software capable of meeting the requirements of this study, is used to generate a whole building LCA model for the Buchanan 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 bill of materials  Cortese 5 (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 Buchanan 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 Buchanan building, all of the available TRACI impact assessment categories available in the IE are included in this study, and are listed as; •  Global warming potential  •  Acidification potential  •  Eutrophication potential  •  Ozone depletion potential  •  Photochemical smog potential  •  Human health respiratory effects potential  •  Weighted raw resource use  •  Primary energy consumption  Using the summary measure results, a sensitivity analysis is then conducted in order to reveal the effect of material changes on the impact profile of the Buchanan 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 and structural drawings from when the Buchanan building was initially constructed in between 1956 and 1960.  Cortese 6 The assemblies of the building that are modeled include the foundation, columns and beams, floors, walls and roofs, as well as the associated envelope and openings (ie. doors and windows) within each of these assemblies. The decision to omit other building components, such as flooring, electrical aspects, HVAC system, finishing and detailing, etc., are associated with the limitations of available data and the IE software, as well as to minimize the uncertainty of the model. In the analysis of these assemblies, some of the drawings lack sufficient material details, which necessitate the usage of assumptions to complete the modeling of the building in the IE software. Furthermore, there are inherent assumptions made by the IE software in order to generate the bill of materials and limitations to what it can model, which necessitated further assumptions to be made. These assumptions and limitation will be discussed further as they energy in the Building Model section and, as previously mentioned, all specific input related assumption are contained in the Input Assumptions document in Annex B.  Cortese 7 3.0  BUILDING MODEL In order to carry out a reasonably accurate LCA, a reasonably accurate building model  must first be computed. 3.1  Takeoffs  The first step in creating a reasonable building model is to carry out a takeoff of the materials used. The takeoff for the Buchanan building was based on digital versions of the original building drawing which were provided by the UBC Records Department. Unfortunately, due to the vintage of these drawings, many of them were fairly grainy and hard to read. In addition, the original drawings had been completed by hand, making some of them even harder to decipher. Furthermore, a few details regarding material types were not included in the provided drawing set; thus, reasonable assumptions had to be made where the common materials of the time were assumed to be used. For example, the amount of fly ash used in the cement was never explicitly stated; thus, an average amount of nine percent was assumed. The takeoffs for the Buchanan building were done using OnCenter’s On-Screen Takeoff 3 Software. On-Screen allows for the building drawings to be uploaded onto its interface so that takeoffs could be digitally superimposed over top. There are three basic types of takeoff conditions available in On-Screen: linear, area, and count. The linear condition is used to compute a linear length, such as the length of wall located within the building. The area condition is used to compute a surface area, such as the area of a roof slab. The count condition is used to compute the number of times a certain object is present, such as the number of windows located within a certain wall. Each assembly group in the EIE used a slightly different combination of the above listed conditions, as well as a few reasonable assumptions, to calculate material takeoffs. A few major assumptions were made to complete this project to simplifying repeated building assemblies and materials with the Buchanan Blocks. The first major assumption is that the second and third floors of Block B are the same. Thus, only a takeoff of the second floor was completed but each assembly was modeled twice, once for each floor. For example, assemblies B_2nd_Beam&Column and B_3rd_Beam&Column  Cortese 8 are identical and both based off on takeoffs related to the Block B second floor. Both floor plans are identical in size and shape; thus, this assumption should not greatly affect the model. This same assumption was used to relate all four floors of Block C which are also identical in size and shape. The second major assumption is that Blocks C and E have equivalent material usage per square foot. This meant that only Block C takeoffs were required. The Block C takeoffs were then modeled in EIE to produce a Block C Bill of Materials. The Bill of Material amounts were then multiplied by the ratio of Block E square footage to Block C square footage to create an estimated Bill of Materials for Block E which is displayed in the Appendix B. The values in this new Bill of Materials were then entered into the final model through the Extra Basic Materials assembly group. Both Block C and E are office buildings of almost identical layout; thus, this assumption would not greatly affect the model. The third major assumption is that Blocks B and D are identical buildings. Thus, much like the first major assumption with similar floors, only a takeoff of the Block B was completed but each assembly was modeled twice, once for each Block. Both Blocks B and D are classroom blocks with very similar layouts and have a less than 1% difference in square footage, therefore, this assumption should not greatly affect the model. The one exception was that the main floor of Block D was more similar to the second floor of Block B rather than the main floor of Block B. Because of this, both the main and second floors of Block D were modeled the same as the second floor of Block B. The modelling techniques and assumptions specifically related to each assembly group are provided in greater detail in the next section.  Cortese 9 3.2  Assembly Groups  An overview of the modelling techniques and assumptions related to each assembly group are provided below. Actual calculations related to specific assembly assumptions are listed in the EIE Input Assumptions Document, which is located in Appendix B. The EIE Input Assumptions Document can be directly compared to the EIE Inputs Tables, which are located in Appendix A. 3.2.1  Columns and Beams  The column and beam takeoffs were completed mainly using OnScreen’s count condition. For each set, a count condition for the number of beams and a condition for the number of columns were created and the two amounts were computed. The floor-to-floor height and live load were then taken directly from what was stated on the drawings. The supporting span and bay size were then computed by taking the average of each value within the designated assembly type. For example, in the assembly B_2nd_Beam&Column there are bay sizes of both 27’4” and 10’2”; averaging out the two bay sizes results in an average bay size of 21’6” which is the value that was input into the EIE. 3.2.2  Floors  All floors within the Buchanan building are concrete suspended slabs. The surface area of the slabs was computed using the area condition in OnScreen. The computed areas were then converted into rectangular slabs of equivalent surface area with spans between 12’ and 30’ as those are close to the EIE span limits. The length and span of the idealized rectangular slabs were then inputed into the EIE. For example, the assembly A_2nd_Slab_5"_Concrete comprised of a slab 100’ by 122’ and another slab 20’ by 62’ which, combined, results in a total surface area of 13440 ft2. A rectangular slab 120’ by 112’ results in an equivalent surface area; thus, the latter values were entered into the EIE. The concrete strength and live load were taken directly from the drawings and then entered into the EIE as the closest possible acceptable value. For example, a live load for classrooms was said to be 60 psf; however, the closest value that the EIE accepts is 75 psf. The flyash percentage was assumed to be average.  Cortese 10 3.2.3  Roofs  All roofs in the Buchanan building are concrete suspended slabs. The length, span, concrete strength, live load, and flyash percentage are all calculated in the same manner as the floor suspended slabs. In addition, the Buchanan roofs include vapour barriers, insulation and a bitumen roof envelope. The majority of the inputs associated with these envelope materials were given in the building drawings; however, a few of the values were not given and had to be assumed. These assumptions include: the bitumen was standard modified, the insulation was extruded polystyrene, and the vapour barrier was 3 mil polyethylene. 3.2.4  Foundations  There are two foundation types that were used in this model: concrete footings and slabs on grade. The concrete footing takeoffs were completed mainly using area conditions in OnScreen. An area condition was created for each assembly name to calculate the surface area of the given footing type. If there were multiple similar footings they were combined to make a single footing equivalent volume. The thickness of each assembly was recorded off of the drawings. If the thickness was not an acceptable sizing according to the EIE it was decreased to the closest acceptable size. At the same time the width of the footing was increased to account for the change in volume. For example, the assembly A_Foundation_Footing_2'4" is actually a combination of four 10’ square footings that are 28 inches thick resulting in a total, combined volume of 933.33 ft2. A single 20’ by 31’1.3” footing 18 inches thick also has the same volume; thus, those are the values inputed into the EIE. Concrete strength and rebar size were also read off of the drawings. If there were multiple rebar sizes in a footing an average size was assumed. For example, assembly D_Foundation_Footing3' has #5, #6 and #7 sized rebar so #6 was used in the model. If the rebar size is outside the range that the EIE allows, the closest allowable value was assumed. For example, assembly D_Foundation_Footing3'Wall has #8 rebar but #6 was used in the model. The flyash percentage was assumed to be average. Stairs were also modelled as concrete footings. The stair takeoffs were done using the linear condition in OnScreen and the stair detail drawings. The thickness of the stairs was  Cortese 11 computed as the average thickness throughout. All other calculations and assumptions were completed using the methodology outlined for regular concrete footings. Takeoffs for concrete slabs on grade were done using the area condition in OnScreen. Much like the suspended slabs, the computed areas were then converted into rectangular slabs of equivalent surface area and the length and span of the idealized rectangular slabs were then used to create the model. For example, the assembly B_Foundation_Slab4" comprised of a slab 98’ by 9’6” and another slab 26’ by 2’8” which, combined, results in a total surface area of 1000 ft2. A rectangular slab 40’ by 25’ results in an equivalent surface area; thus, the latter values were entered into the EIE. The slab thicknesses were found on the drawings; however, EIE only allows concrete slabs on grade to have thicknesses of 4” or 8”. To make the model compatible with the EIE the thicknesses were converted to either 4” or 8” and the slabs length was changed in order to maintain the original slab volume. For example, assembly B_Foundation_Slab6" is actually a 77’ by 65’ slab that is 6” thick which results in a total volume of 2502.5 ft3. By changing the thickness to 8” the length would also have to decrease from 77’ to 58’ to keep the same area. Thus, a 58’ by 65’ slab with an 8” thickness is what is entered into the model. Furthermore, concrete strength was assumed to be 4000 psi with an average flyash percentage as well as an assumed that there was a 6 mil polyethylene vapour barrier underneath all slabs on grade. 3.2.5  Walls  The wall types used in the Buchanan building are as follows: concrete block, cast-inplace, curtain, and wood stud. The lengths of the concrete block walls are calculated using the linear condition in OnScreen. Their heights and rebar sizes are found in the building drawing. However, in the case of rebar, if the rebar size listed in the drawing is too big or too small to be input into the EIE, the closest acceptable value was assumed. For example, assembly A_2nd_Brick_In calls for #3 rebar in the drawings. Since #4 is the smallest size that the EIE accepts, #4 rebar is used in the model. Much like concrete block walls, the lengths of cast-in-place walls are calculated using the linear condition in OnScreen. Heights, thicknesses, concrete strength, and rebar size are taken directly from the drawings. Much like the slabs on grade, the wall thicknesses are converted to  Cortese 12 either 8” or 12” (in order to be compatible with EIE) and the wall heights are changed in order to maintain the original wall volume. Some of the walls also have #4 rebar which is outside of the range available in EIE; thus, they are modeled with #5 rebar. The flyash percentage is assumed to be the average. The lengths of all curtain walls were calculated using the linear condition in OnScreen. The thickness of insulation for all curtain walls was assumed to be the same as all other exterior walls in the model. The percent glazing and percent spandrel were calculated using elevation details from the original drawings. Like all other wall lengths, the lengths of wood stud walls were calculated using linear conditions in OnScreen. The wall type, wall height, stud spacing, stud thickness, and sheathing type were all found on the original drawings. The stud type was assumed to be kiln-dried. For wood studded walls that included gypsum board, regular 1/2” gypsum was assumed. Windows for all walls were modeled as being fixed aluminum frames even though portions of many of the windows are, in fact, operable. Because only small portions of the windows are operable, assuming the windows are fully fixed is more accurate than assuming the windows are fully operable. The count condition in OnScreen was used to find the number of windows related to a specific wall. The number of windows was then multiplied by the square footage of a single window in order to compute the total window area related to a given wall. For example, assembly D_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood includes 92 separate 9’9” by 7’ windows. Multiplying the three values together yields a total window area of 2965.16 ft2, the value that is used in the model. Many of the windows travelled through both an exterior concrete block wall and an interior wood stud wall. In these cases the windows were modeled with the interior wood stud wall and empty holes were modeled into the exterior concrete block wall. This is done so that the windows are not modeled twice. For example, the assemblies B_2nd_Wall_NSBlock and B_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood are located back-to-back and, therefore, share the same set of 92 windows and have the same total window area of 2965.16 ft2. However, assembly B_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood also includes wood window frames and standard glazing where as assembly B_2nd_Wall_NSBlock does not include any framing or glazing; thus, the window materials are only counted once.  Cortese 13 Like windows, the number of doors within each respective wall type was calculated using the count condition in OnScreen. Exterior doors were assumed to be aluminum with 80% glazing whereas interior doors were assumed to be hollow wood core. The drawings specified that many of the wood stud walls included 1” batt insulation but did not specify the specific type. Therefore, it was assumed that rockwool batt insulation was used. 3.2.6  Extra Basic Materials  Other than the materials related to Block E, the only assumption made in extra basic materials was related to the exterior porcelain panels located below the windows on Blocks B, C, D, and E. The takeoffs for the porcelain panels were done using the count condition in OnScreen. Once the number of panels was known it was multiplied by the area in order to create total panel area. This total panel area was then modeled in extra basic materials as standard glazing. This was done because the EIE does not have porcelain in its material database; standard glazing was used because it is the most closely related material in the EIE.  Cortese 14 3.3  Bill of Materials  Table 2 below displays the bill of materials for the Buchanan model as computed by the EIE. Table 2. Bill of materials. Material 1/2" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 3 mil Polyethylene 6 mil Polyethylene Aluminium Batt. Fiberglass Batt. Rockwool Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) Concrete Blocks EPDM membrane Extruded Polystyrene Galvanized Sheet Glazing Panel Joint Compound Modified Bitumen membrane Mortar Nails Paper Tape Rebar, Rod, Light Sections Screws Nuts & Bolts Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried Softwood Plywood Standard Glazing Water Based Latex Paint Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire  Quantity 107249.45 68438.89 39477.50 39.60 518.90 33480.50 15.57 12589.95 48921.00 5882.29 60729.31 0.10 10.65 8.97 12306.89 207.31 16.85 0.10 505.24 0.13 122.31 25.63 50330.43 73.67 2.84  Unit sf sf sf Tons sf (1”) sf (1”) yd3 yd3 Blocks lb sf (1”) Tons Tons Tons lb yd3 Tons Tons Tons Tons bdfm msf (3/8”) sf US gallons Tons  It is important to keep in mind that there is some uncertainty related to the accuracy of the Bill of Materials due to the assumptions mentioned in the previous section. Firstly, because the EIE Bill of Materials accounts for construction wastes, modelling Block E off of the Block C bill of materials will overestimate the amount of materials in Block E by an additional 5%. Secondly, the live loads allowed for by the EIE were slightly different from the live loads that the Buchanan building was originally designed for. This led to many of the live loads,  Cortese 15 relating to the columns and beams, and suspended slabs, being overestimated. This, in turn, likely led to a slight over estimation in the amount of 4000 psi concrete and rebar used in construction. Thirdly, by modelling all the windows as fixed when many are, in fact, partially operable would lead to the amount of framing material (such as aluminum, screws, nuts, and bolts) being underestimated. However, many of the windows in the Buchanan building include coupling mullions. The EIE does not take into account coupling mullions; it assumes all windows have their own independent frame. Thus, the amount of framing materials is also overestimated. Because these two relatively equal uncertainties skew the results in opposite directions they would, hypothetically, cancel each other out.  Cortese 16 4.0  SUMMARY MEASURES The following section describes the potential embodied effects that the different life cycle  stages of the Buchanan building have and points to consider regarding their accuracy. 4.1  Embodied Effects  The various embodied effects that were analyzed in this report are: acidification potential, global warming potential, human health respiratory effects, ozone depletion, smog potential, eutrophication potential, weighted resource use, and energy consumption. A more complete explanation of these embodied effects can be found in The Journal of Industrial Ecology located on TRACI’s website or in the help menu of the EIE. Energy consumption refers to the amount of energy consumed to transform and/or transport raw materials into products and buildings. Energy consumption is reported in megajoules. The average energy consumption for academic buildings on UBC campus was found to be approximately 363.58 MJ. Acidification potential consists of the processes that increase the acidity of water and soil systems. Acid deposition can corrode buildings and other man-made structures. Acidification is reported as H+ equivalence effect on a mass basis. The average acidification for academic buildings on UBC campus was found to be approximately 9.96 moles of H+ eq. / kg. Global warming potential refers to the potential change in the earth’s climate caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions that trap reflected sunlight heat which would have otherwise passed out of the earth’s atmosphere. These gases can be absorbed and neutralized by the environment; however, recently the rate of these emissions has exceeded the rate of absorption. Global warming potential is reported as equivalency basis relative to CO2 – in kg. The average global warming potential for academic buildings on UBC campus was found to be approximately 32.46 kg CO2 eq. / kg. Human health respiratory effects refer to the probability of ambient particulate matter negatively effecting human health. Ambient concentrations of particulate matter are strongly associated with rates of mortality and chronic and acute respiratory symptoms. Human health respiratory effects are reported as equivalent PM2.5. The average human health respiratory effect for academic buildings on UBC campus was found to be approximately 0.09 kg PM2.5 eq. / kg.  Cortese 17 Ozone depletion is the potential reduction of the protective ozone within the stratosphere caused by emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Ozone-depleting substances, such as anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons, are believed to be causing an acceleration of destructive chemical reactions. These chemical reactions, in turn, are believed to be causing lower ozone levels and ozone “holes” in certain locations. Ozone depletion is reported as mass of equivalent CFC-11. The average ozone depletion potential for academic buildings on UBC campus was found to be approximately 0.00 kg CFC-11 eq. / kg. Smog potential refers to the potential formation of reactive oxidant gases (ozone gases) in the troposphere. Having these gases present in the troposphere leads to detrimental impacts on human health and ecosystems. Rates of ozone formation in the troposphere are governed by complex chemical reactions, which are, in turn, influenced by ambient concentrations of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, temperature, sunlight, and convective flows. Smog potential is reported as mass of equivalent ethylene basis. The average smog potential for academic buildings on UBC campus was found to be approximately 0.15 kg NOx eq. / kg. Eutrophication potential refers to the potential fertilization of surface waters by previously scarce nutrients. When a previously scarce nutrient is added to surface water it can lead to the proliferation of aquatic photosynthetic plant life. This, in turn, may lead to further consequences, such as: foul odor or taste; death or poisoning of fish or shellfish; reduced biodiversity; or the production of chemical compounds that are toxic to humans, marine mammals, or livestock. Eutrophication is reported as equivalent mass of nitrogen basis. The average eutrophication potential for academic buildings on UBC campus was found to be approximately 0.00 kg N eq. / kg. Weighted resource use refers to the amount of land, water and fossil fuels that are depleted due to the raw materials extraction, manufacturing, transportation and construction of the building. The methodologies that support the resource depletion categories have the least consensus out of all the emission effect categories. There is still no consensus on the “value” of resources; thus, the ways of calculating this category will likely change over time as research develops. Weighted resource use is reported as mass. The average weighted resource use for academic buildings on UBC campus was found to be approximately 244.44 kg.  Cortese 18  4.2  Obtained Values  The following table displays the estimated embodied effects related to the Buchanan building at the manufacturing and construction life cycle stages in addition to the total estimated effects. Table 3. Embodied effects at different life stages. Manufacturing Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption  MJ  Material 34389142.41  Weighted Resource Use  kg  28450195.33  34192.10287  28484387.43  (kg CO2 eq / kg)  3600411.836  1999.984821  3602411.821  (moles of H+ eq / kg)  1173756.602  680.0883298  1174436.691  (kg PM2.5 eq / kg)  11838.89144  0.819842164  11839.71129  (kg N eq / kg)  103.3115121  0.004880722  103.3163929  (kg CFC-11 eq / kg)  0.008780179  8.23655E-08  0.008780261  (kg NOx eq / kg)  17840.70498  15.32739835  17856.03238  Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  Units  Transportation 1139442.491  Total 35528584.91  Construction Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption  Units kg  Material 1578262.804 72479.56054  (kg CO2 eq / kg)  107898.3086  4476.192373  112374.501  (moles of H+ eq / kg)  51294.9822  1442.856772  52737.83897  (kg PM2.5 eq / kg)  57.43534834  1.735593432  59.17094177  (kg N eq / kg)  0.000329405  0.010899619  0.011229024  1.00566E-10  1.83384E-07  1.83485E-07  1270.723373  32.27660754  1302.99998  MJ  Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  (kg CFC-11 eq / kg) (kg NOx eq / kg)  Transportation 2648809.894 60281.45049  Total 4227072.698 132761.011  Total Effects Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  Units  Overall  Per Square foot  MJ  39,755,657.60  208.21  kg  28,617,148.44  149.88  (kg CO2 eq / kg)  3,714,786.32  19.46  (moles of H+ eq / kg)  1,227,174.53  6.43  (kg PM2.5 eq / kg)  11,898.88  0.06  (kg N eq / kg)  103.33  0.00  (kg CFC-11 eq / kg)  0.01  0.00  (kg NOx eq / kg)  19,159.03  0.10  Cortese 19 It is important to note that for every embodied effect analyzed, approximately 98% of the impacts took place during the manufacturing of the materials stage. This is, most likely, because the manufacturing stage includes the raw resource extractions, processes that have very high environmental impacts. 4.3  Uncertainty Related to Values  As stated earlier, the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) is what is used by the EIE to compute the embodied effects of a given model. Unfortunately, there is some uncertainty related to calculating these values. It is important to be aware of these uncertainties to fully understand what these values mean. For instance, one should note that TRACI uses midpoint modelling instead of endpoint modelling. Midpoint modelling refers to the potential impacts created, not the actual impacts. Therefore, it is possible that a predicted impact never actually occurs. There are also assumptions about the special variability of the impacts. This is important because many of the impact categories, such as acidification and resource use, only affect the regions in which they occur. Although it is possible for TRACI to regionalize its emission effects, the EIE does not do this. Instead it assumes non-regionalized effects. Since emissions do affect different environmental regions differently, uncertainty in the results is created. Even if regional effects are taken into account, one must also be aware of the fact that not all the emissions occurred in the same location. Raw materials can be mined thousands of kilometres away from where a building is being constructed. Thus, the impacts related to the raw material extraction and the impacts caused by the building assembly can occur in completely different locations. In addition, different emissions have different travel potential. Air emissions, for example, have a far greater travel potential than land and water emissions. This is important because the larger the area in which an emission can reach the greater the potential impact it can have. TRACI also makes assumptions about the temporal variability of the impacts. Many emissions have “shelf lives;” thus, a past emission usually has a lower impact than a current or future emissions of the same kind because they have, likely, already started being neutralized by the surrounding environment. Moreover, it is possible for two emissions to chemically interact and create a different emission with a different environmental impact. It would be nearly  Cortese 20 impossible for TRACI to take this into account since one cannot readily predict all present emissions in the area and how they will interact thus resulting in further uncertainty in the model’s environmental impact. TRACI also assumes that ecological processes respond in a linear manner to mediate environmental impacts. Thus, TRACI does not take intervention thresholds into account. This is important because the rate in which environmental impacts are neutralized by the environment changes the likelihood of impacts negatively effecting the surrounding environment. 4.4  Sensitivity Analysis  A sensitivity analysis was carried out on a few of the different construction materials used to create the Buchanan building. Sensitivity analysis is a technique that is used to determine how different values of an independent variable will impact a particular dependent variable under a given set of assumptions. A sensitivity analysis is a very useful tool to carry out with an LCA because it helps breakdown the different embodied effects related to the different building materials. Being aware of what building materials cause the bulk of the impacts can help designers make more informed and, in turn, better decisions. Figure 2 displays the percent change of embodied effects caused by a 10% change in the amount of the following independent variables: 4000 psi concrete; concrete blocks; aluminum; and rebar, rods, and light sections.  Cortese 21  Figure 2. Percent change of overall embodied effects due to a 10% change in given material amount. It is important to be aware that the majority of the Buchanan building is made of 4000 psi concrete; thus, a 10% change in the amount of 4000 psi concrete has more significance than a 10% change in any of the other materials used. However, it is still important to note just how great an impact the concrete has on the emission effects of the building. If a less impactful process of producing concrete was discovered it’s use could greatly decrease the building’s overall impact. It is interesting to see on the graph that the rebar used in the Buchanan building is the driving force behind the buildings eutrophication potential. Therefore, if minimizing eutrophication potential was a specific goal of the design, minimizing the amount of rebar within the structure would probably be the easiest way of achieving this.  Cortese 22 It is also interesting to see that the rebar has comparable primary energy consumption to 4000 psi concrete even though there is a far lesser volume of rebar. This is caused because the manufacturing of steel is a far more energy intensive process than the creation of concrete. A sensitivity analysis was also carried out to discover how greatly the porcelain panels located on the exterior of Blocks B, C, D, and E impact the environment. Please keep in mind that the porcelain panels were modeled as standard glazing in the EIE; thus, there is slightly more uncertainty related to these results. The percentage of the buildings embodied effects caused by the porcelain panels are displayed in Figure 3 below.  Figure 3. Percentage of embodied effects due to porcelain panels. It is interesting to note how significantly a small, aesthetic design feature, such as these porcelain panels, can impact the environment. For example, as shown in Figure 3, the porcelain panels were responsible for almost 7% of the potential human health respiratory effects caused by the Buchanan building. This is an excellent example of a situation where carrying out a LCA could help designers make a more informed decision. If the designers of the Buchanan building  Cortese 23 were aware of the environmental impacts related to the porcelain panels maybe they would have decided to use a lower-impacting material for the panels, or maybe not include the panels at all.  Cortese 24 5.0  BUILDING PERFORMANCE The following section looks into how the current Buchanan building performs from an  energy perspective. In addition, an idealized, version of the Buchanan building, with respect to operating energy, is analyzed to roughly investigate how materials can reduce further impacts during the service life of the building. 5.1  Energy Performance Improving Materials  All building materials require energy to be embodied through their extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and assembly into buildings in construction. However, some materials can offset their embodied energy when in service by resisting heat transfer and, thus, allowing the building to operate using a lower amount of operational heating energy. Over the course of a building’s lifetime the amount of operating energy that a fairly resistant material can save can become a fairly significant factor in helping to minimize the buildings overall environmental impact. Insulation materials such as batt rockwool and extruded polystyrene are great examples of materials that, if implemented extensively into a design, can significantly lower the amount of operating energy needed over a building’s lifetime. Using low E argon filled windows instead of single pane glazing is another way that energy savings can be achieved. 5.2  Energy Performance Payback Period  Although using strategic materials, like those previously stated, can significantly lower operating energy needs in the long term, they usually require more initial energy to be embodied in their manufacturing when compared to their simpler, less insulating counterparts. Therefore, it is important to calculate the energy payback period of the building. The energy payback period is the amount of time it takes for the operating energy savings to outweigh the extra initial embodied energy. If the building service life is expected to be greater than the payback period, the use of operating energy saving materials would allow the building to have a lower impact than it otherwise would.  Cortese 25 5.3  Energy Performance of Buchanan  Calculations were done on the Buchanan building to investigate what type of operating energy saving could be achieved given idealized insulating materials. In order to do this an energy performance analysis was carried out for both the actual building and the idealized version of the building. Only roof and wall insulation, and window materials were considered in this analysis because they account for the vast majority of the building’s thermal insulation. The roof insulation was 1” extruded polystyrene, the wall insulation was 1” batt rockwool, and the windows were standard glazing. The first step was to calculate the window, wall and roof surface area of the building and the R-values of the various materials. R-values are used in the construction industry to quantify a material’s thermal resistance in (ft2 F h)/ BTU. The higher the R-value the better insulating the material is. The R-values for the insulating materials used in the Buchanan building are given in Table 4 below. Table 4. Material R-values. R-Value 2  ((ft Extruded polystyrene Batt. Rockwool Low E silver argon filled glazing Standard glazing (single pane)  F h)/ BTU) 5 per 1" 3.14 per 1" 3.75 per total 0.91 per total  Next, the R-values of an idealized building were assumed to be the minimum Residential Environmental Assessment Program’s (REAP) insulation requirements. In order to account for the increased thermal resistance requirements, the idealized building model replaced the 1” extruded polystyrene with 8” extruded polystyrene, the 1” batt rockwool with 5.73” batt rockwool, and the standard glazing with Low E silver argon filled glazing.  Cortese 26 Using the areas and R-values a weighted average R-value was computed for both the actual and ideal building models, seen in Table 5. Table 5. Surface areas and R-values. 2  Exterior Wall Window Roof Weighted Average  Area (ft2) 49666.71 30078.69 64242 143987.4  R-Value (ft F h/BTU) Actual Building Ideal Building 3.14 18 0.91 3.75 5 40 3.50 24.84  The next step is to find the heat loss through the building assemblies. The heat loss through an assembly can be calculated via the following equation. Q = (1/R) x A x ∆T Where, R = Calculated R-Value in ft2 ºF h/BTU A = Surface area of assembly of interest in ft2 ∆T =( Inside Temperature – Outside Temperature) in ºF  Cortese 27 The heat loss values were then extrapolated over an 80 year period. In addition, the actual and idealized buildings were both modelled in the EIE and the initial embodied energy requirements of both were found. The total energy requirements for both the buildings are shown in Figure 4.  Figure 4. Total energy use by actual and idealized buildings.  As shown in Figure 4, the idealized building is far more energy efficient over its lifetime as it would save 464 520 422 MJ of energy over an 80 year building lifespan. In addition, the energy payback is almost instant. Therefore, it would have an energy efficient idea to construct the original building using the idealized insulation. It may not, however, be environmentally logical to replace the current insulation with the idealized insulation at this time. This is because manufacturing and construction impacts related to the current insulations have already occurred; thus, changing the insulations now would mean that the initial energy usage would become the sum of both the actual and ideal insulation cases. If, sometime in the future, the current insulations have to be replaced for maintenance reasons it would then make sense to replace the current insulations with the idealized insulations.  Cortese 28 6.0  CONCLUSION Modelling and running an LCA on the Buchanan building allowed for many of the  building’s embodied effects to be calculated. Because of the many sources of uncertainty, these values should be used with their consideration. However, the results do give an initial estimation of the environmental impacts associated with the cradle-to-gate life cycle of the Buchanan building. Major findings include, the primary energy consumption was found to be 208.21 MJ / ft2. The weighted resource use was found to be 149.88 kg / ft2. The global warming potential was found to be 19.46 kg CO2 eq. / kg / ft2. The acidification potential was found to be 6.43 moles of H+ eq. / kg / ft2. The human health respiratory effects potential was found to be 0.06 kg PM2.5 eq. / kg / ft2. The eutrophication potential was found to be 0.00 kg N eq. / kg / ft2. The ozone depletion potential was found to be 0.00 kg CFC-11 eq. / kg / ft2. Finally, the smog potential was found to be 0.10 kg NOx eq. / kg / ft2. In addition to finding the overall impacts associated with the building, a series of sensitivity analyses were carried out to discover which materials created the largest impacts. As expected, it was found that concrete, the most prevalent material used in the building, had the biggest influence on the building’s emissions. However, it was also discovered that rebar, a material that was not used nearly as extensively as concrete, had a far more significant effect on the eutrophication potential of the building than the concrete. Thus, if minimizing eutrophication potential is a design requirement then one should focus on minimizing the amount of rebar used. A separate sensitivity analysis was carried out on the porcelain panels located on the exterior of the building. It was found that the panels were the cause of almost 7% of the human health respiratory effects potential associated with the Buchanan building. Thus, removing these panels, which serve no structural purpose, would noticeably lower the human health respiratory effects. An operating energy analysis was also carried out on the Buchanan building. It was computed that increasing the building’s insulation to meet the REAP’s insulation requirements would save 464 520 422 MJ of energy over an 80 year building lifespan. Thus, it would have made sense from an energy conservation standpoint to have increased the amount of insulation to match the REAP’s insulation requirements when the building was initially constructed.  Cortese 29 APPENDIX A: EIE INPUT TABLES  Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Input Fields  1 Columns and Beams 1.1 Mixed Columns and Beams 1.1.1 A_Main_Beam&Column Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.2 A_Main_Beam&Column2 Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.3 A_2nd_Beam&Column Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.4 A_2nd_Beam&Column2 Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.5 B_Main_Beam&Column_Outside Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.6 B_Main_Beam&Column_Inside Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft)  Ideal Inputs  EIE Input  Concrete 44 33 10.25 40 10 60  Concrete 44 33 10.25 40 10 75  Concrete 24 18 10.25 10 20 60  Concrete 24 18 10.25 10 20 75  Concrete 44 33 15.6 10 40 40  Concrete 44 33 15.6 10 40 45  Concrete 24 18 15.6 10 20 40  Concrete 24 18 15.6 10 20 45  Concrete 44 36 9.75 16.75 20 60  Concrete 44 36 9.75 16.75 20 75  Concrete 38 42 9.75 16.75  Concrete 38 42 9.75 16.75  Cortese 30 Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.7 B_2nd_Beam&Column Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.8 B_3rd_Beam&Column Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.9 C_2nd_column&beam Type Number of Beams Number of Columns Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.10 C_main_column&beam Type Number of Beams Number of Columns Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.11 C_3rd_column&beam Type Number of Beams Number of Columns Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.12 C_4th_column&beam Type Number of Beams Number of Columns Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.13 D_main_Beam&Column Type Number of Columns Number of Beams  8.37 60  10 75  Concrete 79 77 11 21.6 13.51 60  Concrete 79 77 11 21.6 13.51 75  Concrete 79 77 11 21.6 13.51 60  Concrete 79 77 11 21.6 13.51 75  Concrete 56 60 9.08 9.4 9.5 50  Concrete 56 60 9.08 10 9.5 75  Concrete 56 60 9.08 9.4 9.5 50  Concrete 56 60 9.08 10 9.5 75  Concrete 56 60 9.08 9.4 9.5 50  Concrete 56 60 9.08 10 9.5 75  Concrete 56 60 9.08 9.4 9.5 50  Concrete 56 60 9.08 10 9.5 75  Concrete 79 77  Concrete 79 77  Cortese 31 Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.14 D_2nd_Beam&Column Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf) 1.1.15 D_3rd_Beam&Column Type Number of Columns Number of Beams Height (ft) Bay Size (ft) Supported Span (ft) Live Load (psf)  11 21.6 13.51 60  11 21.6 13.51 75  Concrete 79 77 11 21.6 13.51 60  Concrete 79 77 11 21.6 13.51 75  Concrete 79 77 11 21.6 13.51 60  Concrete 79 77 11 21.6 13.51 75  100 and 20 122 and 62 4000 60 -  448 30 4000 75 average  60 and 20 11 and 41 4000 60 -  80 18.5 4000 75 average  15.5 20 4000 100 -  15.5 20 4000 100 average  79.5 67 4000 60 -  177.77 30 4000 75 average  260 67 4000 60 -  580.33 30 4000 75 average  260  580.33  2 Floors 2.1 Concrete Suspended Slabs 1.2.1 A_2nd_Slab_5"_Concrete Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.2 A_2nd_Slab_6"_Concrete Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.3 A_MainStairs_Landings Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.4 B_Main_Slab4.5" Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.5 B_2nd_Slab4.5" Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.6 B_3nd_Slab4.5" Length (ft)  Cortese 32 Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.7 B_LinkStairs_Landing Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.8 B_LinkStairs_Entrance Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.9 B_MainStairs_Landings Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.10 C_2nd_slab Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.11 C_main_slab Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.12 C_3rd_slab Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.13 C_4th_slab Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.14 C_LinkStairs_Landings Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.15 C_ExitStairs_Landings Length (ft)  67 4000 60 -  30 4000 75 average  9.21 66 4000 100 -  20.262 30 4000 100 average  9.21 23 4000 100 -  9.21 23 4000 100 average  9.21 91 4000 100 -  27.937 30 4000 100 average  141 38 4000 50 -  178.6 30 4000 75 average  141 38 4000 50 -  178.6 30 4000 75 average  141 38 4000 50 -  178.6 30 4000 75 average  141 38 4000 50 -  178.6 30 4000 75 average  32 15 4000 100 -  32 15 4000 100 average  12  9  Cortese 33 Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.16 D_Main_Slab4.5" Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.17 D_2nd_Slab4.5" Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.18 D_3nd_Slab4.5" Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.19 D_LinkStairs_Landing Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.20 D_LinkStairs_Entrance Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % 1.2.21 D_MainStairs_Landings Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash %  9 4000 100 -  12 4000 100 average  79.5 67 4000 60 -  177.77 30 4000 75 average  260 67 4000 60 -  580.33 30 4000 75 average  260 67 4000 60 -  580.33 30 4000 75 average  9.21 66 4000 100 -  20.262 30 4000 100 average  9.21 23 4000 100 -  9.21 23 4000 100 average  9.21 91 4000 100 -  27.937 30 4000 100 average  50 60 4000 40 -  100 30 4000 45 average  Roof Envelope Bitumen  Roof Envelope Bitumen Standard Modified Insulation  3 Roofs 3.1 Concrete Suspended Slabs 3.1.1 A_Roof_Entrance Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness Category  Insulation  Cortese 34 Material Type Thickness (in.) Category Material Type Thickness 3.1.2 A_Roof_ConcreteSlab Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness Category Material Type Thickness (in.) Category Material Type Thickness 3.1.3 B_Roof_Slab4.5" Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness Category Material Type Thickness (in.) Category Material Type Thickness 3.1.4 C_Roof_Slab Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type  1 -  Polystyrene Extruded 2 Vapour barrier Polyethylene 3 mil -  100 122 4000 40 -  379.17 30 4000 45 average  Roof Envelope Bitumen Insulation 1 -  Roof Envelope Bitumen Standard Modified Insulation Polystyrene Extruded 2 Vapour barrier Polyethylene 3 mil -  260 67 4000 40 -  580.67 30 4000 45 average  Roof Envelope Bitumen Insulation 1 -  Roof Envelope Bitumen Standard Modified Insulation Polystyrene Extruded 2 Vapour barrier Polyethylene 3 mil -  141 38 4000 40 -  178.6 30 4000 45 average  Roof Envelope Bitumen  Roof Envelope Bitumen Standard Modified  -  Cortese 35 Thickness Category Material Type Thickness (in.) Category Material Type Thickness 3.1.5 D_Roof_Slab4.5" Length (ft) Span (ft) Concrete (psi) Live Load (psf) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness Category Material Type Thickness (in.) Category Material Type Thickness  Insulation 1 -  Insulation Polystyrene Extruded 2 Vapour barrier Polyethylene 3 mil -  260 67 4000 40 -  580.67 30 4000 45 average  Roof Envelope Bitumen  Roof Envelope Bitumen Standard Modified Insulation Polystyrene Extruded 2 Vapour barrier Polyethylene 3 mil -  Insulation 1 -  4 Foundations 4.1 Concrete Footings 4.1.1 A_Foundation_Footing_1'6" Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.2 A_Foundation_Footing_2' Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.3 A_Foundation_Footing_2'4" Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.4 A_Foundation_Footing_1'9" Length (ft.)  5 @ approx. 5.25 5 @ approx. 5.25 18 4000 5  13.9 18 4000 average 5  2 @ 3 and 7.5 2 @ 3 and 7.5 24 4000 6 and 7  8 12.33 18 4000 average 6  4 @ 10 4 @ 10 28 4000 8  20 31.11 18 4000 average 6  7  7  10  Cortese 36 Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.5 A_Foundation_Footing_2'6"x1'6" Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.6 A_Foundation_Footing_3'x1'6" Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.7 A_Foundation_Footing_1'6"x2' Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.8 A_Foundation_Footing_3'6"x2' Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.9 B_Foundation_Footing16" Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.10 B_Foundation_Footing3' Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.11 B_Foundation_Footing1' Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf)  7 21 4000 6  8.17 18 4000 average 6  84 2.5 18 4000 4  84 2.5 18 4000 average 4  15 3 18 4000 4  15 3 18 4000 average 4  298 1.5 24 4000 4  298 2 18 4000 average 4  125 3.5 24 4000 4  125 4.67 18 4000 average 4  4@5.33 and 8@5.83 4@5.33 and 8@5.84 16 4000 5  20 19.3 16 4000 average 5  12 between 2025 12 between 66.33 36 4000 5, 6 and 7  70 18 4000 average 6  6 @ 3.25 6 @ 3.25 12 4000  8 8 2 4000  40  Cortese 37 Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.12 B_Foundation_Footing2'Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.13 B_Foundation_Footing10"Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.14 B_Foundation_Footing3'Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.15 B_Foundation_Footing2'Wall2 Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.16 B_Foundation_Footing3'Wall2 Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.17 B_Foundation_Footing2'6"Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.18 B_Foundation_Footing12"Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.19 B_Foundation_Footing16"Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.)  4  average 4  96 2 18 4000 4  96 2 18 4000 average 4  122 0.83 12 4000 4  122 0.83 12 4000 average 4  224 3 18 4000 8  224 3 18 4000 average 6  71 2 10 4000 6  71 2 10 4000 average 6  121 3 12 4000 8  121 3 12 4000 average 6  167 2.5 18 4000 5  167 2.5 18 4000 average 5  32 1 10 4000 4  32 1 10 4000 average 4  60 1.33  60 1.33  Cortese 38 Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.20 C_Foundation_Footing_1'6"x2'Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.21 C_Foundation_Footing_1'x8"Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.22 D_Foundation_Footing16" Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.23 D_Foundation_Footing3' Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.24 D_Foundation_Footing1' Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.25 D_Foundation_Footing2'Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.26 D_Foundation_Footing10"Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash %  10 4000 4  10 4000 average 4  628 2 18 4000 5  628 2 18 4000 average 5  350 1 8 4000 5  350 1 8 4000 average 5  4@5.33 and 8@5.83 4@5.33 and 8@5.84 16 4000 5  20 19.3 16 4000 average 5  12 between 2025 12 between 66.33 36 4000 5, 6 and 7  70 18 4000 average 6  6 @ 3.25 6 @ 3.25 12 4000 4  8 8 2 4000 average 4  96 2 18 4000 4  96 2 18 4000 average 4  122 0.83 12 4000 -  122 0.83 12 4000 average  40  Cortese 39 Rebar # 4.1.27 D_Foundation_Footing3'Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.28 D_Foundation_Footing2'Wall2 Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.29 D_Foundation_Footing3'Wall2 Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.30 D_Foundation_Footing2'6"Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.31 D_Foundation_Footing12"Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.32 D_Foundation_Footing16"Wall Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.33 A_MainStairs_Stairs Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.34 B_LinkStairs_Stairs Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.)  4  4  224 3 18 4000 8  224 3 18 4000 average 6  71 2 10 4000 6  71 2 10 4000 average 6  121 3 12 4000 8  121 3 12 4000 average 6  167 2.5 18 4000 5  167 2.5 18 4000 average 5  32 1 10 4000 4  32 1 10 4000 average 4  60 1.33 10 4000 4  60 1.33 10 4000 average 4  70 7 7 4000 5  70 7 7.5 4000 average 5  9.21 49 8  9.21 49 8  Cortese 40 Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.35 B_MainStairs_Stairs Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.36 C_LinkStairs_Stairs Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.37 C_ExitStairs_Stairs Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.38 D_LinkStairs_Stairs Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.1.39 D_MainStairs_Stairs Length (ft.) Width (ft.) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psf) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 4.2 Concrete Slab On Grade 4.2.1 A_Main_Slab_6" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness 4.2.2 B_Foundation_Slab6" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi)  4000 5  4000 average 5  9.54 66 8 4000 5  9.54 66 8 4000 average 5  65 7 10 4000 5  65 7 10 4000 average 5  32 15 8 4000 5  32 15 8 4000 average 5  9.21 49 8 4000 5  9.21 49 8 4000 average 5  9.54 66 8 4000 5  9.54 66 8 4000 average 5  105 and 62 180 and 18.5 6 4000 -  100 198 8 4000 average  -  Vapour barrier Polyethylene 6mil -  77 65 6 4000  58 65 8 4000  Cortese 41 Concrete flyash %  -  average  Category Material Type Thickness 4.2.3 B_Foundation_Slab4" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness 4.2.4 B_Main _Slab4" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness 4.2.5 C_Foundation_Slab4" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness 4.2.6 D_Foundation_Slab6" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness 4.2.7 D_Foundation_Slab4" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Define Category  -  Vapour barrier Polyethylene 6mil -  98 and 26 9.5 and 2.67 4 4000 -  40 25 4 4000 average  -  Vapour barrier Polyethylene 6mil -  40 73 4 4000 -  40 73 4 4000 average  -  Vapour barrier Polyethylene 6mil -  1200 sqft 1201 sqft 4 4000 -  30 40 4 4000 average  -  Vapour barrier Polyethylene 6mil -  77 65 6 4000 -  58 65 8 4000 average  -  Vapour barrier Polyethylene 6mil -  98 and 26 9.5 and 2.67 4 4000 -  40 25 4 4000 average Vapour barrier  Define Envelope  Cortese 42 Envelope Material Type Thickness 4.2.8 D_Main _Slab4" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Define Envelope Category Material Type Thickness  -  Polyethylene 6mil -  40 73 4 4000 -  40 73 4 4000 average  -  Vapour barrier Polyethylene 6mil -  176 15.5 3  176 15.5 4  401 15.5 4  401 15.5 4  128 11 4  128 11 4  467 11 5 2965.16 92 -  467 11 5 2965.16 92 -  467 11 5 3223 100 -  467 11 5 3223 100 -  128 11 4  128 11 4  126 35 5  126 35 5  5 Walls 5.1 Concrete Block 5.1.1 A_2nd_Brick_In Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # 5.1.2 A_2nd_Wall_10"Brick Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # 5.1.3 B_2nd_Wall_EW Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # 5.1.4 B_2nd_Wall_NSBlock Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.5 B_3nd_Wall_NSBlock Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.6 B_3nd_Wall_EW Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # 5.1.7 B_All_StairsWall Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar #  Cortese 43 Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.8 C_2nd_Wall_Outside Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.9 C_Main_Wall_Outside Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.10 C_3rd_Wall_Outside Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.11 C_4th_Wall_Outside Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.12 D_Main_Wall_EW Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # 5.1.13 D_Main_Wall_NSBlock Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.14 D_2nd_Wall_EW  630 2 Aluminum Fixed Standard  630 2 Aluminum Fixed Standard  323 9.08 5 1841.6 80 -  323 9.08 5 1841.6 80 -  323 9.08 5 1841.6 80 -  323 9.08 5 1841.6 80 -  323 9.08 5 1841.6 80 -  323 9.08 5 1841.6 80 -  323 9.08 5 1841.6 80 -  323 9.08 5 1841.6 80 -  128 11 4  128 11 4  467 11 5 2965.16 92 -  467 11 5 2965.16 92 -  Cortese 44 Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # 5.1.15 D_2nd_Wall_NSBlock Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.16 D_3nd_Wall_NSBlock Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.1.17 D_3nd_Wall_EW Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # 5.1.18 D_All_StairsWall Length (ft) Height (ft) Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type  128 11 4  128 11 4  467 11 5 2965.16 92 -  467 11 5 2965.16 92 -  467 11 5 3223 100 -  467 11 5 3223 100 -  128 11 4  128 11 4  126 35 5 630 2 Aluminum Fixed Standard  126 35 5 630 2 Aluminum Fixed Standard  154 1 12 4000 4  154 1 12 4000 average 5  275 1.33 16 4000 4  275 1.78 12 4000 average 5  636 17.5 10 4000  636 14.58 12 4000  5.2 Cast In Place 5.2.1 A_Foundation_TieBeam_12x12 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.2 A_Foundation_TieBeam_16x16 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.3 A_Foundation_Wall_10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi)  Cortese 45 Concrete flyash % Rebar #  4  average 5  Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.6 B_Foundation_TieBeam Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.7 B_Foundation_Wall8" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.8 B_Foundation_Wall8"2 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.9 B_Foundation_Wall8"3 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.10 B_Foundation_Wall10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.11 B_Foundation_Wall6" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.12 B_Foundation_ShortWall Length (ft) Width (ft)  57 9.5 8 4000 4  57 9.5 8 4000 average 5  344 1 12 4000 5  344 1 12 4000 average 5  414 8.33 8 4000 5  414 8.33 8 4000 average 5  401 6.17 8 4000 4  401 6.17 8 4000 average 5  116 11.17 8 4000 4  116 11.17 8 4000 average 5  243 11.17 10 4000 4  243 9.31 12 4000 average 5  10 4.5 6 4000 4  10 3.38 8 4000 average 5  53 2.75  53 2.29  5.2.4 A_2nd_8"  Cortese 46 Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.13 B_Main_Wall12" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.14 B_Main_Wall8" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # Opening Number of Doors Door Material Door Type 5.2.15 B_Main_Wall10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type 5.2.16 C_Foundation_CenterWall Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.17 C_Foundation_ExteriorWall Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.18 C_Foundation_InsideWall Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar #  10 4000 5  12 4000 average 5  54 9.75 12 4000 5  54 9.75 12 4000 average 5  152 9.75 8 4000 4 1 Aluminum Exterior  152 9.75 8 4000 average 5 1 Aluminum Exterior, 80% Glazing  126 9.75 10 4000 5 190.84 24 Aluminum Fixed Standard  126 8.13 12 4000 average 5 190.84 24 Aluminum Fixed Standard  278 5.5 8 4000 4  278 5.5 8 4000 average 5  354 6 8 4000 4  354 6 8 4000 average 5  328 4.625 8 4000 4  328 4.625 8 4000 average 5  Cortese 47 5.2.19 D_Foundation_TieBeam Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.20 D_Foundation_Wall8" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.21 D_Foundation_Wall8"2 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.22 D_Foundation_Wall8"3 Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.23 D_Foundation_Wall10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.24 D_Foundation_Wall6" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar # 5.2.25 D_Foundation_ShortWall Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in.) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar #  344 1 12 4000 5  344 1 12 4000 average 5  414 8.33 8 4000 5  414 8.33 8 4000 average 5  401 6.17 8 4000 4  401 6.17 8 4000 average 5  116 11.17 8 4000 4  116 11.17 8 4000 average 5  243 11.17 10 4000 4  243 9.31 12 4000 average 5  10 4.5 6 4000 4  10 3.38 8 4000 average 5  53 2.75 10 4000 5  53 2.29 12 4000 average 5  75 11 100  75 11 95  5.3 Curtain 5.3.1 A_Roof_Skylight Length (ft) Width (ft) Percent Viewable Glazing (%)  Cortese 48 Percent Spandrel Panel (%) Thickness of Insulation (in) 5.3.2 A_2nd_PlateGlass Length (ft) Width (ft) Percent Viewable Glazing (%) Percent Spandrel Panel (%) Thickness of Insulation (in) Opening Number of Doors Door Material Door Type 5.3.3 A_Main_PlateGlass Length (ft) Width (ft) Percent Viewable Glazing (%) Percent Spandrel Panel (%) Thickness of Insulation (in) Opening Number of Doors Door Material Door Type  0 -  5 1  115 9.5 2 -  115 9.5 95 5 1 2 Aluminum Exterior, 80% Glazing  Exterior 181 9.5 4 Exterior  181 9.5 95 5 1 4 Aluminum Exterior, 80% Glazing  5.4 Wood Stud 5.4.1 A_2nd_Wall_In Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Opening Number of Doors Door Material Door Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.2 B_2nd_Wall_EW_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.3 B_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Envelope  349 9.5 Interior None 16 2x4 26 Wood Interior Gypsum Board -  349 9.5 Interior None 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 26 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  128 11 Interior None 16 2x4 Insulation Batt 2  128 11 Interior None 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 Insulation Rockwool Batt 2  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 -  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 Kiln-dried  Cortese 49 Stud Thickness Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.4 B_3nd_Wall_EW_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.5 B_3nd_Wall_NS_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.6 B_2nd_InteriorWall Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Opening Number of Doors Door Material Door Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.7 B_3nd_InteriorWall Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Envelope  2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Batt 1  2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Rockwool Batt 1  128 11 Interior None 16 2x4 Insulation Batt 2  128 11 Interior None 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 Insulation Rockwool Batt 2  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Batt 1  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 Kiln-dried 2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Rockwool Batt 1  953 11 Interior Plywood 31 Wood Interior Gypsum Board -  953 11 Interior Plywood 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 31 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  953 11 Interior  953 11 Interior  Cortese 50  Opening  Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Number of Doors Door Material  Door Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.8 C_2nd_Wall_Outside_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.9 C_Main_Wall_Outside_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.10 C_3rd_Wall_Outside_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Envelope  Plywood 31 Wood Interior Gypsum Board -  Plywood 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 31 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  323 9.08 Interior Plywood 24 2x6 1841.6 80 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Batt 1  323 9.08 Interior Plywood 24 Kiln-dried 2x6 1841.6 80 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Rockwool Batt 1  323 9.08 Interior Plywood 24 2x6 1841.6 80 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Batt 1  323 9.08 Interior Plywood 24 Kiln-dried 2x6 1841.6 80 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Rockwool Batt 1  323 9.08 Interior Plywood 24 2x6 1841.6 80 Aluminum Fixed  323 9.08 Interior Plywood 24 Kiln-dried 2x6 1841.6 80 Aluminum Fixed  Cortese 51 Glazing Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.11 C_4th_Wall_Outside_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.12 C_2nd_inside_wall Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Opening Number of Doors Door Material Envelope  Standard Insulation Batt 1  Standard Insulation Rockwool Batt 1  323 9.08 Interior Plywood 24 2x6 1841.6 80 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Batt 1  323 9.08 Interior Plywood 24 Kiln-dried 2x6 1841.6 80 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Rockwool Batt 1  776 9.08 Interior None 2x4 32 Wood  776 9.08 Interior None 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 32 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  Door Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.13 C_Main_inside_wall Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Opening Number of Doors Door Material  Interior Gypsum Board -  Door Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.14 C_3rd_inside_wall Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type  Interior Gypsum Board -  776 9.08 Interior None 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 32 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  776 9.08 Interior None  776 9.08 Interior None  Envelope  Envelope  776 9.08 Interior None 2x4 32 Wood  Cortese 52 Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Number of Doors Door Material  2x4 32 Wood  Door Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.15 C_4th_inside_wall Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Opening Number of Doors Door Material  Interior Gypsum Board -  Door Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.16 D_2nd_Wall_EW_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.17 D_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.18 D_main_Wall_EW_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type  Interior Gypsum Board -  776 9.08 Interior None 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 32 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  128 11 Interior None 16 2x4 Insulation Batt 2  128 11 Interior None 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 Insulation Rockwool Batt 2  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Batt 1  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 Kiln-dried 2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Rockwool Batt 1  128 11 Interior  128 11 Interior  Opening  Envelope  Envelope  776 9.08 Interior None 2x4 32 Wood  16 Kiln-dried 2x4 32 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  Cortese 53 Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.19 D_main_Wall_NS_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.20 D_3nd_Wall_EW_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.21 D_3nd_Wall_NS_Wood Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Total Opening Area (ft2) Number of Windows Opening Frame Material Frame Type Glazing Type Envelope Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.22 D_2nd_InteriorWall Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type  None  None  16 2x4 Insulation Batt 2  16 Kiln-dried 2x4 Insulation Rockwool Batt 2  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Batt 1  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 Kiln-dried 2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Rockwool Batt 1  128 11 Interior None 16 2x4 Insulation Batt 2  128 11 Interior None 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 Insulation Rockwool Batt 2  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Batt 1  467 11 Interior Plywood 24 Kiln-dried 2x6 2965.16 92 Aluminum Fixed Standard Insulation Rockwool Batt 1  953 11 Interior Plywood  953 11 Interior Plywood  Cortese 54 Stud Spacing (in)  -  16  Stud Type Stud Thickness Number of Doors Door Material  31 Wood  Door Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.23 D_main_InteriorWall Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Opening Number of Doors Door Material  Interior Gypsum Board -  Kiln-dried 2x4 31 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  Door Type Category Material Thickness (in) 5.4.24 D_3nd_InteriorWall Length (ft) Height (ft) Wall Type Sheathing Type Stud Spacing (in) Stud Type Stud Thickness Opening Number of Doors Door Material  Interior Gypsum Board -  Opening  Envelope  Envelope  Envelope  Door Type Category Material Thickness (in)  6 Extra Basic Materials 6.1 Gypsum Board 6.1.1 E_totalGypsum 1/2" Gypsum Fiber Board (ft2) 6.1.2 E_totalJoint Joint Compound (Tons) 6.1.3 E_totalPaperTape Paper Tape (Tons) 6.2 Other Materials 6.2.1 E_totalAluminum Aluminum (Tons) 6.2.2 All_StandardGlazing B Exterior Panels (ft2) C Exterior Panels (ft2) D Exterior Panels (ft2) E Total Glazing (ft2)  953 11 Interior Plywood 31 Wood  953 11 Interior Plywood 31 Wood  953 11 Interior Plywood 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 31 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  Interior Gypsum Board -  953 11 Interior Plywood 16 Kiln-dried 2x4 31 Wood Hollow Core Interior Gypsum Board Regular 0.5  19352.8  19352.8  1.79  1.79  0.021  0.021  7.02041  7.02041  3482.88 8377.92 3482.88 10845.79  3482.88 8377.92 3482.88 10845.79  Cortese 55 Total (ft2)  26189.47  26189.47  16.158  16.158  6.188963  6.188963  967.03  967.03  3519.8  3519.8  15.10537  15.10537  3073.53  3073.53  3803.44  3803.44  3876.61  3876.61  868.223  868.223  1124.38  1124.38  770.939  770.939  0.81633  0.81633  0.06349  0.06349  29.4966  29.4966  21.79871  21.79871  4.15757  4.15757  6.2.3 E_totalPaint Water Based Latex Paint (gal) 6.3 Concrete 6.3.1 E_total3000psi 3000 psi, Average Flyash (yd3) 6.3.2 E_total4000psi 4000 psi, Average Flyash (yd3) 6.3.3 E_totalBlocks Concrete Blocks (#) 6.3.4 E_totalMortar Mortar (yd3) 6.4 Insulation 6.4.1 E_totalBattRock Batt. Rockwool (ft2 (1")) 6.4.2 E_totalExtPoly Extruded Polystyrene (ft2 (1")) 6.5 Roofing 6.5.1 E_total3Poly 3 mil Polyethylene (ft2) 6.5.2 E_total6Poly 6 mil Polyethylene (ft2) 6.5.3 E_totalEPDM EPDM Membrane (lb) 6.5.4 E_totalBitumen Modified Bitumen Membrane (lb) 6.6 Steel 6.6.1 E_totalNails Nails (Tons) 6.6.2 E_totalRebar Rebar, Rod, Light Sections (Tons) 6.6.3 E_totalWire Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire (Tons) 6.7 Wood 6.7.1 E_totalSLumber Small DimensionSoftwood Lumber (kiln-dried) (Mbfm) 6.7.2 E_totalPlywood Softwood Plywood (msf)  Cortese 56 APPENDIX B: EIE INPUT ASSUMPTIONS TABLE  Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Input Fields  Ideal Inputs  EIE Input  1 Columns and Beams 1.1 Mixed Columns and Beams  The column and beam takeoffs were completed mainly using OnScreen’s count condition. For each set, a count condition for the number of beams and a condition for the number of columns were created and the two amounts were computed. The floor-to-floor height and live load were then taken directly from what was stated on the drawings. The supporting span and bay size were then computed by taking the average of each value within the designated assembly type. For example, in the assembly B_2nd_Beam&Column there are bay sizes of both 27’4” and 10’2”; averaging out the two bay sizes results in an average bay size of 21’6” which is the value that was input into the EIE.  1.1.5 B_Main_Beam&Column_Outside Because of the variability of span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation; = SUM(column span * number of columns with span) / total number of columns in row =(28'4" * 2 + 11'4" * 1) / 3 = 16.75 feet 1.1.6 B_Main_Beam&Column_Inside Because of the variability of span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation; = SUM(column span * number of columns with span) / total number of columns in row =(28'4" * 2 + 11'4" * 1) / 3 = 16.75 feet Because of the variability of bay sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation; = total bay length / total number of columns = 322 feet / 42 = 8.73 feet (round up to 10 feet for EIE)  1.1.7 B_2nd_Beam&Column Because of the variability of span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation; = SUM(column spans) / total number of columns =(1067 feet) / 79 = 13.51 feet  Cortese 57 Because of the variability of bay sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation; = total bay length / total number of columns = 64'9" / 3 = 21.6 feet  1.1.8 B_3rd_Beam&Column assumed same as B_2nd_Beam&Column 1.1.9 C_2nd_column&beam Because of the variability of span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation; = SUM(column spans) / total number of columns =(12 feet * 2 + 4.5 feet) / 3 = 9.5 feet (round up to 10 feet for the EIE) round bay size up to 10 feet for the EIE  1.1.10 C_main_column&beam assumed same as C_2nd_column&beam 1.1.11 C_3rd_column&beam assumed same as C_2nd_column&beam 1.1.12 C_4th_column&beam assumed same as C_2nd_column&beam 1.1.13 D_main_Beam&Column assumed same as B_2nd_Beam&Column 1.1.14 D_2nd_Beam&Column assumed same as B_2nd_Beam&Column 1.1.15 D_3rd_Beam&Column assumed same as B_2nd_Beam&Column 2 Floors  All floors within the Buchanan building are concrete suspended slabs. The surface area of the slabs was computed using the area condition in OnScreen. The computed areas were then converted into rectangular slabs of equivalent surface area with spans between 12’ and 30’ as those are close to the EIE span limits. The length and span of the idealized rectangular slabs were then inputed into the EIE. For example, the assembly A_2nd_Slab_5"_Concrete comprised of a slab 100’ by 122’ and another slab 20’ by 62’ which, combined, results in a total surface area of 13440 ft2. A rectangular slab 120’ by 112’ results in an equivalent surface area; thus, the latter values were entered into the EIE. The concrete strength and live load were taken directly from the drawings and then entered into the EIE as the closest possible acceptable value. For example, a live load for classrooms was said to be 60 psf; however, the closest value that the EIE accepts is 75 psf. The flyash percentage was assumed to be average. Stair landings were computed using the linear condition in OnScreen and the stair detail drawings. The linear condition used, computes the span of all the similar stair landings combined to create a single large slab of equivalent volume.  Cortese 58  2.1 Concrete Suspended Slabs 1.2.1 A_2nd_Slab_5"_Concrete The area of this slab had to be adjusted to be rectangular using the following calcualtion to find the new span. = SUM(Slab Areas) / new slab length = (100 ft * 122 ft + 20 ft * 62 ft) / 224 ft = 30 feet  1.2.2 A_2nd_Slab_6"_Concrete The area of this slab had to be adjusted to be rectangular using the following calcualtion to find the new span. = SUM(Slab Areas) / new slab length = (60 ft * 11 ft + 20 ft * 41 ft) / 80 ft = 18.5 feet  1.2.3 A_MainStairs_Landings All landings combined into single slab using OnScreen 1.2.4 B_Main_Slab4.5" The length of this slab had to be adjusted to have a span of 30 feet but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = SUM(Slab Areas) / 30 feet = (79.5 ft * 67 ft) / 30 ft = 177.77 feet  1.2.5 B_2nd_Slab4.5" The length of this slab had to be adjusted to have a span of 30 feet but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = SUM(Slab Areas) / 30 feet = (260 ft * 67 ft) / 30 ft = 580.33 feet  1.2.6 B_3nd_Slab4.5" Assumed to be same as B_2nd_Slab4.5" 1.2.7 B_LinkStairs_Landing All landings were combined into a single slab using OnScreen. The length of this slab had to be adjusted to have a span of 30 feet but keeping the same area. This was done using the following  Cortese 59 calcualtion. = SUM(Slab Areas) / 30 feet = (9.21 ft * 66 ft) / 30 ft = 20.262 feet 1.2.9 B_MainStairs_Landings All landings were combined into a single slab using OnScreen. The length of this slab had to be adjusted to have a span of 30 feet but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = SUM(Slab Areas) / 30 feet = (9.21 ft * 91 ft) / 30 ft = 27.937 feet 1.2.10 C_2nd_slab The length of this slab had to be adjusted to have a span of 30 feet but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = SUM(Slab Areas) / 30 feet = (141 ft * 38 ft) / 30 ft = 178.6 feet  1.2.11 C_main_slab Assumed to be same as C_2nd_slab 1.2.12 C_3rd_slab Assumed to be same as C_2nd_slab 1.2.13 C_4th_slab Assumed to be same as C_2nd_slab 1.2.14 C_LinkStairs_Landings All landings combined into single slab using OnScreen 1.2.15 C_ExitStairs_Landings All landings combined into single slab using OnScreen. Lenght and Span flipped to be within acceptable span range on EIE 1.2.16 D_Main_Slab4.5" Assumed to be same as B_Main_Slab4.5" 1.2.17 D_2nd_Slab4.5" Assumed to be same as B_2nd_Slab4.5" 1.2.18 D_3nd_Slab4.5" Assumed to be same as B_3rd_Slab4.5" 1.2.19 D_LinkStairs_Landing Assumed to be same as B_LinkStairs_Landing 1.2.20 D_LinkStairs_Entrance Assumed to be same as B_LinkStairs_Enterance  Cortese 60  1.2.21 D_MainStairs_Landings Assumed to be same as B_MainStairs_Landings 3 Roofs  All roofs in the Buchanan building are concrete suspended slabs. The length, span, concrete strength, live load, and flyash percentage are all calculated in the same manner as the floor suspended slabs. In addition, the Buchanan roofs include vapour barriers, insulation and a bitumen roof envelope. The majority of the inputs associated with these envelope materials were given in the building drawings; however, a few of the values were not given and had to be assumed. These assumptions include: the bitumen was standard modified, the insulation was extruded polystyrene, and the vapour barrier was 3 mil polyethylene. 3.1 Concrete Suspended Slabs 3.1.1 A_Roof_Entrance The length of this slab had to be adjusted to have a span of 30 feet but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Slab Area) / 30 feet = (50 ft * 60 ft) / 30 ft = 100 feet  3.1.2 A_Roof_ConcreteSlab The area of the slab had to be adjusted to not include the skylight areaThe length of this slab had to be adjusted to have a span of 30 feet but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Slab Area - skylight) / 30 feet = (100 ft * 122 ft - 825 ft2) / 30 ft = 379.17 feet 3.1.3 B_Roof_Slab4.5" The length of this slab had to be adjusted to have a span of 30 feet but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Slab Area) / 30 feet = (260 ft * 67 ft) / 30 ft = 580.67 feet  3.1.4 C_Roof_Slab The length of this slab had to be adjusted to have a span of 30 feet but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Slab Area) / 30 feet = (141 ft * 38 ft) / 30 ft = 178.6 feet  Cortese 61  3.1.5 D_Roof_Slab4.5" Assumed to be same as B_Roof_Slab4.5" 4 Foundations 4.1 Concrete Footings  The concrete footing takeoffs were completed mainly using the area condition in OnScreen. An area condition was created for each assembly name to calculate the surface area of the given footing type. If there were multiple similar footings they were combined to make a single footing equivalent volume. The thickness of each assembly was recorded off of the drawings. If the thickness was not an acceptable sizing according to the EIE it was decreased to the closest acceptable size. At the same time the width of the footing was increased to account for the change in volume. For example, the assembly A_Foundation_Footing_2'4" is actually a combination of four 10’ square footings that are 28 inches thick resulting in a total, combined volume of 933.33 ft2. A single 20’ by 31’1.3” footing 18 inches thick also has the same volume; thus, those are the values inputed into the EIE. Concrete strength and rebar size were also read off of the drawings. If there were multiple rebar sizes in a footing an average size was assumed. For example, assembly D_Foundation_Footing3' has #5, #6 and #7 sized rebar so #6 was used in the model. If the rebar size is outside the range that the EIE allows, the closest allowable value was assumed. For example, assembly D_Foundation_Footing3'Wall has #8 rebar but #6 was used in the model. The flyash percentage was assumed to be average. Stairs were also modelled as concrete footings. The stair takeoffs were done using the linear condition in OnScreen and the stair detail drawings. The thickness of the stairs was computed as the average thickness throughout. All other calculations and assumptions were completed using the methodology outlined for regular concrete footings. 4.1.1 A_Foundation_Footing_1'6" Combine footings into single footing of equal area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Footing Area * Number of Footings) / New Footing Length = (5.25 ft * 5.25 ft * 5) / 10 ft = 13.9 feet  4.1.2 A_Foundation_Footing_2' Combine footings into single footing of equal area. In addition to account for the EIEs thickness allowances the thickness had to be changed while keeping the same overall volume. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Footing Area * Number of Footings * Thickness) / New Footing Length / New Thickness = (2ft * 2 ft + 7.5ft * 7.5 ft * 24") / 8 ft / 18" = 12.33 feet 4.1.3 A_Foundation_Footing_2'4"  Cortese 62 Combine footings into single footing of equal area. In addition to account for the EIEs thickness allowances the thickness had to be changed while keeping the same overall volume. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Footing Area * Number of Footings * Thickness) / New Footing Length / New Thickness = (10 ft * 10 ft * 4 * 28") / 20 ft / 18" = 31.11 feet 4.1.4 A_Foundation_Footing_1'9" To account for the EIEs thickness allowances the thickness had to be changed while keeping the same overall volume. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Footing Width * Footing Thickness) / New Thickness = (7 ft * 21") / 18" = 8.17 feet 4.1.7 A_Foundation_Footing_1'6"x2' To account for the EIEs thickness allowances the thickness had to be changed while keeping the same overall volume. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Footing Width * Footing Thickness) / New Thickness = (1.5 ft * 24") / 18" = 2 feet 4.1.8 A_Foundation_Footing_3'6"x2' To account for the EIEs thickness allowances the thickness had to be changed while keeping the same overall volume. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Footing Width * Footing Thickness) / New Thickness = (3.5 ft * 24") / 18" = 4.67 feet 4.1.9 B_Foundation_Footing16" Combine footings into single footing of equal area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Footing Area * Number of Footings) / New Footing Length = (5.33 ft * 5.33 ft * 4 + 5.83 ft * 5.84 ft * 8) / 20 ft = 19.3 feet 4.1.10 B_Foundation_Footing3' Combine footings into single footing of equal  Cortese 63 area. In addition to account for the EIEs thickness allowances the thickness had to be changed while keeping the same overall volume. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Footing Area * Number of Footings * Thickness) / New Footing Length / New Thickness = (233.3 ft2 * 4 * 36') / 40 ft / 18" = 70 feet 4.1.11 B_Foundation_Footing1' Combine footings into single footing of equal area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Footing Area * Number of Footings) / New Footing Length = (3.25 ft * 3.25 ft * 6) / 8 ft = 8 feet  4.1.22 D_Foundation_Footing16" Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing16" 4.1.23 D_Foundation_Footing3' Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing3' 4.1.24 D_Foundation_Footing1' Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing1' 4.1.25 D_Foundation_Footing2'Wall Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing2'Wall 4.1.26 D_Foundation_Footing10"Wall Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing10"Wall 4.1.27 D_Foundation_Footing3'Wall Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing2'Wall2 4.1.28 D_Foundation_Footing2'Wall2 Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing3'Wall2 4.1.29 D_Foundation_Footing3'Wall2 Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing3'Wall2 4.1.30 D_Foundation_Footing2'6"Wall Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing2'6"Wall 4.1.31 D_Foundation_Footing12"Wall Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing12"Wall 4.1.32 D_Foundation_Footing16"Wall Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Footing16"Wall 4.1.33 A_MainStairs_Stairs Done on OnScreen  Cortese 64  4.1.34 B_LinkStairs_Stairs Done on OnScreen 4.1.35 B_MainStairs_Stairs Done on OnScreen 4.1.36 C_LinkStairs_Stairs Done on OnScreen 4.1.37 C_ExitStairs_Stairs Done on OnScreen 4.1.38 D_LinkStairs_Stairs Assumed to be same as B_LinkStairs_Stairs 4.1.39 D_MainStairs_Stairs Assumed to be same as B_MainStairs_Stairs 4.2 Concrete Slab On Grade  Takeoffs for concrete slabs on grade were done using the area condition in OnScreen. Much like the suspended slabs, the computed areas were then converted into rectangular slabs of equivalent surface area and the length and span of the idealized rectangular slabs were then used to create the model. For example, the assembly B_Foundation_Slab4" comprised of a slab 98’ by 9’6” and another slab 26’ by 2’8” which, combined, results in a total surface area of 1000 ft2. A rectangular slab 40’ by 25’ results in an equivalent surface area; thus, the latter values were entered into the EIE. The slab thicknesses were found on the drawings; however, EIE only allows concrete slabs on grade to have thicknesses of 4” or 8”. To make the model compatible with the EIE the thicknesses were converted to either 4” or 8” and the slabs length was changed in order to maintain the original slab volume. For example, assembly B_Foundation_Slab6" is actually a 77’ by 65’ slab that is 6” thick which results in a total volume of 2502.5 ft3. By changing the thickness to 8” the length would also have to decrease from 77’ to 58’ to keep the same area. Thus, a 58’ by 65’ slab with an 8” thickness is what is entered into the model. The concrete strength was taken as 4000 psi and the flyash percentage was assumed to be average. In addition, it was assumed that there was a 6 mil polyethylene vapour barrier underneath all slabs on grade. 4.2.1 A_Main_Slab_6" The length of this slab had to be adjusted to be rectangular but keeping the same area. In addition, the thickness needs to be adjusted to 8" to be an acceptable EIE input. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Slab Area * Thickness) / New Length = (105 ft * 180 ft + 62 ft * 18.5 ft) * 6" / 100 ft / 8" = 198 feet 4.2.2 B_Foundation_Slab6" The thickness needs to be adjusted to 8" to be an acceptable EIE input while keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Slab Length * Thickness) / 8" = (770 ft * 6") / 8"  Cortese 65  = 58 feet 4.2.3 B_Foundation_Slab4" The length of this slab had to be adjusted to be rectangular but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Slab Area) / New Length = (98 ft * 9.5 ft + 26 ft * 2.67 ft) / 40 ft = 25 feet  4.2.5 C_Foundation_Slab4" The length of this slab had to be adjusted to be rectangular but keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Slab Area) / New Length = (1200 ft2) / 30 ft = 40 feet  4.2.6 D_Foundation_Slab6" Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Slab6" 4.2.7 D_Foundation_Slab4" Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Slab6" 4.2.8 D_Main _Slab4" Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Slab6" 5 Walls  The wall types used in the Buchanan building are as follows: concrete block, cast-in-place, curtain, and wood stud. Windows for all walls were modeled as being fixed aluminum frames even though portions of many of the windows are, in fact, operable. Because only small portions of the windows are operable, assuming the windows are fully fixed is more accurate than assuming the windows are fully operable. The count condition in OnScreen was used to find the number of windows related to a specific wall. The number of windows was then multiplied by the square footage of a single window in order to compute the total window area related to a given wall. For example, assembly D_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood includes 92 separate 9’9” by 7’ windows. Multiplying the three values together yields a total window area of 2965.16 ft2, the value that is used in the model. Many of the windows travelled through both an exterior concrete block wall and an interior wood stud wall. In these cases the windows were modeled with the interior wood stud wall and empty holes were modeled into the exterior concrete block wall. This is done so that the windows are not modeled twice. For example, the assemblies B_2nd_Wall_NSBlock and B_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood are located back-to-back and, therefore, share the same set of 92 windows and have the same total window area of 2965.16 ft2. However, assembly B_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood also includes wood window frames and standard glazing where as assembly B_2nd_Wall_NSBlock does not include any framing or glazing; thus, the window materials are only counted once. Like windows, the number of doors within a certain wall type was calculated using the count condition in OnScreen. Exterior doors were assumed to be aluminum with 80% glazing where as interior doors  Cortese 66 were assumed to be hollow wood core. The drawings specified that many of the wood stud walls included 1” batt insulation but did not specify the specific type. Therefore, it was assumed that rockwool batt insulation was used. 5.1 Concrete Block  The lengths of the concrete block walls are calculated using the linear condition in OnScreen and the heights are found in the original drawings. Rebar sizes are also found on the drawing; however, if the rebar size listed in the drawing is too big or too small to be input into the EIE, the closest acceptable value was assumed. For example, assembly A_2nd_Brick_In calls for #3 rebar in the drawings. Since #4 is the smallest size that the EIE accepts, #4 rebar is used in the model. 5.1.12 D_Main_Wall_EW Assumed to be same as B_Main_Wall_EW 5.1.13 D_Main_Wall_NSBlock Assumed to be same as B_Main_Wall_NSBlock 5.1.14 D_2nd_Wall_EW Assumed to be same as B_2nd_Wall_EW 5.1.15 D_2nd_Wall_NSBlock Assumed to be same as B_2nd_Wall_NSBlock 5.1.16 D_3nd_Wall_NSBlock Assumed to be same as B_3rd_Wall_NSBlock 5.1.17 D_3nd_Wall_EW Assumed to be same as B_3nd_Wall_EW 5.1.18 D_All_StairsWall Assumed to be same as B_All_StairsWall 5.2 Cast In Place  Much like concrete block walls, the lengths of cast-in-place walls are calculated using the linear condition in OnScreen. Heights, thicknesses, concrete strength, and rebar size are taken directly from the drawings. Much like the slabs on grade, the wall thicknesses are converted to either 8” or 12” (in order to be compatible with EIE) and the wall heights are changed in order to maintain the original wall volume. Some of the walls also have #4 rebar which is outside of the range available in EIE; thus, they are modeled with #5 rebar. The flyash percentage is assumed to be the average. 5.2.2 A_Foundation_TieBeam_16x16 The thickness needs to be adjusted to 8" or 12" to be an acceptable EIE input while keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Width * Thickness) / 12" = (1.33 ft * 16") / 12" = 1.78 feet  5.2.3 A_Foundation_Wall_10" The thickness needs to be adjusted to 8" or 12" to be an acceptable EIE input while keeping the same area. This was done using the following  Cortese 67 calcualtion. = (Width * Thickness) / 12" = (17.5 ft * 10") / 12" = 14.58 feet 5.2.10 B_Foundation_Wall10" The thickness needs to be adjusted to 8" or 12" to be an acceptable EIE input while keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Width * Thickness) / 12" = (11.17 ft * 10") / 12" = 9.31 feet  5.2.11 B_Foundation_Wall6" The thickness needs to be adjusted to 8" or 12" to be an acceptable EIE input while keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Width * Thickness) / 8" = (4.5 ft * 6") / 8" = 3.38 feet  5.2.12 B_Foundation_ShortWall The thickness needs to be adjusted to 8" or 12" to be an acceptable EIE input while keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Width * Thickness) / 12" = (2.75 ft * 10") / 12" = 2.29 feet  5.2.15 B_Main_Wall10" The thickness needs to be adjusted to 8" or 12" to be an acceptable EIE input while keeping the same area. This was done using the following calcualtion. = (Width * Thickness) / 12" = (9.75 ft * 10") / 12" = 8.13 feet  5.2.19 D_Foundation_TieBeam Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_TieBeam 5.2.20 D_Foundation_Wall8" Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Wall8" 5.2.21 D_Foundation_Wall8"2  Cortese 68 Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Wall8"2 5.2.22 D_Foundation_Wall8"3 Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Wall8"3 5.2.23 D_Foundation_Wall10" Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Wall10" 5.2.24 D_Foundation_Wall6" Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_Wall6" 5.2.25 D_Foundation_ShortWall Assumed to be same as B_Foundation_ShortWall 5.3 Curtain  The lengths of all curtain walls were calculated using the linear condition in OnScreen. The thickness of insulation for all curtain walls was assumed to be the same as all other exterior walls in the model. The percent glazing and percent spandrel were calculated with the help of details on the original drawings. 5.4 Wood Stud  Like all other wall lengths, the lengths of wood stud walls were calculated using the linear condition in OnScreen. The wall type, wall height, stud spacing, stud thickness, and sheathing type were all found on the original drawings. The stud type was assumed to be kiln-dried since it was the most common stud type used during the time that the building was constructed. For wood studded walls that included gypsum board, regular 1/2” gypsum was assumed because it is so commonly used. 5.4.4 B_3nd_Wall_EW_Wood Assumed to be same as B_2nd_Wall_EW_Wood 5.4.5 B_3nd_Wall_NS_Wood Assumed to be same as B_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood 5.4.7 B_3nd_InteriorWall Assumed to be same as B_2nd_InteriorWall 5.4.9 C_Main_Wall_Outside_Wood Assumed to be same as C_2nd_Outside_Wood 5.4.10 C_3rd_Wall_Outside_Wood Assumed to be same as C_2nd_Outside_Wood 5.4.11 C_4th_Wall_Outside_Wood Assumed to be same as C_2nd_Outside_Wood 5.4.13 C_Main_inside_wall Assumed to be same as C_2nd_inside_wall 5.4.14 C_3rd_inside_wall Assumed to be same as C_2nd_inside_wall 5.4.15 C_4th_inside_wall Assumed to be same as C_2nd_inside_wall 5.4.16 D_2nd_Wall_EW_Wood Assumed to be same as B_2nd_Wall_EW_Wood 5.4.17 D_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood Assumed to be same as B_2nd_Wall_NS_Wood  Cortese 69  5.4.18 D_main_Wall_EW_Wood Assumed to be same as B_main_Wall_EW_Wood 5.4.19 D_main_Wall_NS_Wood Assumed to be same as B_main_Wall_NS_Wood 5.4.20 D_3nd_Wall_EW_Wood Assumed to be same as B_3rd_Wall_EW_Wood 5.4.21 D_3nd_Wall_NS_Wood Assumed to be same as B_3nd_Wall_NS_Wood 5.4.22 D_2nd_InteriorWall Assumed to be same as B_2nd_InteriorWall 5.4.23 D_main_InteriorWall Assumed to be same as B_main_InteriorWall 5.4.24 D_3nd_InteriorWall Assumed to be same as B_3nd_InteriorWall 6 Extra Basic Materials  It was assumed that Blocks C and E have equivalent material usage per square foot. This meant that only Block C takeoffs were required. The Block C takeoffs were then modeled in EIE to produce a Block C Bill of Materials. The Bill of Material amounts were then multiplied by the ratio of Block E square footage to Block C square footage to create an estimated Bill of Materials for Block E which is displayed in Appendix B. The values in this new Bill of Materials were then entered into the final model through extra basic materials assembly group. Both Block C and E are office building of almost identical layout; thus, this assumption should not greatly affect the model. Other than the materials related to Block E, the only assumption made in extra basic materials was related to the exterior porcelain panels located below the windows on Blocks B, C, D, and E. The takeoffs for the porcelain panels were done using the count condition in OnScreen. Once the number of panels was known it was multiplied by the area in order to create total panel area. This total panel area was then modeled in extra basic materials as standard glazing. This was done because the EIE does not have porcelain in its material database; standard glazing was used because it is the most closely related material in the EIE. Material 1/2" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board  Block C Quantity  Block E Quantity  Unit  2636.0718  1797.933  m2  3 mil Polyethylene  528.0392  360.149  m2  6 mil Polyethylene  118.2619  80.661  m2  11.3482  7.740  Tonnes  418.6497  285.540  Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av)  6.9376  4.732  m2 (25mm) m3  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av)  1084.0144  739.352  Concrete Blocks  5160.6148  3519.797  EPDM membrane  747.7605  510.010  Kg  Extruded Polystyrene  518.0724  353.351  2.6308  1.794  m2 (25mm) Tonnes  Aluminium Batt. Rockwool  Joint Compound  m3 Blocks  Cortese 70 Modified Bitumen membrane  512.7077  349.692  Kg  16.9326  11.549  m3  Nails  1.2962  0.884  Tonnes  Paper Tape  0.0302  0.021  Tonnes  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections  47.6812  32.521  Tonnes  Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried  52.2232  35.619  m3  Softwood Plywood  566.3051  386.248  Standard Glazing  1477.3212  1007.607  89.6686  61.158  0.1008  0.069  Mortar  Water Based Latex Paint Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire  m2 (9mm) m2 L Tonnes  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 14 0
China 12 4
Canada 11 7
Japan 3 0
Unknown 1 0
City Views Downloads
Shenzhen 7 4
Ashburn 6 0
Beijing 5 0
Vancouver 5 2
Richmond 3 0
Unknown 3 5
Sunnyvale 3 0
San Jose 3 0
Tokyo 3 0
Kansas City 1 0
Ottawa 1 1
Delta 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.18861.1-0077975/manifest

Comment

Related Items