Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment of the George F. Curtis Addition Building Dawe, Amie Mar 29, 2010

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Dawe_A_SEEDS_2010.pdf [ 1.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108636.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108636-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108636-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108636-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108636-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108636-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108636-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108636-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108636.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report                      Life Cycle Assessment of the George F. Curtis Addition Building Amie Dawe University of British Columbia CIVL 498C March 29, 2010                     Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.    PROVISO        This study is part of a larger study - the UBC LCA Project - which is continually developing. As such the findings contained in this report should be considered preliminary as there may have been subsequent refinements since the initial posting of this report.     If further information is required or if you would like to include details from this study in your research please contact rob.sianchuk@gmail.com.   i               CIVL 498C: Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment   Life Cycle Assessment of the George F. Curtis Addition  Building   Final Report; Submitted for Rob Sianchuk                            Amie Dawe 3/29/2010 ii      Abstract  The George F Curtis Addition Building (Curtis Addition) was constructed in 1972 on the University of British Columbia and serves as an academic and office space for the UBC Faculty of Law and its students. A whole building life cycle assessment was conducted on the concrete 75,195 square foot building using structural and architectural drawings. A material quantity takeoff was performed using On Center's OnScreen Takeoff software, and the building was modeled in Athena's Impact Estimator (IE) to generate a bill of materials and summary measures.  The materials contributing most significantly to the building make-up are ballast, roofing asphalt, Type III glass felt, 5/8" gypsum board and #15 organic felt; mostly components of the built-up roof. Concrete  and rebar comprise the majority of the structure's volume, and have the largest impact on the building's impact assessment profile, as determined by a sensitivity analysis. The Curtis Addition, when compared to the average UBC academic building, was found to have larger impacts in all category measures except for ozone depletion potential. The less environmentally-friendly building profile is most likely a result of the vast use of concrete and a built-up roof.  Energy models of the existing Curtis Addition building and an 'improved' version, based on REAP's minimum insulation standards, were created.  Comparison of the models revealed an energy payback period of 1.5 years.  This life cycle assessment of the manufacturing and construction phases of the Curtis Addition Building enables quantification of its environmental impacts and showcases the broad applications of building LCAs. 3       Table of Contents Abstract  ........................................................................................................................................................iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................ v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................... v 1.0 Introduction  ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Goal and Scope ................................................................................................................................  2 2.2 Goal of Study ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Scope of Study ................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Tools, Methodology and Data ............................................................................................................. 3 3.1 Building Model  ................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Takeoff ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Foundations .......................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 Walls ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.3 Columns and Beams ........................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.4 Floors ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.5 Roofs ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.6 Extra Basic Materials ........................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Bill of Materials ................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Summary Measures  ....................................................................................................................... 11 4.2 Primary Engergy Consumption  ................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Weighted Resource Use  ............................................................................................................. 13 4.4 Global Warming Potential  .......................................................................................................... 13 4.5 Acidification Potential  ................................................................................................................ 13 4.6 Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential  .............................................................................. 13 4.7 Eutrophication Potential  ............................................................................................................ 13 4.8 Ozone Depletion Potential  ......................................................................................................... 14 4.9 Photochemical Smog Potential  .................................................................................................. 14 4.10 Limitations and Uncertainties  .................................................................................................... 16 4.11 Sensitivity Analysis  ..................................................................................................................... 16 4   5.1 Building Performance  ..................................................................................................................... 18 5.2 Performance Model Concept and Calculations  .......................................................................... 19 5.3 Performance Model Results and Interpretation  ........................................................................ 20 6.0 Conclusions  .................................................................................................................................... 23 8.0 References  ..................................................................................................................................... 25 9.0 Annex A: IE Input Document  .......................................................................................................... 26 10.0 Annex B: IE Assumptions Document  .............................................................................................. 34      List of Tables    Table 1: Curtis Addition Building System Characteristics ...................................................................................... 1  Table 2: Bill of Materials for the Curtis Addition Building .............................................................................. 10 Table 3: Impact Assessment Summary for the Curtis Addition Building  .................................................... 12 Table 4: Normalized Impact Category Summary Measures  ....................................................................... 14 Table 5: Summary Areas and R-Values for Curtis Addition Building Performance Model  .......................... 20 Table 6: Total Energy for Current and Improved Curtis Addition Building Performance Models  ............... 20      List of Figures    Figure 1: Impacts by Category, Normalized to an Average UBC Academic Building ....................................... 15  Figure 2: Sensitivity of Select Materials to the Curtis Addition Impact Assessment Profile ....................... 17 Figure 3: Energy Useages for 'Current' and 'Imporved' Curtis Addition Building Models  .......................... 21 Figure 4: Energy Payback Period for 'Improved' Curtis Addition Building  .................................................. 21 5   1.0 Introduction  This report presents a whole building life cycle assessment performed on the George F. Curtis Building Addition. The Curtis Addition, also commonly referred to as the Law Building, is located at 1822 East Mall on the University of British Columbia Campus. The original building was named after George F. Curtis, the first Dean and a UBC Law professor since 1945. The concrete addition was designed by architect Fred T. Hollingsworth and construction took place between 1972 and 1974. The structure cost $3,400,000 to erect and was funded with grants from the BC Government.   The Curtis Addition is a two story building with a basement, comprised of a three-floor library, one large lecture theatre, two floors of office-filled corridors, and a student interaction space. It serves as an office space for UBC Law faculty, an academic resource and quiet study area for UBC Law students, and  a lecture space for both. The total interior floor space of the Curtis Addition is approximated to be 75,195 square feet.  The building is mostly poured concrete; the exterior components are concrete walls and several  skylights.  Interior walls are steel stud partitions, and are supported by a framework of concrete columns and beams.  The floors and roof are all suspended concrete slabs, with the exception of the theatre, where the roof is a steel joist system.  All roof surface area is built up with tar and gravel underlain by insulation.  Please refer to Table 1: Curtis Addition Building System Characteristics below for a detailed breakdown of the general building system.     ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTION Structure Concrete columns and beams supporting concrete suspended slabs Floors Basement: Concrete slab on grade First and Second Floors: Concrete suspended slabs Exterior Walls Basement: Cast in place walls First and Second Floors: Cast in place walls with strips of curtain wall (skylights and window walls with bronze tinted glazing) Note: The spandrel wall surrounding the library is insulated with 2" of fiberglass batt Interior Walls Variety of cast in place walls and steel stud walls with 5/8" gypsum board envelope Windows All windows and curtain walls are bronze tinted glazed Roof All roof area except for theatre: Concrete suspended slab Theatre roof: Steel joist system with 1.5" rigid insulation Entire Roof: Built-up with high degree melt tar and gravel (exception of small area covering two stair wells that is covered with neoprene hypalon)  Table 1: Curtis Addition Building System Characteristics 1   2.0 Goal and Scope   2.1 Goal of Study  This life cycle analysis (LCA) of the George F. Curtis Building Addition (Curtis Addition) at the University of British Columbia was carried out as an exploratory study to determine the environmental impact of its design. This LCA of the Curtis Addition is also part of a series of twenty-nine others being carried out simultaneously on respective buildings at UBC with the same goal and scope.  The main outcomes of this LCA study are the establishment of a materials inventory and environmental impact references for the Curtis Addition. An exemplary application of these references are in the assessment of potential future performance upgrades to the structure and envelope of the Curtis Addition. When this study is considered in conjunction with the twenty- nine other UBC building LCA studies, further applications include the possibility of carrying out environmental performance comparisons across UBC buildings over time and between different materials, structural types and building functions. Furthermore, as demonstrated through these potential applications, this Curtis Addition LCA can be seen as an essential part of the formation of a powerful tool to help inform the decision making process of policy makers in establishing quantified sustainable development guidelines for future UBC construction, renovation and demolition projects.  The intended core audience of this LCA study are those involved in building development related policy making at UBC, such as the Sustainability Office, who are involved in creating policies and frameworks for sustainable development on campus.  Other potential audiences include developers, architects, engineers and building owners involved in design planning, as well as external organizations such as governments, private industry and other universities whom may want to learn more or become engaged in performing similar LCA studies within their  organizations.  2.2 Scope of Study  The product systems being studied in this LCA are the structure and envelope of the Curtis Addition on a square foot finished floor area of academic building basis. In order to focus on design related impacts, this LCA encompasses a cradle-to-gate scope that includes the raw 2   material extraction, manufacturing of construction materials, and construction of the structure and envelope of the Curtis Addition, as well as associated transportation effects throughout.  2.2.1 Tools, Methodology and Data  Two main software tools are to be utilized to complete this LCA study; OnCenter's OnScreen TakeOff and the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute's Impact Estimator (IE) for buildings.  The study will first undertake the initial stage of a materials quantity takeoff, which involves performing linear, area and count measurements of the building's structure and envelope. To accomplish this, OnScreen TakeOff version 3.6.2.25 is used, which is a software tool designed to perform material takeoffs with increased accuracy and speed in order to enhance the bidding capacity of its users.  Using imported digital plans, the program simplifies the calculation and measurement of the takeoff process, while reducing the error associated with these two activities. The measurements generated are formatted into the inputs required for the IE building LCA software to complete the takeoff process.  These formatted inputs as well as their associated assumptions can be viewed in Annexes A and B respectively.  Using the formatted takeoff data, version 4.0.64 of the IE software, the only available software capable of meeting the requirements of this study, is used to generate a whole building LCA model for the Curtis Addition in the Vancouver region as an Institutional building type. The IE software is designed to aid the building community in making   more environmentally conscious material and design choices. The tool achieves this by applying a set of algorithms to the inputted takeoff data in order to complete the  takeoff process and generate a bill of materials (BoM). This BoM then utilizes the  Athena Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database, version 4.6, in order to generate a cradle-to- grave LCI profile for the building. In this study, LCI profile results focus on the manufacturing (inclusive of raw material extraction), transportation of construction materials to site and their installation as structure and envelope assemblies of the Curtis Addition. As this study is a cradle-to-gate assessment, the expected service life of the Curtis Addition is set to 1 year, which results in the maintenance, operating energy and end-of-life stages of the building's life cycle being left outside the scope of assessment. 3      The IE then filters the LCA results through a set of characterization measures based on the mid-point impact assessment methodology developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) version 2.2. In order to generate a complete environmental impact profile for the Curtis Addition, all of the available TRACI impact assessment categories available in the IE are included in this study, and are listed as;  • Global warming potential  • Acidification potential  • Eutrophication potential  • Ozone depletion potential  • Photochemical smog potential  • Human health respiratory effects potential  • Weighted raw resource use  • Primary energy consumption     Using the summary measure results, a sensitivity analysis is then conducted in order to reveal the effect of material changes on the impact profile of the Curtis Addition. Finally, using the UBC Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP) as a guide, this study then estimates the embodied energy involved in upgrading the insulation and window R-values to REAP standards and generates a rough estimate of the energy payback period of investing in a better performing envelope.     The primary sources of data used in modeling the structure and envelope of the Curtis Addition are the original architectural and structural drawings from when the building was initially constructed in 1974. The assemblies of the building that are modeled include the foundation, columns and beams, floors, walls and roofs, as well as their associated envelope and/or openings (i.e. doors and windows). The decision to omit other building components, such as flooring, electrical aspects, HVAC system, finishing 4   and detailing, etc., are associated with the limitations of available data and the IE software, as well as to minimize the uncertainty of the model. In the analysis of these assemblies, some of the drawings lack sufficient material details, which necessitate the usage of assumptions to complete the modeling of the building in the IE software. Furthermore, there are inherent assumptions made by the IE software in order to generate the bill of materials and limitations to what it can model, which necessitated further assumptions to be made. These assumptions and limitation will be discussed further as they emerge in the Building Model section of this report and, as previously mentioned, all specific input related assumption are contained in the Input Assumptions document in Annex B.   3.0 Building Model  The Curtis Addition Building model was constructed using two major software programs; On Center OnScreen Takeoff and Athena's Impact Estimator (IE). The material quaintly takeoff was performed using OnScreen, and the quantities were input into the IE. The IE was then used to generate a bill of materials, summary measures and absolute value measures for the Curtis Addition Building. Challenges were encountered and many assumptions were made during the course of modeling the building, however all were thoroughly documented and are discussed in detail in the following section.  3.1 Takeoff  The material quantity takeoff was performed on the Curtis Addition Building using the OnScreen Takeoff software. The program is a tool that provides an interface for users to conduct and  keep track of quantity takeoffs from structural and architectural drawings. It is an efficient and accurate was to perform takeoffs, with digital tools increasing the accuracy of recorded values.  The drawings for the Curtis Addition were imported into OnScreen in a .pdf file format.  They were then rotated and scaled as appropriate.  Three types of conditions were used to collect quantities; count conditions, linear conditions and area conditions.  All quantities were recorded with one or more of the condition types and categorized into one of six assemblies; foundations, walls (including windows and doors), columns and beams, floors, roofs and extra basic   materials.  Each condition recorded was named using the standard format of Assembly_Descriptor_Descriptor.  This was a very important step in the takeoff process, as 5   common nomenclature enabled an easy transfer of data into the Impact Estimator. In addition, specific data required for inputs into the IE were recorded in the notes section of the OnScreen conditions.  Most takeoff conditions were separated according to common characteristics.  For example, columns and beams were modeled separately for each floor of the building.  To further demonstrate, cast in place walls were organized by thickness (8", 10" or 12") and envelope (none, gypsum on one side, gypsum on both sides, etc).  This also made double checking the model, isolating errors and making amendments far easier to perform and track.  In general, different assembly takeoffs were documented on different drawings.  The foundation assembly, which includes footings, slabs on grade and stairs, was mostly tracked on the foundation plan.  The wall, window, door, floor and roof assemblies were recorded on the floor plans with some additional wall and window conditions accounted for on the elevations.  The wall assembly schedule and door schedule both aided in determining detailed characteristics pertaining to the wall envelopes and doors, respectively.  Lastly, the columns and beams were documented on the floor framing plans.  Although the OnScreen program significantly improved the quality and speed of the quantity takeoff, there were several challenges in using the program. Many of the .pdf files imported for the Curtis Addition Building were of poor quality. Even using the 'enhancing' and 'darkening' features in the software did not fully eliminate all grainy drawing portions or recover poorly scanned information. Much information was spread over numerous drawings, so flipping back and forth between them created room for error and modeling mistakes to be made. The secondary view window provided a way to minimize the probability of these consequences.  3.1.1 Foundations The foundation assembly of the model consisted of slabs on grade, footings and stairs. All concrete was specified and modeled as 4000 psi strength.  No flyash content was defined in the building drawings, so an average content was used.  The slabs on grade were modeled as area conditions and all converted to a thickness of 8" to ensure compatible inputs for the Impact Estimator.  The footings were either strip of square footings and were all modeled using linear conditions and count conditions, respectively.  In order to facilitate data input into the IE, all footings were converted to 6   an equivalent length of strip footing.  This allowed several OnScreen conditions to be aggregated into fewer IE input conditions.  The stair takeoffs were an amalgamation of area conditions multiplied by widths and were also modeled as an equivalent strip footing.  This enabled the rebar within the stairs to be accounted for in the model.  Some rebar specifications for footings and stairs were not available as modeling choices in the IE, and had to be modeled incorrectly.  3.1.2 Walls The wall assembly consisted of cast in place walls, steel stud walls and curtain walls.  All interior walls were modeled as linear conditions, and the exterior walls were modeled as a combination of linear and area conditions (this depended on which drawing the conditions were tracked on).  Wall conditions were separated by floor, type and thickness.  All cast in place walls were converted to either 8" or 12" thickness to ensure compatible inputs for the Impact Estimator.  Again, all concrete was specified and modeled as 4000 psi strength.  No flyash content was defined in the building drawings, so an average content was used.  Some rebar specifications were not available in the IE, and had to be modeled incorrectly.  The steel stud walls were modeled as 1 5/8 x 3 5/8, as stated in a previous report done on the Curtis Addition Building (Aloisio).  No sheathing type or stud spacing were specified in the drawings, so a common spacing of 24 inches on center was assumed.  A light stud weight of 25 gauge was assumed due to the interior nature of the partition walls.  Wall envelopes either did not exist (many of the poured concrete walls), or were specified as gypsum board.  The earlier referenced report on the Curtis Addition Building also specified 5/8" thick gypsum board, so the same assumption was used (Aloisio).  All curtain wall windows and skylights were specified as single pane bronze tinted glazed windows. However, the IE does not provide the option to model that information; the  IE curtain wall condition is predefined as a double pane system with standard glazing. The percent viewable glazing on all curtain walls was estimated from the architectural drawings. These are source of inaccuracy in the building model. As with the curtain walls, all windows were noted as bronze tinted glazed, but have been modeled as standard glazing, as bronze tinted glaze in not a provided model choice. Windows were 7   accounted for using a count condition and area condition, ensuring to gather all necessary data for the IE inputs.  Doors were modeled using count conditions and were easy to takeoff due to the detailed door schedule. Some wall conditions inevitably had more than one door type; however, the IE only allows one door type per wall condition. In this case, the most common door within that specific wall type was chosen to represent all of the doors.  3.1.3 Columns and Beams The columns and beams assembly was very simple to takeoff and enter into the IE. The conditions were separated by floor, and accounted for using count conditions. The area of supported floor was also measured using an area condition. The supported floor area and number of columns was then used to calculate an equivalent supported span and bay size for the IE inputs. Live loads were specified as 75, 100 and 150 psf, but were all modeled as 100 psf due to IE input limitations.  3.1.4 Floors Floors were documented in the takeoff using area conditions, measured to the inside edge of the walls. All floors were concrete suspended slab and as before, all concrete was specified and modeled as 4000 psi strength. No flyash content was defined in the building drawings, so an average content was used. As with the columns and beams assembly, design live loads were specified as 75, 100 and 150 psf, but were modeled as 100 psf due to IE input limitations. Appropriate floor spans and widths were calculated to ensure the values fit within the ranges specified in the Impact Estimator.  3.1.5 Roofs Most of the roof was concrete suspended slab, and the same modeling techniques and assumptions were made as with the concrete suspended slab floors. One part of the roof was observed to be a steel joist roofing system, which was modeled with few assumptions and some additional extra basic materials to account for the steel decking and large steel beams. Some of the roof areas were sloped, and calculations were performed to ensure the correct roof area was computed from the areas captured on the bird's eye view plans. Additionally the Curtis Addition boasts a built-up roof assembly; a layering of high-degree-melt tar and gravel atop the concrete slab and steel joist system. This was modeled as an inverted 4-ply asphalt roofing system, as it most 8   closely resembled the actual roofing material. Underlying insulation was also accounted for.  3.1.6 Extra Basic Materials A few remaining materials that did not fall into the main five assemblies were modeled here.  This includes extra concrete topping on concrete floor slabs, steel decking and large steel beams, miscellaneous insulation, and window portions of the trellis feature. The concrete topping, steel decking, insulation and trellis glazing were all recorded using area conditions.  They were easily converted into necessary units for the IE inputs.  The extra steel beams were modeled using linear conditions, as beam properties per linear foot were used to calculate final values.  All of the quantity takeoff values were formatted and entered into the Impact Estimator.  A detailed breakdown of these inputs can be found in Annex A: IE Inputs Document.  The actual alterations, calculations and assumptions for each input can be referred to in Annex B: IE Input Assumptions Document.  3.2 Bill of Materials  All of the material quantities measured during the takeoff were then input into the Impact Estimator and a summarized list of materials was generated. This list, or bill of materials, is presented in Table 2: Bill of Materials for the Curtis Addition Building, below. Note all values expressed are in  metric units for project comparison and consistency purposes. 9     Material Quantity Unit Ballast (aggregate stone) 61906.502 kg Roofing Asphalt 39665.348 kg Type III Glass Felt 13442.883 m2 5/8" Regular Gypsum Board 8937.0811 m2 #15 Organic Felt 6721.4413 m2 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 5210.5714 m3 Extruded Polystyrene 4658.5092 m2 (25mm) Batt. Fiberglass 1201.998 m2 (25mm) 6 mil Polyethylene 440.5254 m2 Softwood Plywood 419.9221 m2 (9mm) Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 275.7429 Tonnes EPDM membrane 163.1503 kg Wide Flange Sections 141.7024 Tonnes Galvanized Decking 127.0998 Tonnes Standard Glazing 86.607 m2 Polyethylene Filter Fabric 54.3288 Tonnes 5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board 42.4443 m2 Water Based Latex Paint 35.7273 L Glazing Panel 33.0513 Tonnes Aluminum 12.9882 Tonnes Galvanized Studs 10.6444 Tonnes Joint Compound 8.9617 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 4.1861 m3 Galvanized Sheet 4.0585 Tonnes Nails 1.9998 Tonnes Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 1.4739 L Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 1.2044 Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts 0.7045 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.1029 Tonnes  Table 2: Bill of Materials for the Curtis Addition Building    The bill of materials is sorted by quantity from largest to smallest. It can be seen the five largest materials by sheer value are ballast stone, roofing asphalt, Type III glass felt, 5/8" gypsum board and #15 organic felt. All five materials, with the exception of the gypsum board, are part of the roof assembly; they represent the built up roof covering the Curtis Addition. When input into Athena, an inverted 4-ply built up asphalt roofing system was used. Extruded polystyrene and glass felt were selected to represent the specified 1.5 inches of rigid insulation. The 4-ply asphalt system clearly dictated the output on the bill of materials, but most likely properly 10   accounted for the actual amount of material used in the roof.  The gypsum board comes from the interior steel stud walls, most of which had an envelope of 5/8" thick gypsum on one or two sides.  Exploring further down the list, 30MPa concrete, rebar and extruded polystyrene are also demonstrated as large contributors to the building's bill of materials. The extruded polystyrene is again a roofing component, and was entered into the IE as part of the roofing insulation, as mentioned above. The concrete and rebar however, are stand alone. This result is expected, as most of the building structure is comprised of reinforced concrete; slabs on grade, suspended floor and roof slabs, columns and beams and cast in place walls. The slabs and walls were modeled fairly accurately, as the IE allowed the input of specific component dimensions. However, notable uncertainty arises from the columns and beams. In the Impact Estimator,   load designations and supported floor spans are input, and the necessary size of beams and columns is computed within the program. If the Curtis Addition maintained any redundant design or purposeful excess column sizing, this would not be captured in the IE model. If any discrepancies exist, the generated bill of materials may present an underestimate of the amount of concrete in the actual building. It should be noted this also applies to the value output for the rebar, rod and light sections. This is because the columns and beams contain rebar and hence represent part of the rebar value in the bill of materials.   4.0 Summary Measures  The most useful outputs from the Curtis Addition IE model for the whole building LCA are the summary measures. The Impact Estimator calculates the building impact in eight different predefined categories: primary energy consumption (in MJ), weighted resource use (in kg), global warming potential (in kg of CO2 equivalents), acidification potential (in moles of H+ equivalents), human health respiratory effects potential (in kg of PM2.5 equivalents), eutrophication potential (in kg of N equivalents), ozone depletion potential (in kg of CFC-11 equivalents) and smog potential (in kg of NOx equivalents). The impacts are tabulated for each building life cycle stage. The scope of this project focuses on the raw material extraction, manufacturing and construction phases of the building's life cycle. The table below shows a summary of the Curtis Addition's impact assessment for each category, separated by life cycle stage.   The impact per square foot of building floor space has been calculated (using a total area of 75,195 ft2) and is also displayed. 11      Curtis Addition Manufacturing Construction  Material Transportation Total Material Transportation Total  Total Effects Total Effects per sq. ft. Primary  Energy Consumption MJ Weighted Resource Use kg Global Warming Potential (kg C02 eq) Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Smog Potential 2.69E+07 6.05E+05 2.75E+07 8.91E+05 1.87E+06 2.76E+06 3.30E+07  439.39 1.56E+07 4.05E+02 1.56E+07 2.06E+04 1.10E+03 2.17E+04 1.56E+07  207.89 2.41E+06 1.06E+03 2.42E+06 6.06E+04 3.01E+03 6.36E+04 2.54E+06  33.81 9.10E+05 3.65E+02 9.11E+05 2.98E+04 9.78E+02 3.07E+04 9.72E+05  12.93 7.00E+03 4.40E-01 7.01E+03 3.34E+01 1.18E+00 3.45E+01 7.07E+03  0.09 1.02E+03 3.80E-01 1.02E+03 2.94E+01 1.01E+00 3.04E+01 1.08E+03  0.01 3.19E-03 4.37E-08 3.19E-03 2.57E-11 1.23E-07 1.23E-07 3.19E-03 4.24E-08 (kg N0x eq) 1.06E+04 8.23E+00 1.06E+04 7.30E+02 2.19E+01 7.52E+02 1.21E+04  0.16   Table 3: Impact Assessment Summary for the Curtis Addition Building     Each of the eight impact categories measures a unique and very important effect the building potentially has on the environment. It should be noted from the above table that the manufacturing life cycle stage of the Curtis Addition building contributes significantly more towards each impact category than the construction life cycle stage of the building. This is a logical outcome, as there are typically more processes involved in resource extraction and manufacturing versus construction. Each impact category is outlined in further detail below.  4.1 Primary Energy Consumption  The primary energy consumption is measured in mega joules and refers to the energy used in all processes used to transform or transport raw materials involved in the building's life cycle stages. It essentially represents the embodied energy, accounting for direct and indirect energy embedded within the processes. 12   4.2 Weighted Resource Use  The weighted resource use refers to the resources used in each life cycle stage and is measured in kilograms. The weighting reflects a valuation of the ecological carrying capacity effects of extracting the necessary resources. The ecological carrying capacity is based on categories such as soil stability and regenerative capacity, ground and surface water quality, resource extraction of biodiversity and wildlife habitat.  4.3 Global Warming Potential  The global warming potential is measured in kg of CO2 equivalents; it attempts to quantify the amount of global warming that will result from the increased amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere during the building's life cycle. Converting released emissions to CO2 equivalents enables the estimation of how much capacity to absorb infrared radiation is lost. This loss of capacity results in a heated atmosphere, hence potentially contributing to global warming.  4.4 Acidification Potential  The acidification potential is computed based on moles of H+ equivalents released through the life cycle of the building. This correlates to the potential acidification effects due to the increased concentration of acidifying H+ ions in the surrounding environment. This potentially increases the acidity of water and soil systems which in turn damages forests, leaches soils, affects fish mortality, etc.  4.5 Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential  The equivalent kilograms of particulate matter sized less than 2.5 microns in diameter are estimated to quantify the potential impact on human health respiratory effects. Particulate matter is proven to be extremely hazardous to the human body, as it can stay in the air for weeks. Surrounding populations breathe it in, and the particulate matter enters the body via the lungs. It proceeds to contribute to, enhance and cause a plethora of health problems.  4.6 Eutrophication Potential  The eutrophication potential is measured by equivalent kilograms of nitrogen. Released nitrogen during the building's life cycle stages can reach aquatic environments and can potentially promote algae growth in nutrient deficient surface waters. The probability of emissions being transported to susceptible aquatic environments is taken into account. 13   4.7 Ozone Depletion Potential  The ozone depletion potential is quantified by measuring the equivalent kilograms of CFC-11 emissions released through the building's life cycle stages. The CFC-11 pollutants alter the stratospheric ozone column, essentially depleting the ozone layer. The Curtis Addition IE model demonstrates a very minor impact in this category compared to the other seven.  4.8 Photochemical Smog Potential  This impact category evaluates the amount of potential smog forming substances released during the building's life cycle. Equivalent kilograms of NOx are how the emissions are  correlated to the potential amount of ozone formed photochemically. These changes occur and make an impact in the tropospheric ozone concentrations.  These impact categories are an important way to organize the summary measures of the Curtis Addition Building and its life cycle stages. However, the table presented above merely provides values, and no basis for comparison. To enhance the usefulness of the summary measures, the impacts from the Curtis Addition Building have been compared to the average academic building on the UBC campus. Please  see below for the associated table and visual representation.      Average Curtis Addition % Difference Primary Energy Consumption MJ 240.49 439.39 82.7% Weighted Resource Use kg 145.81 207.89 42.6% Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) 21.07 33.81 60.5% Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) 8.95 12.93 44.5% HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq) 0.07 0.09 33.7% Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) 0.01 0.01 84.8% Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) 0.00 0.00 -22.9% Smog Potential (kg NOx eq) 0.10 0.16 58.5%  Table 4: Normalized Impact Category Summary Measures 14         Figure 1: Impacts by Category, Normalized to an Average UBC Academic Building               15   4.9 Limitations and Uncertainties  Although the IE program utilized is capable of generating convenient summary measures, all results should be applied with caution and doubled with an understanding of their limitations. Uncertainties are present within the life cycle inventory (LCI) databases and in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) procedures. Uncertainty is present within the data contained in both the LCI database and the data used in the LCIA. Temporal and spatial variability also give rise to several uncertainties within the LCI data and LCIA processes. Temporal variability refers to the changes that occur over time (affecting LCI data), and how emissions and impacts are measured and interpreted through time and over defined time periods (in LCIA). Spatial variability refers to the difference in data between regions (affecting LCI data) and the difference in environmental sensitivity from region to region (affecting LCIA). How the emissions are assumed to be distributed is also a LCIA spatial uncertainty. Finally, there is variability in production technologies (affecting LCI data) and human exposure patterns (affecting the LCIA process).  4.10 Sensitivity Analysis  The summary measures can also be utilized to conduct a sensitivity analysis.  Five materials  were chosen from the Curtis Addition bill of materials (Table 2: Bill of Materials for the Curtis Addition Building) and were individually increased by 10% in the IE model.  The adjusted models were then compared to the original Curtis Addition model and percentage differences were calculated.  These percentages can be applied on a linear basis, i.e. the percentage difference corresponding to a 10% increase is the same absolute value for a 10% decrease. The tabulated results are depicted in the figure on the following page.  It can be observed that altering the volume of concrete in the building had the largest affect on the building's environmental impact assessment profile. The rebar, rod and light sections had the next largest impact, followed by the roofing asphalt. The gypsum board and extruded polystyrene had very minimal impact on the summary measures when compared to the current model. It should also be noted that all impact categories were affected by less than 10% from a 10% change; this is indicative of the magnitude of impact material design decisions would have on the building's environmental impact profile.      16       Figure 2: Sensitivity of Select Materials to the Curtis Addition Impact Assessment Profile 17   As seen here, a sensitivity analysis is useful in determining the affect certain materials will have on the summary measures of a building. Sensitivity analyses can be performed easily during the design phase or major renovation stage of a building, providing appropriate estimates for materials that will heavily weight the building's impact on the environment, and also those that will have little effect on the building's LCIA profile. This can then be applied to decisions surrounding the choice of materials used to construct or renovate the building, resulting in solutions with a lower environmental impact.   5.0 Building Performance  The building performance of the Curtis Addition can be expressed through embodied energy and required operating energy. The embodied energy refers to the energy used in creating the building, and depends on the type and amounts of materials used. The energy necessary to operate the building can be roughly determined by the amount of heat loss experienced over time. This is dictated by the properties of the exterior assemblies; specifically materials of the exterior walls and roof, windows and any insulation currently in place.  The assemblies that contribute to the Curtis Addition's operating energy demand were designed and constructed almost forty years ago, and there are several remediation opportunities to improve the building's performance. The exterior walls of the Curtis Addition building are made of poured concrete, which has little to no thermal retention capacity. Most heat is kept in the building with the use of insulation on the walls; of which very little is present in the current building. Some exterior walls have a 5/8" thick gypsum board envelope on the interior, and the main spandrel wall surrounding the library  has 2" of fiberglass batt insulation. Due to the minimal amount of insulation present in the building, a practical solution to improve the amount of energy retained is to add more insulation. Another building component that facilitates heat loss is the windows. Much of the Curtis Addition is windows and skylights; they are all single pane windows with bronze tinted glaze. Double pane windows filled with argon and with silver or tin glazing can significantly improve the insulating properties of windows. The last major building component that contributes to energy loss is the roof. The roof provides a significant portion of the building surface area exposed to the outside air where lower temperatures are present. The Curtis Addition roof is mostly a 3.5" thick concrete suspended slab, with the exception of the steel joist roof system spanning the theatre, which contains W" thick plywood sheathing. The entire roof is 18   covered by a built-up tar and gravel system, underlain by a 1.5" thick layer of extruded polystyrene or rigid fiberglass. As with the walls, a great way to reduce heat loss through the roof is to add insulation.  5.1 Performance Model Concept and Calculations The performance of the Curtis Addition has been assessed from an embodied energy and operating energy standpoint. The embodied energy for the current building was obtained from the summary measures output by the Athena model. The primary energy use impact category was selected to represent this value. The operating energy demand was estimated by calculating the approximate heat loss the building experiences on an annual basis.  The heat loss through the exterior assemblies of the building was estimated using the following thermodynamics equation:   {Equation 1]  Where,    R = Calculated R-Value (ft2 ·°F·hr/BTU) A = Assembly of interest (ft2) L)T = Inside Temperature - Outside Temperature (°F)  One R-value for the entire building was calculated using a weighted average of the R-values for each assembly; exterior walls, windows and the roof. The R-value for the exterior walls was also computed using a weighted average. The areas for different wall conditions were extracted   from the OnScreen Takeoff model, and assigned appropriately sourced average R-values. All exterior walls in the Curtis Addition are poured concrete, so an R-value of 0.08 multiplied by the thickness of the cast in place wall was used. Any interior 5/8" gypsum board was also accounted for by adding 0.56. The temperature difference between the interior of the building and the outside environment was computed on a monthly basis using historical average temperatures. The heat loss obtained using Equation 1 was then converted from BTU/hour to Joules/month, and summed to find the annual heat loss experienced by the building.  An 'improved' building was then modeled in the IE using the above mentioned remediation techniques.  Extra insulation was added on the walls and roof and windows were replaced with more energy savvy materials.  The amount of insulation added was determined by using the 19   minimum insulation requirements outlined by the Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP). Using the determined target R-values, a thickness of insulation was back calculated using the goal seek analysis function in Microsoft Excel.  Below is a table summarizing the assembly areas and corresponding R-values used in Equation 1 calculations:   Building Assembly  Total Area (ft2) R-Value  (ft2·°F·hr/BTU) 'Current' Building Target 'Improved' Building Exterior Wall 46090.33 1.39 18 19.05 Window 215 0.91 3.2 3.75 Roof 33376.75 8.97 40 41.72 Weighted Average 79682.08 4.56 27.18 28.51  Table 5: Summary Areas and R-Values for Curtis Addition Building Performance Model   To meet REAP's minimum insulation standards, the following alterations were made to the model; 3.5" of extruded polystyrene insulation was added to exterior walls, 6.5" of extruded polystyrene insulation was added to the roof, and all windows were replaced with low E silver glazed argon filled double panes. The following table summarizes the embodied energy obtained from the Athena model (primary energy use measured in manufacturing and construction life cycle stages) and the calculated operating energy for both building models:   ‘Current’ Building ‘Improved’ Building Embodied Energy (MJ) 30281736.37 33964448.91 Operating Energy (MJ/year) 2,898,096.93 464,014.69  Table 6: Total Energy for Current and Improved Curtis Addition Building Performance Models   5.2 Performance Model Results and Interpretation The model results presented in Table 6: Total Energy for Current and Improved Curtis Addition Building Performance Models were then extrapolated over several years to determine the energy payback period. The following graph compares the energy use, or heat loss, of both building models over 80 years. The embodied energy is taken into account at Year 0. 20      Figure 3: Energy Usages for 'Current' and 'Improved' Curtis Addition Building Models                               Figure 4: Energy Payback Period for 'Improved' Curtis Addition Building 21   It can be observed from Figure 4: Energy Payback Period for 'Improved' Curtis Addition Building that it would take approximately one and a half years for energy savings from heat loss remediation to outweigh the initial additional embodied energy of the building due to the extra renovation materials and processes themselves.  The models provide a very rough but useful estimate for assessing the practicality of going forward with renovations to improve building performance. However, there are notable inaccuracies within the model. The major flaw stems from the window assembly; the majority  of windows and skylights in the Curtis Addition were modeled as curtain walls in the IE. The Impact Estimator assumes all curtain walls to be double glazed unit with two 6mm panes,  though the actual windows in the Curtis Addition are single pane. Therefore, the 'Current' Building Model overestimates the embodied energy (accounts for more glass than is actually present) and the 'Improved' Building Model potentially underestimates the embodied energy (low E silver glaze and argon filling are not able to be specified). This would increase the  payback period, as the embodied energies for the building models would be farther apart on the graph from Year 0, taking longer to intersect. Another uncertainty is that variability in occupant behavior; building users leaving windows open or cranking up the thermostat will affect the annual operating energy demand.  However, understanding the application of these results is key to fully utilizing the analysis. Different insulation materials could be explored, and the logistics of implementing each into the existing building must be considered. For example, to add extruded polystyrene onto the walls would require removing and/or replacing gypsum envelopes to cover the insulation. Upgrading the windows would require replacement, which is associated with larger environmental impacts than depicted in this model. As a final note, although the energy payback period demonstrates  a means to improve building performance, the financial payback period may not. Implementing new materials to improve building performance measures may not be feasible. 22      6.0 Conclusions  The building life cycle assessment conducted on the Curtis Addition Building has thoroughly integrated a real building example with the LCA process to demonstrate the applicability and usefulness of life cycle analysis.  A quantity takeoff of the Curtis Addition Building was performed using OnScreen Takeoff software, and a bill of materials was generated using Athena's Impact Estimator. The five materials of greatest quantity were found to be ballast aggregate stone, roofing asphalt, Type III glass felt, 5/8" gypsum board and #15 organic felt. All materials, excluding the gypsum board, are components of the built-up roof assembly. Concrete and rebar were also found to comprise a majority of the material in the building, which is  logical considering the building is a concrete structure. Uncertainty in the bill of materials generated from the IE can be attributed to most assumptions made during the modeling process; however, enough data about the building was available through the drawings to avoid any assumptions that would significantly skew the results.  Modeling the building in the IE also allowed summary measures to be generated. Compared to an average UBC academic building, the manufacturing and construction of the Curtis Addition had a   notably larger impact on the environment in the following categories; primary energy consumption, weighted resource use, global warming potential, acidification potential, human health respiratory effects potential, eutrophication potential and smog potential. The only impact category where the Curtis Addition demonstrated a lower value than the average UBC academic building was in the ozone depletion potential category. Uncertainty in the impact assessment profile of the Curtis Addition  building should also be recognized. Most sources are due to the temporal and spatial variabilities in the LCI databases and LCIA process. A sensitivity analysis was also performed with five different materials. The effect of increasing roofing asphalt, 5/8" gypsum board, extruded polystyrene, 30 MPa concrete and rebar, rods and light sections individually by 10% were all compared. The amount of concrete had the greatest affect on the building's overall environmental impact profile.  An approximate energy model of the Curtis Addition was also computed. Embodied energy was represented as the primary energy use, and the annual operational energy demand was approximated as the annual heat loss experienced by the building. An 'improved' building model was also generated, 23   and heat loss remediation renovations were applied to meet REAP's minimum insulation standards. Extruded polystyrene insulation was added to the exterior walls and roof areas and all existing windows were replaced with silver glazed argon filled windows.  Comparing the two energy models, an energy payback period of 1.5 years was calculated.  This is an non-conservative result, as the actual energy payback period is likely longer.  No financial, social or economical implications were considered; a decision regarding renovations would be dependent on further exploration of these variables.  However, the applicability of LCA to a straight forward energy model showcased the usefulness of the process.  Now that the manufacturing and construction life cycle stages of the Curtis Addition Building have been thoroughly explored, it would be beneficial to expand the scope of this study to encompass the operation and maintenance phases.  Operational energy data could be collected and even be used to increase the accuracy of the current energy model.  More research and a cost-benefit analysis of potential renovations could also be explored.  A unique circumstance regarding the Curtis Addition building could also be capitalized on; the actual structure is currently being demolished and rebuilt, and it would be of interest to model the decommissioning and end-of-life building phases.  This data would be ideal for comparison purposes, and provide much insight into to uncertainties of the building LCA process. 24   7.0 References     Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Overview of the Impact Estimator for Buildings. Website updated February 18th 2010. http://www.athenasmi.org/tools/impactEstimator/index.html     Aloisio, Allison. "Renewing" UBC Renew: Building Full Cost Assessment into Renovate vs. Rebuild Decisions at UBC. October 16th, 2006. UBC School of Community and Regional Planning.     Aloisio, Allison. Renovating the G.F Curtis Building: A Triple Bottom Line Assessment. March 13th, 2006.  UBC School of Community and Regional Planning.      Colorado Emery. R-Value Table. Website updated July 29th, 2008. http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm     Thompson, Berwick, Pratt. UBC Reports vol.19, No.10. 25   8.0 Annex A: IE Input Document 26       Assembly Group   Assembly Type   Assembly Name Input Fields  Input Values  Known/Measured  EIE Inputs 1  Foundation  1.1  Concrete Slab- on-Grade  1.1.1 SOG_5" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % various 90.405 various 90.405 5 8 4000 4000 - average 1.1.2 SOG_6" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % various 49.553 various 49.553 6 8 4000 4000 - average 1.1.3 SOG_Theatre Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % various 60.369 various 60.369 various 8 4000 4000 - average 1.1.4 SOG_10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % various 8.588 various 8.588 10 8 4000 4000 - average 1.2  Concrete Footings  1.2.1 Footing_Strip_16"x10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 502.00 502.00 1.333 1.333 0.833 10 4000 4000 - average #4 #4 1.2.2 Footing_Strip_16"x16" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 6.00 6.00 1.333 1.333 1.333 16 4000 4000 - average #4 #4 1.2.3 Footing_Strip_18"x10" 27    Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 275.00 275.00 1.500 1.500 0.833 10 4000 4000 - average #4 #4 1.2.4 Footing_Strip_20"x10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 498.00 498.00 1.667 1.667 0.833 10 4000 4000 - average #4 #4 1.2.5 Footing_Strip_24"x10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 10.00 10.00 2.000 2.000 0.833 10 4000 4000 - average #4 #4 1.2.6 Footing_Strip_24"x16" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 53.00 53.00 2.000 2.000 1.333 16 4000 4000 - average #4 #4 1.2.7 Footing_Strip_30"x10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 34.00 34.00 2.500 2.500 0.833 10 4000 4000 - average #4 #4 1.2.8 Footing_Strip_32"x10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 16.00 16.00 2.667 2.667 0.833 10 4000 4000 - average #4 #4 1.2.9 Footing_Strip_3'0"x16" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 22.00 22.00 3.000 3.000 1.333 16 4000 4000 - average #4 & #5 #5 28   1.2.10 Footing_Strip_3'6"x16" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 150.00 150.00 3.500 3.500 1.333 16 4000 4000 - average #4 & #5 #5 1.2.11 Footing_Strip_4'0"x16" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 160.00 160.00 4.000 4.000 1.333 16 4000 4000 - average #4 & #5 #5 1.2.12 Footing_Strip_7'0"x16" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 48.00 48.00 7.000 7.000 1.333 16 4000 4000 - average #7 & #9 #6 1.2.13 Footing_Square_3'0"x10" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar various 2185.47 various 3.000 various 10 4000 4000 - average #8 #6 1.2.14 Footing_Square_4'0"x15" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 52.00 52.00 4.000 4.000 1.250 15 4000 4000 - average #5 #5 1.2.15 Footing_Square_4'0"x16" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 4.00 4.00 4.000 4.000 1.333 16 4000 4000 - average #5 #5 1.2.16 Footing_Square_3'6"x15" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) 42.00 42.00 3.500 3.500 1.250 15 4000 4000  29    Concrete flyash % Rebar - average #5 #5 1.2.17 Footing_Square_3'9"x15" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 11.25 11.25 3.750 3.750 1.250 15 4000 4000 - average #5 #5 1.2.18 Footing_Square_4'9"x18" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 4.75 4.75 4.750 4.750 1.500 18 4000 4000 - average #6 #6 1.2.19 Footing_Square_3'0"x15" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 6.00 6.00 3.000 3.000 1.250 15 4000 4000 - average #5 #5 1.2.20 Footing_Square_2'6"x15" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 15.00 15.00 2.500 2.500 1.250 15 4000 4000 - average #5 #5 1.2.21 Footing_Square_2'6"x12" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 12.50 12.50 2.500 2.500 1.000 12 4000 4000 - average #4 & #8 #6 1.2.22 Footing_Square_2'0"x15" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 2.00 2.00 2.000 2.000 1.250 15 4000 4000 - average #5 #5 1.2.23 Footing_Square_2'3"x15" Length (ft) 2.25 2.25 30      Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 2.250 2.250 1.250 15 4000 4000 - average #5 #5 1.2.24 Footing_Square_3'3"x15" Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 3.25 3.25 3.250 3.250 1.250 15 4000 4000 - average #5 #5 1.2.25 Footing_Trellis_8"thick Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 32.39 349.67 32.388 3.000 0.667 8 4000 4000 - average #4 & #6 #6 1.2.26 Footing_Stairs_TotalLength Length (ft) Width (ft) Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar various 493.98 various 5.000 0.417 10 4000 4000 - average #3 & #4 #4 2 Walls      2.1  Cast In Place  2.1.1 Wall_Cast-in- Place_4.5"_noEnvelope  Length (ft) Height (ft) 61 13.725 4 10 Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) 4.5 8 4000 4000 Concrete flyash % Rebar - average #4 #5 2.1.2 Wall_Cast-in- Place_6"_G1  Length (ft) Height (ft) various 28.294 various 10 Thickness (in) Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Rebar 6 8 4000 4000    Envelope - average #4 #5 Category Material Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" 31    5/8"  Door Opening Number of Doors  2 2  Door Type  Solid Wood Door Solid Wood Door 2.1.3 Wall_Cast-in- Place_8"_noEnvelope      Length (ft)  various 2324.950  Height (ft)  various 10  Thickness (in)  8 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Door Opening Number of Doors  20 20  Door Type  various Solid Wood Door  Window Opening Number of Windows   5  5  Total Window Area (ft2)   97  97  Frame Type Glazing Type  Fixed, Aluminum Frame Bronze Tinted Glazing Fixed, Aluminum Frame Standard Glazing 2.1.4 Wall_Cast-in- Place_8"_G1      Length (ft)  various 1458.750  Height (ft)  varrious 10  Thickness (in)  8 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Door Opening Number of Doors  26 26  Door Type  various Solid Wood Door  Window Opening Number of Windows   2  2  Total Window Area (ft2)   28  28  Frame Type Glazing Type  Fixed, Aluminum Frame Bronze Tinted Glazing Fixed, Aluminum Frame Standard Glazing 2.1.5 Wall_Cast-in- Place_8"_G1+Ins      Length (ft)  239 358.500  Height (ft)  15 10  Thickness (in)  8 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Envelope Category  Insulation Insulation  Material  Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt  Thickness (in)  2 2 Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  32    2.1.6 Wall_Cast-in- Place_8"_G2   Length (ft)  various 555.288  Height (ft)  various 10  Thickness (in)  8 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Door Opening Number of Doors  Door Type  3  various 3 Aluminium Exterior Door, 80% Glazing 2.1.7 Wall_Cast-in- Place_10"_noEnvelope      Length (ft)  various 1136.979  Height (ft)  various 10  Thickness (in)  10 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Door Opening Number of Doors  5 5  Door Type  various Steel Interior Door 2.1.8 Wall_Cast-in- Place_10"_G1      Length (ft)  various 23.500  Height (ft)  various 10  Thickness (in)  10 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Door Opening Number of Doors  1 1  Door Type  Solid Wood Door Solid Wood Door 2.1.9 Wall_Cast-in- Place_10"_G2      Length (ft)  5 8.750  Height (ft)  14 10  Thickness (in)  10 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" 33    2.1.10 Wall_Cast-in- Place_12"_noEnvelope   Length (ft)  various 699.850  Height (ft)  various 10  Thickness (in)  12 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5  Window Opening Number of Windows   12  12  Total Window Area (ft2)   90  90  Frame Type Glazing Type  Fixed, Aluminum Frame Bronze Tinted Glazing Fixed, Aluminum Frame Standard Glazing 2.1.11 Wall_Cast-in- Place_12"_G1      Length (ft)  various 71.150  Height (ft)  various 10  Thickness (in)  12 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" 2.1.12 Wall_Cast-in- Place_12"_G1+WP      Length (ft)  298 447.000  Height (ft)  14 10  Thickness (in)  12 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Envelope Category  Insulation Insulation  Material  Insulation Polystyrene Extruded  Thickness (in)  1 1 Envelope Category  Vapour Barier Vapour Barier  Material  Water Proofing Polyethylene 6 mil 2.1.13 Wall_Cast-in- Place_12"_G2      Length (ft)  various 65.575  Height (ft)  various 10  Thickness (in)  12 8  Concrete (psi)  4000 4000  Concrete flyash %  - average  Rebar  #4 #5 Envelope Category  Material  Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Envelope Category  Gypsum Board Gypsum Board 34      Material Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Door Opening Number of Doors  Door Type 4  various 4 Aluminium Exterior Door, 80% Glazing 2.2 Steel Stud Walls      2.2.1 Wall_SteelStud_G1      Length (ft) various 406.008   Height (ft) various 10   Sheathing Type - None   Stud Spacing - 24oc   Stud Weight - Light (25Ga)   Stud Thickness - 1 5/8 x 3 5/8  Envelope Category  Material Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Door Opening Number of Doors 1 1   Door Type Solid Wood Door Solid Wood Door  2.2.2 Wall_SteelStud_G2      Length (ft) various 2515.838   Height (ft) various 10   Sheathing Type - None   Stud Spacing - 24oc   Stud Weight - Light (25Ga)   Stud Thickness - 1 5/8 x 3 5/8  Envelope Category  Material Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Envelope Category  Material Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Door Opening Number of Doors  Door Type 90  various 90 Aluminium Exterior Door, 80% Glazing  2.2.3 Wall_SteelStud_G2+F      Length (ft) 31.000 43.400   Height (ft) 14 10   Sheathing Type - None   Stud Spacing - 24oc   Stud Weight - Light (25Ga)   Stud Thickness - 1 5/8 x 3 5/8  Envelope Category  Material Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Envelope Category  Material Gypsum Board Fire Rated Gypsum 5/8" Gypsum Board Gypsum Fire Rated Type X 5/8"  Door Opening Number of Doors 1 1   Door Type Solid Wood Door Solid Wood Door 2.3  Curtain Wall      2.31. Wall_Curtain_98%Glazing_noE nvelope      Length (ft) various 674.200  35    Height (ft) various 10 Percent Viewable Glazing  98  98 Percent Spandrel Panel  2  2 Thickness of Insulation (in)  0.188  0.188 Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass)  Metal  Metal 2.3.2 Wall_Curtain_90%Glazing_noE nvelope     Length (ft) various 148.350  Height (ft) various 10  Percent Viewable Glazing  90  90  Percent Spandrel Panel  10  10  Thickness of Insulation (in)  0.250  0.250  Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass)  Metal  Metal Door Opening Number of Doors  Door Type 12 Aluminium Glazed Door 12 Aluminium Exterior Door, 80% Glazing 2.3.3 Wall_Curtain_70%Glazing_noE nvelope     Length (ft) 15.000 2.125  Height (ft) 1.417 10  Percent Viewable Glazing  70  70  Percent Spandrel Panel  30  30  Thickness of Insulation (in)  0.250  0.250  Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass)  Metal  Metal 2.3.4 Wall_Curtain_90%Glazing_G1     Length (ft) 20.000 21.750  Height (ft) 10.875 10  Percent Viewable Glazing  90  90  Percent Spandrel Panel  10  10  Thickness of Insulation (in)  0.188  0.188  Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass)  Metal  Metal Envelope Category  Material Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8" Door Opening Number of Doors  Door Type 1 Aluminium Glazed Door 1 Aluminium Exterior Door, 80% Glazing 2.3.5 Wall_Curtain_70%Glazing_G1     Length (ft) 23.000 20.700  Height (ft) 9 10  Percent Viewable Glazing  70  70  Percent Spandrel 30 30  36           Envelope Panel Thickness of Insulation (in) Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass)    0.250  0.250  Metal  Metal Category  Material Gypsum Board Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Board  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  3  Columns and Beams  3.1  Concrete Columns and Beams  3.1.1 Column_Concrete_Beam_Concr ete_MainFloor_Library Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span (ft) Live load (psf) 20 20  18  18  14.000  14.000 25.999 25.999 25.999 25.999 75, 100 & 150 100 3.1.2 Column_Concrete_Beam_Concr ete_MainFloor_Offices Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span (ft) Live load (psf) 42 42  47  47  11.000  11.000 17.465 17.465 17.465 17.465 75, 100 & 150 100 3.1.3 Column_Concrete_Beam_Concr ete_SecondFloor_Library Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span (ft) Live load (psf) 20 20  18  18  14.000  14.000 27.007 27.007 27.007 27.007 75, 100 & 150 100 3.1.4 Column_Concrete_Beam_Concr ete_SecondFloor_Offices Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span (ft) Live load (psf) 42 42  41  41  11.000  11.000 18.207 18.207 18.207 18.207 75, 100 & 150 100 3.1.5 Column_Concrete_Beam_Concr ete_Roof_Library Number of Beams 20 20 37      Number of Columns Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span (ft) Live load (psf)  16  16  13.875  13.875 28.300 28.300 28.300 28.300 75, 100 & 150 100 3.1.6 Column_Concrete_Beam_Concr ete_Roof_Offices Number of Beams Number of Columns Floor to floor height (ft) Bay sizes (ft) Supported span (ft) Live load (psf) 28 28  32  32  10.875  10.875 19.329 19.329 19.329 19.329 75, 100 & 150 100 4  Floors   4.1  Concrete Suspended Slabs  4.1.1 Floor_ConcreteSuspendedSlab _MainFloor  Floor Width (ft) Span (ft)  Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Life load (psf) 887.016 887.016 30.000 30.000 4000 4000 - average 75, 100 & 150 100 4.1.2 Floor_ConcreteSuspendedSlab _SecondFloor  Floor Width (ft) Span (ft)  Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Life load (psf) 487.034 487.034 30.000 30.000 4000 4000 - average 75, 100 & 150 100 5  Roof  5.1  Concrete Suspended Slab  5.1.1 Roof_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_ BuiltUp   Roof Width (ft) Span (ft)  Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Life load (psf) 944.105 944.105 30.000 30.000 4000 4000     Envelope - average 40 45 Category Material Thickness (in)  Built Up Roof Tar and gravel on rigid insulation 1.5 4-Ply Built-up Asphalt Roof System - Inverted Extruded Polystyrene, Glass Felt 1.5 5.1.2 Roof_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_ NeopreneHypalon   Roof Width (ft) 19.30 19.30 38            Envelope Span (ft)  Concrete (psi) Concrete flyash % Life load (psf) 30 30 4000 4000 - average 40 45 Category  Material Thickness (in) Roof Envelopes Neoprene Hypalon - Roof Envelopes  Polyethylene Filter Fabric - 5.2 Steel Joist Roof  5.2.1 Roof_SteelJoists_BuiltUp   Roof Width (ft) Roof Length (ft)  Decking Type Decking Thickness (in) Steel Gauge Joist Type Joist Spacing 189.333 189.333 18.000 18.000 2x2 fir strips 24" o.c.  Plywood        Envelope  -  1/2" 20 18 1' 5/8 x 12 1' 5/8 x 12 bolts 24" o.c. 24" Category Material Thickness (in)  Built Up Roof Tar and gravel on rigid fiberglass 1.5 4-Ply Built-up Asphalt Roof System - Inverted  Fiberglass, Glass Felt 1.5 6 Extra Basic Materials  6.1  Concrete  6.1.1 XBM_ConcreteTopping Concrete (m3) - 124.817 6.2 Steel   6.2.1 XBM_GalvanizedDecking Galvanized Steel Decking (tons)  -  138.738 6.2.2 XBM_WideFlangeSections Wide Flange Sections (tons)  -  154.678 6.3 Insulation   6.3.1 XBM_Insulation Extruded Polystyrene (sf(1"))  -  808 6.4 Standard Glazing   6.4.1 XBM_StandardGlazing Standard Glazing (sf)  -  708 39   9.0 Annex B: IE Assumptions Document 34     Assembly Group  Assembly Type   Assembly Name   Specific Assumptions 1 Foundation In the Impact Estimator, SOG inputs are limited to either a 4” or 8” thickness. Since the actual SOG thicknesses for the Curtis Addition were not 4” or 8” thick, the areas measured in OnScreen required calculations to adjust the areas to accommodate this limitation. Also, all SOG rebar was specified as #3, however this is not a choice in Ahtena. All rebar were modelled as #4. The Impact Estimator limits the thickness of footings to be between 7.5” and 19.7” thick. As there are a number of cases where footing thicknesses exceed 19.7”, their widths were increased accordingly to maintain the same volume of footing while accommodating this limitation. Again, rebar modelling choices were limited and hence adjusted from observed specifications. Lastly, the concrete stairs were modelled as footings (ie. Footing_Stairs_TotalLength). Also, all stair rebar was specified as #3 and #4, however #3 is not a choice in Ahtena. All rebar was modelled as #4. 1.1 Concrete Slab-on-Grade  1.1.1 SOG_5" The following OnScreen conditions with similar characteristics were aggregarted to create this condition:  #40: SOG_5"_NW(Tunnel) #41: SOG_5"_Library  Their slab areas had to be adjusted to fit into the 8" thickness specified in the Impact Estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;  = sqrt[ SUM(Measured Slab Areas) x (Actual Slab Thickness) / (8”/12) ]  = sqrt[ (385 ft2 + 12,692 ft2) x (5"/12)) / (8”/12) ]  = 90.41 feet 1.1.2 SOG_6" The following OnScreen conditions with similar characteristics were aggregarted to create this condition:  #42: SOG_6"_SW #43: SOG_6"_Mid  Their slab areas had to be adjusted to fit into the 8" thickness specified in the Impact Estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;  = sqrt[ SUM(Measured Slab Areas) x (Actual Slab Thickness) / (8”/12) ]  = sqrt[ (1,323 ft2 + 1,951 ft2) x (6"/12)) / (8”/12) ]  = 49.55 feet 35     1.1.3 SOG_Theatre The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #44: SOG_6"_Theatre  The slab area had to be adjusted to fit into the 8" thickness specified in the Impact Estimator. The slab consists of varrying thickness and the following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;  = sqrt[ SUM( (Measured Step Length) x (Actual Step Thicknesss) ) x (Slab Width) / (8”/12) ]  = sqrt[ (((6x14"/12) x (19"/12)) + ((4x10"/12) x (11.5"/12)) + ((74-6-4) x (6"/12))) x (3885 ft2 / 74ft)  = 60.37 feet 1.1.4 SOG_10" The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #45: SOG_10"_Theatre  The slab area had to be adjusted to fit into the 8" thickness specified in the Impact Estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;  = sqrt[ (Measured Slab Areas) x (Actual Slab Thickness) / (8”/12) ]  = sqrt[ (59 ft2) x (10"/12)) / (8”/12) ]  = 8.59 feet 1.2 Concrete Footing  1.2.9 The following OnScreen conditions with similar Footing_Strip_3'6"x1 characteristics were aggregarted to create this condition: 6"  #10: Footing_Strip (3'6x16")_8"RcWall_SE #11: Footing_Strip (3'6x16")_10"RcWall_SouthStair #12: Footing_Strip (3'6x16")_12"RcWall_SouthStair The total length of footing input into Athena was the sum of the conditions: = SUM (linear feet of strip footing) = SUM (41ft + 52ft + 57ft) = 150 feet 36    1.2.10 Footing_Strip_4'0"x1 6" The following OnScreen conditions with similar characteristics were aggregarted to create this condition:  #13: Footing_Strip (4'0x16")_8"RcWall_General #14: Footing_Strip (4'0x16")_10"RcWall_SE #15: Footing_Strip (4'0x16")_12"RcWall_Mid  The total length of footing input into Athena was the sum of the conditions:  = SUM (linear feet of strip footing) = SUM (80ft + 9ft + 71ft) = 160 feet 1.2.13 Footing_Square_3'0" x10" The following OnScreen conditions with similar characteristics were aggregarted to create this condition:  #17: Footing_Square (7'2x7'2)_South #57: Footing_Square (7'0x7'0)_Mid #18: Footing_Square (8'0x8'0)_South #19: Footing_Square (11'9x11'9)_South-SE-mid  The dimensions of these footing were adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7” and converted to one equivalent length of strip footing. The thickness was set to 10” and the width to 3'. The equivalent length in feet was then computed as follows;  = SUM[ (Footing Count) x (Actual Footing Area) x (Actual Footing Thickness) ] / [ (3ft) x (10"/12) ]  = [Total Footing Volume] / [ (3ft) x (10"/12) ]  = SUM[ (2 x 7'2" x 7'2" x 27"/12) + (1 x 7' x 7' x 27"/12) + (5 x 8' x 8' x 29"/12) + (9 x 11'9" x 11'9" x 42"/12) ] / (3' x 10"/12)  = 2185.47 feet 1.2.14 Footing_Square_4'0" x15" The following OnScreen conditions with similar characteristics were aggregarted to create this condition:  #20: Footing_Square (4'0x4'0)_West #21: Footing_Square (4'0x4'0)_West #22: Footing_Square (4'0x4'0)_West #23: Footing_Square (4'0x4'0)_NW  The footing was converted into a 4'0" wide strip footing for input into Athena. The equivalent length was calculated as follows:  = SUM (footing counts) x 4' = SUM (6 + 3 + 3 + 1) x 4' = 52 feet 37    1.2.16 Footing_Square_3'6" x15" The following OnScreen conditions with similar characteristics were aggregarted to create this condition:  #25: Footing_Square (3'6"x3'6")_NMid #26: Footing_Square (3'6"x3'6")_North #27: Footing_Square (3'6"x3'6")_NW #28: Footing_Square (3'6"x3'6")_NW  The footing was converted into a 3'6" wide strip footing for input into Athena. The equivalent length was calculated as follows:  = SUM (footing counts) x 3'6" = SUM (3 + 6 + 1 + 2) x 3'6" = 42 feet 1.2.17 Footing_Square_3'9" x15" The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #29: Footing_Square (3'9"x3'9")_NMid  The footing was converted into a 3'9" wide strip footing for input into Athena. The equivalent length was calculated as follows:  = (Footing Count) x 3'9" = 3 x 3'9" = 11.25 feet 1.2.19 Footing_Square_3'0" x15"  The following OnScreen conditions with similar characteristics were aggregarted to create this condition:  #31: Footing_Square (3'0"x3'0")_North #32: Footing_Square (3'0"x3'0")_North  The footing was converted into a 3'0" wide strip footing for input into Athena. The equivalent length was calculated as follows:  = SUM (footing counts) x 3'0" = SUM (1 + 1) x 3'0" = 6 feet 1.2.20 Footing_Square_2'6" x15" The following OnScreen conditions with similar characteristics were aggregarted to create this condition:  #33: Footing_Square (2'6"x2'6")_North #36: Footing_Square (2'6"x5'3")_NW #38: Footing_Square (2'6"x3'6")_NW  The footing was converted into a 2'6" wide strip footing for input into Athena. The equivalent length was calculated as follows:  = SUM (footing counts) x 2'6" = SUM (4 + 1 + 1) x 2'6" = 15 feet 38    1.2.21 Footing_Square_2'6" x12" The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #34: Footing_Square (2'6"x2'6")_NW  The footing was converted into a 2'6" wide strip footing for input into Athena. The equivalent length was calculated as follows:  = (Footing Count) x 2'6" = 5 x 2'6" = 12.5 feet 1.2.25 Footing_Trellis_8"thi ck The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #300: Footing_TrellisArea  The trellis was modelled as a footing to attempt to account for the concrete and rebar. All glazing is modelled in Extra Basic Materials. The trellis is roughly 3' wide, so it was modelled as a 3' wide strip footing in Athena. The equivalent length was calculated as follows:  = (Measured Trellis Surface Area) / 3'0" = 1.049 ft2 / 3 ft = 349.67 feet 39   OnScreen Conditions and Output  Width (ft)  Thickness (ft)  Volume (ft3) # Name Qty. (ft2) 47 Stairs_5"_S1_Landing 17 9  153 48 Stairs_5"_S1_Stairs 41 4.167  170.83 51 Stairs_5"_S2_Stairs 5 8  40 52 Stairs_5"_S2_Stairs 28 3.5  98 53 Stairs_5"_S2_Stairs 6 5.333  32 55 Stairs_5"_S3_Landing 26 11.667  303.33 56 Stairs_5"_S3_Stairs 33 5.5  181.5 60 Stairs_5"_S4_Stairs 31 5.667  175.67 64 Stairs_5"_S5_Stairs 36 3.667  132 67 Stairs_5"_S6_Stairs 19 3.667  69.67 70 Stairs_5"_S7_Stairs 31 5  155 50 Stairs_5"_S2_Landing 352  0.4167 146.67 58 Stairs_5"_S4_marker 182  0.4167 75.83 59 Stairs_5"_S4_Landing 120  0.4167 50 62 Stairs_5"_S5_marker 140  0.4167 58.33 63 Stairs_5"_S5_Landing 185  0.4167 77.08 66 Stairs_5"_S6_Landing 142  0.4167 59.17 69 Stairs_5"_S7_Landing 171  0.4167 71.25 61 Stairs_5"_S4_Stairs 47   8.93  2058.26     1.2.26 Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to model Footing_Stairs_Total the stairs. The total volume of concrete comprising all Length stair structures was calculated (see table below). A strip footing of assumed 5' width and 10" thickness was then used to compute the equivalent length of footing.                               SUM  = (Total Volume of Concrete Stair Structure) / (5') / (10"/12)  = ( 2050.26 ft3) / (5 ft) / (10"/12) = 493.98 feet 2 Walls The length of the concrete cast-in-place walls needed adjusting to accommodate the wall thickness limitation (8" or 12") in the Impact Estimator. All wall conditions were formatted to be a standard height of 10'. For the steel stud walls, no sheathing was specified, so none was modelled. The stud spacing was assumed to be 24 o.c. as for buildings typically constructed during the time. It was assumed that steel stud walls were light gauge (25Ga), as they are all interior walls. Finally, stud thickness was modelled as 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 as per a previous report on the Curtis Building. All curtain walls were modelled with an approximate percentage of viewable glazing. The percentage for each wall type was derived from the structural drawings. All windows were observed as bronze tinted glazing, however this is not a choice in Athena. Therefore all windows were modelled as standard glazing. 2.1 Cast In Place 40    2.1.1 Wall_Cast-in- Place_4.5"_noEnvel ope This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 8” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator. It was also scaled to be 10' high. This was done as follows;  = [ (Measured Length) x (Measured Height) x (Measured thickness) ] / [ (10') x (8”/12)]  = [ (61') x (4') x (4.5"/12) ] / [ (10') x (8”/12)]  = 13.725 feet 2.1.2 Wall_Cast-in- Place_6"_G1  Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The volume of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 8" thickness and 10' in height, as shown here:  O nScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall   #   Name  Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) Volume (ft3)  163 Wall_Cast- in-place_6"_14'_G1_MainFloor 21 LF 14 294 147.00  182 Wall_Cast- in-place_6"_13'10.5"_G1_MainFloor 6 LF 13.875 83 41.63    SUM 188.63   = [Wall Volume] / [ (10') x (8”/12) ]  = 188.63 ft3 / [ (10') x (8”/12) ] = 28.29 feet 41    2.1.3 Wall_Cast-in- Place_8"_noEnvelop e Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:= [Wall Area] / [10'] = 23250 ft2 / [10'] = 2324.95 feetIn addition, there were several door types counted in this wall assembly. Only one door type per wall may be modelled in Athena; the majoirty of the doors in this assembly are solid wood, so it was modelled as such.   OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  #   Name  Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) 164 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_11'_noEnvelope_MainFloor 139 LF 11 1529 167 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_14'_noEnvelope_MainFloor 186 LF 12 2232 134 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_5'_noEnvelope_Basement 37 LF 6 222 135 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_7'_noEnvelope_Basement 96 LF 8 768 136 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_8'_noEnvelope_Basement 15 LF 9 135 137 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_11'_noEnvelope_Basement 133 LF 12 1596 138 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_14'_noEnvelope_Basement 5 LF 15 75 199 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_2.5'_noEnvelope_Stair7 19 LF 2.5 48 200 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_3'_noEnvelope_OfficeSkylightSupport 131 LF 3 393 201 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_4'_noEnvelope_MainFloor 286 LF 4 1144 202 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_4'_noEnvelope_SecondFlr_Offices 443 LF 4 1772 204 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_5'3"_noEnvelope_MainFlr_CondenserPit 89 LF 5.25 467 206 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_6'_noEnvelope_TheatreProjectionRm 15 LF 6 90 207 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_7'_noEnvelope_stair1_SecondFloor 11 LF 7 77 208 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_7.5'_noEnvelope_stair7_SecondFloor 15 LF 7.5 113 211 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_9'_noEnvelope 40 LF 9 360 212 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_14'_noEnvelope_stair2 5 LF 14 70 214 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_15'_noEnvelope 45 LF 15 675 215 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_18'_noEnvelope_stair1,2&7 67 LF 18 1206 216 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_22.5'_noEnvelope 71 LF 22.5 1598 217 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_25'_noEnvelope_stair 1 19 LF 25 475 218 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_27'_noEnvelope_stair 1 16 LF 27 432 219 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_30'_noEnvelope_stair 1 8 LF 30 240 118 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_11'_noEnvelope_Basement 75 LF 12 900 119 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_14'_noEnvelope_Basement 158 LF 15 2370 183 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_54"_noEnvelope_SecondFloor 27 LF 4.5 122 186 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_13'10.5"_noEnvelope_SecondFloor 166 LF 13.875 2303 114 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_10'_noEnvelope_Theatre 52 LF 10 520 115 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_11'_noEnvelope_Theatre 27 LF 11 297 116 Wall_Cast -in-place_8"_14'_noEnvelope_Theatre 73 LF 14 1022   SUM 23250  42    2.1.4 Wall_Cast-in- Place_8"_G1  Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:   OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall   #   Name  Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2)  165 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_11'_G1_MainFloor 91 LF 11 1001  168 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_14'_G1_MainFloor 59 LF 14 826  197 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_2'_G1 54 LF 2 108  198 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_2.5'_G1_SecondFloorLibrary 23 LF 2.5 58  203 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_4'_G1_Library 541 LF 4 2164  205 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_5'3"_G1_SecondFloorLibrary 12 LF 5.25 63  209 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_7.5'_G1_MainFloor 148 LF 7.5 1110  210 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_8'_G1_SpandrelOffices 351 LF 8 2808  120 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_14'_G1_Basement 119 LF 15 1785  184 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_10'10.5"_G1_SecondFloor 147 LF 10.875 1599  187 Wall_Cast- in-place_8"_13'10.5"_G1_SecondFloor 221 LF 13.875 3066    SUM 14588  = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 14588 ft2 / [10'] = 1458.75 feet  In addition, there were several door types counted in this  wall assembly. Only one door type per wall may be  modelled in Athena; the majoirty of the doors in this assembly are wood glazed (roughly 80% glazing). The closest door type in Athena is the Exterior Alum Glazed Door (80% glazed), so it was modelled as such.   The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #213:    Wall_Cast-in-Place_15'_G1_SpandrelLibrary  The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 3585 ft2 / [10'] = 358.5 feet  In addition, the Curtis Addition wall schedule specified 'plaster on insulation', so a 5/8" gypsum board over 2" of fiberglass batt envelope was assumed. The 2' of fiberglass batt was measured from drawing in the takeoff. 2.1.5 Wall_Cast-in- Place_8"_G1+Ins 43   2.1.6 Wall_Cast-in- Place_8"_G2 Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  # Name Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) 169   Wall_Cast-in-place_8"_14'_G2_MainFloor 117   LF 14 1638 166   Wall_Cast-in-place_8"_11'_G2_MainFloor 53   LF 11 583 121   Wall_Cast-in-place_8"_14'_G2_Basement 26   LF 15 390 185   Wall_Cast-in-place_8"_10'10.5"_G2_SecondFloor 97   LF 10.875 1055 188   Wall_Cast-in-place_8"_13'10.5"_G2_SecondFloor 136   LF 13.875 1887 SUM 5553 = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 5553 ft2 / [10'] = 555.29 feet  In addition, there were several door types counted in this  wall assembly. Only one door type per wall may be  modelled in Athena; the majoirty of the doors in this assembly are wood glazed (roughly 80% glazing). The closest door type in Athena is the Exterior Alum Glazed Door (80% glazed), so it was modelled as such.   2.1.7 Wall_Cast-in- Place_10"_noEnvelo pe   Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The volume of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 8" thickness and 10' in height, as shown here: OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  # Name Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) Volume (ft3) 141   Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_5'_noEnvelope_Basement 50   LF 6 300 250.00 143 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_8'_noEnvelope_Basement 18   LF 9 162 135.00 144 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_11'_noEnvelope_Basement 93   LF 12 1116 930.00 122 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_7.5'_noEnvelope_Theatre 33   LF 7.5 248 206.25 123 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_8.5'_noEnvelope_Theatre 28   LF 8.5 238 198.33 124 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_9.5'_noEnvelope_Theatre 30   LF 9.5 285 237.50 125 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_12'_noEnvelope_Theatre 13   LF 12 156 130.00 250 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_15'9"_noEnvelope_Theatre 30   LF 15.75 473 393.75 251 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_19'3'_noEnvelope_Theatre 28   LF 19.25 539 449.17 252 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_23'8"_noEnvelope_Theatre 44   LF 23.67 1041 867.78 253 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_30.5'_noEnvelope_Theatre 26   LF 30.5 793 660.83 220   Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_18'_noEnvelope_MainFlrCorridor 76   LF 18 1368 1140.00 126 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_7.5'_noEnvelope_Basement 9   LF 7.5 68 56.25 127 Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_14'_noEnvelope_Basement 112   LF 15 1680 1400.00 170   Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_14'_noEnvelope_MainFloor 45   LF 14 630 525.00 SUM 7579.86 = [Wall Volume] / [ (10') x (8”/12) ]  = 7579.86 ft3 / [ (10') x (8”/12) ] = 1137 feet  In addition, there were several door types counted in this wall assembly. Only one door type per wall may be modelled in Athena; the majoirty of the doors in this assembly are hollow metal, so it was modelled as such. 44   2.1.8 Wall_Cast-in- Place_10"_G1 Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The volume of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 8" thickness and 10' in height, as shown here: OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  # Name Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) Volume (ft3) 128    Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_14'_G1_Basement 6    LF 15 90 75.00 171    Wall_Cast-in-place_10"_14'_G1_MainFloor 7    LF 14 98 81.67 SUM 156.67 = [Wall Volume] / [ (10') x (8”/12) ] = 156.67 ft3 / [ (10') x (8”/12) ] = 23.5 feet 2.1.9 Wall_Cast-in- Place_10"_G2             2.1.10 Wall_Cast-in- Place_12"_noEnvelo pe   The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition: #172:    Wall_Cast-in-Place_10"_14'_G2_MainFloor The volume of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 8" thickness and 10' in height, as shown here:  = [Wall Volume] / [ (10') x (8”/12) ]  = 58.33 ft3 / [ (10') x (8”/12) ] = 8.75 feet   Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here: OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  # Name Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) 148 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_11'_noEnvelope_Basement 102   LF 12 1224 149 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_14'_noEnvelope_Basement 181   LF 15 2715 247 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_7.5'_noEnvelope_Theatre 1   LF 7.5 8 248 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_8.5'_noEnvelope_Theatre 3   LF 8.5 26 249 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_9.5'_noEnvelope_Theatre 55   LF 9.5 523 254 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_1'_noEnvelope_Theatre 128   LF 1 128 255 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_10'5"_noEnvelope_Theatre 30   LF 10.5 315 256 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_13.5'_noEnvelope_Theatre 22   LF 13.5 297 130 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_11'_noEnvelope_Basement 7   LF 12 84 131 Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_14'_noEnvelope_Basement 112   LF 15 1680 = [Wall Area] / [10'] = 6999 ft2 / [10'] = 699.85 feet SUM 6999 45    2.1.11 Wall_Cast-in- Place_12"_G1  Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:   OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall   #   Name  Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2)  132 Wall_Cas t-in-place_12"_14'_G1_Basement 13 LF 15 195  174 Wall_Cas t-in-place_12"_14'_G1_MainFloor 25 LF 14 350  190 Wall_Cas t-in-place_12"_13'10.5"_G1_SecondFloor 12 LF 13.875 167    SUM 712   = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 712 ft2 / [10'] = 71.15 feet   The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition: #150:    Wall_Cast-in-Place_12"_14'_G1+WP_Basement The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 4470 ft2 / [10'] = 447 feet  Also, the Curtis Addition drawings specify 1" insulation and waterproofing on the exterior of the walls. The insulation was assumed to be extruded polystyrene and the waterproffing was chosen as a standard 6mm polyethylene 2.1.12 Wall_Cast-in- Place_12"_G1+WP 46   2.1.13 Wall_Cast-in- Place_12"_G2 Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  # Name Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) 133   Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_14'_G2_Basement 12   LF 15 180 173   Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_11'_G2_MainFloor 14   LF 11 154 189   Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_10'10.5"_G2_SecondFloor 13   LF 10.875 141 191   Wall_Cast-in-place_12"_13'10.5"_G2_SecondFloor 13   LF 13.875 180 SUM 656 = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 656 ft2 / [10'] = 65.575 feet  In addition, there were several door types counted in this  wall assembly. Only one door type per wall may be modeled in Athena; the majoirty of the doors in this assembly are wood glazed (roughly 80% glazing). The closest door type  in Athena is the Exterior Alum Glazed Door (80% glazed), so it was modelled as such.  2.2 Steel Stud   2.2.1 Wall_SteelStud_G1 Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  # Name Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) 176 Wall_SteelStud_3'8"_G1_MainFloor 233   LF 3.667 854.33 177 Wall_SteelStud_11'_G1_MainFloor 16   LF 11 176 179   Wall_SteelStud_14'_G1_MainFloor 40   LF 14 560 152   Wall_SteelStud_14'_G1_Basement 27   LF 14 378 192   Wall_SteelStud_10'10.5"_G1_SecondFloor 15   LF 10.875 163.125 194   Wall_SteelStud_13'10.5"_G1_SecondFloor 139   LF 13.875 1928.625 = [Wall Area] / [10'] = 4060 ft2 / [10'] = 406 feet SUM 4060.083 47   2.2.2 Wall_SteelStud_G2 Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  # Name Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) 178    Wall_SteelStud_11'_G2_MainFloor 618    LF 11 6798 181    Wall_SteelStud_14'_G2_MainFloor 329    LF 14 4606 153    Wall_SteelStud_14'_G2_Basement 227    LF 14 3178 193    Wall_SteelStud_10'10.5"_G2_SecondFloor 700    LF 10.875  7612.5 195    Wall_SteelStud_13'10.5"_G2_SecondFloor 193    LF 13.875  2677.875 196    Wall_SteelStud_11'_G2_Theatre 26    LF 11 286 = [Wall Area] / [10'] = 25158.38 ft2 / [10'] = 2515.84 feet SUM 25158.38 In addition, there were several door types counted in this wall assembly. Only one door type per wall may be modelled in Athena; the majoirty of the doors in this assembly are wood glazed (roughly 80% glazing). The closest door type in Athena is the Exterior Alum Glazed Door (80% glazed), so it was modelled as such. 2.2.3 Wall_SteelStud_G2+ F   The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #180:    Wall_SteelStud_14'_G2+F_MainFloor  The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  = [Wall Area] / [10']    2.3 Curtain Wall    2.31. Wall_Curtain_98%Gl = 434 ft2 / [10'] = 43.4 feet azing_noEnvelope Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here: OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  # Name Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) 221 Wall_Curtain_OfficeWindows 780 LF 2.67 2080 273 Wall_Curtain_Skylight 777 LF 6 4662 SUM 6742  = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 6742 ft2 / [10'] = 674.2 feet 48   OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Existing Wall  #  Name  Qty. (ft) Height (ft) Area (ft2) 234 Wall_Curtain_OfficeEntrances_MainFloor 40 LF 11 440 239 Wall_Curtain_MainEntrance_MainFloor 31 LF 8 248 243 Wall_Curtain_CourtYardEntrance_MainFloor 65 LF 7.5 487.5 274 Wall_Curtain_14'_MainFloor 22 LF 14 308  SUM 1483.5  2.3.2 Wall_Curtain_90%Gl azing_noEnvelope Several OnScreen conditions were aggregated to create this condition. The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:          = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 1483.5 ft2 / [10'] = 148.35 feet 2.3.3 Wall_Curtain_70%Gl azing_noEnvelope The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #244: Wall_Curtain_noEnvelope_MainEntrance_SecondFloor  The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 21.25 ft2 / [10'] = 2.125 feet 2.3.4 Wall_Curtain_90%Gl azing_G1 The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #296:    Wall_Curtain_10'10.5"_G1_SecondFloor  The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 217.5 ft2 / [10'] = 21.75 feet 2.3.5 Wall_Curtain_70%Gl azing_G1 The following OnScreen condition was used to create this condition:  #245: Wall_Curtain_G1_SecondFloor  The area of the existing wall was computed then converted to an equivalent length of concrete wall of 10' in height, as shown here:  = [Wall Area] / [10']  = 207 ft2 / [10'] = 20.7 feet  49    3 Columns and Beams The method used to measure column sizing was completely depended upon the metrics built into the Impact Estimator. That is, the Impact Estimator calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the following inputs; number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, supported  span and live load. This being the case, in OnScreen, concrete columns and beams were accounted for on each floor, while each floor’s area was measured. The number of beams supporting each floor were assigned an average bay and span size in order to cover the measured area, as seen assumption  details below for each input. The live loading ranged from 75 psf to 150 psf. As 150 psf cannot be modelled in Athena, a standard live load of 100 psf was applied to all column and beam assemblies in an attempt to even out the design live loads adn more accurately represent the Curtis Building. 3.1 Concrete Column  3.1.1 Column_Concrete_B eam_Concrete_Main Floor_Library Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(12,167 ft2) / (18)]  = 30 feet 3.1.2 Column_Concrete_B eam_Concrete_Main Floor_Offices Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(14,337 ft2) / (47)]  = 17.47 feet 3.1.3 Column_Concrete_B eam_Concrete_Sec ondFloor_Library Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(13,129 ft2) / (18)]  = 27 feet 3.1.4 Column_Concrete_B eam_Concrete_Sec ondFloor_Offices Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(13,592 ft2) / (41)]  = 18.21 feet 50      3.1.5 Column_Concrete_B eam_Concrete_Roof _Library Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(12.814 ft2) / (16)]  = 28.3 feet 3.1.6 Column_Concrete_B eam_Concrete_Roof _Offices Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(11,956 ft2) / (32)]  = 19.33 feet 4 Floors The Impact Estimator calculated the thickness of the material based on floor width, span, concrete strength, concrete flyash content and live load. Athena has a maximum floor span of 9.75m for concrete suspended slabs, so all floors were set to have a span of 30ft. The floor area was then used to calculate the floor width. The live loading ranged from 75 psf to 150 psf. As 150 psf cannot be modelled in Athena, a standard live load of 100 psf was applied to all column and beam assemblies in an attempt to even out the design live loads adn more accurately represent the Curtis Building. 4.1 Concrete Suspended Slabs  4.1.1 Floor_ConcreteSusp endedSlab_MainFlo or Because of the limitation on concrete suspended slab floor span, the floor widths were calculated using the following calculation;  = (Measured Floor Area) / (30 ft)  = (26,600 ft) / (30 ft)  = 887.016 feet 4.1.2 Floor_ConcreteSusp endedSlab_SecondF loor Because of the limitation on concrete suspended slab floor span, the floor widths were calculated using the following calculation;  = (Measured Floor Area) / (30 ft)  = (25,236 ft) / (30 ft)  = 487.034 feet 5 Roof The Impact Estimator calculated the thickness of the material based on roof width, span, concrete strength, concrete flyash content and live load. Athena has a maximum roof span of 9.75m for concrete suspended slabs and 5.5m for steel joist roof systems, so all concrete suspended slabs were set to have a span of 30ft and all steel joist roof systems were set to have a span of 18ft. The roof area was then used to calculate the roof width.The live loading was specified as 40 psf, which cannot be modelled in Athena. Therefore all roof conditions were modelled with a live load of 45 psf. 5.1 Concrete Suspended Slabs 51     5.1.1 Roof_ConcreteSusp endedSlab_BuiltUp Because of the limitation on concrete suspended slab roof span, the roof widths were calculated using the following calculation;  = (Measured Roof Area) / (30 ft)  = (28,312 ft) / (30 ft)  = 94.105 feet  In addition, the engineering drawings specified a built-up roof of tar and gravel, underlain by 1.5" thick rigid insulation. This was modelled as an inverted 4-ply asphalt roofing system, with 1.5" of extruded polystyrene. 5.1.2 Roof_ConcreteSusp endedSlab_Neopren eHypalon The roof areas in the condition were all on a 45 degree slope. The correct amount of measured roof area was computed as follows;  = (Measured Roof Area) / cos(45)  = 304 ft2 / cos(45) = 578.69 ft2  Because of the limitation on concrete suspended slab roof span, the roof widths were calculated using the following calculation;  = (Measured Roof Area) / (30 ft)  = (578.69 ft) / (30 ft)  = 19.3 feet  In addition, a neoprene hypalon cover over the concrete suspended slab was specified. Research showed the closest material in the Impact Estimator to neoprene hypalon is polyethylene filter fabric, so it was modelled as such. 5.2 Steel Joist Roof 52      5.2.1 Roof_SteelJoist_Pen thouse The roof areas in the condition were all on a 15 degree slope. The correct amount of measured rof area was computed as follows;  = (Measured Roof Area) / cos(15)  = 3,408 ft2 / cos(15) = 4486.05 ft2  Because of the limitation on concrete suspended slab roof span, the roof widths were calculated using the following calculation;  = (Measured Roof Area) / (18.04 ft)  = (4486.05 ft) / (18.04 ft)  = 189.33 feet  The steel joist roof system specified 2x2 fir strips of sheathing and steel decking. The sheathing was modelled as 1/2" plywood decking, and the steel decking was modelled in Extra Basic Materials. The steel was specified as 20 gauge, but this is not an option in the Impact Estimator, so the next highest value of 18 gauge steel was used.  In addition, the engineering drawings specified a built-up roof of tar and gravel, underlain by 1.5" thick rigid fiberglass. This was modelled as an inverted 4-ply asphalt roofing system, with 1.5" of fiberglass and glass felt. 6 Extra Basic Materials  6.1 Concrete  6.1.1 The concrete in this section represents the slab topping in XBM_ConcreteToppi the second floor hallway and theatre. The volume of ng concrete was calculated as follows; = SUM[ (Concrete Topping Thickness) x (Topping Area) ] / (35.31 ft3/m3) = [ ((3"/12) x (1,654 ft2)) + ((1.5"/12) x (31,955 ft2)) ] / (35.31 ft3/m3) = 124.817 m3 NB: More specific figures were used and carried in conversion calculations. 6.2 Steel 53   OnScreen Conditions and Outputs Beam Properties Calculations  #  Name Qty. (ft) Descriptor  lbs/ft  lbs  Tons 106 XBM_SteelBeams_Theatre2ndFlr_B1 89 angle 5"x3"x3/8" 9.8 872.2 0.4361 107 XBM_SteelBeams_Theatre2ndFlr_B2 75 L 3"x3"x1/4" 4.9 367.5 0.18375 108 XBM_SteelBeams_Theatre2ndFlr_B3 12 W 10x25 25 300 0.15 109 XBM_SteelBeams_Theatre2ndFlr_B4 97 28.5" WWF 120 11640 5.82 302 XBM_SteelBeams_TheatreRoof_B5 591 36" deep joists 500 295500 147.75 303 XBM_SteelBeams_TheatreRoof_B2 71 L 3"x3"x1/4" 4.9 347.9 0.17395 304 XBM_SteelBeams_TheatreRoof_B3 205 L 1'1/4"x1'1/4"x1/8" 1.6 328 0.164  154.68     6.2.1 XBM_GalvanizedDe cking The steel in this section represents the steel decking in the second floor of the theatre and the theatre roof system. The weight of steel was calculated as follows (an average density of 7.85 tonnes/m3 was used for steel);  = SUM(Decking Area) x (Steel Decking Thickness) / (35.31 ft3/m3) / (0.13 m3 steel/ton steel)  = (1,633 ft2 + 3,462 ft2) x (1.5"/12) / (35.31 ft3/m3) / (0.13 m3 steel/ton steel)  = 138.738 tons  NB: More specific figures were used and carried in conversion calculations. 6.2.2 XBM_WideFlangeSe ctions    The wide flange sections are present in the theatre balcony flooring system and the theatre roofing system. Steel beam dimensions were recorded and the total weight of steel was then calculated. Please see the following table;           SUM = 154.678 tons  NB: Beam properties sourced from http://www.structural- drafting-net-expert.com/steel-beam.html 6.3 Insulation  6.3.1 XBM_Insulation This represents the syrofoam insulation specified on stairwell 1. It was modelled as extruded polystyrene in the Impact Estimator. 6.4 Standard Glazing  6.4.1 XBM_StandardGlazi ng This represents the trellis windows. They are specified as bronze tinted glazed, but this is not an option in the Impact Estimator. They were therefore modelled as standard glazing.  54  

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.18861.1-0108636/manifest

Comment

Related Items