UBC Undergraduate Research

Life Cycle Analysis: UBC's Forest Science Centre 2010

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
FSC_Morris,M_2.pdf
FSC_Morris,M_2.pdf [ 517.65kB ]
FSC_Morris,M_2.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077977.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077977+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077977.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077977+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077977+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077977+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0077977.ris

Full Text

 Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Science Centre  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Forest Sciences Centre located at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada.  2009 Michael Morris University of British Columbia 1/1/2009 Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre ii        Michael Morris March 2009 CIVL 498C Department of Civil Engineering Faculty of Applied Science University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada      Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre ii   Table of Contents Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................ii List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................iv Abstract............................................................................................................................................v 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 2. Goal & Scope........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Goal of Study .................................................................................................................... 3 2.2. Scope of Study.................................................................................................................. 4 2.3. Tools, Methodology and Data.......................................................................................... 4 3. Building Model ........................................................................................................................ 6 3.1. Takeoffs ............................................................................................................................ 6 3.2. Assembly Groups.............................................................................................................. 7 3.2.1. Foundation................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.2. Walls.......................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.3. Mixed Columns & Beams .......................................................................................... 8 3.2.4. Floors......................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.5. Roof ........................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.6. Extra Base Material ................................................................................................. 10 3.3. Bill of Materials .............................................................................................................. 10 4. Summary Measures .............................................................................................................. 12 4.1. Uncertainty..................................................................................................................... 12 Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  iii  4.2. Sensitivity Analyses ........................................................................................................ 13 4.2.1. PVC membrane ....................................................................................................... 14 4.2.2. Softwood Plywood .................................................................................................. 14 4.2.3. Batt. Fiberglass........................................................................................................ 15 4.2.4. Glazing Panel........................................................................................................... 15 4.2.5. Concrete (2,900 psi) ................................................................................................ 16 5. Building Performance ........................................................................................................... 16 5.1. Payback Period of Improvements .................................................................................. 16 6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 18 References .................................................................................................................................... 19 A. Appendix A: Authors Segment..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Appendix B: EIE Input Tables ................................................................................................ 21 C Appendix C: EIE Input Assumptions ...................................................................................... 32   Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre iv   List of Figures Figure 1: The main entrance to the Forest Sciences Centre. Source: UBC Faculty of Forestry...... 1 Figure 2: The L-shaped atrium that is a main attraction of the FSC. Source: flickr.com ................ 1 Figure 3: An example of the interior wood finishing throughout the FSC. Source: flickr.com ...... 2 Figure 4: Payback period to update FSC ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 5: Toyta's life cycle assessment. ............................................Error! Bookmark not defined. List of Tables Table 1: Building summaries............................................................................................................v Table 2: Building characteristics ..................................................................................................... 3 Table 3: A table showing the Bill of Materials produced by Athena for the FSC. ........................ 11 Table 4: Summary measures of the FSC ....................................................................................... 12 Table 5: Effects of an extra 10% PVC membrane ......................................................................... 14 Table 6: Effects of an extra 10% softwood plywood .................................................................... 14 Table 7: Effects of an extra 10% Batt Fiberglass........................................................................... 15 Table 8: Effects of an extra 10% glazing panel ............................................................................. 15 Table 9: Effects of an extra 10% concrete .................................................................................... 16 Table 10: EIE Input Table ..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 11: EIE Input Assumptions ......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.  Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  v   Abstract The Forest Science Centre is an institutional building on the UBC Vancouver campus. The table below shows some of the building envelope characteristics of the FSC. Table 1: Building summaries Building system Specific characteristics of FSC Structure Concrete columns throughout Floors Basement concrete slab on grade, first, second, third, forth, and fifth floor cast-in place concrete Exterior Walls Concrete brick* Interior Walls 2 x 4 wood studs. Gypsum board on both sides, 1/2"* Windows Alumina framed, double glazed, argon filled Roof Flat roof, concrete, steel, skylight Flooring Carpet on concrete HVAC/Heating Steam from central power plant In viewing the Bill of Materials (BoM), some of the largest groups were chosen to examine in further detail. Water based latex paint, softwood plywood, fiberglass batt, glazing panel, and concrete were found to have significant amounts throughout the FSC. From the BoM, the summary measures were calculated. It was found that the primary energy consumption was 1,556,919,700 MJ, the weighted resource use was 1,301,434,105 kg, the global warming potential was 118,923,477 kg CO2 eq/kg, and the ozone depletion potential was 0.19 kg CFC-11 eq/kg. If the amount of softwood plywood was increased by 10%, the overall ozone depletion potential of the construction of the FSC increased by 217%. This was by far the most noticeable change in summary measures when increasing a material by 10%. The energy payback period for improvements using the minimum Residential Environmental Assessment Program’s (REAP) R-values was calculated to be just over one year. It is clear that upgrading the building envelopes would be beneficial.    1  1. Introduction The Forest Sciences Centre (FSC) is one of the newest buildings to be constructed at the University of British Columbia, and houses the faculty of Forestry. It is next door to the Center for Advanced Wood Processing building. For the life cycle analysis (LCA) carried out in this report, phase two, which includes the Advance Wood Processing Laboratory building, was excluded. The idea of the FSC was originally conceived in 1988. However, initial challenges and problems with the location of the original design caused the project to be delayed until it was finally completed in 1998 at a cost of $47 million. It currently stands at the end of Main Mall Road on the UBC campus (UBC Library). The Forest Sciences Centre is more than 17,000 m 2  (180,000 ft 2  for those still using the British system), has 11 classrooms, 2 lecture theaters, one with a capacity for 250 people, teaching laboratories, multiple computer laboratories, study areas, and a Tim Horton’s. In addition to holding the Faculty of Forestry’s three departments (Forest Resource Management, Forest Sciences, and Wood Science), the FSC is also home to the Centre for Applied Conservation Research, and the Forest Economics & Policy Analysis Research Unit. The FSC is probably best known for its large, open L-shape atrium (see Figure 2) spanning from the ground floor to the roof of the FSC. The massive columns seen in Figure 2 are Parallam Figure 2: The L-shaped atrium that is a main attraction of the FSC. Source: flickr.com Figure 1: The main entrance to the Forest Sciences Centre. Source: UBC Faculty of Forestry Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 2  tree columns. The FSC was designed to show off and highlight non-residential Canadian forestry products, using extensive wood finishing throughout the interior of the building. (UBC Faculty of Forestry).  Figure 3: An example of the interior wood finishing throughout the FSC. Source: flickr.com Currently the Facility of Forestry accommodates approximately 450 undergraduate students and 200 graduate students. The FSC is also used by students in other facilities such as the Facility of Applied Science due to its large lecture theaters. In total, the FSC is four stories high and has a basement with underground walkway. The FSC is a beautifully crafted building showcasing wonderful examples of Parallam beams and hard wood finishing. The following table summarizes the building structural and envelope characteristics:     Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  3  Table 2: Building characteristics Building system Specific characteristics of FSC Structure Concrete columns throughout Floors Basement concrete slab on grade, first, second, third, forth, and fifth floor cast-in place concrete suspended slab Exterior Walls Cast in place concrete with Fiberglass Batt. insulation and brick cladding Interior Walls 2 x 4 wood studs. Gypsum board on both sides, 1/2", Windows Aluminum framed, double glazed Roof Flat roof, suspended slab concrete roof, steel beam support, skylight HVAC/Heating Steam from central power plant 2. Goal & Scope 2.1. Goal of Study This life cycle analysis (LCA) of the Forest Sciences Center (FSC) at the University of British Columbia was carried out as an exploratory study to determine the environmental impact of its design.  This LCA of the FSC 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 FSC. An exemplary application of these references is in the assessment of potential future performance upgrades to the structure and envelope of the FSC.  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 FSC 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 is those involved in building development related policy making at UBC, such as the Sustainability Office, who are involved in creating policies and Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 4  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. 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 FSC 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 FSC, 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 Takeoffs 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 FSC 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 Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  5  and design choices.  The tool achieves this by applying a set of algorithms to the inputted takeoff data in order to complete the takeoff process and generate a Bill of Materials (BoM). 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 FSC 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 FSC, 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 FSC. 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. Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 6  The primary sources of data for this LCA are the original architectural and structural drawings from when the FSC was initially constructed in 1998.  The assemblies of the building that are modeled include the foundation, columns and beams, floors, walls and roofs, as well as the associated envelope and openings (ie. doors and windows) within each of these assemblies. The decision to omit other building components, such as flooring, electrical aspects, HVAC system, finishing and detailing, etc., are associated with the limitations of available data and the IE software, as well as to minimize the uncertainty of the model.  In the analysis of these assemblies, some of the drawings lack sufficient material details, which necessitate the usage of assumptions to complete the modeling of the building in the IE software.  Furthermore, there are inherent assumptions made by the IE software in order to generate the BoM and limitations to what it can model, which necessitated further assumptions to be made.  These assumptions and limitation will be discussed further as they energy in the Building Model section and, as previously mentioned, all specific input related assumption are contained in the Input Assumptions document in Annex B. 3. Building Model 3.1. Takeoffs Takeoffs were general fairly straight forward. Walls were lineally measured for distance, footings were counted, and exterior walls and windows were found calculating areas. Plan views were used to calculate most items within the building. Profile views were used to determine the height of the columns, the area of the exterior walls and windows, and any exterior metal cladding. As the FSC is a fairly recent building, the drawings were good, and for the most part clean and easy to read. Not all the cross-sections were provided, but it was still fairly easy to determine heights of walls and floor layouts. There were some challenges encountered during the takeoffs for the FSC. There were four lecture halls that were not on one specific floor, and required some estimation as they were on a steep slope. Not all the data was available for the building, requiring some estimation of materials. Assumptions had to be made regarding what the insulation was and how thick it was. Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  7  The interior walls, for the most part, were assumed to be wood stud walls. Some of the heights of the columns in the basement were averaged because of their non-uniformity. The columns were not all the same height, and average heights were required. The beam structure in the building was not well laid out, and therefore assumptions as to the height and span were also made. The IE bases column and beam takeoffs from bay and span sizes as well as live load and the materials the columns and beams are made out of.  This data entry made for an easier time modeling the column/beam layout. While assumptions were necessary, it is important to understand that the results of the study give a good estimation of impacts of constructing the building. 3.2. Assembly Groups The FSC was divided into six assembly groups: foundation, walls, mixed columns & beams, floors, roofs, and extra base materials. Below is a brief outline of each assembly group and some of the uncertainties/problems, and assumptions made when calculating them. 3.2.1. Foundation The foundation was broken down into a concrete slab on grade, footings, strip footings, and slab on grade concrete pads. The concrete footings and strip footings were named the same as the architectural drawings (i.e. F1, F2…). Any concrete footings not listed in the structural legend were named CF1, CF2, and so on, while any strip footings not listed were named SF1, SF2, and so on. The footings were calculated using the count feature in OnScreen, and the length of the footing was then multiplied by the amount of footings of each type. The IE restricted the height of the footings. If a footing was larger than the allowed height, it was divided by two while the length was multiplied by two. Rebar presented a problem if the reinforcing was greater than 20M bars. The IE only allowed for 10M, 15M, and 20M bars in the footings. Therefore, anything larger than 20M was considered 20M while anything smaller than 10M was considered 10M. The slab on grade was a simple area calculation. The IE only allowed for two thicknesses, and the area was adjusted accordingly to account for this. The concrete pads were not slabs. They were similar to the concrete footings. However, they were only 100mm thick. They were named Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 8  CP1, CP2, and so on. The concrete was assumed to be 20MPa as no information was given. Fly ash was assumed to be “average”, which is an option when entering concrete data in the IE. 3.2.2. Walls Walls were either concrete block, wood, or concrete brick. However, each wall was labeled W followed by the number in which it was entered (i.e. the first wall was called W1). They were linear measurements, with the height measured from the profile drawings. Floors two through four were the same height, and so walls continuing through these three floors were considered one wall with a height three times the single floor height. Openings included windows and doors. All interior walls were assumed to have no window. Exterior walls were measured by using one meter strips. OnScreen will measure the length of wall accounted for while using a line thickness equal to one meter. For example a 10 meter high wall 5 meters long would have a wall area of 50 meters squared. On OnScreen, 10 one meter strips 5 meters long would be measured. This was done to account for the large windows present throughout the exterior wall. Area conditions were utilized to calculate the percent glazing area for the curtain walls, as well as the areas of the window openings. Windows were not counted directly, but instead the area of openings for windows was determined using the area function, and then divided by an average exterior window size. These assumptions were made so that a reasonable estimate could be made within the timeframe given. Some other assumptions and calculations were made in order to complete modeling of the walls for the FSC building, such as affecting the length of the concrete cast-in-place walls to accommodate the wall thickness limitation in the IE, and the assumption that interior steel stud walls were light gauge (25Ga) and exterior steel stud walls were heavy gauge (20Ga). 3.2.3. Mixed Columns & Beams All columns were named C followed by the number in which they were entered (i.e. the first column is C1). The method used to measure column sizing was completely depended upon the metrics built into the IE. That is, the IE calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the following inputs; number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  9  supported span and live load. A grid system of columns had to be assumed to simplify modeling. An area that appeared to have a slight order to the column distribution was squared off and averaged for span between columns. For example, the foundation columns were broken into three areas. The main atrium in the FSC is an L-shape. The eight columns in the atrium were assumed to be one long line of columns with the spacing between them averaged as the span and the distance to the surrounding walls averaged as the bay size. 3.2.4. Floors Floors included the roof and were labeled FL# for floors and R# for the roof. There were five floors and one roof for the FSC. However, the roof was broken into three parts to accommodate the three different materials use. The building envelope data was not available for the floors, and therefore average industry standards were assumed. Stairs were assumed to be steel and an area was determined from OnScreen. The average height of the stairs was then multiplied by the area giving a volume. Using online resources, the unit weight of rolled steel was used (7850 kg/m 3 ) and was added to extra base materials. The values given though are fairly accurate since the steel stairs are not a significant part of the FSC. The floors were measured using area conditions. Much like in column and beams, the IE calculated the thickness of the material based on some basic variables regarding the assembly. These include; floor width, span, concrete strength, concrete flyash content and live load. Another assumption that had to be made in this assembly group was setting the concrete strength to 20 MPa, instead of the specified 25 MPa. This was due to the IE’s limitation to model only 20 MPa, 30 MPa or 60 MPa concrete strengths. Spans were also limited to no more than 10 meters. If a span was greater than 10 meters, the total area was then divided by 10 meters to determine the resulting length. 3.2.5. Roof The roof was modeled using area conditions. The roof of the FSC was split into three catagories, a suspended slab for the main roof, an open web steel joist system, and glazing for the large skylight.  Once again the concrete strength was set to 20 MPa instead of the specified 25 MPa. Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 10  Other than these there were no significant assumptions required to complete the takeoffs for the roof assemblies. 3.2.6. Extra Base Material The large Parallam columns within the FSC are not supporting any significant load. The only loads that they are supporting are the additional beams. Their main purpose is aesthetics only. When entering the Parallam column grid into the EIE, the loads that the columns are calculated to take would be greatly exaggerated. Since the Parallam columns are not used for structural support, they were added to extra base material. The length calculator in OnScreen was used and the columns were then multiplied by their average thickness. To account for uncertainty, an additional 5% was added. The steel staircases were also difficult to model in the IE, and therefore (as explained in floors), the area count was used in OnScreen to determine the total surface area of steel staircases throughout the FSC. Using the architectural drawings, the average height of the steel staircases was then determined and multiplied by the surface area. The unit weight of rolled steel was used (7850 kg/m 3 ) to determine the total weight of additional steel within the FSC. 3.3. Bill of Materials Below is the Bill of Materials report produced by the IE version 4.0.51 for the FSC. The five largest amounts of materials in terms of the assembles to the amounts shown below are PVC membrane (36,975 lbs), softwood plywood (253,738 ft 2 ), fiberglass batt (1,090,937 ft 2 ), glazing panel (24.48 tons), and 2,900 psi concrete (566,931 ft 3 ).The concrete was the most significant contributor of the five materials (as seen in the summary measures section).  Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  11  Table 3: A table showing the Bill of Materials produced by Athena for the FSC.   Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 12  4. Summary Measures Below are the summary measures of the FSC. Some of the measurements may be at first difficult to understand. However, it is important to consider the units in which the measurements are. Global warming potential for example, is measured in kg CO2 production per kg of material in the building. CO2 is considered a major cause of global warming.  In order to have any real understanding of the implications of the FSC, and what these numbers mean, further research in each area is required. It is also important to remember that in an LCIA there is uncertainty. In the next section, some of the uncertainties in the analysis are discussed. Table 4: Summary measures of the FSC  4.1. Uncertainty Some of the uncertainty involved in the LCA of the FSC includes such things as uncertainty in the life times of the substances, unknown characteristic factors, the use of several characteristic factors within one category, and regional differences. Below, is a more detailed list of some of the uncertainties inherent within the LCA study (Huijbregts et al). • Linear weighted average to compute impact. Software such as Athena EIE use average weighted values of products to come up with an environmental score. However, this method risks minimizing impacts that may be significant within the context of the construction project but very small when compared to the reference data. Rogers et al) • Not designed to analyze specific products. A building may use Portland cement which would have different properties then another type of cement. The location of Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  13  each different type of cement would also affect the impact of that product. The further away, the longer it has to travel, the more fuel is burned to move it, etc. • Linear proportionality in production. TRACI assumes that the impact of a product grows linearly as the amount of that product used is increased. This creates a problem since there is economy of scale and it ignores capacity constraints. • Lack of detailed information. Certain sectors may be reluctant to make their data publicly available. Take for example nickel-hydrate batteries. The specific data may not be there, and in the end we may have to be content with a single rechargeable battery.(Hendrickson et al 43) • Imported products. It is much more difficult to come up with accurate analysis of products that are imported. This is due to a variety of reasons, unknown climate, work conditions, method of internal transportation. Some LCIAs assume internal country data. For example, 1000lbs of steel was brought from China. However, when entered in the LCIA software, it assumes it was manufactured and produced in North America. 4.2. Sensitivity Analyses Five materials were chosen: PVC membrane, softwood plywood, fiberglass batt, glazing panel, and 2,900 psi concrete. The materials were then increased by 10% (by weight) to see the effects on the summary measures. Below are the results for the 10% increase by weight of each of the five different materials. Certain measurements are based on global effects. The global warming potential and the ozone depletion potential are both based on the effects they have globally. However, such measurements as the acidification potential are much more significant on a regional scope. It is important to understand that it every measurement was assumed to be at a non-regionalized North American level, and that some uncertainty is involved when assuming this. Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 14  4.2.1. PVC membrane Increasing the PVC membrane by 10% had little effect on anything except the primary energy consumption. However, even that was small with an increase of only 0.18%. This is not surprising since PVC membrane was not a large contributor to the FSC’s BoM. Table 5: Effects of an extra 10% PVC membrane  4.2.2. Softwood Plywood Increasing the softwood plywood by 10% also did not have a significant impact on any of the summary measures. It did, however, cause at least a 0.19% increase for everything but the weighted resource use. The most significant impact was the 0.35% increase in eutrophication potential. Energy consumption was also significantly increased, though not as much, increasing by 0.29%. However, percentage increased is slightly misleading as the energy consumed during the construction of the building as a whole is quite large. When looking at the actual numbers, using 10% more softwood plywood caused an increase of 226,454 MJ of energy. Table 6: Effects of an extra 10% softwood plywood  Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  15  4.2.3. Fiberglass Batt Increasing the fiberglass batt by 10% had very impacts of similar significance to that caused by increasing the softwood plywood by 10%. Like softwood plywood, the most noticeable increase was in eutrophication potential with a 0.47% change. Like softwood plywood, everything increased by at least 0.19% except the weighted resource use. Again, it is still important to realize that the magnitude of the increase is still significant with an additional 182,929 kg of resources being used. Table 7: Effects of an extra 10% Batt Fiberglass  4.2.4. Glazing Panel Increasing the glazing panel by 10% had very little impact on the total effects. Like the previous three increases in materials, the most significant increase was in eutrophication potential, with an increase of 0.10%. Table 8: Effects of an extra 10% glazing panel  Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 16  4.2.5. Concrete (2,900 psi) Increasing the 2,900 psi concrete by 10% (by weight) had the most significant impact of any of the five materials. In every measurement there was increases of at least 3.11% with the largest being an increase of 8.36% in weighted resources. This makes sense that an increase in concrete would have such a significant effect. Concrete was one of the most used products in the FSC. Every floor, multiple columns, some walls, and even parts of the roof were made of concrete. Table 9: Effects of an extra 10% concrete  5. Building Performance 5.1. Payback Period of Improvements In the figure below you can see that improvements following the minimum Residential Environmental Assessment Program’s (REAP) R-values would have a zero payback period. This means that the difference between the energy the FSC is consuming now and if it was improved, is less than the energy required to improve insulation throughout the building. The easiest way to reduce energy loss would be to reduce the amount of windows to the outside. However, this is usually not a popular choice among users of a building. Windows R-values are more than four times smaller than that of walls and roofs. Therefore, the most improvement would occur when dealing with window openings. Other things that could reduce the energy loss would be to add thicker insulation. This option would not require a lot of additional energy to produce, but would have significant savings over time. Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  17   Figure 4: Payback period to update FSC The above figure shows that it makes sense no matter what the life of the building is to improve the FSC according to REAP’s insulation standards. The improvements would reduce the annual energy consumption of the FSC by 5,500,000 Mega Joules. After 20 years there would be a difference of more than 100,000,000 MJ between the current consumption and the improved consumption of energy. Things to consider if the FSC was going to upgrade the envelope system would be a more intensive energy analysis. This is only a brief summary of the potential in energy savings for the FSC if improvements are made. There are still some uncertainties within the measurements. However, the potential for energy savings will still be significant no matter how accurate the model is. Other ways to improve the accuracy is through a more intensive LCA to measure tradeoffs (i.e. creating lots of gypsum window waste, manufacturing insulation & windows), logistics (i.e. how would you actually renovate the building), and the economic Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 18  costs of the upgrades to prove that they are necessary. With rising energy costs, it only makes sense to upgrade the FSC envelopes. Other easy ways to reduce the energy consumption of the FSC would be to install high efficiency appliances and fluorescent lighting. Reducing the lighting throughout the FSC could also have the potential to reduce energy consumption. 6. Conclusion The LCA of the FSC determined that the primary energy consumption was 77,336,718 MJ and the amount of resources used by weight was 50,180,872kg. When considering the FSC, it consumed approximately 400 MJ/ft 2 . Other numbers that were significant was the global warming potential of 11,405,689 kg CO2 eq/kg and the ozone depletion potential of 5,672,545 kg CFC-11 eq/ kg. Manufacturing the products consumed significantly more energy than construction, but used approximately half of the weighted resources. Construction played a much more significant impact on the global warming potential and the ozone depletion potential. Concrete played one of the most significant roles in energy consumption in the construction of the FSC, and it can be one of the easiest to reduce with the introduction of such things as green concrete (concrete with significantly more fly ash then regular concrete). LCA’s are incredibly complex, and while this study was brief in time, many assumptions were made, and many uncertainties occur within the LCA and the IE. The overall energy consumption and impact of the FSC is given in the report, and is made transparent through the documents in Appendices A and B. It will be most useful in comparing to other buildings of similar (and different) usage and size. This project and course only begin to explore what can be accomplished and achieved with this software. Further investigation can bring forth even more accurate results and can continue to help in the growing understanding of buildings and how to improve the impacts they possess. Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  19  References Danish Environmental Protection Agency, "Reducing Uncertainty in LCI." Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. D.E.P.A. 21 Feb 2009 <http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/P ublications/2003/87-7972-989-4/html/default_eng.htm>. Flikr. "UBC Forest Sciences Centre Atrium." Flikr. 1998. Yahoo. 22 Feb 2009 <http://flickr.com/photos/diffuse/577396854/>. Heijungs, Reinout, and Mark A.J. Huijbregts. "A Review of Approaches to Treat Uncertainty in LCA." International Environmental Modelling and Software Society. 2008. iEMSs. 21 Feb 2009 <http://www.iemss.org/iemss2004/pdf/lca/heijarev.pdf>. Huijbregts, Jan, and Mark Antonius. Uncertainty and variability in environmental life-cycle assessment. 1st. Huijbregts, M.A.J.: Printed PrintPartners Ipskamp b.v., 2001. Hendrickson, Chris T., Lester B. Lave, and H. Scott Matthews. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services. An Input-Output Approach. 1. Washignton: Green Design Institute, 2006. Norris, Gregory. "The Many Dimensions of Uncertainty Analysis in LCA." Athena Institute. 2009. Athena. 21 Feb 2009 <http://www.athenasmi.ca/publications/docs/UncertaintyAnalysis_in_LCA.pdf>. Rogers, Kristin, and Thomas P. Seager. "Environmental Decision-Making Using Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Stochastic Multiattribute Decision Analysis: A Case Study on Alternative Transportation Fuels." Environmental Science & Technology. 2009. ACS Publications. 21 Feb 2009 <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es801123h>. Sianchuk, Robert. "CIVL498C Home." CIVL498C. 25 Feb 2009. UBC . 27 Feb 2009 <http://civl498c.wikispaces.com/>. Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 20  The Athena Institute. "Known Issues with the Impact Estimator for buildings." Athena Institute. 15 Jan 2009. The Athena Institute. 26 Mar 2009 <http://www.athenasmi.org/tools/impactEstimator/knownIssues.html>. Toyota. "Life Cycle Analysis." Toyota. 2009. Toyota. 27 Feb 2009 <http://www.toyota.co.nz/AboutUs/The+Environment/Product+-+Life+Cycle.htm>. UBC Faculty of Forestry. "Forest Sciences Centre ." The University of British Columbia Forestry. 2008. University of British Columbia. 22 Feb 2009 <http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/Facilities/ForestSciencesCentre/tabid/98/Default.aspx>. UBC Library. "Forest Sciences Centre ." UBC Library. 11 Mar 2008. University of British Columbia. 22 Feb 2009 <http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/chrono.html>.           Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  21  Appendix A: Impact Estimator Input Tables Below is the data that was collected for the FSC and how it was inputted into the IE.   Ideal Input  1.1 Slab on Grade 1.1.1 Concrete Slab on Grade Length (ft) 98.4 98.4 Width (ft) 78.72 78.72 Thickness (ft) 0.492 0.492 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900     Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE 1.2 Concrete Footing 1.2.1 F1 Length (ft) 4.592 4.592 Width (ft) 3.28 3.28 Thickness (ft) 0.656 0.656 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 10M 10M 1.2.2 F2 Length (ft) 4.92 24.6 Width (ft) 4.92 4.92 Thickness (ft) 1.148 1.148 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 15M 15M 1.2.3 F3 Length (ft) 7.872 23.616 Width (ft) 7.872 7.872 Thickness (ft) 1.476 1.476 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 20M 20M 1.2.4 F4 Length (ft) 6.56 13.12 Width (ft) 6.56 6.56 Thickness (ft) 1.312 1.312 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 1 Foundation   Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 22  Rebar 20M 20M 1.2.5 F5 Length (ft) 7.216 21.648 Width (ft) 7.216 7.216 Thickness (ft) 1.476 1.476 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 20M 20M 1.2.6 F6 Length (ft) 5.576 16.728 Width (ft) 5.576 5.576 Thickness (ft) 0.984 0.984 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 20M 20M 1.2.7 F7 Length (ft) 5.904 47.232 Width (ft) 5.904 5.904 Thickness (ft) 1.312 1.312 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 20M 20M 1.2.8 F8 Length (ft) 9.184 110.208 Width (ft) 9.184 9.184 Thickness (ft) 1.804 0.902 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.9 F9 Length (ft) 5.904 41.328 Width (ft) 6.232 6.232 Thickness (ft) 1.148 1.148 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 20M 20M 1.2.10 F10 Length (ft) 5.904 5.904 Width (ft) 5.904 5.904 Thickness (ft) 1.148 1.148  Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  23  Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE Rebar 20M 20M 1.2.11 F11 Length (ft) 4.92 78.72 Width (ft) 4.92 4.92 Thickness (ft) 1.968 0.984 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 20M 20M 1.2.12 F12 Length (ft) 6.888 55.104 Width (ft) 3.936 3.936 Thickness (ft) 0.82 0.82 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 10M 10M 1.2.13 F13 Length (ft) 3.936 7.872 Width (ft) 3.936 3.936 Thickness (ft) 1.312 1.312 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 15M 15M 1.2.14 F14 Length (ft) 12.792 12.792 Width (ft) 5.904 5.904 Thickness (ft) 1.312 1.312 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 15M 15M 1.2.15 F15 Length (ft) 11.808 23.616 Width (ft) 3.936 3.936 Thickness (ft) 2.296 1.148 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 15M 15M 1.2.16 F16 Length (ft) 10.168 20.336 Width (ft) 3.28 3.28  Thickness (ft) 2.624 1.312 Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 24  Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.17 F20 Length (ft) 29.52 29.52 Width (ft) 29.52 29.52 Thickness (ft) 3.28 3.28 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 20M 20M 1.2.18 F21 Length (ft) 39.032 78.064 Width (ft) 39.032 39.032 Thickness (ft) 3.28 1.64 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.19 F22 Length (ft) 22.96 45.92 Width (ft) 22.96 22.96 Thickness (ft) 3.28 1.64 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.20 F23 Length (ft) 36.08 72.16 Width (ft) 19.68 19.68 Thickness (ft) 2.952 1.476 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.21 F24 Length (ft) 29.192 58.384 Width (ft) 29.192 29.192 Thickness (ft) 3.28 1.64 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.22 F25 Length (ft) 132.512 265.024 Width (ft) 66.256 66.256 Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  25  Thickness (ft) 3.28 1.64 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.23 F27 Length (ft) 29.192 58.384 Width (ft) 29.192 29.192 Thickness (ft) 3.28 1.64 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.24 F28 Length (ft) 31.16 62.32 Width (ft) 31.16 31.16 Thickness (ft) 3.28 1.64 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.25 F29 Length (ft) 13.12 39.36 Width (ft) 42.64 42.64 Thickness (ft) 3.936 1.312 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.26 F31 Length (ft) 28.864 57.728 Width (ft) 28.864 28.864 Thickness (ft) 3.28 1.64 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar  25M 20M 1.2.27 F32 Length (ft) 22.96 45.92 Width (ft) 22.96 22.96 Thickness (ft) 3.28 1.64 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.28 F33   Length (ft) 45.92 91.84 Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 26  Width (ft) 13.12 13.12 Thickness (ft) 3.28 1.64 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.29 CF1 Length (ft) 7.872 23.616 Width (ft) 7.872 7.872 Thickness (ft) 3.936 1.312 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 25M 20M 1.2.30 CF2 Length (ft) 5.904 11.808 Width (ft) 2.952 2.952 Thickness (ft) 2.952 1.476 Concrete (psi) 3600 2900 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 15M 15M 1.3 Slab on Grade Concrete Pad 1.3.1 CP1 Length (ft) 44.28 44.28 Width (ft) 44.28 44.28 Thickness (ft) 0.328 0.328 Concrete (psi) 3600 3600     Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE 1.4 Concrete Strip Footing 1.4.1 F30 Length (ft) 262.4 262.4 Width (ft) 6.56 6.56 Thickness (ft) 1.968 1.968 Concrete (psi) 3600 3600 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 20M 20M 1.4.2 SF1 Length (ft) 49.2 49.2 Width (ft) 3.28 3.28 Thickness (ft) 0.984 0.984 Concrete (psi) 3600 3600 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE    Rebar 20M 20M Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  27  1.4.3 SF2 Length (ft) 557.6 557.6 Width (ft) 2.296 2.296 Thickness (ft) 0.984 0.984 Concrete (psi) 3600 3600 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 15M 15M 1.4.4 SF3 Length (ft) 32.8 32.8 Width (ft) 3.936 3.936 Thickness (ft) 0.984 0.984 Concrete (psi) 3600 3600 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE   Rebar 20M 20M  2.1 Concrete Block Wall 2.1.1 W1 Wall Type Basement Basement Length (ft) 859.36 859.36   Height (ft) 13.94 13.94 Total opening area (ft^2) 0 0 Doors 39.36 39.36 Category - Cladding Material - Brick Openings Type - (metric) Modular 2.1.2 W2 Wall Type Basement Basement Length (ft) 377.2 377.2   Height (ft) 21.4512 21.4512 Total opening area (ft^2) 0 0 Doors 13.12 13.12 Category - Cladding Material - Brick Openings Type - (metric) Modular 2.1.3 W3 Wall Type Basement Basement Length (ft) 747.84 747.84   Height (ft) 7.97696 7.97696 Total opening area (ft^2) 0 0 Doors 0 0 2 Walls  Openings Category - Cladding Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 28  Material - Brick Type - (metric) Modular 2.1.4 W4 Wall Type Ground Floor Ground Floor Length (ft) 1876.16 1876.16   Height (ft) 16.4 16.4 Total opening area (ft^2) 2766.348 2766.348 Doors 32 32 Category - Cladding Material - Brick Openings Type - (metric) Modular 2.2 Wood Walls 2.2.1 W5   Wall Type Second - Fourth (Inside) Second - Fourth (Inside)   Length (ft) 1207.04 1207.04   Height (ft) 13.94 13.94 Total opening area (ft^2) 0 0 Doors 20 20 Category - Cladding Material - Brick  Openings Type - (metric) Modular 2.3 Conrete Brick Walls 2.3.1 W6 Wall Type Second - Fourth (Outside) Second - Fourth (Outside) Length (ft) 1823.68 1823.68   Height (ft) 16.4 16.4 Total opening area (ft^2) 10957.752 10957.752 Doors 0 0 Category - Cladding Material - Brick  Openings Type - (metric) Modular 2.4 Wood Walls 2.4.1 W7 Wall Type Ground Floor Ground Floor Length (ft) 1617.04 1617.04   Height (ft) 16.4 16.4 Total opening area (ft^2) 0 0 Openings Doors 42 42 Category - Insulation Material - Fiberglass  Door Opening Envelope Type - batt Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  29  Thickness - 140 2.4.2 W8 (w/ Veneered Face) Wall Type Second - Fourth (Inside) Second - Fourth (Inside) Length (ft) 11653.84 11653.84   Height (ft) 13.94 13.94 Total opening area (ft^2) 0 0 Openings Doors 381 381 Category - Insulation Material - Fiberglass Type - batt Thickness - 140 Door Opening Envelope Category - Vapour barrier 2.4.3 W9 (Curtain Wall) Length (ft) 90 90 Height (ft) 59 59 Doors 1 1  3.1 Concrete Column/Beams 3.1.1 C1   Number of bays per row 8 8   Number of rows 2 2   Floor to floor height (ft) 13.94 13.94   Bay sizes (ft) 14.76 14.76   Supported span (ft) 19.68 19.68   Live load (psi) 0.7 0.7 3.1.2 C2 Number of bays per row 9 9 Number of rows 3 3 Floor to floor height (ft) 21.4512 21.4512 Bay sizes (ft) 10.824 10.824 Supported span (ft) 27.88 27.88   Live load (psi) 0.7 0.7 3.1.3 C3 Number of bays per row 7 7 Number of rows 1 1 Floor to floor height (ft) 7.9376 7.9376 Bay sizes (ft) 17.056 17.056 Supported span (ft) 25.584 25.584   Live load (psi) 0.7 0.7 3.1.4 C4 3 Mixed Columns & Beams    Number of bays per row 12 12 Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 30  Number of rows 13 13 Floor to floor height (ft) 31.242 31.242 Bay sizes (ft) 15.5144 15.5144 Supported span (ft) 17.876 17.876 Live load (psi) 0.35 0.35 3.1.5 C5 Number of bays per row 12 12 Number of rows 12 12 Floor to floor height (ft) 31.242 31.242 Bay sizes (ft) 15.5144 15.5144 Supported span (ft) 19.352 19.352   Live load (psi) 0.35 0.35 3.1.6 C6 Parallam Columns (ft 3 ) - 162   Volume of Wood  (ft3) - 6822  4.1 Concrete Floors 4.1.1 FL1 Width (ft) 366.376 4474.4 Length (ft) 366.376 30 Concrete (psi)  3600 3600 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE Thickness (ft) 0.492 0.492 Rebar 15M 15M Category - Gypsum board Material - Gysum   Type - Regular 1/2" 4.1.2 FL2 Width (ft) 139.728 650.8 Length (ft) 139.728 30 Concrete (psi)  3600 3600 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE Thickness (ft) 0.492 0.492   Rebar 20M 20M 4.1.3 FL3 Width (ft) 71.504 170.4 Length (ft) 71.504 30 Concrete (psi)  3600 3600 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE Thickness (ft) 6.56 6.56 4 Floors   Rebar 20M 20M Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  31  Category - Gypsum board Material - Gysum Type - Regular 1/2"  5.1 Roof 5.1.1 R1 Width (ft) 667 667 Span (ft) 26 26 Live load (psi) 0.5 0.5 PVC Roofing Membrane (in) - 13   Vapour Barrier  - 1/8" 5.1.2 R2 Width (ft) 260.104 307.1 Span (ft) 35.424 30   Live load (psi) 0.5 3.6 5.1.3 R3 Width (ft) 135.136 608.7 Length (ft) 135.136 30 Concrete (psi)  3600 3600 Concrete flyash % AVERAGE AVERAGE Thickness (ft) 0.492 0.492 Rebar 20M 20M 5 Roof     PVC Roofing Membrane (in) - 13  6.1 Extra Materials 6.1.1 Extra Wood   Parallam Columns (Mbfm) - 134.2 6.1.2 Steel 6 Extra Materials     Steel Staircase (Tons) - 270   Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 32   Appendix B Impact Estimator Input Assumptions Any sub heading without a description did not have any significant assumptions made to calculate the values underneath it. The foundation was broken down into a concrete slab on grade, footings, strip footings, and slab on grade concrete pads. The concrete footings and strip footings were named the same as the architectural drawings (i.e. F1, F2…). Any concrete footings not listed in the structural legend were named CF1, CF2, and so on, while any strip footings not listed were named SF1, SF2, and so on. The footings were calculated using the count feature in OnScreen, and the length of the footing was then multiplied by the amount of footings of each type. The IE restricted the height of the footings. If a footing was larger than the allowed height, it was divided by two while the length was multiplied by two. Rebar presented a problem if the reinforcing was greater than 20M bars. The IE only allowed for 10M, 15M, and 20M bars in the footings. Therefore, anything larger than 20M was considered 20M while anything smaller than 10M was considered 10M. The slab on grade was a simple area calculation. The IE only allowed for two thicknesses, and the area was adjusted accordingly to account for this. The concrete pads were not slabs. They were similar to the concrete footings. However, they were only 100mm thick. They were named CP1, CP2, and so on. The concrete was assumed to be 20MPa as no information was given. Fly ash was assumed to be “average”, which is an option when entering concrete data in the IE. 1.1 Slab on Grade   1.1.1 Concrete Slab on Grade 1.2 Concrete Footing 1.2.1 F1 1.2.2 F2 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 5. L=(Cited Length)*(# of Footings of That Kind) L=(4.92ft)*5   L=24.6ft 1.2.3 F3 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 3.  Similar to 1.2.2 F2 1.2.4 F4 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2. 1 Foundation   Similar to 1.2.2 F2 Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  33  1.2.5 F5 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 3.  Similar to 1.2.2 F2 1.2.6 F6 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 3.  Similar to 1.2.2 F2 1.2.7 F7 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 8.  Similar to 1.2.2 F2 1.2.8 F8 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 12.  Similar to 1.2.2 F2 1.2.9 F9 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 7.  Similar to 1.2.2 F2 1.2.10 F10 1.2.11 F11  The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 5 and again by 2 to account for the Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 34  thickness being reduced by a division of 2. L=(Cited Length)*(# of Footings of That Kind)*(# Thickness Divided By) L=(4.92ft)*8*2 Note: T = 1.968ft/2 = 0.984ft L=78.72ft 1.2.12 F12 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 8.  Similar to 1.2.2 F2 1.2.13 F13 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type. The measured width and thickness were maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2.  Similar to 1.2.2 F2 1.2.14 F14 1.2.15 F15 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.16 F16 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.17 F20 1.2.18 F21 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  35  1.2.19 F22 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.20 F23 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.21 F24 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.22 F25 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.23 F27 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.24 F28 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 36  1.2.25 F29 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 3 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 3.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.26 F31 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.27 F32 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.28 F33 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.29 CF1 The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 3 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 3.  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.2.30 CF2  The length of this footing was adjusted to account for the multiple footings of this type, and/or because the thickness of the footing did not fall within the limits of the EIE. The measured width was maintained, however the length was multiplied by 2 to account for the thickness being reduced by a division of 2. Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  37  Similar to 1.2.11 F11 1.3 Slab on Grade Concrete Pad   1.3.1 CP1 1.4 Concrete Strip Footing 1.4.1 F30 1.4.2 SF1 1.4.3 SF2   1.4.4 SF3 Walls were either concrete block, wood, or concrete brick. However, each wall was labeled W followed by the number in which it was entered (i.e. the first wall was called W1). They were linear measurements, with the height measured from the profile drawings. Floors two through four were the same height, and so walls continuing through these three floors were considered one wall with a height three times the single floor height. Openings included windows and doors. All interior walls were assumed to have no window. Exterior walls were measured by using one meter strips. OnScreen will measure the length of wall accounted for while using a line thickness equal to one meter. For example a 10 meter high wall 5 meters long would have a wall area of 50 meters squared. On OnScreen, 10 one meter strips 5 meters long would be measured. This was done to account for the large windows present throughout the exterior wall. Area conditions were utilized to calculate the percent glazing area for the curtain walls, as well as the areas of the window openings. Windows were not counted directly, but instead the area of openings for windows was determined using the area function, and then divided by an average exterior window size. These assumptions were made so that a reasonable estimate could be made within the timeframe given. Some other assumptions and calculations were made in order to complete modeling of the walls for the FSC building, such as affecting the length of the concrete cast-in-place walls to accommodate the wall thickness limitation in the IE, and the assumption that interior steel stud walls were light gauge (25Ga) and exterior steel stud walls were heavy gauge (20Ga). 2.1 Concrete Block Wall 2.1.1 W1 2.1.2 W2 2.1.3 W3   2.1.4 W4 2.2 Steel Stud Walls 2.2.1 W5     Since this was an interior wall, 89mm thick Fiberglass Batt was assumed. It is also assumed that it is steel studs throughout the interior walls. No gypsum board was assumed to be present. 2.3 Conrete Brick Walls   2.3.1 W6 2.4 Steel Stud Walls 2.4.1 W7  Since this was an interior wall, 89mm thick Fiberglass Batt was assumed. It is also assumed that it is steel studs throughout the interior walls. No gypsum board was assumed to be present. 2.4.2 W8 (w/ Veneered Face) 2 Walls   Since this was an interior wall, 89mm thick Fiberglass Batt was assumed. It is also assumed that it is steel studs throughout the interior walls. No gypsum board was assumed to be present. Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 38  2.4.3 W9 (Curtain Wall)  The total length of the curtain walls were measured linearly from the floor plans. The average height of the FSC was then multiplied by the length to determine an average area. It was assumed that only one door for the east entrance is present. All columns were named C followed by the number in which they were entered (i.e. the first column is C1). The method used to measure column sizing was completely depended upon the metrics built into the IE. That is, the IE calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the following inputs; number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, supported span and live load. A grid system of columns had to be assumed even though it did not necessarily exist. An area that appeared to have a slight order to the column distribution was squared off and averaged for span between columns. For example, the foundation columns were broken into three areas. The main atrium in the FSC is an L-shape. The eight columns in the atrium were assumed to be one long line of columns with the spacing between them averaged as the span and the distance to the surrounding walls averaged as the bay size. 3.1 Concrete Column/Beams 3.1.1 C1  Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, the column bay and span size was estimated using multiple grid systems throughout the FSC. 3.1.2 C2  Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, the column bay and span size was estimated using multiple grid systems throughout the FSC. 3.1.3 C3  Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, the column bay and span size was estimated using multiple grid systems throughout the FSC. 3.1.4 C4  Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, the column bay and span size was estimated using multiple grid systems throughout the FSC. 3.1.5 C5  Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, the column bay and span size was estimated using multiple grid systems throughout the FSC. 3.1.6 C6 3 Mixed Columns & Beams  Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, the column bay and span size was estimated using multiple grid systems throughout the FSC. 4 Floors Floors included the roof and were labeled FL# for floors and R# for the roof. There were five floors and one roof for the FSC. However, the roof was broken into three parts to accommodate the three different materials use. The building envelope data was not available for the floors, and therefore average industry standards were assumed. Stairs were assumed to be steel and an area was determined from OnScreen. The average height of the stairs was then multiplied by the area giving a volume. Using online resources, the unit weight of rolled steel was used (7850 kg/m3) and was added to extra base materials. The values given though are fairly accurate since the steel stairs are not a significant part of the FSC. The floors were measured using area conditions. Much like in column and beams, the IE calculated the thickness of the material based on some basic variables regarding the assembly. These include; floor width, span, concrete strength, concrete flyash content and live load. Another assumption that had to be made in this assembly group was setting the concrete strength to 20 MPa, instead of the specified 25 MPa. This was due to the IE’s limitation to model only 20 MPa, 30 MPa or 60 MPa concrete strengths. Spans were also limited to no more than 10 meters. If a span was greater than 10 meters, the total area was then divided by 10 meters to determine the resulting length. Life Cycle Analysis UBC’s Forest Sciences Centre  39  4.1 Concrete Floors 4.1.1 FL1  Because of the limitations of the IE, spans were reduced to 30 ft. This was done by maintaining the same floor area, but reducing the span to 30 ft and increasing the length to account for the reduction.  Sited Span > 30ft Area=(Cited Length)*(Cited Span) Area=366.376ft*366.376ft Area=134,231ft2 Span =30ft, Length=Area/30ft Length=134,231ft2/30ft   Length=4,474ft 4.1.2 FL2  Because of the limitations of the IE, spans were reduced to 30 ft. This was done by maintaining the same floor area, but reducing the span to 30 ft and increasing the length to account for the reduction.  Similar to 4.1.1 FL1 4.1.3 FL3  Because of the limitations of the IE, spans were reduced to 30 ft. This was done by maintaining the same floor area, but reducing the span to 30 ft and increasing the length to account for the reduction.  Similar to 4.1.1 FL1 The roof was modeled using area conditions. The roof of the FSC was split into three catagories, a suspended slab for the main roof, an open web steel joist system, and glazing for the large skylight.  Once again the concrete strength was set to 20 MPa instead of the specified 25 MPa. Other than these there were no significant assumptions required to complete the takeoffs for the roof assemblies. 5.1 Roof 5.1.1 R1  Because of the limitations of the IE, spans were reduced to 30 ft. This was done by maintaining the same roof area, but reducing the span to 30 ft and increasing the length to account for the reduction.  Similar to 4.1.1 FL1 5.1.2 R2  Because of the limitations of the IE, spans were reduced to 30 ft. This was done by maintaining the same roof area, but reducing the span to 30 ft and increasing the length to account for the reduction.  Similar to 4.1.1 FL1 5 Roof  5.1.3 R3 Life Cycle Analysis of UBC Forest Sciences Centre 40   Because of the limitations of the IE, spans were reduced to 30 ft. This was done by maintaining the same roof area, but reducing the span to 30 ft and increasing the length to account for the reduction.  Similar to 4.1.1 FL1 The large Parallam columns within the FSC are not supporting any significant load. The only loads that they are supporting are the additional beams. Their main purpose is aesthetics only. When entering the Parallam column grid into the EIE, the loads that the columns are calculated to take would be greatly exaggerated. Since the Parallam columns are not used for structural support, they were added to extra base material. The length calculator in OnScreen was used and the columns were then multiplied by their average thickness. To account for uncertainty, an additional 5% was added. The steel staircases were also difficult to model in the IE, and therefore (as explained in floors), the area count was used in OnScreen to determine the total surface area of steel staircases throughout the FSC. Using the archeticual drawings, the average height of the steel staircases was then determined and multiplied by the surface area. The unit weight of rolled steel was used (7850 kg/m3) to determine the total weight of additional steel within the FSC. 6.1 Extra Materials 6.1.1 Extra Wood   See discription above 6.1.2 Steel 6 Extra Materials     See discription above     

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 2 0
Japan 2 0
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 2 0
Mountain View 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items