UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment of the "BE" Building Amiama, Teresa; Lee, Andrew; Lo, Manvil Apr 2, 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Amiama_T_et_al_SEEDS_2012.pdf [ 2.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108554.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108554-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108554-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108554-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108554-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108554-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108554-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108554-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108554.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report        Life Cycle Assessment of the "Be" Building Teresa Amiama Andrew Lee Manvil Lo University of British Columbia CIVL 498E April 2, 2012           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”. PROVISIO 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 review of this report.  If further information is required or if you would like to use results from this please contact Mr. Rob Sianchuk.         2012  Review Rob Sianchuk  Project Team Teresa Amiama Andrew Lee Manvil Lo  [LIFE CYCLE ASSESSEMENT OF  THE “BE” BUILDING] April 2, 2012 Abstract The following document is a report describing a life cycle assessment (LCA) study performed on the BE Building. This LCA study was completed at the request of the UBC SEEDS program to understand the impact of increasing the glazing of a multi-unit residential building through its life cycle and to assist the Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP) in developing responsible, mandated glazing ratios. The BE Building is a multi-family residential development located on the University of British Columbia’s South Campus.  The development consists of a 17-storey high-rise building containing fifty-eight (58) owner-occupied units.   For this LCA study report, the ISO 14040 and 14044 formatting standards have been followed. A sensitivity analysis for five materials was performed, as well as a sensitivity analysis for fenestration ratios.  The sensitivity analysis measured the change in environmental impact across the impact categories considered, after a hypothetical 10% increase in material quantity (typically mass) was imposed. Concrete stood out as a leader in the percent impact change in the categories ‘weighted resource use’, ‘global warming potential’, and ‘smog potential’. Rebar comprised most of the percent change in impact in terms of ‘eutrophication potential’. Also worth noting is aluminum’s impact. This material has high impacts in all categories except in ‘weighted resource use’ (where concrete is the outstanding leader), and it has the greatest impact in ‘ozone depletion potential’ (where concrete is the second greatest contributor). The result of the sensitivity analysis is a useful tool for examining specific impacts from an increase in standard glazing. A 10% increase in standard glazing didn’t contribute to a significant relative change in impact. Notably, the greatest impact from an increased standard glazing was in ‘HH Respiratory Effects Potential.’ The glazing ratio (76.9%) was higher than the provided energy use intensities, thus the fenestration ratio study focused on decreasing glazing ratios. The results show that for the life cycle stages “Manufacturing”, “Maintenance,” and “Operating Energy” a decrease in fenestration ratio decreases the net impacts; on the other hand, “Construction” and “End-of-Life” show a net increase in impacts with decreasing fenestration ratios. Finally, if all the life cycle stages are accounted for together, a decreasing fenestration ratio shows a net decrease in overall impacts.  For future implementations of LCA in residential buildings, the limitations of the IE software reference in the Uncertainties section should be modified. Reviewing impacts of glazing in residential buildings should refer to this report in making evidence-based decisions for policy.  Table of Contents  List of Tables & Figures ..................................................................................................................................................................... v 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Structural Characteristics ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Goal and Scope ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Goal of Study ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2  Scope of Study ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Model Development ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.1 Structure and Envelope ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.1 Material Takeoff Development .................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Material Takeoff Assumptions ..................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Operating Energy ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2.1 Energy Use Development ............................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2.2 Energy Use Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................ 4 4.0 Results ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Inventory Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 4.1.1 Bill of Materials .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 4.1.2 Energy Use...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.2.1 Difference in Impacts due to Different Glazing Ratios ................................................................................................. 11 4.2.2 Uncertainty................................................................................................................................................................... 15 4.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2.4 Chain of Custody Inquiry .............................................................................................................................................. 20 4.2.5 Functions and Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 21 5.0 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Author’s Segment ............................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.         Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    v List of Tables & Figures Tables Table 1.  Building Characteristics of the BE Building ......................................................................................................................... 1 Table 2.  Canadian Standard Rebar Sizes .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Table 3.  Allowed IE Inputs, US Standard Rebar Sizes ....................................................................................................................... 1 Table 4.  Wall Assembly Types and Information Collected ............................................................................................................... 2 Table 5.  Bill of Materials .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Table 6.  Energy Use for the BE Building ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 7. Global Warming Potential by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group .................................................................................. 6 Table 8. Ozone Layer Depletion by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group ....................................................................................... 7 Table 9. Acidification Potential by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group ......................................................................................... 8 Table 10. Eutrophication Potential by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group ................................................................................... 8 Table 11. Smog Potential by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group .................................................................................................. 9 Table 12. Human Health Respiratory Effects by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group .................................................................... 9 Table 13. Weighted Resource Use by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group .................................................................................. 10 Table 14. Fossil Fuel Use by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group ................................................................................................ 11 Table 15. Building Functions ........................................................................................................................................................... 21  Figures Figure 1.   Generic unit processes considered within Construction Product Manufacturing process by Impact Estimator software .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Construction process by Impact Estimator software ....................... 5 Figure 3.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Maintenance process by Impact Estimator software ...................... 6 Figure 4.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Demolition process by Impact Estimator software ......................... 6 Figure 5. System Boundary ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 6. Natural Gas and Electrical Energy Use Values Provided .................................................................................................... 4 Figure 7. Manufacturing: Difference from base case impact per scenario ..................................................................................... 13 Figure 8. Construction: Difference from base case impact per scenario ........................................................................................ 13 Figure 9. Maintenance: Difference from base case impact per scenario ........................................................................................ 14 Figure 10. End-of-Life: Difference from base case impact per scenario ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 11. Operating Energy: Difference from base case impact per scenario ............................................................................... 15 Figure 12. Total percent difference from base case impact for each life cycle stage of the building ............................................. 15 Figure 13. Sensitivity Analysis of Select Materials Normalized to Maximum Value ....................................................................... 18 Figure 14. Sensitivity Analysis of Select Materials .......................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 15. Information obtained about Rebar from Chain of Custody exercise ............................................................................. 20     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    1 1.0 Introduction The following document is a report describing a life cycle assessment (LCA) study performed on the BE Building.  This study was carried out between February and March 2012 by a team of three University of British Columbia (UBC) students under the guidance of Rob Sianchuk, an LCA professional.   1.1 Background the BE Building is a multi-family residential development located in UBC’s South Campus.  The development consists of a 17-storey high-rise building containing fifty-eight (58) owner-occupied units, along with seven (7) townhouse units which are structurally separate from the high-rise tower.  These townhouses have been excluded from this study; thus, within this report, “the BE Building” refers only to the high-rise tower.   the BE Building is marketed as a luxury high-rise featuring sustainable environmental design.  The building is accredited with a Silver rating under the Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP), a green building rating system developed by UBC. Described green building features include, “high-performance heating and cooling systems, low E-coated glass windows, and large wraparound balconies that shade the residences from direct sunlight in summer.” (ASPAC, 2012) The developers of the BE Building were ASPAC, a real-estate development company based in Vancouver, British Columbia.  Architectural services were performed by Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership.  The general contractor was Ledcor.  Construction commenced in 2007 and completed in 2009. 1.2 Structural Characteristics The primary structural and building envelope characteristics of the BE Building are summarized in Table 1, on the next page.  Table 1.  Building Characteristics of the BE Building Building System Specific Characteristics Structure Parking levels:  Concrete columns and slab-bands supporting suspended slabs Levels 1 to 17:  Concrete columns supporting concrete suspended slabs Floors Parking levels: Concrete slab      Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    2 Levels 1 to 17: Concrete suspended slabs Exterior Walls Cast-in-place and steel stud assemblies Interior Walls Steel stud, cast-in-place, and concrete block assemblies Windows  Standard glazing with aluminum frames Roof Suspended concrete slab Mechanical  Air shafts        Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    3 2.0 Goal and Scope The Goal & Scope is critical to documenting the context and guiding an LCA study’s execution.  The purpose of defining the Goal of the study is to unambiguously state the context of the study, whereas the Scope details how the actual modeling of the study was carried out.  For this LCA study report, the format immediately below has been used to unambiguously outline the details of the parameters outlined in ISO 14040 and 14044. Parameter Name Parameter definition. Details of how this item is defined for the LCA study of the BE Building. This format has been followed throughout the Goal & Scope in order to provide the audience with an explanation of each parameter and transparently state how it is defined for the LCA study of the BE Building. 2.1. Goal of Study The following are descriptions for a set of parameters which unambiguously state the context of the LCA study of the BE Building. Intended application Describes the purpose of the LCA study. This LCA study will be used in three ways:  As a benchmark for similar buildings, demonstrating the environmental impacts of construction of residential buildings  As a guide towards informing decision-making and future policy regarding glazing and fenestration and their effects on building energy consumption  As an exemplary demonstration of the latest in environmental impact accounting methods in order to contribute to the further development of such activities. Reasons for carrying out the study Describes the motivation for carrying out the study. This LCA study was completed at the request of UBC SEEDS to understand the impact of increasing the glazing of a multi-unit residential building through its life cycle and to assist the Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP) in developing responsible, mandated glazing ratios.  Secondly, the report itself is an educational asset to help disseminate     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    4 education on LCA and help further the development of this scientific method into sustainability in building construction practices at UBC and the green building industry as LCA is rapidly gaining acceptance at all scales of sustainable construction standards and corporate social responsibility policy. Intended audience Describes those who the LCA study is intended to be interpreted by. The results of this study are to be primarily communicated to policymakers, while also remaining accessible to the general public. In addition, the LCA report is intended to be communicated to industry and governments groups observing and involved in green building, as LCA is an emerging topic of significance in this area. Intended for comparative assertions State whether the results of this LCA study are to be compared with the results of other LCA studies. The results of this LCA study are intended for comparative assertions between this building and two other UBC residential buildings (LCA studies performed simultaneously by different groups) , as well as with the building LCA studies contained within the UBC LCA Database.    2.2  Scope of Study The following are descriptions for a set of parameters that detail how the actual modeling of the study was carried out.  Product system to be studied  Describes the collection of unit processes that will be included in the study. A unit process is a measurable activity that consumes inputs and emits outputs as a result of providing a product or service.  The main processes that make up the product system to be studied in this LCA study are the manufacturing of construction products (Figure 1.   Generic unit processes considered within Construction Product Manufacturing process by Impact Estimator software), the construction of a building (Figure 2.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Construction process by Impact Estimator software), the operation and maintenance of the building (Figure 3.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Maintenance process by Impact Estimator software), and the demolition of a building (Figure 4.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Demolition process by Impact Estimator software).  These four processes are the building blocks of the LCA models that have been developed to     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    5 describe the impacts associated with the BE Building.  The unit processes and inputs and outputs considered within these four main processes are outlined below.   Figure 1.   Generic unit processes considered within Construction Product Manufacturing process by Impact Estimator software  Figure 2.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Construction process by Impact Estimator software  Resource Extraction and Manufacturing Construction Product ProcessesMaterial Transportation ProcessesEnergy Extraction, Refinement and Delivery ProcessesInputsResourcesEnergyProcess OutputsConstruction Product ManufacturingAir emissionsWater emissionsLand emissionsConstruction productBuilding Construction ProcessConstruction Material and Waste Transportation ProcessEnergy Extraction, Refinement and Delivery ProcessesInputsResourcesEnergyProcess OutputsBuilding ConstructionAir emissionsWater emissionsLand emissionsBuildingConstruction products    Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    6  Figure 3.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Maintenance process by Impact Estimator software   Figure 4.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Demolition process by Impact Estimator software As seen in the above figures, the inputs and outputs occurring at the various stages in a building’s life cycle are captured.  The organization of these processes into the product systems to describe the impacts of building construction requires the definition of a system boundary.  Thus, the product system studied in this LCA study of the BE Building is further defined in the system boundary section below. Building Demolition ProcessEnergy  Extraction, Refinement and Delivery ProcessesDemolition Waste Transportation ProcessInputsResourcesEn rgyProcess OutputsBuilding DemolitionAir emissionsWater emissionsLand emissionsBuilding Building Operation and Maintenance Process Construction Material and Waste Transportation Process Energy Extraction, Refinement and Delivery Processes Inputs Resources Energy Process Outputs Building Maintenance Air emissions Water emissions Land emissions Construction  products Demolition Waste Transportation Process     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    7 System boundary Details the extent of the product system to be studied in terms of product components, life cycle stages, and unit processes.  The BE Building LCA study involved analysis of the cradle-to-grave life cycle of a new building.  The LCA model developed to describe the impacts created by this building were created in the Impact Estimator software using the generic unit processes, within the processes, illustrated previously in Figure 1.   Generic unit processes considered within Construction Product Manufacturing process by Impact Estimator software, Figure 2.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Construction process by Impact Estimator software, Figure 3.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Maintenance process by Impact Estimator software, and Figure 4.   Generic unit processes considered within Building Demolition process by Impact Estimator software. The product components studied are those of the BE Building high-rise building.  Specifically, this study includes the construction products used to create its structure and envelope.  This indicates that product components must be defined as the materials within the product studied. The material product components (i.e. building assemblies) that were included from the product (i.e. building) are the footings, slabs on grade, walls, columns and beams, roofs, as well as all associated doors and windows, gypsum board, vapour barriers, insulation, cladding and roofing.  These material product components are in turn assemblies of construction products.       Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    8  Figure 5. System Boundary      Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    9 The life cycle stages considered include those spanning from cradle-to-grave.  The model excludes the impacts associated with the transformation of existing vegetated space into developed land. The manufacturing phase captures resource extraction and manufacturing of construction products. The construction phase captures the building construction process. The maintenance phase includes operational impacts and periodic repair and replacement of building components. An end-of-life cycle phase captures the demolition of the BE Building and the transportation of demolition wastes.   The impact of any resulting salvage or recycling beyond the demolition phase is excluded from the scope of this LCA study. Functions of the product system Describes the functions served by the product focused on in the LCA study. A description of the BE Building’s major functions have been outlined in the Introduction of this report. Functional unit A performance characteristic of the product system being studied that will be used as a reference unit to normalize the results of the study. The functional units used in this study to normalize the LCA results for the BE Building include:  per generic residential building square foot constructed  per specific residential building square foot constructed  per residential building occupant  per fenestration square foot constructed Further discussion of these functional units and their application are contained in the Impact Assessment sub-section under Functions and Impacts.  Allocation procedures Describes how the input and output flows of the studied product system (and unit processes within it) are distributed between it and other related product systems. The problem of allocation arises in three situations – i) when a process produces more than one product, ii) a waste treatment process collectively treats multiple wastes products and iii) when materials are recycled or reused in subsequent life cycles.  An allocation problem arises in these situations because the input and output flows from the processes must be shared amongst the products and subsequent life cycles.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    10 In this study, the cut-off allocation method was used, which entails that only the impacts directly caused by a product within a given life cycle stage are allocated to that product. That is, although construction and demolitions wastes are direct outputs from this building, their potential subsequent life cycles were outside the scope of this LCA study.  That is, the end of life phase ends once the wastes are transported to their end of life process, and does not include consideration of waste treatment processes or possible subsequent life cycles. Impact assessment methodology and categories selected State the methodology used to characterize the LCI results and the impact categories that will address the environmental and other issues of concern. The primary impact assessment method used in the BE Building LCA study was the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI), developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).  An impact characterization method developed by the Athena Institute was also used to characterize weighted raw resource use and fossil fuel consumption. The impact categories selected and the units used to express them (i.e. category indicators) are listed below:  Global warming potential – kg CO2 equivalents  Ozone depletion potential – kg CFC-11 equivalents  Acidification potential – H+ mol equivalents  Eutrophication potential – kg N equivalents  Photochemical smog potential – kg NOx equivalents  Human health respiratory effects potential – kg PM2.5 equivalents  Weighted raw resource use – kg  Fossil fuel consumption – MJ Short descriptions of each of these impact categories are provided in the Impact Assessment sub-section in Results and Interpretation. Interpretation to be used Statement of significant issues, model evaluation results and concluding remarks.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    11 Analysis and discussions of uncertainty, sensitivity, and functional units of this LCA study are contained in the Results and Interpretation section of this report, whereas concluding remarks are contained in the Conclusion. Assumptions Explicit statement of all assumptions used to by the modeler to measure, calculate or estimate information in order to complete the study of the product system. With data sources, there were two main areas where assumptions were integrated: materials takeoffs of building assemblies and assumptions contained within the Impact Estimator. The details of the methods used in completing the material take offs on the building drawings are summarized in the Model Development section of this report. All of the inputs and assumptions associated with interfacing these takeoffs with the Impact Estimator are documented in the Input Document (Appendix A) and the Assumptions Document (Appendix B).  Assumptions were typically required in the development of building assembly information due to missing information as well as limitations in construction product LCI data and assembly characteristics in the Impact Estimator. Assumptions regarding the completion of take offs to estimate material use, referenced LCI data and transportation networks have all been developed by the Athena Institute and are built into the Impact Estimator version 4.1.14.  This information is proprietary; however, parts can be accessed through the inner workings report found on the Athena Institute webpage.1 Value choices and optional elements Details the application and use of normalization, grouping, weighting and further data quality analysis used to better understand the LCA study results. Value choices and optional elements were not included in this study due to limited time and resources, however, this report does provide sufficient documentation for its audience to carry out these types of analyses.                                                             1 Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings: Software Overview – http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/impactEstimator/     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    12  Limitations Describe the extents to which the results of the modeling carried out on the product system accurately estimate the impacts created by the product system defined by the system boundary of the study. The following limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of this LCA study.  System Boundary – Any of the impacts created or avoided through the reuse, recycling or waste treatment of the construction or demolition wastes emitted were outside the scope of this study.  Data Sources and Assumptions – This LCA study used original architectural and structural drawings obtained from Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership to develop information on the building assemblies in the construction of the BE Building.  The resulting LCA models are specific to these buildings as their bills of materials reflect their unique designs.  Furthermore, the life cycle inventory (LCI) flows and their characterization reflect averages of industry processes and their impacts for North America.  This is due to the fact that those industries engaged in the North American construction market are currently not providing this LCI data.  Furthermore, it was not possible to regionalize the impacts of processes and their inventory flows due to time and resource constraints in conducting this study. Data quality requirements Qualitative and quantitative description of the sourced data used in the study including its age, geographical and technological coverage, precision, completeness, reproducibility and uncertainty. The sources of data used in the development of this LCA study include those used to estimate results for the bill of materials, life cycle inventory (LCI) flows and the characterization of LCI flows.  Bill of Materials - Architectural and structural drawings were obtained from Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership (MCM) to develop information on the building assemblies in the partial construction of the BE Building.  Architects at MCM also contributed information where information was either missing or unclear in the drawings.  The precision of the quantity take offs does rely somewhat on the quantity takeoffs built into the Impact Estimator, as the quantity take offs from the drawings are input and completed by the Impact Estimator.  However, the use of the Impact Estimator does enable these results to be reproduced due to all results being documented in the Inputs and Assumptions Documents contained in Appendix A and B in this report.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    13  LCI flows – The Athena LCI Database was the source of LCI data.  An assessment of the quality of the data and modeling assumptions used to develop the Athena LCI Database (which is built into the Impact Estimator) was outside the time and resource constraints of this study.  However, some of this information can be accessed through the inner workings report found on the Athena Institute webpage2.  Generally speaking, this database is specific to the current North American context, and thus does create some geographic and temporal limitations on this study.  For instance, i) The construction product manufacturing as well as fuel refining and production LCI data is based on North American averages ii) The transportation matrix that estimates distances and modes for construction product transportation as well as construction and demolition wastes is specific to Vancouver, British Columbia iii) The LCI data and modeling parameters in the Impact Estimator were developed by the Athena Institute to reflect current circumstances and technologies.    Characterization factors – Documentation of the US EPA TRACI impact assessment method can be found on the US EPA website3, and documentation for the development of the weighted resource use impact category can be found on the Athena Institute webpage4.  Generally speaking, this method characterized LCI flows to reflect their potential to cause damage on average in North America.  Qualitative discussion of the uncertainties present in the impact assessment results are contained in this report in the Impact Assessment sub-section of Results and Interpretation. Type of critical review A review of the methods, data, interpretations, transparency, and consistency of the LCA study. An ISO 14044 critical review has not been completed on this report.  The report content and results have received a general review by Rob Sianchuk using a standardized grading rubric developed for the course in which this study was developed.  If this report is to be used outside of intended application, it is strongly advised that the authors be included in communications.                                                            2 Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings: Software Overview –  http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/impactEstimator/ 3 US EPA TRACI documentation -  http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/traci/traci.html 4 Weighted resource use impact category development  -                                                                                  http://www.athenasmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/16_ECC_Impacts_of_Resource_Extraction.pdf     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    14 Type and format of the report required for the study Statement of the type and format followed by the report. The format of this report followed the report outline provided by Rob Sianchuk, the advisor and supervisor of this study.       Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    15 3.0 Model Development This section details the processes undertaken to model the components of the product system, the BE Building, and their impacts.   3.1 Structure and Envelope 3.1.1 Material Takeoff Development Quantities takeoffs were performed using the software program, On-Screen Takeoff 3 (OST 3).  Each assembly was modeled using one of the three modeling conditions available in the software program: linear, area, and count conditions.   The linear condition was used to model assemblies with variable length and uniform height and thickness.  This included strip footings and walls. The area condition was used to determine surface areas.  Floor areas of different functional types and roof areas were quantified using this condition.  Additionally, spread footings volumes were calculated by multiplying area takeoffs with footing thicknesses. The count condition was used to quantify groups of objects with identical properties: columns, beams, windows, and doors. 3.1.2 Material Takeoff Assumptions Due to the input limitations of Athena Impact Estimator or unavailability of data, a number of assumptions and approximations were necessary.  Actual and measured values, stated unknowns, and corresponding input values are presented in Appendix A.  Assumptions and any calculations pertaining to these assumptions are detailed in Appendix B.   Foundation Rebar quantities are calculated by IE based solely on the input rebar size while using internally-assumed rebar spacing and configurations. All rebar sizes were specified in construction drawings using Canadian standard sizes.  Because the Imperial unit system was selected as the input measurement system, only input of U.S. rebar sizes were allowed by IE.  The closest corresponding sizes available; of which three rebar sizes were available in the IE, thus the maximum size was selected when the actual rebar size exceeded this maximum.      Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    1 Table 2.  Canadian Standard Rebar Sizes Bar Size Nominal  Diameter (mm) 10M 11.3 15M 16 20M 19.5 25M 25.2 30M 29.9  Table 3.  Allowed IE Inputs, US Standard Rebar Sizes Bar Size Nominal  Diameter (mm) #4 12.7 #5 15.875 #6 19.05     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    2 IE has a footing thickness limitation of 19.4 inches.  Where footing thicknesses exceeded this value, the thickness was specified as 19 inches and the input footing width was adjusted accordingly to maintain the same footing volume. Flyash content was assumed to be average where information was unavailable. Walls As previously stated, the wall quantities were calculated using a linear condition in OST 3. The type of information collected to input in the IE is as follows: Wall assemblies were assumed to be an average height of 9.875 ft. In addition, they had three types of information that was required:   The type of wall assembly: steel stud, cast-in-place, concrete block, and curtain walls for were types of assemblies used. Each type of wall assembly in turn has different inputs that are required; Table 4 is a summary of the information recorded.  The envelope: information such as the type and thickness of insulation or type of gypsum wall board.  The opening: number and types of windows and doors.  Table 4.  Wall Assembly Types and Information Collected Wall Assembly Information Required Wall Assembly Information Required Steel Stud Wall type (load bearing or non-load bearing Cast-in-Place Concrete (20 MPa, 30 MPa, or 60 MPa) Stud weight (25 Ga or 20 Ga) Thickness (8” or 12”) Sheathing type (none, OSB, plywood) Reinforcement (#15 M or #20 M) Stud thickness (1 5/8 x 3 5/8 or 6 or 8 in) Concrete Flyash (25% or 35%) Stud spacing (16 o.c. or 24 o.c.) Concrete Block Rebar (#10 or #15) Wall Assembly Information Required Curtain Wall Percent Viewable Glazing (%) Percent Spandrel Panel (%) Thickness of insulation Spandrel Panel Type (metal or opaque glass      Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    3 Several assumptions were made in this process, such as assigning the type of glazing, flyash content of concrete, and type of insulation, since information was not available; this portion of the study is a source of error.  Doors and windows were added using a count condition in OST 3. Since floors 3 through 13 were identical, one takeoff of the drawing was taken and the results multiplied by 11 in order to calculate the length of the wall assemblies in those floors. Floors The floor was assumed to be a suspended concrete slab. The square footage was calculated for all floors using take-offs. For floors 3 through 13, the square footage was multiplied by the number of floors, given that each of those floors are identical. Balconies were assumed to be of different thickness and concrete type. This assumption did not affect square footage, but affected the volume of concrete in the bill of materials.  Columns & Beams Column and beam quantities were calculated internally by IE using the following inputs for a given storey: number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, supported span, and live load. Loads were assumed to be distributed equally to all columns and spans on a given floor; thus, bay size and supported spans were assumed to be equal to the square root of the quotient of gross floor area divided by the number of columns of a particular storey. Different design live loads were specified based on the function of the floor area (ie. typical residential, parking, exits and stairs).  The input live load for a given storey was taken to be the area-weighted average live load. Roof Roofs were modeled in the IE software using the maximum span possible allowed in Athena. The area condition from OST 3 was considered in the adjustments made to roofing span. Loads were specified in the drawings, but the IE software provided a limited number of choices, so the closest load quantity was chosen to approximate the roof. 3.2 Operating Energy The impacts of operating energy consumption were calculated internally by Impact Estimator given the following inputs: total floor area, annual electricity use intensity, and annual natural gas use intensity.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    4 3.2.1 Energy Use Development Annual electrical energy use intensity and natural gas use intensity were provided by the UBC Sustainability Office as a function of glazing ratio (window area / total wall area) and building floor area.  A glazing ratio of 68.6% was estimated, based on the quantity takeoffs.   A building floor area of 12,853 m2 was provided by the developer, which excludes exterior or unheated areas.  Typical electrical energy use intensities (kWh/m2/yr) and natural gas use intensities (m3/m2/yr) for high-rise concrete structures with various glazing ratios were provided by the UBC Sustainability Office.  Extrapolating, typical values of 104 kWh/m2/yr and 8.81 m3/m2/yr were determined, respectively.  This equates to an electrical energy use intensity of 1,341,807 kWh/yr and natural gas use intensity of 113,296 m3/yr. 3.2.2 Energy Use Assumptions An assumption had to be made in order to calculate the energy use for the BE Building. Since the glazing ratio was higher than the provided values, these values had to be extrapolated with the assumption that the relation remained linear. Figure 6 shows the energy use values provided.   Figure 6. Natural Gas and Electrical Energy Use Values Provided 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 101 6.70 6.90 7.10 7.30 7.50 7.70 7.90 8.10 8.30 8.50 30% 40% 50% 60% kWh/m2 /yr m3 /m2/yr High Rise Energy Use Intensity Natural Gas Electrical Energy     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    5 4.0 Results 4.1 Inventory Analysis 4.1.1 Bill of Materials The Bill of Materials of the BE Building is presented in Table 5., below.  Material quantities are sorted by assembly group, as well as totaled for the entire building. Table 5.  Bill of Materials Construction Material Units Assembly Group Foundation Walls Floors Columns & Beams Roof Building Total Concrete 30 MPa (flyash 35%) m3 617.35   590.73     1,208.09 Concrete 30 Mpa (flyash av) m3 199.55 2,232.76 2,401.79 40,355.34   45,189.44 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections Tonnes 2.32 253.56 205.23 15,051.60 4.44 15,517.15 Concrete 20 Mpa (flyash av) m3   20.61     66.32 86.93 #15 Organic Felt m2   23,382.58       23,382.58 ½”  Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board m2   1,693.00       1,693.00 ½”  Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board m2   4,159.19       4,159.19 ½”  Regular Gypsum Board m2   49,915.84       49,915.84 5/8”  Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board m2   15,218.75       15,218.75 5/8”  Regular Gypsum Board m2   187.01       187.01 6 mil Polyethylene m2   4,010.97       4,010.97 Aluminum Tonnes   145.95       145.95 Batt. Fiberglass m2 (25mm)   104,600.14       104,600.14 Blown Cellulose m2 (25mm)   221.40       221.40 Cold Rolled Sheet Tonnes   15.37       15.37 Concrete Blocks Blocks   21,146.27       21,146.27 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) kg   13,720.62       13,720.62 Foam Polyisocyanurate m2 (25mm)   400.20       400.20 Galvanized Sheet Tonnes   16.40       16.40 Galvanized Studs Tonnes   139.62       139.62 Glazing Panel Tonnes   986.19       986.19 Joint Compound Tonnes   71.02       71.02 Mortar m3   450.06       450.06 Nails Tonnes   8.64       8.64     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    6 Natural Stone m2   3,768.81       3,768.81 Oriented Strand Board m2 (9mm)   267.77       267.77 Paper Tape Tonnes   0.82       0.82 PVC kg   18,342.41       18,342.41 Screws Nuts & Bolts Tonnes   9.88       9.88 Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried m3   9.15       9.15 Solvent Based Alkyd Paint L   38.91       38.91 Standard Glazing m2   4,715.13       4,715.13 Water Based Latex Paint L   521.90       521.90  4.1.2 Energy Use The annual and overall energy use of the BE Building was provided by the UBC Sustainability Office as annual energy use intensity of electrical and natural gas. Table 6 presents these calculated values. Table 6.  Energy Use for the BE Building Energy Type Annual (per year) Total (99 years) Electrical (kWh) 1341807 132838902 Natural Gas (m3) 113296 11216286  4.2 Impact Assessment The outputs of Impact Estimator provide an estimate impact quantities across the eight impact categories of concern: Global Warming Potential, Ozone Layer Depletion, Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential, Smog Potential, Human Health Respiratory Effects, Weighted Resource Use, and Fossil Fuel Use.  The impacts associated with each life cycle phase and each building assembly group are presented in Table 7 through 14. Table 7. Global Warming Potential by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group Life Cycle Stage Process Global Warming Potential Assembly Group Foundation Walls Floors Columns & Beams Roof Building Total Manufacturing Material kg CO2 eq 191822 2471129 905924 722464 17708 4310000 Transportation kg CO2 eq 7008 55022 28106 21678 583 112000 Total kg CO2 eq 198830 2526151 934029 744142 18291 4420000 Construction Material kg CO2 eq 2826 44989 41140 0 911 89900 Transportatio kg CO2 eq 9910 96893 37283 20298 961 165000     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    7 n Total kg CO2 eq 12735 141882 78424 20298 1873 255000 Maintenance Material kg CO2 eq   1668730       1670000 Transportation kg CO2 eq   104642       105000 Total kg CO2 eq   1773371       1770000 End-of-Life Material kg CO2 eq 5833 24590 22791 14502 505 68200 Transportation kg CO2 eq 4909 25048 18499 10144 410 59000 Total kg CO2 eq 10742 49638 41290 24647 915 127000 Operating Energy Annual  kg CO2 eq 321553 321553 321553 321553 321553 321553 Total kg CO2 eq 31833786 31833786 31833786 31833786 31833786 31833786  Table 8. Ozone Layer Depletion by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group Life Cycle Stage Process Ozone Layer Depletion Assembly Group Foundation Walls Floors Columns & Beams Roof Building Total Manufacturing Material kg CFC-11 eq 3.88E-04 4.08E-03 1.63E-03 8.11E-04 4.66E-05 6.93E-03 Transportation kg CFC-11 eq 2.98E-07 2.31E-06 1.18E-06 9.02E-07 2.39E-08 4.72E-06 Total kg CFC-11 eq 3.88E-04 4.08E-03 1.63E-03 8.12E-04 4.66E-05 6.93E-03 Construction Material kg CFC-11 eq 0.00E+00 2.14E-09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.14E-09 Transportation kg CFC-11 eq 4.06E-07 3.98E-06 1.53E-06 8.31E-07 3.94E-08 6.78E-06 Total kg CFC-11 eq 4.06E-07 3.98E-06 1.53E-06 8.31E-07 3.94E-08 6.78E-06 Maintenance Material kg CFC-11 eq   2.43E-03       2.43E-03 Transportation kg CFC-11 eq   4.29E-06       4.29E-06 Total kg CFC-11 eq   2.43E-03       2.43E-03 End-of-Life Material kg CFC-11 eq 2.63E-07 1.11E-06 1.03E-06 6.53E-07 2.28E-08 3.07E-06 Transportation kg CFC-11 eq 2.01E-07 1.03E-06 7.58E-07 4.15E-07 1.68E-08 2.42E-06 Total kg CFC-11 eq 4.64E-07 2.13E-06 1.78E-06 1.07E-06 3.95E-08 5.49E-06 Operating Energy Annual  kg CFC-11 eq 2.66E-07 2.66E-07 2.66E-07 2.66E-07 2.66E-07 2.66E-07 Total kg CFC-11 eq 2.64E-05 2.64E-05 2.64E-05 2.64E-05 2.64E-05 2.64E-05           Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    8 Table 9. Acidification Potential by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group Life Cycle Stage Process Acidification Potential Assembly Group Foundation Walls Floors Columns & Beams Roof Building Total Manufacturing Material moles of H+ eq 65451 1195290 310159 248013 4849 1824115 Transportation moles of H+ eq 3470 23318 12109 8229 191 47335 Total moles of H+ eq 68922 1218608 322268 256242 5041 1871450 Construction Material moles of H+ eq 1522 23069 25059 0 555 50205 Transportation moles of H+ eq 3125 34069 11759 6402 303 55616 Total moles of H+ eq 4647 57138 36818 6402 858 105822 Maintenance Material moles of H+ eq   977958       977958 Transportation moles of H+ eq   33846       33846 Total moles of H+ eq   1011803       1011803 End-of-Life Material moles of H+ eq 323 1363 1264 804 28 3782 Transportation moles of H+ eq 1548 7900 5835 3199 129 18612 Total moles of H+ eq 1872 9263 7098 4004 157 22394 Operating Energy Annual  moles of H+ eq 134201 134201 134201 134201 134201 134201 Total moles of H+ eq 13285862 13285862 13285862 13285862 13285862 13285862  Table 10. Eutrophication Potential by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group Life Cycle Stage Process Eutrophication Potential Assembly Group Foundation Walls Floors Columns & Beams Roof Building Total Manufacturing Material kg N eq 47.204 963.769 456.245 884.430 7.538 2360.597 Transportation kg N eq 3.682 24.568 12.769 8.621 0.199 49.858 Total kg N eq 50.887 988.337 469.014 893.051 7.736 2410.455 Construction Material kg N eq 0.945 21.481 24.981 0 0.553 47.961 Transportation kg N eq 3.238 35.539 12.181 6.632 0.314 57.859 Total kg N eq 4.183 57.019 37.163 6.632 0.868 105.820 Maintenance Material kg N eq   515.954       515.954 Transportation kg N eq   35.119       35.119 Total kg N eq   551.073       551.073     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    9 End-of-Life Material kg N eq 0.222 0.936 0.868 0.552 0.019 2.597 Transportation kg N eq 1.463 7.463 5.512 3.023 0.122 17.583 Total kg N eq 1.685 8.400 6.380 3.575 0.141 20.180 Operating Energy Annual  kg N eq 13.234 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 13.234 Total kg N eq 1310.165 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 1310.165      Table 11. Smog Potential by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group Life Cycle Stage Process Smog Potential Assembly Group Foundation Walls Floors Columns & Beams Roof Building Total Manufacturing Material kg NOx eq 969.609 9150.386 4244.151 2585.438 33.185 17018.248 Transportation kg NOx eq 81.084 538.659 279.929 187.897 4.290 1092.331 Total kg NOx eq 1050.693 9689.045 4524.080 2773.335 37.475 18110.579 Construction Material kg NOx eq 30.737 532.693 603.532 0 13.371 1180.333 Transportation kg NOx eq 69.758 768.627 262.455 142.890 6.767 1249.547 Total kg NOx eq 100.495 1301.320 865.987 142.890 20.138 2429.880 Maintenance Material kg NOx eq   8992.560       8992.560 Transportation kg NOx eq   757.833       757.833 Total kg NOx eq   9750.393       9750.393 End-of-Life Material kg NOx eq 4.155 17.518 16.236 10.332 0.360 48.601 Transportation kg NOx eq 34.557 176.327 130.224 71.411 2.886 415.404 Total kg NOx eq 38.713 193.844 146.460 81.742 3.246 464.005 Operating Energy Annual  kg NOx eq 134.830 134.830 134.830 134.830 134.830 134.830 Total kg NOx eq 13348.181 13348.181 13348.181 13348.181 13348.181 13348.181  Table 12. Human Health Respiratory Effects by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group Life Cycle Stage Process Human Health Respiratory Effects Assembly Group Foundation Walls Floors Columns & Beams Roof Building Total Manufacturing Material kg PM2.5 eq 459.766 13895.353 2022.013 1384.330 37.566 17797.255 Transportation kg PM2.5 eq 4.235 28.329 14.719 9.961 0.230 57.496     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    10 Total kg PM2.5 eq 464.001 13923.683 2036.732 1394.290 37.796 17854.752 Construction Material kg PM2.5 eq 1.071 25.766 28.308 0.000 0.627 55.772 Transportation kg PM2.5 eq 3.756 41.125 14.132 7.694 0.364 67.020 Total kg PM2.5 eq 4.827 66.891 42.440 7.694 0.992 122.791 Maintenance Material kg PM2.5 eq   21884.063       21884.063 Transportation kg PM2.5 eq   40.718       40.718 Total kg PM2.5 eq   21924.781       21924.781 End-of-Life Material kg PM2.5 eq 0.308 1.298 1.203 0.765 0.027 3.601 Transportation kg PM2.5 eq 1.861 9.494 7.012 3.845 0.155 22.367 Total kg PM2.5 eq 2.169 10.792 8.215 4.610 0.182 25.968 Operating Energy Annual  kg PM2.5 eq 632.064 632.064 632.064 632.064 632.064 632.064 Total kg PM2.5 eq 62574.305 62574.305 62574.305 62574.305 62574.305 62574.305      Table 13. Weighted Resource Use by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group Life Cycle Stage Process Weighted Resource Use Assembly Group Foundation Walls Floors Columns & Beams Roof Building Total Manufacturing Material ecologically weighted kg  2099796 9793163 8091860 4547113 175170 24703329 Transportation ecologically weighted kg  3619 24128 12027 8059 194 48037 Total ecologically weighted kg  2103415 9817291 8103886 4555172 175364 24751365 Construction Material ecologically weighted kg  941 14134 14419 0 319 29814 Transportation ecologically weighted kg  3119 34660 11735 6389 303 56164 Total ecologically weighted kg  4060 48795 26154 6389 622 85978 Maintenance Material ecologically weighted kg   2018690    2018690 Transportation ecologically weighted kg   33684    33684 Total ecologically weighted kg   2052374    2052374 End-of-Life Material ecologically weighted kg  2107 8882 8232 5238 182 24640     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    11 Transportation ecologically weighted kg  1545 7884 5823 3193 129 18575 Total ecologically weighted kg  3652 16766 14055 8431 311 43215 Operating Energy Annual  ecologically weighted kg  112272 112272 112272 112272 112272 112272 Total ecologically weighted kg  11114889 11114889 11114889 11114889 11114889 11114889  Table 14. Fossil Fuel Use by Life Cycle Stage and Assembly Group Life Cycle Stage Process Fossil Fuel Use Assembly Group Foundation Walls Floors Columns & Beams Roof Building Total Manufacturing Material MJ 1173389 25436022 7819855 11447475 187655 46024494 Transportation MJ 154891 1030642 513407 343242 8252 2050838 Total MJ 1328280 26466664 8333262 11790716 195907 48075332 Construction Material MJ 40604 609028 622080 0 13782 1285494 Transportation MJ 132379 1473925 498060 271161 12841 2386562 Total MJ 172983 2082952 1120140 271161 26623 3672056 Maintenance Material MJ  9274439     9274439 Transportation MJ  1430238     1430238 Total MJ  10704677     10704677 End-of-Life Material MJ 89474 377195 349596 222458 7747 1046470 Transportation MJ 65580 334616 247127 135517 5476 788316 Total MJ 155054 711811 596723 357975 13223 1834786 Operating Energy Annual  MJ 5701275 5701275 5701275 5701275 5701275 5701275 Total MJ 564426191 564426191 564426191 564426191 564426191 564426191  4.2.1 Difference in Impacts due to Different Glazing Ratios  The SEEDS program intended this LCA to be a study for changes in impacts with increasing glazing ratios (window area/total wall area); by modifying the building characteristics in the IE’s inputs to change the glazing ratio of the building, we can identify the change in the impacts on the building’s life cycle. Due to the BE Building’s high glazing ratio of 76.9% and the availability of limited energy use intensity data, we have looked at decreasing the ratio to 70%, 60%, 50%, and 40%. The basis of comparison used is percentage difference from base case (original fenestration ratio) for all impacts for the different fenestration ratio scenarios. In order to modify the building characteristics the following steps were followed:     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    12 1. Copy exterior steel stud wall, take away all windows and doors, and adjust length to that of curtain wall 2. Reduce curtain wall height 3. Adjust height of exterior steel stud wall to compensate for the reduction in the curtain wall 4. Adjust energy use intensity values for target glazing ratio 5. Reproduce summary report 6. Repeat steps 2 – 5 for all glazing ratios  7. Calculate percent difference from base case for all scenarios Figures 7 through 12 provide charts summarizing the results of the procedure detailed above.  The results show that for the life cycle stages “Manufacturing”, “Maintenance,” and “Operating Energy” a decrease in fenestration ratio decreases the net impacts. Maintenance stood out from the other categories as it has the largest percent difference from the other life cycle stages (e.g.: Operating Energy is approximately 70% of Maintenance across all glazing ratios). On the other hand, “Construction” and “End-of-Life” show a net increase in impacts with decreasing fenestration ratios. Construction is approximately 3X larger than End-of-Life. Finally, if all the life cycle stages are accounted for together, a decreasing fenestration ratio shows a net decrease in overall impacts.  -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 70% 60% 50% 40% Difference From Base Case Impact (%) Different Glazing Ratio Scenarios Manufacturing Smog Potential (kg NOx eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq) Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) Weighted Resource Use kg     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    13 Figure 7. Manufacturing: Difference from base case impact per scenario  Figure 8. Construction: Difference from base case impact per scenario  -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 70% 60% 50% 40% Difference From Base Case Impact (%) Different Glazing Ratio Scenarios Construction Smog Potential (kg NOx eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq) Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) Weighted Resource Use kg Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ -230 -180 -130 -80 -30 20 70% 60% 50% 40% Maintenance Smog Potential (kg NOx eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq) Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) Weighted Resource Use kg Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    14 Figure 9. Maintenance: Difference from base case impact per scenario  Figure 10. End-of-Life: Difference from base case impact per scenario   0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 70% 60% 50% 40% Difference From Base Case Impact (%) Different Glazing Ratio Scenarios End-of-Life  Smog Potential (kg NOx eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq) Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) Weighted Resource Use kg Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 70% Difference From Base Case Impact (%) Different Glazing Ratio Scenarios Operating Energy Smog Potential (kg NOx eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq) Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) Weighted Resource Use kg Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    15 Figure 11. Operating Energy: Difference from base case impact per scenario  Figure 12. Total percent difference from base case impact for each life cycle stage of the building 4.2.2 Uncertainty  Some uncertainty is attributed to assumptions made in the development of this LCA study. In material take-offs, linear and area conditions relied on the accuracy of drawings and precision of the take-off tools. The take-off process also presents the possibility of human error. Uncertainty is also present in impact estimation modeling. Actual rebar sizes were specified in Canadian standard sizes, but US standard rebar sizes closest to the specified size were used for impact estimator inputs. Limitations existed in impact estimation that required an adjustment of footing widths. Furthermore, live load of columns was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types on the slab of the storey above. Similar limitations existed for floor volume quantification, and slab width was approximated to work with such limitations. Wall assemblies were also a source of error when approximation for assembly items such as widths of gypsum boards and stud weights were needed. Also, finishings of the walls was not part of the scope of this project, which affects the results (although this effect is most likely to be negligible).  -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 70% 60% 50% 40% Difference From Base Case Impact (%) Different Glazing Ratio Scenarios Totals for Each Life Cycle Stage Operating Energy End - Of - Life Maintenance Construction Manufacturing     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    16 Little uncertainty existed in the data vintage. The BE Building, being a new building, left little uncertainty in terms of whether the actual building still reflects the drawings. However, being a young building also carries with it other uncertainties. Maintenance cycles may not be fully developed for a building without experienced users. In the future the maintenance of the building may change as components age, remodeling takes place, or unforeseen circumstances affect these cycles. Similarly, spatial and temporal variability provide uncertainties. The proximity of a regional park may have affected the weight of each impact. The distance between the BE Building and the source of electricity and water is such that considerations ought to be given to the impact of this region. Furthermore, the elevation of the UBC area in relation to the Metro Vancouver region requires water pumping and re-chlorination. Temporal variability may also create uncertainty in the progression of climate change and which impacts ought to be weighted higher. Data quality is another source of error. Data collection is an imprecise exercise, with limitations on accuracy and data availability, and therefore introduces uncertainties.  Data collection by multiple parties, despite agreed upon methods, may also lead to discrepancies and uncertainties. Also, difference in yearly factory emissions need to be accounted for. Factories may produce different emissions with the same product output, due to climate conditions, accidents or natural disasters, and other factors.  This leads to uncertainty regarding how to determine typical impacts. Furthermore, the interpretation of impacts over time is difficult to understand and evaluate. The effects of emissions and impacts over time may vary from analysis to analysis, which leads to uncertainty about how to value short and long term impacts. Differences in human exposure patterns is one of the more controversial ones. Lack of data or precedent can create uncertainty in how human health is affected by different and long-term exposure patterns. Overall, recognizing these uncertainties helps to retain the transparency of this report. If all these uncertainties were explored and mitigated, it would not be conducive to building a cohesive and structured report given the scope. 4.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis      Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    17 Five materials of significant abundance were selected to test the sensitivity of the model to changes in these material quantities.  The aim of this sensitivity analysis is to measure the change in environmental impact across the impact categories that we are concerned with. The sensitivity analysis illuminates the relationships between material quantity and impact, or lack thereof, for each of the materials chosen. Figure 13. Sensitivity Analysis below displays graphically the percent change in each impact category given a 10% increase in material quantity for five materials. The graph is normalized to the maximum value in each impact category in order to highlight the differences between each type of material and their contributions in relation to each other. Concrete stood out as a leader in the percent impact change in the categories ‘weighted resource use’, ‘global warming potential’, and ‘smog potential’. Rebar comprised most of the percent change in impact in terms of ‘eutrophication potential’. Contrary to the normalized sensitivity analysis, Figure 14. Sensitivity Analysis of Select Materials (non-normalized) provides insight into the overall change in impact if 10% of the material quantity is increased for each of the 5 materials.  Concrete again, not surprisingly, stood out as a leader in the percent impact change in the categories ‘ weighted resource use’, ‘global warming potential’, and ‘smog potential’.  Also worth noting is aluminum’s impact. This material has high impacts in all categories except in ‘weighted resource use’ (where concrete is the outstanding leader), and it has the greatest impact in ‘ozone depletion potential’ (where concrete is the second greatest contributor). The result of the sensitivity analysis is a useful tool for examining specific impacts from an increase in standard glazing. A 10% increase in standard glazing didn’t contribute to a significant relative change in impact. Notably, the greatest impact from an increased standard glazing was in ‘HH Respiratory Effects Potential.’ Three other minor contributions were observed to ‘global warming potential’, ‘acidification potential’, and ‘smog potential’. These results may prompt interesting discussion surrounding why standard glazing has an impact on these categories, and relatively lower to the other materials.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    18  Figure 13. Sensitivity Analysis of Select Materials Normalized to Maximum Value Primary Energy Consumption  Weighted Resource Use  Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential  HH Respiratory Effects Potential  Eutrophication Potential  Ozone Depletion Potential  Smog Potential  Concrete, 30 Mpa (flyash average) 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.94 0.61 1.00 1.00 Rebar, Rod; Light Sections 1.00 0.34 0.80 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.80 0.69 Standard Glazing 0.81 0.33 0.85 0.92 1.16 0.54 0.82 0.84 1/2" Regular Gypsum Board 0.77 0.28 0.71 0.82 0.84 0.41 0.80 0.64 Aluminum 0.92 0.31 0.84 1.00 0.97 0.47 1.01 0.75 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Normalized % Impact Sensitivity Analysis of Top 5 Materials Normalized to Maximum Value     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    19  Figure 14. Sensitivity Analysis of Select Materials Primary Energy Consumption  Weighted Resource Use  Global Warming Potential Acidification Potential  HH Respiratory Effects Potential  Eutrophication Potential  Ozone Depletion Potential  Smog Potential  Concrete, 30 Mpa (flyash average) 14% 9% 14% 20% 18% 6% 24% 13% Rebar, Rod; Light Sections 14% 3% 11% 18% 17% 10% 19% 9% Standard Glazing 12% 3% 12% 20% 23% 5% 19% 11% 1/2" Regular Gypsum Board 11% 3% 10% 17% 16% 4% 19% 8% Aluminum 13% 3% 12% 21% 19% 5% 24% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % Impact Sensitivity Analysis of Top 5 Materials     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    20 4.2.4 Chain of Custody Inquiry  Rebar was selected as the construction material to complete a chain of custody exercise. The goal of the exercise was to obtain information on the extraction and manufacturing processes involved with producing the rebar. The structural engineering company, Jones Kwong Kishi, associated with the BE Building was intended to be the starting point. However, a local rebar manufacturing company, Heritage Steel, was contacted as a first step in order to get the information, since efforts to contact Thomas Woo, the structural engineer for the BE Building, at Jones Kwong Kishi failed. Heritage Steel was assumed to be a typical supplier to contractors in the area. The steel to manufacture rebar at Heritage Steel is supplied by three recycling operations in the United States located in California, Oregon and Washington State. An example of the information obtained from this exercise is shown in Figure 15.  Figure 15. Information obtained about Rebar from Chain of Custody exercise        Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    21 4.2.5 Functions and Impacts  Table 15. Building Functions Room Type Area (sq. ft of typical floor) Percentage of Total Building Area Bedroom 21696 12.2 Bathroom 8800 4.9 Kitchen 9152 5.1 Living Area/Balconies 54928 30.8 Hallway/Stairwell/Elevator 22960 12.9 Parking 48098 27.0 Storage/Mechanical/Operational 12496 7.0  5.0 Conclusions This document is a report describing a life cycle assessment (LCA) study performed on the BE Building.  This LCA study will be used as a benchmark for similar buildings, as a guide towards informing decision-making and future policy regarding glazing and fenestration and as an exemplary demonstration of the latest in environmental impact accounting methods. This LCA includes life cycle stages such as manufacturing, transportation and construction. The parameters explored within these life cycle stages are Foundations, Beams and Columns, Walls, Roofs and Floors. For the top 5 most abundant materials by mass in these parameters, a sensitivity analysis was conducted.  The sensitivity analysis measured the change in environmental impact across the impact categories that we are concerned with after a hypothetical 10% increase in material quantity was imposed. Concrete stood out as a leader in the percent impact change in the categories ‘ weighted resource use’, ‘global warming potential’, ‘acidification potential’, ‘HH respiratory effects potential’, ‘ozone depletion potential’ and ‘smog potential’. Rebar comprised most of the percent change in impact in terms of ‘primary energy consumption’ and ‘eutrophication potential’. A 10% increase in standard glazing didn’t contribute to a significant relative change in impact. Interestingly, the greatest impact from an increased standard glazing was in ‘HH Respiratory Effects     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building    22 Potential.’ Three other minor contributions were observed to ‘global warming potential’, ‘acidification potential’, and ‘smog potential’ from a 10% increase in standard glazing. Additionally, a fenestration ratio study was performed. The SEEDS program intended this LCA to be a study for changes in impacts with increasing glazing ratio; however, the glazing ratio (76.9%) was higher than the provided energy use intensities, thus the study focused on decreasing glazing ratios. The results show that for the life cycle stages “Manufacturing”, “Maintenance,” and “Operating Energy” a decrease in fenestration ratio decreases the net impacts; on the other hand, “Construction” and “End-of-Life” show a net increase in impacts with decreasing fenestration ratios. Finally, if all the life cycle stages are accounted for together, a decreasing fenestration ratio shows a net decrease in overall impacts. For future implementations of LCA in residential buildings, the limitations of the IE software reference in the Uncertainties section should be modified. Reviewing impacts of glazing in residential buildings should refer to this report in making evidence-based decisions for policy.    Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building            Appendix A - Impact Estimator Inputs        Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building   Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Input Fields Known/Measured IE Inputs 1 Foundation   1.2 Concrete Footings     1.2.1 Footing_F0_26"       Length (ft) 9@7.5 67.5     Width (ft) 6 8.21     Thickness (in) 26 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % Unknown Average     Rebar 20M #6     1.2.2 Footing_F1_28"       Length (ft) 15@8 120     Width (ft) 6.5 9.58     Thickness (in) 28 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % Unknown Average     Rebar 20M #6     1.2.3 Footing_F2_38"       Length (ft) 5@11 55     Width (ft) 9 18.00     Thickness (in) 38 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % Unknown Average     Rebar 25M #6     1.2.4 Footing_F3_42"       Length (ft) 5@12 60     Width (ft) 10 22.11     Thickness (in) 42 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % 40 35     Rebar 30M #6     1.2.5 Footing_F4_42"       Length (ft) 4@21 84     Width (ft) 9.5 21.00     Thickness (in) 42 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % 40 35     Rebar 30M #6     1.2.6 Footing_F5_38"       Length (ft) 3@18 54     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building       Width (ft) 9 18.00     Thickness (in) 38 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % Unknown Average     Rebar 25M #6     1.2.7 Footing_F6_32"       Length (ft) 3@9 27     Width (ft) 7.5 12.63     Thickness (in) 32 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % Unknown Average     Rebar 25M #6     1.2.8 Footing_F7_48"       Length (ft) 13 13     Width (ft) 11 27.79     Thickness (in) 48 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % 40 35     Rebar 30M #6     1.2.9 Footing_F8_52"       Length (ft) 15 15     Width (ft) 12 32.84     Thickness (in) 52 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % 40 35     Rebar 30M #6     1.2.10 Footing_F9_42"       Length (ft) 14 14     Width (ft) 9 19.89     Thickness (in) 42 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % 40 35     Rebar 25M #6     1.2.11 Footing_F10_72"       Length (ft) 44 44     Width (ft) 50 189.47     Thickness (in) 72 19     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % 40 35     Rebar 30M #6     1.2.12 Footing_SF1_12"     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Length (ft) 830 830     Width (ft) 1.5 1.5     Thickness (in) 12 12     Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Concrete flyash % Unknown Average     Rebar 10M #4 2 Walls   2.1 Steel Stud Walls     2.1.1 Wall_Steel Stud_G2       Length (ft) 2060 2060     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"     Door Opening Number of Doors 78 78       Door Type - Steel Interior Door     2.1.2 Wall_Steel Stud_G4       Length (ft) 291 291     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 2 1/2 3 5/8     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 24     Steel Stud Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing       Stud Weight (Ga) - 25       Sheathing Type - none       Stud Thickness 2 1/2 3 5/8       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 24     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 2 1/2" 2 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 2 1/2" 2 1/2"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"     2.1.3 Wall_Steel Stud_G5       Length (ft) 1579 1579     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 2 1/2 3 5/8       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 24     Steel Stud Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing       Stud Weight (Ga) - 25       Sheathing Type - none       Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building       Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 2 1/2" 2 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"     2.1.4 Wall_Steel Stud_G6       Length (ft) 181 181     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 2 1/2 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 24     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 2 1/2 2 1/2     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"     2.1.4 Wall_Steel Stud_G11       Length (ft) 177 177     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"     2.1.5 Wall_Steel Stud_G12       Length (ft) 51 51     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building       Stud Thickness 6" 6"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 6" 6"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"     2.1.6 Wall_Steel Stud_G14       Length (ft) 104 104     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 2 1/2" 3 5/8       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 24     Steel Stud Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing       Stud Weight (Ga) - 25       Sheathing Type - none       Stud Thickness 2 1/2" 3 5/8       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 24     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 2 1/2" 2 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 2 1/2" 2 1/2"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"     2.1.7 Wall_Steel Stud_P1       Length (ft) 10 10     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     2.1.8 Wall_Steel Stud_P2       Length (ft) 3605 3605     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     Door Opening Number of Doors 251 251       Door Type - Hollow Core Wood Interior Door     2.1.9 Wall_Steel Stud_P2a       Length (ft) 11061 11061     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     Door Opening Number of Doors 437 437       Door Type - Hollow Core Wood Interior Door     2.1.10 Wall_Steel Stud_P3       Length (ft) 13 13     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 20     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 6" 6"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     2.1.11 Wall_Steel Stud_P3a       Length (ft) 4452 4452     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 20     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 6" 6"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 6" 6"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     Door Opening Number of Doors 51 51       Door Type - Hollow Core Wood Interior Door     2.1.12 Wall_Steel Stud_P4       Length (ft) 221 221     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 20     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 6" 6"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 6" 6"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     2.1.13 Wall_Steel Stud_P5       Length (ft) 280 280     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Steel Stud Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing       Stud Weight (Ga) - 25       Sheathing Type - none       Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Fibreglass Batt       Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     2.1.14 Wall_Steel Stud_S1       Length (ft) 5 5     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 2 1/4" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 24 24     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material ULC Rated GWB Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 3/4" 1/2"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Material ULC Rated GWB Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"     2.1.15 Wall_Steel Stud_S2       Length (ft) 450 450     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 2 1/4" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 24 24     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 1" 1/2" X 2       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Fire Rated Type X Gypsum Fire Rated Type X       Thickness 5/8" 5/8"     2.1.13 Wall_Steel Stud_F2       Length (ft) 86 86     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 7/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     2.1.14 Wall_Steel Stud_F3       Length (ft) 10454 10454     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 1 5/8" 3 5/8"     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     Door Opening Number of Doors 6 6       Door Type - Hollow Core Wood Interior Door     2.1.15 Wall_Steel Stud_F4       Length (ft) 1223 1223     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 2 1/2" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     2.1.16 Wall_Steel Stud_F5       Length (ft) 820 820     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     2.1.17 Wall_Steel Stud_F6       Length (ft) 392 392     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 20     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 6" 6"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 16     Envelope Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Regular Regular     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     2.1.18 Wall_Steel Stud_F7       Length (ft) 1354 1354     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 20     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) - 16     2.1.19 Wall_Steel Stud_F8       Length (ft) 341 341     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 20     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness 3 5/8" 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) - 16     2.1.20 Wall_Steel Stud_E7       Length (ft) 4277 4277     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type - load-bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness - 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) - 16     Envelope Category Cladding Gypsum Board       Material Natural Stone Regular       Thickness - -       Category Vapour & Air Barrier Vapour & Air Barrier       Material Polyethylene 6 mil Polyethylene 6 mil       Thickness - -       Category Insulation Insulation       Material R 18 Cavity Wall Insulation Fibreglass Batt       Thickness - -       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Exterior Glass-Mat Gypsum Sheathing Gypsum Fibre BD       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"     2.1.21 Wall_Steel Stud_E12     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Length (ft) 209 209     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     Stud Weight (Ga) - 25     Sheathing Type - none     Stud Thickness - 3 5/8"       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) - 16     Pre-engineered Metal Wind Average - High (11.4 psf)     Envelope Category Insulation Insulation       Material - Polylsocyanurate Foam       Thickness 2 1/2" 2 1/2"       Category Vapour & Air Barrier Vapour & Air Barrier       Material Polyethylene 6 mil Polyethylene 6 mil       Thickness - -       Category Gypsum  Board Gypsum Board       Material Exterior Glass-Mat Gypsum Sheathing Gypsum Fibre BD       Thickness 1/2" 1/2"   2.2 Curtain Wall     2.2.1 Wall_Curtain       Length (ft) 8246 8246     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Percent Viewable Glazing (%) - 98     Percent Spandrel Panel (%) - 2     Thickness of Insulation (mm) - 2  in     Spandrel Type - metal     Door Opening Number of Doors 159 159       Door Type - Aluminum Exterior Door, 80% glazing     Window Opening Number of Windows 213 213       Total Windown Area (ft2) 5112 5112       Fixed vs Operable Operable Operable       Frame Type - PVC Frame     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Glazing Type - Standard Glazing   2.3 Cast in Place     2.3.1 Wall_Cast in Place_C       Length (ft) 984 984     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Thickness (in) 8 8     Concrete (Mpa) - 30     Concrete flyash % - Average     Reinforcement - #15M     Door Opening Number of Doors 5 5       Door Type - Steel Interior Door     2.3.2 Wall_Cast in Place_E1       Length (ft) 1007 1007     Height (ft) 9.875 9.88     Thickness (in) 8 8     Concrete (Mpa) - 30     Concrete flyash % - Average     Reinforcement - #15M     2.3.3 Wall_Cast in Place_E2       Length (ft) 107 107     Height (ft) 9.875 9.875     Thickness (in) 8 8     Concrete (Mpa) - 20     Concrete flyash % - Average     Reinforcement - #15M   2.4 Basic Materials     2.4.1 Wall_Basic Materials_F1       Assembly Type GWB Regular Gypsum Board     Thickness (in) 1/2" 1/2"     Area (ft2) 88.875 88.875   2.5 Concrete Block     2.5.1 Wall_Concrete Block_B       Length (ft) 60 60       Height (ft) 9.875 9.875       Rebar # #15 #15     Opening Number of Doors 3 3       Door Type - Steel Interior Door     2.5.2 Wall_Concrete Block_B1     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building         Length (ft) 34 34       Height (ft) 9.875 9.875       Rebar # #15 #15     2.5.3 Wall_Concrete Block_B2       Length (ft) 567 567       Height (ft) 9.875 9.875       Rebar # #15 #15     Steel Stud Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     (Mistake) Stud Weight (Ga) - 25       Sheathing Type - none       Stud Thickness 2 1/2" 3 5/8       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 24     Opening Number of Doors 16 16       Door Type - Steel Interior Door     2.5.4 Wall_Concrete Block_B3       Length (ft) 623 623       Height (ft) 9.875 9.875       Rebar # #15 #15     Steel Stud Wall Type non-load bearing non-load bearing     (Mistake) Stud Weight (Ga) - 25       Sheathing Type - none       Stud Thickness 2 1/2" 3 5/8       Stud Spacing (in o.c.) 16 24 3 Columns and Beams   3.1 Concrete Column    3.1.1 Columns_P2      Number of Beams 42 42    Number of Columns 54 54    Floor to floor height (ft) 9 9    Bay sizes (ft) 21.55 21.55    Supported span (ft) 21.55 21.55    Supported area (ft2) 464.48 464.48    Live load (psf) 50 50    3.1.2 Columns_P1      Number of Beams 49 49    Number of Columns 53 53    Floor to floor height (ft) 14.46 14.46    Bay sizes (ft) 24.25 24.25    Supported span (ft) 24.25 24.25    Supported area (ft2) 588.15 588.15     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      Live load (psf) 100 100    3.1.3 Column_L1      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 10.46 10.46    Bay sizes (ft) 17.12 17.12    Supported span (ft) 17.12 17.12    Supported area (sq ft) 293.14 293.14    Live load (psf) 52.2 50    3.1.4 Column_L2      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.5 Column_L3      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 18.00 18.00    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.6 Column_L4      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.7 Column_L5      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.8 Column_L6     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building        Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.9 Column_L7      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.10 Column_L8      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.11 Column_L9      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.12 Column_L10      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.13 Column_L11      Number of Beams 0 0     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.14 Column_L12      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported span (ft) 18.00 18.00    Supported area (sq ft) 324.11 324.11    Live load (psf) 52.1 50    3.1.15 Column_L13      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 28 28    Floor to floor height (ft) 9.63 9.63    Bay sizes (ft) 17.89 17.89    Supported span (ft) 17.89 17.89    Supported area (sq ft) 320.07 320.07    Live load (psf) 52.4 50    3.1.16 Column_L14      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 26 26    Floor to floor height (ft) 10.63 10.63    Bay sizes (ft) 18.12 18.12    Supported span (ft) 18.12 18.12    Supported area (sq ft) 328.38 328.38    Live load (psf) 54.5 50    3.1.17 Column_L15      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 25 25    Floor to floor height (ft) 10.63 10.63    Bay sizes (ft) 16.18 16.18    Supported span (ft) 16.18 16.18    Supported area (sq ft) 261.92 261.92    Live load (psf) 60.2 50    3.1.18 Column_L16      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 10 10     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      Floor to floor height (ft) 11.08 11.08    Bay sizes (ft) 22.36 22.36    Supported span (ft) 22.36 22.36    Supported area (sq ft) 500.00 500.00    Live load (psf) 49.0 50    3.1.19 Column_L17      Number of Beams 0 0    Number of Columns 10 10    Floor to floor height (ft) 11.38 11.38    Bay sizes (ft) 22.36 22.36    Supported span (ft) 22.36 22.36    Supported area (sq ft) 499.80 499.80    Live load (psf) 48.4 50    3.1.20 Column_L18      Number of Beams 0 N/A    Number of Columns 0 N/A    Floor to floor height (ft) 22 N/A    Bay sizes (ft) 0 N/A    Supported span (ft) 0 N/A    Supported area (sq ft) 0.00 N/A    Live load (psf) 40 N/A 4 Floors   4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab Floor    4.1.1 Floors_P2      Floor area (sq ft) 25170 25170    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 50 50    4.1.2 Floors_P1      Floor area (sq ft) 37505 37505    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 50 50    4.1.3 Floors_L1      Floor area (sq ft) 9534 9534    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.4 Floors_L2      Floor area (sq ft) 7113 7113    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.5 Floors_L3      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.6 Floors_L4      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.7 Floors_L5      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.8 Floors_L6      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.9 Floors_L7      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.10 Floors_L8      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.11 Floors_L9      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.12 Floors_L10      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.13 Floors_L11      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.14 Floors_L12      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.15 Floors_L13      Floor area (sq ft) 9000 9000    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.16 Floors_L14      Floor area (sq ft) 8988 8988    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.17 Floors_L15      Floor area (sq ft) 8405 8405    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.18 Floors_L16      Floor area (sq ft) 7265 7265    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.19 Floors_L17      Floor area (sq ft) 4853 4853    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 40 50    4.1.5 Floors_Balcony_L3      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      4.1.6 Floors_Balcony_L4      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.7 Floors_Balcony_L5      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.8 Floors_Balcony_L6      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.9 Floors_Balcony_L7      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.10 Floors_Balcony_L8      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.11 Floors_Balcony_L9      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.12 Floors_Balcony_L10      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.13 Floors_Balcony_L11      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.14 Floors_Balcony_L12     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building        Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.15 Floors_Balcony_L13      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.16 Floors_Balcony_L14      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100    4.1.17 Floors_Balcony_L15      Floor area (sq ft) 818 818    Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average    Live load (psf) 100 100 5 Roofs   5.1 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof    5.1.1 Roofs_L18      Roof area (sq ft) 4840      Concrete (psi) 3625 4000    Flyash (%) unknown average     Live load (psf) 40 50             Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building          Appendix B - Impact Estimator Assumptions                       Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building   Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Input Assumptions 1 Foundation   1.2 Concrete Footings Spread footing takeoffs were performed using area conditions in OnScreen Takeoff to determine the total surface area of each footing type.  The thicknesses of each footing type were input as specified in the drawings.   Strip footing takeoffs were performed using the linear condition in OnScreen Takeoff to determine the cumulative length of each strip footing type.  The thicknesses and widths of each footing type were input as specified in the drawings.   Actual rebar sizes were specified in Canadian standard sizes, but US standard rebar sizes closest to the specified size were used for Impact Estimator inputs.   1.1.1 Footing_F0_26" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 6 ft x 26"/19"   = 8.21 ft 1.1.2 Footing_F1_28" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 6.5 ft x 28"/19"   = 9.58 ft 1.1.3 Footing_F2_38" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 9 ft x 38"/19"   = 18.00 ft  Impact Estimator's maximum allowable rebar size (#6) was selected because the specified rebar size (25M, approximately #8) could not be input.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building   1.1.4 Footing_F3_42" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 10 ft x 42"/19"   = 22.11 ft  Impact Estimator's maximum allowable rebar size (#6) was selected because the specified rebar size (30M, approximately #9) could not be input. 1.1.5 Footing_F4_42" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 9.5 ft x 42"/19"   = 21.00 ft  Impact Estimator's maximum allowable rebar size (#6) was selected because the specified rebar size (30M, approximately #9) could not be input. 1.1.6 Footing_F5_38" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 9 ft x 38"/19"   = 18.00 ft  Impact Estimator's maximum allowable rebar size (#6) was selected because the specified rebar size (25M, approximately #8) could not be input.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building   1.1.7 Footing_F6_32" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 7.5 ft x 32"/19"   = 12.63 ft  Impact Estimator's maximum allowable rebar size (#6) was selected because the specified rebar size (25M, approximately #8) could not be input. 1.1.8 Footing_F7_48" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 11 ft x 48"/19"   = 27.79 ft  Impact Estimator's maximum allowable rebar size (#6) was selected because the specified rebar size (30M, approximately #9) could not be input. 1.1.9 Footing_F8_52" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 12 ft x 52"/19"   = 32.84 ft  Impact Estimator's maximum allowable rebar size (#6) was selected because the specified rebar size (30M, approximately #9) could not be input.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building   1.1.10 Footing_F9_42" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 9 ft x 42"/19"   = 19.89 ft  Impact Estimator's maximum allowable rebar size (#6) was selected because the specified rebar size (25M, approximately #8) could not be input. 1.1.11 Footing_F10_72" The width of this footing was adjusted to accommodate the footing thickness limitation of Impact Estimator.    = (Measured Width) x (Measured Thickness)/(Input Thickness)   = 50 ft x 72"/19"   = 189.47 ft  Impact Estimator's maximum allowable rebar size (#6) was selected because the specified rebar size (30M, approximately #9) could not be input. 1.1.12 Footing_SF1_12" The rebar size (#3) was increased to accommodate the minimum rebar size (#4) accepted by Impact Estimator.   2 Walls   2.1 Steel Stud Walls     Stud Weight: when not provided.        If stud thickness is < 6", then weight was assumed to be "light" (25 Ga)        If stud thickness is >= 6", then weight was assumed to be "heavy" (20 Ga)  Sheathing Type: assumed to be "none" since none were specified.  Stud Thickness: Smallest stud size in IE is 3 5/8"; all studs < 3 5/8" were put at 24 o.c. instead of 16 o.c. when possible.  Insulation: All "batt" insulation was assumed to be fibreglass batt insulation  Exterior Glass-Mat Gypsum Sheathing replaced by Gypsum Fibre BD     2.1.1 Wall_Steel Stud_G2 Doors assumed to be "Steel Interior Doors"     2.1.2 Wall_Steel       Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building   Stud_G4     2.1.3 Wall_Steel Stud_G5       2.1.4 Wall_Steel Stud_G6       2.1.4 Wall_Steel Stud_G11       2.1.5 Wall_Steel Stud_G12       2.1.6 Wall_Steel Stud_G14       2.1.7 Wall_Steel Stud_P1       2.1.8 Wall_Steel Stud_P2 Doors assumed to be "Hollow Core Wood Interior Doors"     2.1.9 Wall_Steel Stud_P2a Doors assumed to be "Hollow Core Wood Interior Doors"     2.1.10 Wall_Steel Stud_P3       2.1.11 Wall_Steel Stud_P3a Doors assumed to be "Hollow Core Wood Interior Doors"     2.1.12 Wall_Steel Stud_P4       2.1.13 Wall_Steel Stud_P5       2.1.14 Wall_Steel Stud_S1       2.1.15 Wall_Steel Stud_S2       2.1.13 Wall_Steel Stud_F2       2.1.14 Wall_Steel Stud_F3 Doors assumed to be "Hollow Core Wood Interior Doors"     2.1.15 Wall_Steel Stud_F4       2.1.16 Wall_Steel Stud_F5       2.1.17 Wall_Steel Stud_F6       2.1.18 Wall_Steel Stud_F7 Assumed tiles on thin set mortar was assumed to have negligent impacts, thus not included since there is no similar material in IE     2.1.19 Wall_Steel Stud_F8 Assumed tiles on thin set mortar was assumed to have negligent impacts, thus not included since there is no similar material in IE    2.1.20 Wall_Steel Stud_E7 Doors assumed to be "Aluminum Exterior Doors, 80% glazing"    Windows assumed to be "Aluminum Frame" and have "Standard     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building   Glazing"     2.1.21 Wall_Steel Stud_E12 Wind Average assumed to be "High" since E12 was used as exterior walls in the top floors of the building   2.2 Curtain       Percent Viewable Glazing (%): assumed to be 98%.  Percent Viewable Spandrel (%): assumed to be 2%  Insulation Thickness: assumed to be 2".  Spandrel Type: assumed to be metal.     2.2.1 Wall_Curtain Doors assumed to be "Aluminum Exterior Doors, 80% glazing"       Windows assumed to be "PVC Frame"   2.3 Cast in Place       Flyash Percentage: assumed to be average percentage.  Reinforcement: assumed to be #15M      2.3.1 Wall_Cast in Place_C Concrete strength assumed to be 30 Mpa       Doors assumed to be "Steel Interior Doors"     2.3.2 Wall_Cast in Place_E1 Concrete strength assumed to be 30 Mpa     2.3.3 Wall_Cast in Place_E2 Concrete strength assumed to be 20 Mpa   2.4 Basic Materials       2.4.1 Wall_Basic Materials_F1     2.5 Concrete Block     Rebar: assumed to be #15M  Mistakes in B2 and B3: the assembly included a steel stud component that was not present in the original assembly.     2.5.1 Wall_Concrete Block_B Doors assumed to be "Steel Interior Doors"     2.5.2 Wall_Concrete Block_B1       2.5.3 Wall_Concrete Doors assumed to be "Steel Interior Doors"     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building   Block_B2     2.5.4 Wall_Concrete Block_B3   3 Columns and Beams   3.1 Concrete Column   Substructure columns (P1 & P2) were counted in OnScreen Takeoff using a count condition.  Superstructure columns were tallied as specified in the column schedule provided in the drawings (S106).  Bay size and span length for a particular storey is simply the square root of the gross area of that storey divided by the number of columns on that storey.  (Span Length) = (Bay Size) = SQRT( (Gross Floor Area of Storey)/(Number of Columns of Storey) )  Supported area of a particular storey is assumed to be the the gross floor area divided by the number of columns on that storey.  (Supported Area) = (Gross Area)/(Number of Columns of Storey)  This building was constructed using a Slab Band Design instead of a traditional Beam-Column Design.  Because slab band takeoffs cannot be input into Impact Estimator, slab band spans between columns were counted and input as beams.  Live loads were dependant on the floor usage type, as specified in the drawings (S101).  Live loads are associated with the slab, thus columns of a particular storey resist the loads determined by the floor usage type of the storey immediately above the columns.     3.1.1 Columns_P2 Supported area is the floor area of P2     3.1.2 Columns_P1 Supported area is the floor area of P1     3.1.3 Columns_L1 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 6539 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 621 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1048 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 8208 SF )  = 52.2 PSF     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building       3.1.4 Columns_L2 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     3.1.5 Columns_L3 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     3.1.6 Columns_L4 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building       3.1.7 Columns_L5 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     3.1.8 Columns_L6 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     3.1.9 Columns_L7 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building       3.1.10 Columns_L8 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     3.1.11 Columns_L9 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     3.1.12 Columns_L10 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )     3.1.13 Columns_L11 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building       3.1.14 Columns_L12 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7243 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 810 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1022 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 9075 SF )  = 52.1 PSF     3.1.15 Columns_L13 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 7109 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 825 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1028 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 8962 SF )  = 52.4 PSF    3.1.16 Columns_L14 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 6481 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 1028 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 1029 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 8538 SF )  = 54.5 PSF     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      3.1.17 Columns_L15 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 4344 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 0 SF x 100 PSF ) + ( 2204 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 6548 SF )  = 60.2 PSF    3.1.18 Columns_L16 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the various floor-use types imposed on the slab of the storey above.  (Live Load) = [ (Residential Floor Area) x (Residential Live Load) + (Balcony Area) x (Balcony Live Load) + (Exits and Stairs Floor Area) x (Exits and Stairs Live Load) ] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 4252 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 0 SF x 100 PSF) + ( 748 SF x 100 PSF) ] / ( 5000 SF )  = 49.0 PSF    3.1.19 Columns_L17 Live load was approximated as the area-averaged live load imposed by the mechanical room and roof of the slab above.  (Live Load) = [(Roof Area) x (Roof Live Load) + (Mechanical Area) x (Mechanical Live Load)] / (Total Area)  = [ ( 3803 SF x 40 PSF ) + ( 1195 SF x 75 PSF) ] / ( 4998 SF )  = 48.4 PSF       3.1.20 Columns_L18   4 Floors   4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab Floor  Assumed 4000 psi     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      4.1.1 Floors_P2 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 50psf was used.  Parking floor area use may also be allocated to nearby townhouses, but it is assumed to be solely for the purpose of high-rise residents.    4.1.2 Floors_P1 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 50psf was used.  Parking floor area use may also be allocated to nearby townhouses, but it is assumed to be solely for the purpose of high-rise residents.    4.1.3 Floors_L1 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.4 Floors_L2 Flyash concentration assumed 35%  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.5 Floors_L3 Flyash concentration assumed 35%  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.6 Floors_L4 Flyash concentration assumed 35%  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.7 Floors_L5 Flyash concentration assumed 35%  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.8 Floors_L6 Flyash concentration assumed 35%  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      4.1.9 Floors_L7 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.10 Floors_L8 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.11 Floors_L9 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.12 Floors_L10 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.13 Floors_L11 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.14 Floors_L12 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.15 Floors_L13 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.16 Floors_L14 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.17 Floors_L15 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      4.1.18 Floors_L16 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.19 Floors_L17 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.    4.1.5 Floors_Balcony_L3 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.6 Floors_Balcony_L4 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.7 Floors_Balcony_L5 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.8 Floors_Balcony_L6 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.9 Floors_Balcony_L7 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.10 Floors_Balcony_L8 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      4.1.11 Floors_Balcony_L9 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.12 Floors_Balcony_L10 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.13 Floors_Balcony_L11 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.14 Floors_Balcony_L12 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.15 Floors_Balcony_L13 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.16 Floors_Balcony_L14 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal.    4.1.17 Floors_Balcony_L15 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 100psf used for all exterior balconies. All exterior balconies and patios assumed equal. 5 Roofs   5.1 Concrete Suspended Slab Roof  Storeys delineated as encapsulating the air ventalation system of the building were not counted as area use.     Life Cycle Assessment of The Be Building      5.1.1 Roofs_L18 Flyash concentration is unknown. Assume average flyash concentration.  Live load was approximated using specified design loads. Live load of 40 was not an option in Athena, so 50psf was used.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

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.18861.1-0108554/manifest

Comment

Related Items