UBC Undergraduate Research

Chemistry Physics Annex- Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment Eduardo, Victor; Perez, Padilla 2010

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ChemPhys_PadillaV_FINAL.pdf [ 983.26kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077983.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077983+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077983.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077983+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077983+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077983+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0077983 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0077983.txt
Citation
1.0077983.ris

Full Text

UBC Social, Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report  Chemistry Physics Annex- Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment Victor Eduardo Padilla Perez University of British Columbia CIVL 498C March 2010  Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”  This study is part of a larger study – the UBC LCA Project – which is continually developing. As such the findings contained in this report should be considered preliminary as there may have been subsequent refinements since the initial posting of this report. If further information is required or if you would like to include details from this study in your research please contact rob.sianchuk@gmail.com.  1  Victor Eduardo Padilla Perez CIVL 498C - LCA  Chemistry Physics Annex- Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment  Abstract Even though LCA is a relatively new method used to assess the environmental impact of different products and processes, it has already been labeled as one of the most comprehensive and rigorous tools available to do so. The following report is part of North America's Largest Environmental Impact Study, Life Cycle Assessment of UBC Buildings, and presents a cradle-to-gate LCA study of the Chemistry-Physics Annex academic building located at the UBC using the TRACI methodology. It was found that even if the Chemistry-Physics Annex was built more than 20 years ago, its environmental impact measurements are comparable with much more recently built constructions, which sheds light on how diminutive has been the development of the construction industry over the last two decades towards better buildings practices that are less damaging for the environment. When conducting a sensitivity analysis on the Bill of Materials, it was found that the model is most sensitive to changes on the concrete composition. It is also been reported that a minor investment on improving the buildings insulation system can bring forth enormous energy savings versus the initial embodied energy of the materials used in the construction, with a seven years energy payback period. This translates into potential economic savings a lesser impact on the environment.  2  1. Introduction The Chemistry-Physics building, located  at  6221  University  Boulevard at the UBC, was built on 1989 as the most recent annex  for  the  Chemistry  Building, which was originally built  on  1915.  The  first  permanent building started at the Point Grey Campus. Due to financial problems of the provincial government due to the onset of the First World War, the construction was interrupted in 1915. The concrete skeleton stood unfinished until, following successful students' 1922 campaign that climaxed in a parade from downtown Vancouver to Pt. Grey, known as "The Great Trek", government floated a loan for the construction of University Buildings at Point Grey [1]. Building  Specific Characteristics of the Chemistry-Physics Annex  System Structure Floors Exterior Walls  Interior Walls  Concrete columns supporting concreted suspended slabs. Concrete Slab on Grade (SOG) in the basement. Suspended slabs for the rest of the floors. There are five different exterior walls, all made of cast in place concrete but with different envelopes. C – 200 mm cast in place concrete C1 – 200 mm cast in place concrete with 22 mm furring channels and 16 mm gypsum board. C2 – 200 mm cast in place concrete with 92 mm steel studs, 88 mm batting (vapor barrier) and 16 mm gypsum board. C3 – Similar to C2 but with 200 mm pipe space. C4 – 200 mm cast in place concrete with 38 mm rigid insulation and 16 mm gypsum board. On the first floor and on the balconies on each floor there are small sections of aluminum framed curtain walls. Steel studs and gypsum board partition in every floor. 3  Openings Roof  Low E tin glazed windows in most exterior walls. Interior doors and made both of solid wood and steel for the mechanical rooms. Exterior doors are made of steel except for the curtain walls. Top roof made of 38 mm gravel/filter fabric, 75 mm rigid insulation, 14 mm fiberboard and 13 mm gypsum board. No concrete beam. Small roof made of 38 mm gravel/filter fabric, 13 mm gypsum board, and steel deck over concrete beam. Table 1 Specific building’s characteristics by building system  The Chemistry-Physics Annex is an academic building intended for research and faculty, so the most of the rooms inside can be classified as offices, laboratories, mechanical rooms, and other laboratories with specialized equipment that is shared among most of the laboratories. The building was originally constructed for Chemistry alone, but housed in the beginning also Physics, Bacteriology and Public Health. The construction cost is not available in the UBC records. The main material used for its construction is exposed sandblasted and sealed colored architectural concrete. 2. Goal and Scope. 2.1 Goal of Study This life cycle analysis (LCA) of the Chemistry-Physics Annex of the Chemistry Building at the University of British Columbia was carried out as an exploratory study to determine the environmental impact of its design. This LCA of the Chemistry-Physics Annex is also part of a series of twenty-nine 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 Chemistry-Physics Annex. Exemplary applications of these references are the assessment of potential future performance upgrades to the structure and envelope of the Chemistry-Physics Annex. When this study is considered in conjunction with the twenty-nine 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 Chemistry-Physics Annex LCA can be seen as an 4  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 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. 2. 2 Scope of Study The product system being studied in this LCA is the structure and envelope of the Chemistry-Physics Annex 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 Chemistry-Physics Annex, 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, 5  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 4.0.64 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 Chemistry-Physics Annex 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 (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 (inclusive of raw material extraction), transportation of construction materials to site and their installation as structure and envelope assemblies of the Chemistry-Physics Annex. As this study is a cradle-to-gate assessment, the expected service life of the Chemistry-Physics Annex 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 Chemistry-Physics Annex, 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 6  •  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 ChemistryPhysics Annex. 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 generates a rough estimate of the energy energy payback period of investing in a better performing envelope. The primary sources of data used in modeling the structure and envelope of the Chemistry-Physics Annex are the original structural drawings from when the was initially constructed in 1989  The assemblies of the building that are modeled include the  foundation, columns and beams, floors, walls and roofs, as well as their associated envelope and/or openings (ie. doors and windows). 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 emerge in the Building Model section of this report 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:  7  The software OnScreen Take off was used to perform the takeoffs of the building, 75 different conditions were created to model the entire building, of which linear, area and count conditions were used to model the different assemblies: •  Columns and beams were accounted for using count conditions, and then the specific characteristics of the each column were inputted in the Athena Impact Estimator.  •  Floors were modeled as concrete suspended slabs using area conditions.  •  Both roof types were modeled using area conditions as well and inputted on the Athena Impact Estimator as steel joist roofs.  •  The foundations and the Slab on Grade were also modeled using area conditions. Since there were several types of foundations and some of them exceeded the maximum thickness that is allowed on the Athena Impact Estimator, the area was recalculated in some cases to compensate for the thickness difference.  •  Both the windows and doors openings were accounted for using count conditions, and for the windows an area condition was used to measure the area per window.  •  All of the different walls were measured using linear conditions.  Even though the use of the OnScreen Take off and the Athena Impact Estimator simplified the work, there were many challenges when performing both the take off and when inputting the data on the Athena I.E. These difficulties occurred due two main reasons: lack of information on the structural drawings provided to perform this LCA, and the quality of the drawings. Some of details on the drawings were missing (since the structural drawings referenced some other drawings that were not provided), and some parts of the drawings were blurry. Below, each assembly group will be introduced and the main assumptions made for each of them will be briefly mentioned. For more details about the assumptions please see the Assumptions Document in Appendix B. 3.2 Modeling and Assumptions: 3.2.1 Foundations: In the Athena I.E, SOG inputs are limited to a maximum of 200 mm thickness. Since the actual thicknesses for the SOG for the Chemistry Physics building is  8  thicker, the area measured in On-Screen Takeoff Pro was readjusted so that the SOG's total volume would be the same even with a thickness of only 200 mm. In addition the Athena I.E limits the thickness of footings to be between 19 mm and 500 mm thick. Since three of the footings exceeded 200mm, their areas were readjusted in order to maintain the same volume of footing even by using a different thickness. Moreover, The Athena I.E requires inputting the length and width values separately, so the square root of the areas was calculated in order to have both values. By doing this it is being assumed that all the areas were square-shaped. Some other assumptions, such as rebar type, were made in a case by case scenario depending on the footing type. Information of the concrete type and the % of fly-ash were not included in any of the drawings neither for the foundations nor the SOG, because of this it was assumed that all the foundations and SOG were built using 30mPa concrete with average fly-ash 3.2.2 Walls: The main assumptions taken for the walls because information of the concrete type and the % of fly-ash were not included in any of the drawings for the walls, and because of this it was assumed that all the concrete used to build walls was 30mPa concrete with average fly-ash. This assumption applies for all the walls Furthermore, both frame and glazing types for all the windows were not included in any of the drawings. Upon physical examination they appeared to be metal frame and standard glass. Aluminum frame and Standard Glazing were used as the Athena I.E inputs. When inputting data on the Athena Impact Estimator, only one window type is permitted per wall assembly, however steel stud walls had both types of windows. To solve this particular problem, the total length of the steel stud wall was divided on two different walls for the Athena I.E inputs according to the number of windows (555 fixed windows and 162 operable), so 77% of the total length of the wall has been assigned for fixed windows ( 1740 m) and 23% for operable windows (508 m). These assemblies were  called  Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_200mm_WindowFixed  and  Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_200mm_WindowOperable respectively. 9  The same ratio mentioned above was used for dividing the doors among the two wall types, 149 doors out of the total (193 doors in total) was assigned to the WindowFixed wall type and the rest, 44 doors were assigned to the OperableWindow wall type. Due to the Athena Impact Estimator limitations when modeling doors, even if some of the doors were slightly different in dimensions, all door openings were classified either as wood doors (solid wood door), or steel doors (steel interior door) and added in the Athena E.I with the standard size 32" x 7", and double doors were counted as two on the On-screen Take-off Pro. For the steel stud walls, no information on the sheathing type or stud spacing was provided on the drawings. OSB sheathing was used for the Athena I.E due its good performance at a lower price, and typical stud spacing of 400 o.c was also used since is most commonly used. In addition, according to the Athena I.E for non load-bearing steel framed wall used as interior partitions it is recommended to choose 25 Gauge stud weight for this option. Data on stud thickness is also missing, but one of the wall types information was available in the drawings, so the same stud thickness was used to model all the steel stud walls: 32x92. In addition 5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board was used for all the laboratories walls because in the “typical laboratories wall” structural drawing it was mentioned that fire rated board was used, and it was assumed that this feature applied for every door. 3.2.3 Columns and Beams: Data on the Live Load was not provided on the drawings, but 3.6 kPa was chosen because according to the Athena Impact Estimator it represents a typical mechanical/service room loading, and most rooms in the building are either laboratories or mechanical rooms. Beam Type is not specified on the drawings, so concrete will be used as input for the Athena I.E Bay size was measured on each floor. Nevertheless some columns were not built exactly with the same bay and span size, so the median value (6.7 m) was used as an input of the Athena Impact Estimators to avoid having a large impact on the data due some outliers.  10  3.2.4 Floors: Information of the concrete type and the % of fly-ash were not included in any of the drawings, because of this it was also assumed that all the concrete used to build floors was 30mPa concrete with average fly-ash to ensure consistency with the rest of the assumptions made for concrete assemblies. Just as with the Columns and Beams, live Load information was not provided on the drawings and 3.6 kPa was chosen for the same reasons already mentioned above. 3.2.5 Roofs: For the Steel Joist Roof no information on the decking type or the steel gauge was provided on the drawings, so OSB decking with a thickness of 15 mm was used for the Athena I.E. Information on the Steel gauge and joist type and spacing was also missing, so steel gauge 16 was used as input for the Athena I.E as well as joist 39x203 with a 400 mm spacing since these are the typical values used. 3.2.6 Stairs: Concrete stairs were modeled as footings (Stairs_Concrete_Main). Since both stairs on the building had the same thickness and width, the total length of stairs was measured to be used as one single input. And 3 m of material was also added to this input to account for the landings of the steel stairs that connect the 4th floor with the top floor. Yet again Information of the concrete type and the % of fly-ash were not included in any of the drawings, so the concrete used is 30mPa concrete with average fly-ash. The concrete stairs have both 10 and 15 m rebars, but Athena I.E only accepts one type so rebar 15 m will be used as input 3.2.7 Extra Basic Materials: XBM were used five times throughout the take-off in order to account for as many materials as possible and create a thorough model. For more details on how these calculations were done please see Appendix B. 3.2.7.1 Concrete Columns in the Basement: there are three concrete columns on the basement that help supporting the balconies located on floors 2nd-4th. To account for this material, the volume for each column was calculated (lenght * width * height) and summed together as one input of Concrete Extra Basic Material.  11  3.2.7.2 Concrete exterior shafts: The Chemistry-Physics Annex Building has 19 exterior shafts that go from the basement all the way to the roof. The material was accounted for as walls on each floor, however in order to consider the material on the roof, the volume of material used on the roof for each shaft was calculated to include the concrete used for the portion of the shafts on the roof. 3.2.7.3 Concrete Pavers: 300 x 300 mm concrete pavers on the first floor were counted using a linear condition, and then the concrete volume was calculated to account for the material. 3.2.7.4 Emanel Panels on exterior walls: Most of the exterior walls have Emanel Panel on the outside façade. In order to model these panels, standard glazing was used instead of enamel panel which was specified in the drawings because enamel panel is not an input option in the Athena I.E. 3.2.7.5 Steel Stairs connecting the 4th and the 5th floor: The same method that was used to account for the material on the concrete stairs was used for the steel stairs that connect the 4th and the 5th floor. 3.2.8 Structure and envelope materials that were not modeled: due to inherent limitations within the Athena Impact Estimator, to ensure consistency among the rest of the projects, and to reduce uncertainty some of the structural assemblies or envelope materials were not modeled. The materials that were left out of the model are: •  Ramp connecting Chemistry-Physics Annex with another building was not modeled because it was considered to be outside of the chosen boundary.  •  Glazing on interior doors due Athena I.E limitations on door modeling.  •  Ceramic tiles on bathroom’s walls to ensure consistency with the rest of the projects.  •  Since this model was only concerned on main structural assemblies, handrails, valances on walls, ducts, electric installation, pipes, different details on laboratories such as exhaust vents, sinks and office furniture were also left out of the model.  •  There are some differences between what was actually built and the specs on the drawings.  One of the main differences was found on the first floor on the 12  common area, were according to the drawings it was originally designed to be a large, open area. However some partitions were added to that area in order to create a reading area for students. See Picture 1 for details of this example. •  It is also important to mention that some other assemblies could have change, since was access was restricted to all of the laboratories and mechanicals rooms. Access to the fifth floor was totally restricted so to execute a visual inspection with the objective of comparing the structural drawings versus the actual building was impossible. All the known and unknown differences were left out of the model to reduce uncertainty when comparing the different models done as part of this effort to model all of the UBC buildings.  For detailed information on how the calculations associated with the assumptions were made, and for the rest of detailed assumptions that were not mentioned on this document please read the Assumptions Document in Appendix B.  Picture 1- Comparison between a large open area on the structural drawings (left) and what was actually found on site (right).  3.3 Bill of Materials: the following bill of materials was calculated based on the information inputted on the Athena Impact Estimator. Please see Table 2 for the Bill of Materials report generated by the Athena Impact Estimator:  13  B ill O f M a te ria ls R e p o rt M a te ria l Q ua ntity B a lla s t (a g g re g a te s to ne ) 7 6 1 8 5 .8 5 0 1 O rie nte d S tra nd B o a rd 1 7 7 7 2 .0 1 7 2 M o d ifie d B itum e n m e m b ra ne 1 0 4 4 5 .3 6 4 9 5 /8 " F ire -R a te d Typ e X G yp s um B o a rd 8 7 6 1 .9 9 9 R o o fing A s p ha lt 8 7 4 6 .9 3 8 9 P V C m e m b ra ne 5 9 6 5 .3 0 1 7 C o nc re te 3 0 M P a (flya s h a v) 5 3 4 6 .0 7 7 3 B a tt. R o c k w o o l 3 6 8 1 .7 0 8 E xtrud e d P o lys tyre ne 3 6 6 7 .2 9 5 4 6 m il P o lye thyle ne 3 5 5 1 .3 2 6 1 # 1 5 O rg a nic F e lt 2 6 9 4 .9 1 1 8 5 /8 " G yp s um F ib re G yp s um B o a rd 2 4 7 0 .5 1 0 6 S ta nd a rd G la zing 1 8 1 6 .9 9 E xp a nd e d P o lys tyre ne 1 5 9 7 .5 2 5 7 C o nc re te B lo ck s 1 3 1 0 .2 6 9 1 /2 " M o is ture R e s is ta nt G yp s um B o a rd 1 3 0 0 .1 4 5 B a tt. F ib e rg la s s 1 2 7 1 .3 2 9 1 E P D M m e m b ra ne 1 2 2 3 .3 4 3 1 /2 " G yp s um F ib re G yp s um B o a rd 1 1 2 9 .5 4 1 1 C o m m e rc ia l(2 6 g a .) S te e l C la d d ing 8 3 3 .3 3 3 1 B lo w n C e llulo s e 5 8 2 .7 6 7 9 3 m il P o lye thyle ne 5 0 8 .2 9 2 9 R e b a r, R o d , L ig ht S e c tio ns 2 6 3 .2 5 6 9 W a te r B a se d L a te x P a int 2 2 4 .8 3 9 8 G a lva nize d S tud s 5 6 .0 5 9 A lum inum 2 6 .0 5 5 2 S o ftw o o d P lyw o o d 2 4 .0 4 6 2 S m a ll D im e ns io n S o ftw o o d L um b e r, k iln-d rie d 1 8 .5 5 8 1 G la zing P a ne l 1 5 .4 9 6 9 S o lve nt B a s e d A lk yd P a int 1 4 .1 4 9 4 Jo int C o m p o und 1 2 .3 3 7 6 M o rta r 4 .1 6 1 7 G a lva nize d S he e t 4 .1 2 1 7 N a ils 2 .4 8 8 3 S c re w s N uts & B o lts 2 .0 0 5 W e ld e d W ire M e s h / L a d d e r W ire 1 .7 4 2 5 P a p e r Ta p e 0 .1 4 1 6 H o t R o lle d S he e t 0 .0 0 1 5  U nit kg m 2 (9 m m ) kg m2 kg kg m3 m 2 (2 5 m m ) m 2 (2 5 m m ) m2 m2 m2 m2 m 2 (2 5 m m ) B lo c k s m2 m 2 (2 5 m m ) kg m2 m2 m 2 (2 5 m m ) m2 To nne s L To nne s To nne s m 2 (9 m m ) m3 To nne s L To nne s m3 To nne s To nne s To nne s To nne s To nne s To nne s  Table 2 Chemistry Physics Annex Bill of Materials Report  Based on Table 2, the top five materials from a quantity perspective are: 1. Ballast (aggregate stone). 2. Oriented strand board. 3. Modified bitumen membrane. 4. 5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board. 5. Roofing asphalt. However, I personally believe that is necessary to broaden the “top materials” to also include PVC membrane and the Concrete, since these two materials not only are possible strong contributors to the building’s performance on each impact categories, but are also large in quantity. See below Table 3 for a shortened version of the Bill of Materials including only those materials that have been classified as “top materials” based on their quantity.  14  Bill Of Materials Report Material Ballast (aggregate stone) Oriented Strand Board Modified Bitumen membrane 5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board Roofing Asphalt PVC membrane Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av)  Quantity 76185.8501 17772.0172 10445.3649 8761.999 8746.9389 5965.3017 5346.0773  Unit kg m2 (9mm) kg m2 kg kg m3  Table 3 Top 7 materials of the Bill of Materials based on the amount of materials.  Out of these seven materials, four of them could have been greatly affected by the assumptions already mentioned on section 3.2. These materials are: Oriented Strand Board, 5/8” Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board, Roofing Asphalt and Concrete. Table 4 shows a cross reference between the top seven materials and the assemblies that were modeled which accounted for these quantities.  Material Ballast (aggregate stone)  Bill Of Materials Report Comments Typical roofing aggregate. Can be used to augment aggregate usage elsewhere in project too  Oriented Strand Board  9mm thickness OSB  All the "Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_ " walls, and Roof_SteelJoist_Top, Roof_SteelJoist_Small  Modified Bitumen membrane  In 2-ply roofing application density is 34 kg/m2 or 695lbs/square (100 sq.ft.). A gypsum core wall panel with additives to enhance fire resistance of the core and surfaced with paper on front, back, and long edges  Roof_SteelJoist_Top  5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board  Roofing Asphalt PVC membrane Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av)  Provided on kg, roofing material. Provided on m2 With flyash concentrations of average (9%) cement replacement .  Assemblies names Roof_SteelJoist_Top, Roof_SteelJoist_Small  Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_200mm_WindowFixed , Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_200mm_WindowOperable, Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_DoorF_200mm, Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_DoorB_200mm, Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_DoorJ_200mm Roof_SteelJoist_Top, Roof_SteelJoist_Small Roof_SteelJoist_Top Concrete Slab-on-Grade (SOG), all the Concrete Footings (Footing_thickness_type), concrete walls (Wall_Concrete_identifier_thickness), Floor_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm, Stairs_Concrete_Main, and all the Concrete Extra Basica Materials (XBM_Columns_Concrete_Basement, XBM_Wall_Concrete_ExteriorShaft, XBM_Walls_Concrete_300x300mm Pavers)  Table 4 Assemblies sources of the Top 7 materials.  It is worthwhile mentioning that all of the assemblies that contributed to the quantities of the top 7 largest materials were subjected to many assumptions and these assumptions will most likely have an impact on the model´s results. Examples of these assumptions are that all of the concrete modeled in the building is 30 MPa concrete with average fly15  ash, but information on the actual concrete used was not available. In addition, details on the sheathing type of the gypsum walls were not provided so OSB was chosen due its better performance. This too is an important assumption, even if OSB provides a good structural performance at a lower cost, assuming that all the gypsum sheathing used was OSB could be also over-simplistic, especially because OSB has the disadvantage of being less moisture resistant. Many assumptions were made during the modeling of the building affects these materials; nonetheless in order to avoid repetition on this report please refer to section 3.2 for the main assumptions, or see the Assumptions Document in Appendix B. On section 4, a sensitivity analysis will measure the possible effects that these materials could have had on the model, and how those effects could have changed in the assumptions were made differently. 4. Summary Measures The TRACI impact assessment categories included in this study are listed below. Please see Table 5 for the summary measures by Life Cycle Stage: •  Global warming potential: Global warming potential is a reference measure. GWP is expressed on an equivalency basis relative to CO2. Carbon dioxide is the common reference standard for global warming or greenhouse gas effects. All other greenhouse gases are referred to as having a "CO2 equivalence effect". This effect has a time horizon due to the atmospheric reactivity or stability of the various contributing gases over time. As yet, no consensus has been reached among policy makers about the most appropriate time horizon for greenhouse gas calculations. The International Panel on Climate Change100-year time horizon figures have been used here as a basis for the equivalence index: CO2 Equivalent kg = CO2 kg + (CH4 kg x 23) + (N2O kg x 296). The Athena Impact Estimator uses data developed by a detailed life cycle modeling approach; all relevant process emissions of greenhouse gases are included in the resultant global warming potential index [3].  •  Acidification potential: Acidification is a more regional rather than global impact effecting human health when high concentrations of NOx and SO2 are attained. The 16  AP of an air or water emission is calculated on the basis of its H+ equivalence effect on a mass basis [3]. •  Eutrophication potential: is the fertilization of surface waters by nutrients that were previously scarce. When a previously scarce or limiting nutrient is added to a water body it leads to the proliferation of aquatic photosynthetic plant life. This may lead to a chain of further consequences ranging from foul odours to the death of fish. The calculated result is expressed on an equivalent mass of nitrogen (N) basis [3].  •  Ozone depletion potential: Stratospheric ozone depletion potential accounts for impacts related to the reduction of the protective ozone layer within the stratosphere caused by emissions of ozone depleting substances (CFCs, HFCs, and halons). The ozone depletion potential of each of the contributing substances is characterized relative to CFC-11 mass equivalent [3].  •  Photochemical smog potential: Under certain climatic conditions, air emissions from industry and transportation can produce photochemical smog. The “smog” indicator is expressed on a mass of equivalent NOx basis [3].  •  Human health respiratory effects potential: Particulate matter of various sizes (PM10 and PM2.5) have a considerable impact on human health. The EPA has identified "particulates" as the number one cause of human health deterioration due to its impact on the human respiratory system – asthma, bronchitis, acute pulmonary disease, etc. The Athena Institute used TRACI’s "Human Health Particulates from Mobile Sources" characterization factor, on an equivalent PM2.5 basis [3].  •  Weighted raw resource use: The Athena Impact Estimator approach to account for the raw resource use, was to survey a number of resource extraction and environmental specialists across Canada to develop subjective scores of the relative effects of different resource extraction activities. The scores reflect the expert panel ranking of the effects of extraction activities relative to each other for each of several impact dimensions. The scores were combined into a set of resource-specific index numbers, which are applied in the Impact Estimator as weights to the amounts of raw resources used to manufacture each building product. [3].  •  Primary energy consumption: primary energy is reported in mega-joules (MJ). Embodied primary energy includes all energy, direct and indirect, used to transform 17  or transport raw materials into products and buildings, including inherent energy contained in raw or feedstock materials that are also used as common energy sources. In addition, the Impact Estimator captures the indirect energy use associated with processing, transporting, converting and delivering fuel and energy [3]. As it was already mentioned on the Goal and Scope, the expected service life of the Chemistry-Physics Annex 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.  Summary Measure Table By Life Cycle Stages  3 & .2 '  + 4  3 8( 5 &  6 7 4 -(.+" /( $% 00 2  /01 3$% / /( $%  &  '( $% ") ! * +,+ $%  $%  !"#  Table 5 Summary measures by Life Cycle Stage  In order to facilitate comparison with the rest of the models performed during this term, the summary measures were also expressed on a square foot finished floor area of academic building basis. The value provided was 85,326 ft2; however since it is unsure how this value was calculated, and in order to guarantee method consistency when calculating the square footage. The square foot of finished floor area was measured on the Onscreen Take-Off. The value calculated using this method was 7,967 m2 which when converted to square feet is 85,756.07 ft2. The value is similar to the one provided, so we can reach to the conclusion that the measuring method used was adequate. Table 6 presents the summary measures by square foot finished floor area.  18  Summary Measure Table of Life Cycle Stages by Square foot of finished floor area  3 & .2 '  + 4  3 8( 5 &  6 7 4 -(.+" /( $% 00 2  /01 3$% / /( $%  &  '( $% ") ! * +,+  $%  !"#  $%  Table 6 Summary measures (LCS) by square foot finished floor area.  When comparing the values on Table 6 with the values from previous models done on other UBC buildings [4], it was found that these values fall within an acceptable range. They are 28% higher than the average from the rest of the finished models, but this average also includes buildings that had both wood on its structure assemblies and the interior walls. When comparing the Chemistry Physics Building Annex with other concrete buildings, the variance is only of 7% versus the average for most of the categories, and slightly higher for the Ozone Depletion Potential (59%). Figure 1 presents a graph comparing the values versus similar buildings previously modeled. The dashed yellow line represents the average of these five compared buildings. It is evident from the graph that the final results for the Chemistry Physics Building Annex are close to the average values in all of the impact categories.  19  Figure 1 Comparison of summary measures (LCS) by square foot finished floor area of similar UBC buildings.  4.1 Sensitivity Analysis It is recognized that a LCA practitioner has to deal with uncertainty and variability all throughout the process when performing a LCA study. LCA predicts potential effects, and estimates risks [5]. Because of this, one could argue that results of LCA would be meaningless, as the uncertainties associated with these results would overshadow the results themselves [6]; however in order to reduce the impact of uncertainty on a study we can explicitly incorporate it. One way to incorporate uncertainty on any LCA study is to perform sensitivity analyses, which could even improve the credibility of an LCA study because it may show that the contribution of an “uncertain input data” to the outcome of the model is small or negligible, or it may express the result as a probability, thereby stating the degree of uncertainty [7]. To address this issue, the results of a sensitivity analysis done on the seven top materials will be presented on this section.  20  The results of the first sensitivity analysis are shown on Table 7. The analysis was done by increasing the quantity of the studied by 10%, so that we can measure the impact on that material over the total impact of the building.  Impact Category  % Difference by changing Material 1  Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  % Difference by changing Material 2  0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%  % Difference by changing Material 3  0.37% 0.30% 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% 0.23% 6.60% 0.02%  % Difference by changing Material 4  0.20% 0.01% 0.04% 0.06% 0.04% 0.01% 0.00% 0.05%  0.19% 0.06% 0.12% 0.15% 0.15% 0.03% 0.00% 0.04%  % Difference by changing Material 5  % Difference by changing Material 6  0.35% 0.01% 0.17% 0.20% 0.12% 0.06% 0.00% 0.14%  % Difference by changing Material 7  0.19% 0.01% 0.07% 0.14% 0.05% 0.02% 0.00% 0.05%  Table 7 Sensitivity Analysis results by increasing 10% the amount of the top 7 materials.  Most of the materials included on the first sensitivity analysis did not have an important effect on the overall quantity of the model. Only Material 7 (concrete) had an important effect on the model, so a second sensitivity analysis was performed. The results are shown in Table 8. The five scenarios studied on this second analysis were: 8. Changing Concrete from 30 MPa to 20 Mpa 9. Changing Concrete from 30 MPa to 60 Mpa 10. Changing fly ash % from average to 25% 11. Changing fly ash % from average to 35% 12. Increasing standard glazing by 10% (taking into account the 404% scrap percentage on the Athena Impact Estimator) since this was one of the major assumptions made due the impossibility of modeling exterior “enamel panels” on the Athena Impact Estimator.  Impact Category Primary Energy Consumption Weighted Resource Use Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential HH Respiratory Effects Potential Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential Smog Potential  % Difference with 20 Mpa Concrete  -6.18% -3.02% -13.07% -12.30% -8.62% -7.35% -5.66% -13.40%  % Difference with 60 Mpa Concrete  2.98% 3.29% 6.13% 5.76% 4.15% 3.42% 2.62% 6.23%  % Difference with 25% fly ash  -3.51% -2.29% -8.17% -7.64% -5.50% -4.55% -3.50% -8.29%  % Difference with 35% fly ash  -5.41% -2.65% -12.81% -11.98% -8.59% -7.14% -5.48% -13.00%  % Difference by changing std glazing  0.01% 0.01% 0.04% 0.05% 0.18% 0.03% 0.00% 0.05%  21  3.79% 8.81% 6.62% 6.18% 5.26% 3.60% 2.71% 6.55%  Table 8 Second Sensitivity Analysis results.  As we can see on the results of the second sensitivity analysis, any change either on the concrete type or on the fly ash percentage has a great impact on the overall results of the model. On the other hand, changing the amount of the standard glazing used to model the enamel panels did not had an significant impact on the model, so on further LCA studies it is recommended to check the possibility of modeling enamel panels differently, maybe by using a combination of glazing and metal; which are the two main components of enamel. Figure 2 displays a summary of the sensitivity analysis performed on each of the 12 different scenarios. It comes as no surprise that based on this analysis is clear that the model is more sensitivity to changes on either the concrete quantity (scenario 7) or the concrete composition (scenarios 8 to 11).  !  ( ) * )!  ) +'  22 $ ,5  11 % 6  )  , ) +'  ) +'  7  - .' /  " #$  0% # 1% - .' /  - .' /  "% 8  % &  '  )+  )  12 3 - . ' /  ) +' 4 - . ' / ) +' 4 , 9 - . ' /  Figure 2 Sensitivity Analysis results for each scenario.  By changing the concrete type from 30 MPa to 20MPa the Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, and Smog Potential dropped -13.07%, -12.30% and 13.40% respectively which shows that the model is highly sensitive to the concrete composition used, so if we could have more detailed information on the concrete used we could eliminate a great deal of uncertainty on the model. Likewise the percentage of fly ash also had a large impact on Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, and Smog Potential. These three categories dropped -12.81%, 11.98% and 13.00% respectively by changing the fly ash percentage from average to 35%. This effect is 22  understandable once we take into account that all these categories are related to air emissions, and the production of concrete is one of the major contributors of air emissions on the planet. Sensitivity analysis may also help on the design phase of every building when deciding which materials to use when erecting the building to reduce its future overall impact, and when renovations are needed for an already existing building so that the new materials used help to reduce the buildings impact. Even if the sensitivity analysis performed for this model was not extensive, and it only included eight of the materials in the Bill of Materials, is important to mention stress that it is a powerful tool to measure a building´s impact, and is recommended to use an extensive version of this analysis when the results are to be used on real life applications. In the next section of this report, an analysis on the building performance will be done to discuss the materials, components, and/or assemblies that improve the building performance from an embodied energy and/or operating energy perspective. 5. Buildings Performance The purpose of this section is to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the insulation in the Chemistry-Physics Building Annex. In order to do this a simple heat Loss model was used which strived to describe the rate at which the building loses heat with the current insulating system. To guaranty consistency with the rest of the models performed, the building will be regarded as a simple box in which energy is flowing from higher (inside of the building) to lower temperatures. This energy exchange will be measured taking into account only four three different assemblies: the exterior walls, exterior windows and the roof, and a number of factors that would only elevate the complexity of the building will be left out of this analysis since it would add uncertainty to the model. The exterior wall, windows and roof areas were measured using the OnScreen TakeOff. Based on the measured areas, Resistivity Values (R) were assigned to each of the assemblies, and a weighted average is assigned for the entire building (Rt). When 23  measuring the area, only drawings for the east, and south elevations were available, so the north elevation was assumed to be similar to the south, and the east elevation was calculated by multiplying the wall length by the height on each floor. The total window was subtracted from the measured exterior walls. R-Value (ft2.degF.h/BTU) Total Area (ft2) 'Current' Building 'Improved' Building 38776.34144 1.44 18 Exterior Wall 7,717.72 3.45 3.45 Window 16318.08819 14.76 40 Roof 62812.1534 5.15 21.93 Weighted Average  Table 9 R-Values for Current and Improved buildings conditions.  According to the drawings provided, the type of insulation used in some of the walls is batt insulation and rigid insulation (modeled as Polystyrene Extruded), however only C4 and C3 wall types had insulation added on the model (based on the information provided on the structural drawings), so an averaged R-value for the exterior walls was used (walls C4 and C3 represent 10.1% and 1.6% respectively of the total exterior walls). The specific type of windows was not mentioned on the drawings, but they were modeled as “Low E Silver Argon Filled Glazing”, so to have consistency among the entire model the insulation will also be considered the same. Table 9 shows the measured areas, the assigned R-values for each of the assemblies and the calculated current Rt value for the building. In order to increase the R-value for the building insulation material was added on the Athena Impact Estimator both to the roof and the exterior walls. Using equation 1 the annual maximum, minimum and mean heat loss was calculated for both “current” and “improved” conditions: Q = (1/R) x A x T)  (Eq1)  Where, R = Calculated R-Value in ft2 ºF h/BTU (these are the Imperial units); A = Assembly of interest ft2, and  T = Inside Temperature – Outside Temperature in ºF  (these are given in the Performance_InputSheet.xls calculation sheet). Once the heat loss values were calculated, the initial invested embodied energy into materials (in Joules) for each of the ‘Current’ and ‘Improved’ buildings was added at year zero (0). Using those values, an “Annual Energy Usage (J)” plot was made for 80 years of operation for both 24  the embodied materials energy and the heat loss were in order to calculate the “energy payback” period of investing in a better insulation system. Figure 3 shows the results of these calculations. 200,000.00  180,000.00  160,000.00  140,000.00  Energy Loss (GJ)  120,000.00  100,000.00  80,000.00  60,000.00  40,000.00  20,000.00  0.00  Years  Current  Improved  Payback Point  Figure 3 Heat Losses per year for Current and Improved Insulation Conditions  5.1 Comments on Changing the Insulation The energy payback period of adding extra insulation on the roof is less than seven years. If we take into account that the building was originally constructed on 1989, by adding only 132 mm of Extruded Polystyrene on the roof, and 84.12 mm on some of the exterior walls; which would represent only a 37.1% increase (9447597.07 MJ) over the total primary energy consumption, as early as 1996 the building would have already reach the energy payback period. And by 2010 the building would have already saved 150,146,292.04 MJ, which represents much more than the total energy embodied on the actual construction of the building (590% compared to the modeled primary energy). Based only on this parameter I would strongly recommend to perform this type of analysis every time a building is designed. The analysis is simple, and the results suggest that the energy performance of a building can increase dramatically over the years by increasing the original investment by a small fraction, and eventually one would end up saving much more energy that the total embodied materials energy used originally on the construction.  25  Nevertheless even if from an “embodied materials energy” perspective the huge benefits of investing on extra insulation are obvious, we still need to take into account several factors such as logistics issued of increasing the insulation once the original structure has been installed, structural concerns of adding more weight to the roof and how this would affect the rest of the materials (i.e. foundations and columns), the specific needs for the roofs, how the building users might affect the performance of the building insulation system, budget limitations, and last but not least the environmental impacts associated with increasing the insulation thickness for the roof. Even if the Primary Energy Impact Category increased only 37.1%, the rest of the categories are also affected such as the Smog Potential which increased by 79%, so it raises the question on how to calculate the “payback” period for the rest of the categories. 6.0 Conclusions The results of an LCA study done on the Chemistry-Physics Annex Building were presented throughout this report. The most important outcomes of this LCA study are the establishment of a materials inventory and environmental impact references for the Chemistry-Physics Annex. Additionally a sensitivity analysis and a basic Heat Loss model were performed to measure the impact of changing materials both on the energy consumption model of the building and its environmental impact. The key findings of this project are summarized below: •  When comparing the Chemistry Physics Building Annex category impacts with other concrete buildings, is only 7% higher than the average for most of the categories and slightly higher for the Ozone Depletion Potential (59%).  •  Based on the Bill of Materials we can conclude that the larger materials from a quantity perspective are not necessarily the drives for the building´s impact. Seven different materials were studied based on their quantity and the Pareto Law (80% of the effects are caused by 20% of the causes); which was applied based on the materials quantity, and it was found that 18% of the materials amount for 80% of total quantity of raw materials used in construction.  •  As it was expected, the concrete type and the fly ash percentage had the greater impact on the overall results of the model. It has been proven that increasing the 26  amount of fly-ash used on the concrete composition could be beneficial to the structural properties of the concrete. Fly ash had a large impact on Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, and Smog Potential. These three categories dropped -12.81%, 11.98% and 13.00% respectively by changing the fly ash percentage from average to 35%. This is an important finding and it should be taken into consideration when designing new buildings at the UBC, and if possible increasing the quantity of fly ash used on future project. •  Furthermore, when looking into the buildings energy performance it was found that by adding only 132 mm of Extruded Polystyrene on the roof, and 84.12 mm on some of the exterior walls; which would represent only a 37.1% increase over total primary energy consumption, the energy payback period is less than seven years. And by 2010 the building would have already saved 590% more energy than the one used initially on the construction. However as it was already pointed out, these are the results of a very simple heat loss model, and there are much more factors that play an important role that need to be considered.  6.1 Future Work Even if the main findings of this model have been presented, the work is far from finished. In order to do perform a more comprehensive study is important to perform an in-depth study of materials and energy flows in order to justify the results and recommendations from both the sensitivity analysis and the building’s energy performance sections. When choosing the “top materials” for the sensitivity analysis that not all of the materials have the same unit, so using the method for choosing the “top materials” might not have been the most adequate. If further LCA work were to be done on this building, then it is recommended to choose the top materials based on their impact over the total buildings environmental impact, but in order to do this it would have been necessary to perform a sensitivity analysis on each material on the BoM.  27  Finally, for a future and more in-depth work it would be beneficial to perform the LCA study with the complete set of both architectural and structural drawings. This would reduce the uncertainty associated with the lack of information, and it would also facilitate the process.  References: [1] UBC Archives [2] PATH, A Public-Private Partnership for Advanced Housing Technology, “OSB vs. Plywood”, December 2007. Original content can be accessed on: http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=17336 [3] The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute’s Impact Estimator (IE) for buildings, Software Database on Impact Categories. [4] Previous LCA results for the models performed on the Summer Term 2009. Provided by Rob Sianchuk, B.Sc. WPP, M.A.Sc. Candidate. [5] Mark A. J. Huijbregts, Wim Gilijamse, Ad M. J. Ragas, and Lucas Reijnders, Evaluating Uncertainty in Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. A Case Study Comparing Two Insulation Options for a Dutch One-Family Dwelling, Environmental Science and Technology, 2003, p.p.: 2600–2608. [6] Stuart Ross, David Evans, Michael Webber, How LCA Studies Deal with Uncertainty, The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2002, p.p.: 47-52 [7] Reinout Heijungsa and Mark A.J. Huijbregts, A Review of Approaches to Treat Uncertainty in LCA, Published in: Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial Meeting of iEMSs, Complexity and integrated resources management, 14-17 June 2004, Osnabrück, Germany, p.p.: 332-339  28  IE Inputs Document - Chemistry Physics Assembly Group 1 Foundation  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Input Fields  Input Values Known/ Measured  EIE Inputs  1.1 Concrete Slabon-Grade 1.1.1 SOG_290  1928.5 Length (m)  36.47  43.91  Width (m)  36.47  43.91  Thickness (mm)  290  0.2  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Length (m)  2  2  Width (m)  2  2  Thickness (mm)  200  200  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  15  15  Length (m)  12.80624847  12.80624847  Width (m)  12.80624847  12.81  Thickness (mm)  250  250  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  15  15  Length (m)  1.732050808  1.732050808  Width (m)  1.2 Concrete Footing 1.2.1 Footing_200_Pit  Rebar 1.2.2 Footing_250_E_widestrip  Rebar 1.2.3 Footing_250_L  1.732050808  1.732050808  Thickness (mm)  250  250  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  29  Concrete flyash %  -  average  15  15  Length (m)  3  3  Width (m)  3  3  Thickness (mm)  250  250  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  15  15  Length (m)  4.242640687  4.242640687  Width (m)  Rebar 1.2.4 Footing_250_Multi_2  Rebar 1.2.5 Footing_300_F_widestrip  4.242640687  4.24  Thickness (mm)  300  300  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  20  20  Length (m)  5.291502622  5.291502622  Width (m)  5.291502622  5.29  Thickness (mm)  450  450  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Rebar 1.2.6 Footing_450_H_widestrip  Concrete flyash %  -  average  20  20  Length (m)  2.828427125  2.828427125  Width (m)  2.828427125  2.828427125  Thickness (mm)  450  450  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  15  15  Length (m)  9.110433579  9.110433579  Width (m)  9.110433579  9.11  Thickness (mm)  500  500  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  20  20  Length (m)  7.615773106  7.615773106  Width (m)  7.615773106  7.62  Thickness (mm)  500  500  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  15  15  4  4  4  4.00  500  500  Rebar 1.2.7 Footing_450_K_widestrip  Rebar 1.2.8 Footing_500_A  Rebar 1.2.9 Footing_500_G  Rebar 1.2.10 Footing_500_J Length (m) Width (m) Thickness (mm)  30  Concrete (mPa) Concrete flyash %  -  30  -  average  15  15  Length (m)  8.246211251  8.246211251  Width (m)  Rebar 1.2.11 Footing_500_Multi  8.246211251  8.25  Thickness (mm)  500  500  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  -  average  20  20  Concrete flyash % Rebar 1.2.12 Footing_600_D Length (m)  5.196152423  9  Width (m)  5.196152423  9.00  Thickness (mm)  600  200  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  20  20  Rebar 1.2.13 Footing_650_C Length (m)  7.211102551  13  Width (m)  7.211102551  13.00  Thickness (mm)  650.00  200  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  20  20  Rebar 1.2.14 Footing_750_B  26  97.49999999  Length (m)  5.099019514  9.874208829  Width (m)  5.099019514  9.87  Thickness (mm)  750.00  200  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  25  20  Length (m)  1394  1,394.00  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Thickness (mm)  200  200  Concrete (MPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  15  15  Number of Doors  6  Door Type  -  6 Steel Interior Door  Length (m)  57  71.25  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Thickness (mm)  250  200  Concrete (MPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar 2 Walls 2.1 Concrete 2.1.1 Wall_Concrete_200mm  Rebar Door Opening  2.1.2 Wall_Concrete_250mm  31  Rebar  15  15  2.1.3 Wall_Concrete_C4_200mm  Door Opening  Length (m)  265  265  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Thickness (mm)  200  200  Concrete (MPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Rebar  15  15  Number of Doors  13  13 Steel Interior Door  Door Type Envelope  Category Material Thickness (mm)  Envelope 2  Insulation Rigid Insulation  Insulation Polystyrene Extruded  38.1  1.5"  Category  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  12.7  0.5 "  Length (m)  751  751.00  Height (m)  1.98  1.98  Thickness (mm)  200  200  Concrete (MPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  10  15  Thickness (mm) 2.1.4 Wall_Concrete_Half_Exterior_200mm  Rebar  2.2 Concrete Block Wall 2.2.1 Wall_ConcreteBlock_200mm  Length (m)  26  26  Height (m)  200  200  -  15  Length (m)  2248  1740  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight  -  25  Stud Thickness Number of Windows  -  39x92  555  555  -  Aluminum Frame  Rebar 2.3 Steel Stud  2.3.1 Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_200mm_WindowFixed  Window Opening Fixed  Frame Type  32  -  Standard Glazing  1  1  193  Glazing Type Total Window Area (m^2) Door Opening  Number of Doors  -  149 Solid Wood Door  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  16  0.5 "  Door Type Envelope  Category Material  2.3.1b Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_200mm_WindowOperable  Window Opening Operable  Door Opening  Thickness (mm)  Length (m)  2248  508  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight  -  25  Stud Thickness Number of Windows  -  39x92  162  162  Frame Type  -  Aluminum Frame  Glazing Type Total Window Area (m^2)  -  Standard Glazing  1  1  193 -  44 Solid Wood Door  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  16  0.5 "  Number of Doors Door Type  Envelope  Category Material Thickness (mm)  2.3.2 Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_DoorF_200mm  Door Opening  Length (m)  3  3  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight  -  25  Stud Thickness  -  39x92  Number of Doors  4  4  33  -  Steel Interior Door  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  16  5/8 "  Length (m)  4  4  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight  -  25  Door Type Envelope  Category Material Thickness (mm)  2.3.3 Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_DoorB_200mm  Door Opening  Envelope  Stud Thickness  -  39x92  Number of Doors  2  Door Type  -  2 Steel Interior Door  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  16  5/8 "  Category Material Thickness (mm)  2.3.4 Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_DoorJ_200mm  Door Opening  Length (m)  26  26  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight  -  25  Stud Thickness  -  39x92  Number of Doors  3 -  3 Steel Interior Door  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board Fire Rated  16  0.5 "  Door Type Envelope  Category Material Thickness (mm)  2.3.5 Wall_SteelStud_C1_200mm  Door Opening  Length (m)  197  197  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight  -  25  Stud Thickness  -  39x92  13  13 Steel Interior Door  Number of Doors Door Type  -  34  Envelope  Category  Furring Channel  Material  22 mm Furring Channel  Cladding Steel Cladding - Commercial (26 ga.)  22  -  Thickness Envelope 2  Category  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  16  5/8 "  Thickness 2.3.6 Wall_SteelStud_C2_200mm Length (m)  223  223  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight Stud Thickness Door Opening  -  25  92  92  3  3 Steel Interior Door  Number of Doors Door Type  Envelope  Category  Vapour Barrier  Material  -  Thickness Envelope 2  -  -  Category  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Thickness Envelope 3  Vapour Barrier Polyethylene 6 mil  Category Material Thickness  16  5/8 "  Insulation  Insulation  Rockwool Batt  Rockwool Batt  88  88  2.3.7 Wall_SteelStud_C3_400mm Length (m)  40  40  Height (m)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight Stud Thickness Door Opening  -  25  92  92  4  4 Steel Interior Door  Number of Doors Door Type  Envelope  Envelope 2  Category Material  -  Vapour Barrier Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness  -  -  Category  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Thickness Envelope 3  Vapour Barrier  Category  16  5/8 "  Insulation  Insulation  35  Material Thickness  Rockwool Batt  Rockwool Batt  88  88  2.3.8 Wall_SteelStud_Sound_200mm  Envelope  Length (ft)  138  138  Height (ft)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight  -  25  Stud Thickness  -  39x92  Insulation  Insulation  Category Material  Rockwool Batt  Rockwool Batt  Thickness  -  26  Length (ft)  121  121  Height (ft)  3.96  3.96  Sheathing Type  -  OSB  Stud Spacing  -  400 o.c  Stud Weight  -  25  2.3.9 Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_Bathroom_200mm  Envelope  Stud Thickness  -  39x92  Category  -  Material  -  Thickness  -  Vapour Barrier Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  2.4 Curtain Wall 2.2.1 Wall_Curtain_Glass  Door Opening  3 Columns and Beams  Length (m)  119  119  Height (m) % Viewable Glazing % Viewable Spandrel Spandrel Panel Type  3.96  3.96  -  90%  -  10% Metal Spandrel Panel  Thickness of Insulation  -  0  Number of Doors  4  Door Type  -  4 Aluminum Exterior Door 80% Glazing  Number of Beams Number of Columns  8  8  3.1 Concrete Column 3.1.1 Column_Concrete_Basement  Floor to floor  19  19  3.96  3.96  36  height (m) Bay sizes (m) Supported span (m)  6.70  6.7  6.70  6.7  Live load (kPa)  -  3.6  Beam Type  -  Concrete  11  11  21  21  3.96  3.96  6.70  6.7  6.70  6.7  3.1.2 Column_Concrete_Floor1 Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (m) Bay sizes (m) Supported span (m) Live load (kPa)  -  3.6  Beam Type  -  Concrete  11  11  21  21  3.96  3.96  6.70  6.7  6.70  6.7  3.1.3 Column_Concrete_Floor2 Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (m) Bay sizes (m) Supported span (m) Live load (kPa)  -  3.6  Beam Type  -  Concrete  11  11  21  21  3.96  3.96  6.70  6.7  6.70  6.7  3.1.4 Column_Concrete_Floor3 Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (m) Bay sizes (m) Supported span (m) Live load (kPa)  -  3.6  Beam Type  -  Concrete  Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (m)  8  8  17  17  3.96  3.96  6.70  6.7  6.70  6.7  Live load (kPa)  -  3.6  Beam Type  -  Concrete  Beam Type  -  Concrete  3.1.5 Column_Concrete_Floor4  Bay sizes (m) Supported span (m)  37  3.1.6 Column_Concrete_Floor5 Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (m) Bay sizes (m) Supported span (m)  4 Floors  7  7  14  14  3.96  3.96  6.70  6.7  6.70  6.7  Live load (kPa)  -  3.6  Beam Type  -  Concrete  730.974359  730.974359  9.75  9.75  4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab 4.1.1 Floor_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm Floor Width (m) Span (m) Concrete (MPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  Life load (kPa)  -  3.6  Roof Width (m)  214.91  214.9090909  5 Roof 5.1 Steel Joist Roof 5.1.1 Roof_SteelJoist_Top Roof Length (m)  Envelope  5.50  5.50  Decking Type  -  OSB  Decking Thickness  -  15 mm  Steel Gauge  -  16  Joist Type  -  39x203  Joist Spacing  -  400 mm Roof Envelopes Ballast (aggregate stones)  Category Material Thickness  Envelope 2  Category Material Thickness  Envelope 3  Category Material Thickness  Envelope 4  Category  Roof Envelopes Gravel / Filler Fabric 38  Insulation Rigid Insulation 75  PVC Membrane Roofing System Polystyrene Extruded  Standard Modified Bitumen Roofing System Fiberglass + gypsum  75 Standard Modified Bitumen Roofing System Fiberglass + gypsum  26  26  Vapour Barrier  Material  -  Vapour Barrier Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness  -  -  38  5.1.2 Roof_SteelJoist_Small  Envelope  Roof Width (m)  83.45  Roof Length (m)  5.50  5.50  Decking Type  -  OSB  Decking Thickness  -  15 mm  Steel Gauge  -  16  Joist Type  -  39x203  Joist Spacing  -  Gravel / Filler Fabric  400 mm Roof Envelopes Ballast (aggregate stones)  38  -  Category Material Thickness  Envelope 2  6 Stairs  Roof Envelopes  83.45454545  Category  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Thickness  16  5/8"  Length (m)  33  69  6.1 Concrete Footing as Stairs 6.1.1 Stairs_Concrete_Main  Width (m)  2.5  1.973684211  Thickness (mm)  150.00  190.00  Concrete (mPa)  -  30  Concrete flyash %  -  average  15  15  30 Mpa, average Fly ash Concrete (m^3)  6.94  6.94  30 Mpa, average Fly ash Concrete (m^3)  83.6  83.60  30 Mpa, average Fly ash Concrete (m^3)  16.038  16.04  1087  1,087.00  Rebar  7 Extra Basic Materials 7.1 XBM Concrete 7.1.1 XBM_Columns_Concrete_Basement  7.1.2 XBM_Wall_Concrete_ExteriorShaft  7.1.3 XBM_Walls_Concrete_300x300mm Pavers  7.2 Other 7.2.1 XBM_Wall_PorcelainPanels_Exterior_Area Std. Glazing (m^2) 7.3 Steel 7.2.1 XBM_Stairs_Steel_4th-5th  39  Steel (tonnes)  0.001528177  0.0015  IE Inputs Assumptions Document - Chemistry Physics  Assembly Group  Assembly Type  Assembly Name  Specific Assumptions  In the Athena I.E, SOG inputs are limited to a maximum of 200 mm thickness. Since the actual thicknesses for the SOG for the Chemistry Physics building is thicker, the area measured in On-Screen Takeoff Pro was readjusted so that the SOG's total volume would be the same even with a thickness of only 200 mm. In addition the Athena I.E limits the thickness of footings to be between19mm and 500 mm thick. Since three of the foorings exceeded 200mm, their areas were readjusted in order to maintain the same volume of footing even by using a different thickness. The Athena I.E requires inputting the length and width values separately, so the square root of the areas was calculated in order to have both values. By doing this it is being assumed that all the areas were square-shaped Information of the concrete type and the % of fly-ash were not included in any of the drawings neither for the foundations nor the SOG, because of this it was assumed that all the foundations and SOG were built using 30mPa concrete with average fly-ash 1 Foundation 1.1 Concrete Slab-on-Grade The area measured in the On-Screen Takeoff of 1330 m^2 was readjusted to 1928.5 m^2 so that by changing the thickness to 200mm (as specified in the Impact Estimator), the volume would remain the same and we could account for all the material. Microsoft Excell Goal Seeker tool was used in order to calculate the new area, but the calculations can be expressed as follows: 1.1.1 SOG_290  1. SOG Volume= (Measured SOG Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness) 2. NewArea= (SOG Volume)/(Max. I.E Thickness) Since the Athena I.E requieres both lenght and width as inputs, the square rot of the NewArea was calculated. 1. SOG Volume = (1330m^2) x (.290 m) 2. NewArea = (385.7m^3)/(.200 m) = 1928.5 m^2 Since the Athena I.E requieres both lenght and width as inputs, the square rot of the NewArea was calculated, so 43.91 m was the value used for both lenght and width.  1.2 Concrete Footing  40  1.2.11 Footing_500_Multi  No information was provided on the type of rebar used, so it was assumed that this footing used the same rebar # as the footing H. The area measured in the On-Screen Takeoff of 27 m^2 was readjusted to 81 m^2 so that by changing the thickness to 200mm (to be inside the range allowed in the Athena I.E), the volume would remain the same and we could account for all the material. Microsoft Excell Goal Seeker tool was used in order to calculate the new area, but the calculations can be expressed as follows:  1.2.12 Footing_600_D  1. SOG Volume= (Measured SOG Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness) 2. NewArea= (SOG Volume)/(Max. I.E Thickness) Since the Athena I.E requieres both lenght and width as inputs, the square rot of the NewArea was calculated. 1. SOG Volume = (27 m^2) x (.600 m) 2. NewArea = (16.2 m^3)/(.200 m) = 81 m^2 Since the Athena I.E requieres both lenght and width as inputs, the square rot of the NewArea was calculated, so 9 m was the value used for both lenght and width.  The area measured in the On-Screen Takeoff of 52 m^2 was readjusted to 169 m^2 so that by changing the thickness to 200mm (to be inside the range allowed in the Athena I.E), the volume would remain the same and we could account for all the material. Microsoft Excell Goal Seeker tool was used in order to calculate the new area, but the calculations can be expressed as follows: 1.2.13 Footing_650_C  1. SOG Volume= (Measured SOG Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness) 2. NewArea= (SOG Volume)/(Max. I.E Thickness) Since the Athena I.E requieres both lenght and width as inputs, the square rot of the NewArea was calculated. 1. SOG Volume = (52 m^2) x (.650 m) 2. NewArea = (33.8 m^3)/(.200 m) = 169 m^2 Since the Athena I.E requieres both lenght and width as inputs, the square rot of the NewArea was calculated, so 13 m was the value used for both lenght and width.  41  The area measured in the On-Screen Takeoff of 26 m^2 was readjusted to 97.5 m^2 so that by changing the thickness to 200mm (to be inside the range allowed in the Athena I.E), the volume would remain the same and we could account for all the material. Microsoft Excell Goal Seeker tool was used in order to calculate the new area, but the calculations can be expressed as follows:  1.2.14 Footing_750_B  2 Walls  1. SOG Volume= (Measured SOG Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness) 2. NewArea= (SOG Volume)/(Max. I.E Thickness) Since the Athena I.E requieres both lenght and width as inputs, the square rot of the NewArea was calculated. 1. SOG Volume = (26 m^2) x (.750 m) 2. NewArea = (19.5 m^3)/(.200 m) = 97.5 m^2 Since the Athena I.E requieres both lenght and width as inputs, the square rot of the NewArea was calculated, so 9.87 m was the value used for both lenght and width. The rebar used is 25m, but the Athena I.E uses a max rebar size of 20m, so the value used was 20m.  +Information of the concrete type and the % of fly-ash were not included in any of the drawings for the walls, because of this it was assumed that all the concrete used to build walls was 30mPa concrete with average fly-ash. This assumptions applies for all the walls, so to avoid repetition only extra assumptions on the walls will be mentioned in the section below. +Even if some of the doors were slightly different in dimensions, all door openings were clasified either as wood doors (solid wood door), or steel doors (steel interior door) and added in the Athena E.I with the standard size 32" x 7". Double doors were counted as two on the On-screen Takeoff Pro. +According with the drawings all walls has a height of 3.96 m. + Information on the frame and glazing type for all the windows was not included in any of the drawings. Upon physical examination they appeared to be metal frame and standard glass. Aluminum frame and Standard Glazing were used as the Athena I.E inputs 2.1 Concrete  2.1.2 Wall_Concrete_250mm  Wall_Concrete_Half_Exterior_200mm  Athena I.E allows thickness inputs for concrete walls of either 200 mm or 300 mm, so the lenght of this wall was adjusted to account for all the material for 57 m to 71.25 m. Microsoft Excell Goal Seeker tool was used in order to calculate the new lenght, but the calculations can be expressed as follows: 1. Wall Volume= (Height) x (Measured Lenght) x (Actual Wall Thickness) 2. NewLenght= (SOG Volume)/(Max. I.E Thickness)x(Height) Since the Athena I.E requieres both lenght and width as inputs, the square rot of the NewArea was calculated. 1. SOG Volume = (3.96 m) x (57 m)x (.350 m) 2. NewArea = (56.43 m^3)/((.200 m)x(3.96m) =71.25 m Minimun Rebar size on Athena EI for walls is 15m, however the one especified on the drawings is 10m.  2.2 Concrete Block Wall No information on the type of rebar used was provided in the drawings. Since this walls were built in the basement, just below the balconies on Floors 1-4 it was assumed that rebar #15 was used to provide for better support for the balconies in the floors above. 2.2.1 Wall_ConcreteBlock_200mm  42  2.3 Steel Stud  For Steel Stud walls: No information on the sheathing type nor the stud spacing was provided on the drawings. Because of this OSB sheathing was used for the Athena I.E due its better performance, and typical stud spacing of 400 o.c since is the most commonly used. In addition, according to the Athena I.E for non load-bearing steel framed wall used as interior partitions it is recommended to choose 25 Gauge stud weight for this option. Also information on stud thickness is missing, nonetheless for the wall type "Wall_SteelStud_C2_200mm" information was available in the drawings, so it was assumed that the same stud thinckness was used for all the steel stud walls: 32x92. With the objective of keeping this document simple, only addition assumptions to the ones mentioned above will be included below.  2.3.1 Wall_SteelStud_C1_200mm  2.3.5 Wall_SteelStud_C1_200mm  2.3.7 Wall_SteelStud_C3_400mm  2.3.8 Wall_SteelStud_Sound_200mm  2.3.9 Wall_SteelStud_Gypsum_Bathroom_200mm  Since Wall had both types of windows, the total lenght of the wall was divided on two different walls for the Athena I.E inputs according to the number of windows (555 fixed windows and 162 operable), so 77% of the total lenght of the wall has been assgned for fixed windows ( 1740 m) and 23% for operable windows (508 m). + Same ratio was used for dividing the doors among the two wall types, 149 doors out of the total (193 doors in total) was assigned to the WindowFixed wall type and the rest, 44 doors were assigned to the OperableWindow wall type The envelope used for this wall type include "22 mm Furring channel", but the Athena I.E does not include this option. In order to account for the material used as envelope for this wall type, 26 ga. Steel Cladding was used instead. Vapour Barrier used as envelope, but no information was found on the drawings about the specific material on this wall type, so Polyethylene 6 mil was used for the Athena I.E. Information on the rockwool batt Insulation thickness was not included on the drawings, so 26 thickness was chosen for the Athena I.E No information about the envelope used for bathrooms walls was included on the drawings, however since it is important to provide some sort of protection for the humid environment, it was assumed that Polyethylene 6 mil Vapour Barrier was used as envelope. Since no ceramic tiles are included on the Athena I.E it was decided to leave the ceramic envelope out of the model to facilitate comparison with the rest of the building studied this term since it was adviced that none of the projects are working at this level of detail.  2.4 Curtain Wall  2.2.1 Wall_Curtain_Glass  3 Columns and Beams  No information is provided on the drawings about the thickness of the insulation for this wall. Visit on site shows no insulation, so for the Athena I.E the value used was zero.  + Informatin on the Live Load was not provided on the drawings, however 3.6 kPa Represents a typical mechanical/service room loading, and since most rooms in the building are laboratories it was decided to use this value for all the columns. + Bay size for all columns and beams were measured on the Onscreen TakeOff +Beam Type not especified on the drawings, so concrete will be used as input for the Athena I.E  3.1 Concrete Column 3.1.1 Column_Concrete_Basement  Bay size was measured on each floor. When some columns were not built exactly with the same bay and span size the most common value was taken as an input of the Athena I. E.  43  4 Floors  3.1.2 Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor1  Bay size was measured on each floor. When some columns were not built exactly with the same bay and span size the most common value was taken as an input of the Athena I. E.  3.1.3 Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor2  Bay size was measured on each floor. When some columns were not built exactly with the same bay and span size the most common value was taken as an input of the Athena I. E.  3.1.4 Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor3  Bay size was measured on each floor. When some columns were not built exactly with the same bay and span size the most common value was taken as an input of the Athena I. E.  3.1.5 Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor4  Bay size was measured on each floor. When some columns were not built exactly with the same bay and span size the most common value was taken as an input of the Athena I. E.  3.1.6 Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor5  Bay size was measured on each floor. When some columns were not built exactly with the same bay and span size the most common value was taken as an input of the Athena I. E.  4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab  4.1.1 Floor_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm  +Information of the concrete type and the % of fly-ash were not included in any of the drawings, because of this it was assumed that all the concrete used to build floors was 30mPa concrete with average fly-ash. + Live Load information was not provided on the drawings, however 3.6 kPa Represents a typical mechanical/service room loading, and since most rooms in the building are laboratories it was decided to use this value for all the columns.  5 Roof  5.1 Steel Joist Roof 6 Stairs  For the Steel Joist Roof: No information on the decking type nor the steel gauge was provided on the drawings. Because of this OSB decking with a thickness of 15 mm was used for the Athena I.E due its better performance. Information on the Steel gauge and joist type and spacing was also missing, so steel gauge 16 was used as input for the Athena I.E as well as joist 39x203 with a 400 mm spacing since these are the typical values used.  6.1 Concrete Footing as Stairs  44  6.1.1 Stairs_Concrete_Main  7 Extra Basic Materials  +Concrete stairs were modeled as footings (Stairs_Concrete_Main). Since both stairs on the building had the same thickness and width, the total length of stairs was measured to be used as one single input. + 3 m of material was also added to this input to account for the landings of the steel stairs that connect the 4th floor with the top floor. +Information of the concrete type and the % of fly-ash were not included in any of the drawings, because of this it was assumed that all the concrete used is 30mPa concrete with average fly-ash. + Ataris have both 10 and 15 m rebars, but Athena I.E only accepts one type so rebar 15 m will be used as input + Width value was modified because minimun thickness on Athena I.E is 190 mm, so width was adjusted to account for the same volume of material. Stairs Volume = (69 m) x (2.5 m)x (.150 m) New Width = (25.88 m^3)/((.190 m)x(69m) = 1.97 m  7.1 XBM Concrete  7.1.1 XBM_Columns_Concrete_Basement  There are 3 concrete columns on the basement, each 3.96 meter height (C1 686x821 mm, C2 686X821mm, C3 770 X821 mm), that support the balconies above. To account for this material, and since each column has a different area, the volume for each column was calculated (lenght * width * height) and summed together as one input of Concrete Extra Basic Material. Total Concrete volume= (C1) +(C2) +(C3) Total Concrete volume= 3.96*[ .686x.821 mm + .686X.821mm + .770 X. 821 mm] Total Concrete volume= 6.94 m^3  7.1.2 XBM_Wall_Concrete_ExteriorShaft  Bulding has 19 exterior shafts that go from the basement all the way to the roof. The material was accounted for as walls on each floor, however to account for the material on the roof the area of each shaft was calculated to measure the volume of concrete used for the shafts on the roof. Each shaft is 11 m^2 per side with 200 mm thickness. Calculations were done on area*thickness to calculate concrete volume and then multiplied by 2 to account for both sides of shaft. Total Concrete volume= (11 m^2)*(.2 mm)*(19 shafts)*2 Total Concrete volume= 83.6 m^3  7.1.3 XBM_Walls_Concrete_300x300mm Pavers  300 x 300 mm concrete pavers on the first floor were counted using a linear condition, a total lenght of 19 m was measured and then the concrete volume was calculated using this measure. Concrete volume= (90 m) (.3 mm) (.3 mm) Concrete volume= 16.04 m^3  7.2 Other 7.2.1 XBM_Wall_PorcelainPanels_Exterior_Area  Used Standard Glazing instead of emanel panel which was especified in the drawings since emanel panel is not an input option in the Athena I.E  7.3 Steel  45  7.2.1 XBM_Stairs_Steel_4th-5th  To account for the steel used on the steel stairs that goes from the 4th floor to the top floor, the lenght of the stairs was measured with a linear condition. And it has the same width as the concrete stairs (2.5 m). + 6 m lenght + 2.5 m width + 10 mm thick (as measured on site) + .01018 tonnes per cubic meter of cold rolled steel. + Steel tonnes= (6 m) (2.5 m) (.01 m) (0.01018 tonnes/m^3) + Steel tonnes= 0.0015 tonnes  46  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 12 0
United States 10 0
Canada 9 0
City Views Downloads
Vancouver 9 0
Ashburn 8 0
Beijing 7 0
Shenzhen 5 0
Wilmington 1 0
Portland 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.18861.1-0077983/manifest

Comment

Related Items