UBC Undergraduate Research

A life cycle analysis of the Geography Building Hosseini, Zahra Nov 25, 2013

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Hosseini_Z_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 2.47MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108744.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108744-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108744-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108744-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108744-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108744-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108744-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108744-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108744.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportZahra HosseiniA Life Cycle Analysis ofthe Geography BuildingCIVL 498CNovember 25, 201310651539University of British Columbia 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”.  1 | P a g e   PROVISIO This study has been completed by undergraduate students as part of their coursework at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and is also a contribution to a larger effort – the UBC LCA Project – which aims to support the development of the field of life cycle assessment (LCA). The information and findings contained in this report have not been through a full critical review and should be considered preliminary. If further information is required, please contact the course instructor Rob Sianchuk at rob.sianchuk@gmail.com      A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building CIVL 498C  November 25, 2013  Zahra Hosseini A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 1 of 59 Executive Summary  This life cycle analysis was performed on the UBC Geography Building, a 51,883 sf, wood- frame academic building built in 1924, for the purpose of establishing a materials  inventory and environmental impact reference to be applied in the assessment of potential upgrades. It was also completed simultaneously with 20  other institutional buildings at UBC for creating a benchmark as a standard against which existing buildings and new constructions assess and interpret. The benchmark is assessed for each environmental impact category through calculating the average impact per square meter of the element.  The Takeoff model , developed by last year student1 , and the original architectural drawings of the Geography Building are used to check the accuracy of the quantity of materials (length, area, and number) used as the IE input data. In this project, IE Inputs are sorted based on a modified version of level 3 of Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyo rs (CIQS ) format. From the improved model and using thena Sustainable Daterials /nstitute͛s /mpact Estimator Bill of Daterials was and Environmental impacts of each level 3 element were determined. The largest quantities of material were gypsum board, softwood plywood, 6mil polyethylene, cedar wood shiplap, and stucco.  The summary of environmental impact measures for different level 3 CIQS categories were also obtained from IE software and the hotspots for each environmental impact category among different lifecycle stages and among different level 3 CIQS categories were identified . Roof Constructions, Walls above Grade, and Foundations have the highest impacts respectively. There are only very small basement areas in the building and the ground floors are inclined wood joist floors which are included in Upper level construction elements. Thus, the Lowest floor construction  and Walls below grade, does not have a significant environmental impact. The comparisons also indicate that the Construction stage has much more environmental impacts that Production stage.  In comparison with CIVL 498C 2013 benchmark (date: 11/24/2013), the total environmental impacts of Geography building, its impacts for Production and Construction stages, and also its impacts for all the CIQS level 3 elements are way below average, except for the Foundation and Walls below grade elements. This difference can be related to the fact that the building is modeled based on its primary drawing from 1924 which was intended to be a temporary bui lding. Thus, the quantity of materials used in the project is minimal. There is no heating insulation material in the drawings and very minimal concrete work. The building does not have slab on grade in the ground level and all the structure is wooden. A r eason for the higher impacts for the foundation in this building is that the quantity of this element is much less that other projects, because the building does not have slab on grade. Hence, the environmental impacts of the foundation elements are divided to the floor area of the footings and crawlspace walls, while in other projects the impacts are divided into the slab on grade area, which covers most of the building site. An important lesson that can be learned from comparing this old building with its more recent equivalents is the significant role of wood in decreasing the environmental impacts of a project, as oppose to concrete or metal structures. Further, detailed LCA analysis of structural elements in UBC buildings can help reducing the environmental impacts in future projects.                                                           1 (Connaghan, 2009)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 2 of 59 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1  Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 2  List of Figures  ........................................................................................................................................... 4  1.  General Information on the Assessment  ...................................................................................... 6  1.1.  Purpose of the assessment  ....................................................................................................... 6  1.2.  Identification of building  ........................................................................................................... 6  1. 3.  Other Assessment Information  ................................................................................................. 8  2.  General Information on the Object of Assessment  ...................................................................... 8  2.1.  Functional Equivalent  ................................................................................................................ 8  2.2.  Reference Study Period ............................................................................................................. 9  2.3.  O bject of Assessment Scope  ..................................................................................................... 9  3.  Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment  ............................................. 11  3.1.  System Boundary .................................................................................................................... 11  3.1.1.  Produ ct Stage .................................................................................................................. 12  3.1.2.  Construction Stage .......................................................................................................... 12  4.  Environmental Data .................................................................................................................... 13  4.1.  Data Sources ........................................................................................................................... 13  4.2.  Data Adju stments and Substitutions ...................................................................................... 14  4.3.  Data Quality  ............................................................................................................................ 14  5.  List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results  ............................................. 16  6.  Model Development  ................................................................................................................... 17  6.1.  A11 Foundation  ....................................................................................................................... 18  6.2.  A21 Lowest Floor Construction  ............................................................................................... 19  6.3.  A22 Upper Floor Construction  ................................................................................................ 19  6.4.  A23 Roof Construction  ............................................................................................................ 20  6.5.  A31 Walls below Grade  ........................................................................................................... 20  6.6.  A32 Walls above Grade  ........................................................................................................... 21  6.7.  B11 Partitions  .......................................................................................................................... 21  6.8.  Bill of materials for CIQS level 3 elements  .............................................................................. 22  7.  Communication of Assessment Results  ...................................................................................... 23  Life Cycle Results  ................................................................................................................................ 23  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 3 of 59 References ............................................................................................................................................. 32  Annex A -  Interpretation of Assessment Results  ................................................................................... 34  Benchmark Development  .................................................................................................................. 34  UBC Academ ic Building Benchmark  ................................................................................................... 34  Anex B -  Recommendations for LCA Use  ............................................................................................... 38  Annex C -  Author Reflection  .................................................................................................................. 39  Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions  .......................................................................... 40                   A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 4 of 59 List of Figures Figure 1 Construction of the "temporary" Geography Buildi ng circa 1925. ©UBC  ................................. 6  Figure 2 Ground plan highlighting the sections of building torn down for firewall installation  ............. 7  Figure 3 Full list of CIQS Elements at all four levels  ............................................................................... 10  Figure 4 Display of modular information for the different  stages of the building assessment ............. 11  Figure 5 Concrete stairs thickness assessment  ...................................................................................... 19  Figure 6 Roof detail for the Geography Building  ................................................................................... 20  Figure 7 Four separate roof area in which their upper portion was modeled as wall sections ............ 20  Figure 8 Fossil Fuel Consumption Comparison Between level  3 elements  ........................................... 26  Figure 9 Global Warming Comparison Between level 3 elements  ........................................................ 26  Figure 10 Acidification Comparison Between level 3 elements  ............................................................ 26  Figure 11 Eutrophication Comparison Between level 3 elements  ........................................................ 27  Figure 12 Ozone Layer Depletion Comparison Between level 3 elements ............................................ 27  Figure 13 Smog Comparison Between level 3 elements  ....................................................................... 27  Figure 14 Human Health Criteria Comparison Between level 3 elements  ............................................ 27  Figure 15 Fossil Fuel Consumption Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements .................................................................................................................................................................... 28  Figure 16 Global Warming Comparison in product and constr uction stage for level 3 elements  ........ 28  Figure 17 Human Health Criteria (Respiratory) Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements  .................................................................................................................................................. 29  Figure 18 Acidification Co mparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements  .............. 29  Figure 19 Eutrophication Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements  ........... 30  Figure 20 Ozone Layer Depletion Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements .................................................................................................................................................................... 30  Figure 21 Smog Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements  .......................... 31  Figure 22 Global Warming Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements .......................... 34  Figure 23 Fossil Fuel Consumption Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements  ............. 35  Figure 24 Acidification Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements  ................................ 35  Figure 25 Human Health Criteria (Respiratory) Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements ..................................................................................................................................................... 36  Figure 26 Eutrophication Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements  ............................ 36  Figure 27 Ozone Layer Depletion Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements  ............... 37  Figure 28 Smog Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements  ........................................... 37  Figure 29 Scatter plot of Total Cost and GWP impacts of CIVIL 498C 2014 studies  .............................. 38      A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 5 of 59 List of Tables Table 1 Summary of assessment information  ......................................................................................... 8  Table 2 Functional Equivalent Definition  ................................................................................................. 8  Table 3 Building Characteristics of the Geography Building  .................................................................... 9  Table 4 Geography Building Definition  .................................................................................................. 11  Table 5 Upstream and downstream processes supporting each LCA module  ...................................... 12  Table 6 Material type and property inaccuracies in Geography building IE model  .............................. 15  Table 7 A11  Foundations List of Materials ............................................................................................ 22  Table 8 A21  Lowest Floor Construction List of Materials  ..................................................................... 22  Table 9 A22 Upper Floor Construction List of Materials  ....................................................................... 22  Table 10 A23  Roof Construction List of Materials  ................................................................................ 22  Table 11 A31 Walls Below Grade List of Materials  ................................................................................ 23  Table 12 A32  Walls Above Grade List of Materials  ............................................................................... 23  Table 13 B11  Partitions List of Materials  .............................................................................................. 23  Table 14 Summary of environmental impact of each level 3 element  .................................................. 25  Table 15 Level 3 Sorted Impact Estimator Inputs  .................................................................................. 53  Table 16 Level 3 Sorted Assumptions  .................................................................................................... 57  Table 17 Ground Lecture Room Stairs  ................................................................................................... 57  Table 18 Ground Interior Stairs Up  ........................................................................................................ 58  Table 19 First Floor Interior Stairs Down  ............................................................................................... 58  Table 20 Ground Lecture Room Steps  ................................................................................................... 58  Table 21 Laths quantity measurements  ................................................................................................ 58  Table 22 Extra wood for the first floor truss .......................................................................................... 58  Table 23 First Floor Truss steel Rods  ..................................................................................................... 59  Table 24 First Floor Truss steel Plates  .................................................................................................... 59            A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 6 of 59 1. General Information on the Assessment 1.1. Purpose of the assessment The initial stage of a life cycle analysis study is to clearly define the goal and scope. Conclusions and recommendations can then be made in accordance with the goal and scope, which affects the detail and time frame of the LCA. This LCA of the Geography Building at the University of British Columbia was carried out to determine the environmental impact of its design2 . This LCA of  the Geography Building is also part of UBC LCA database, a n inventory of the environmental impact of UBC buildings that is intended to be used to stimulate this area and transform green building practices in North America 3 . The data base is mainly developed by UBC students in CIVL 498C course.  The main outcomes of this LCA study are the establishment of a materials inventory and  environmental impact references for the Geography Building. An exemplary application of these  references is in the assessment of potential future performance upgrades to the structure and envelope of the Geography Building. When this study is considered in conjunction with 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, by identifying hot spots in the value chain, this LCA study 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 projects4 . The study is also aim to provide a benchmark for all the buildings that are studied in this class (CI V L 498C, 2013), based on the average environmental impacts per square meter . The intended core audiences of this LCA study are those involved in building  development related policy making at UBC, such as the Project Services, UBC Properties Trust, and Campus Sustainability , 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 5 . 1.2. Identification of building When the University of British Columbia moved to its present Point Grey site in the Fall of 1925 the Department of Geology and Geography was placed in a "temporary"                                                           2 (Connaghan, 2009)  3 (UBC Sustainability, n.d.) 4 (Connaghan, 2009)  5 (Connaghan, 2009)  Figure 1 Construction of the "temporary" Geography Building circa 1925. ©UBC A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 7 of 59 building. That 51,883 sf wood - frame building is the present Geography Building, completely rebuilt inside during the late 1970s, and still standing after more than 60 years as a "temporary" building 6  (Figure 1) . The building is made from wood- frame and stucco by Provincial Department of Public Works (The architect). The building is located at 1984 West Mall, Vancouver on the University of British Columbia campus and was originally named the Applied Science Building , renamed Forestry and Geology in 1951 7 . It was built in conjunction with eight other buildingsͶthe old forestry, agriculture, arts and administration buildings, the electrical and mechanical laboratories, the auditorium, and the mining, metallurgy and hydraulics building Ͷ all of which were built as semi- permanent buildings, and the total cost for all nine buildings was $500,000. The function of the building was to house the academic needs of Geology, Civil Engineering, Zoology, Forestry and Botany, and wa s originally composed of 13 laboratories, 17 offices, 13 research and prep rooms, 12 lecture rooms, eight storage rooms, five lavatories and three locker rooms, as well as a library, museum and common room 8 . Nowadays the building is only used by Geography Department and has 1 2  classrooms, 1 main lecture room, 2 computer labs,  1 9 staff offices, 17 graduate student offices , 36 faculty offices, 18 research labs, 2 lounges, and 4 washrooms 9 . Since its original construction, the Geography Building has undergone many renovations for a total of six phases of alterations. Some major alterations included wall, ceiling and room changes, add itional fire exit stairwells, and the installation of two firewalls through the cross section of the building. The firewalls in particular required the two main stairwells to be demolished, as well as the walls on the ground and first floors between the front and rear entrances to be torn out (Figure 2). Overall, the building͛s floors and edžterior walls remain intact, but many of the interior walls have been altered to accommodate floor plan changes and new building requirements. This model, however, will r epresent the Geography Building as it was built in 1924, as if it were built today  10 .                                                           6 (University of British Columbia, 2009)  7 (The University of British Columbia Library, 2013)  8 (Connaghan, 2009)  9 (Department of Geography -  UBC, n.d.) 10  (Connaghan, 2009)  Figure 2 Ground plan highlighting the sections of building torn down for firewall installation  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 8 of 59 Client for Assessment Completed as coursework in Civil Engineering technical elective course at the University of British Columbia. Name and qualification of the assessor Completed as coursework in CIVL 498C technical elective course in Civil Engineering at the University of British Columbia. Impact Assessment method Zahra Hosseini (MASA Student: 2013), Jessica Connaghan (Previous Auther: 2009)  Point of Assessment US EPA TRACI methodology  Period of Validity 8 8 years  Date of Assessment 5 years.  Verifier Completed in December 2013.  Table 1 Summary of assessment information 1.3. Other Assessment Information Table 1 provides a summary of assessment information. 2. General Information on the Object of Assessment  2.1. Functional Equivalent  The functional unit in this study is square meter floor /surface area. Considering the area as functional unit provide the possibility of comparing different building studied by other students in the CIVL49 8C course and also provide the benchmark for these buildings, against which the impact of new projects can be assessed. Table 2  describes Geography Buildin g͛s functional eƋuivalent. Aspect of Object of Assessment Description Building Type Institutional -  Post Secondary Education  Technical and functional requirements Codes: CSA CAN3 - G 40.21 - MB1 (Steel and Hollow structural materials), ASTM A3 25 - M 79 (Nuts, Washers and Bolts), CISC/CMPA Standard (Coat), NLGA Standard  (Sawn Timber), 1998 British Columbia Building Code/ functional: Lab, Store room, Library, Office, Museume , Vault, research room, Lavatory, Locker room, Lecture room, class,   Pattern of use "The building was originally composed of 13 laboratories, 17 offices, 13 research and prep rooms, 12 lecture rooms, eight storage rooms, five lavatories and three locker rooms, a library, museum and common room.                                     Use pattern: Monday - Friday 07:30 - 20:3 0, Saturday/Sunday/Holidays -  Closed"  Required service life In the Fall of 192 5 the Department of Geology and Geography was placed in a "temporary" building. That building is the present Geography Building, completely rebuilt inside during the late 1970s. The building is currently under drainage, envelope, exterior painting, roof, and seismic upgrading seismic improvement. Table 2 Functional Equivalent Definition  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 9 of 59 Building System Specific Characteristics of Geography Structure Wood posts, girders and beams throughout Floors Foundation: Concrete Slab on grade; Ground and First Floors: Wood joists, Concrete suspended slab Exterior Walls Foundation: Cast - in- place walls; Ground and First Floors: Wood stud walls with stucco, cedar shiplap, laths on both sides, and plaster Interior Walls Foundation: Cast - in- place walls; Ground and First Floors: Lath and plaster  on both sides of wood stud walls with plywood sheathing on hallway and lecture room walls Windows All windows fixed with wood frame and no glazing  Roof Wood joist roof overlain by 2"x4" stud walls with cedar shiplap, roofing asphalt, and a 6mil polyethylene vapour barrier Table 3 Building Characteristics of the Geography Building11  2.2. Reference Study Period Assessments are carried out on the basis of a chosen reference study period.  According to EN 15978, the default value for the reference study period shall be the required service life of the building. Assessments are carried out on the basis of a chosen reference study period.    The Geography Building was built in the fall of 1925 as a "temporary" building ;  however, it completely rebuilt inside during the late 1970s . The building which is 88 old  is currently under drainage, envelope, exterior painting, roof, and seismic upgrading seismic improvement 12 . In order to focus on design related impacts, previous report of the G eography Building LCA encompasses a cradle - to- gate scope that includes the raw material extraction, manufacturing of construction materials, and construction of the structure and envelope of the Geography Building, as well as associated transportation effects throughout the manufacturing and construction stages. Thus, the reference study period in this project is considered to be 1 year. So that the assessment only includes cradle- to- gate scope, i.e. the raw material extraction, manufacturing of constructio n materials, and construction of the structure and envelope, as well as associated transportation effects throughout the manufacturing and construction13 . The maintenance, operating energy and end- of- life stages of the building͛s life cycle are left outside the scope of assessment, which also make s the comparison of different studied buildings more feasible, as they may have different required service life . 2.3. Object of Assessment Scope Table 3 describes materials and components used in the geography building, from its foundations to the edžternal worŬs that are enclosed within the area of the building͛s site. To manage the material used in the project and create a standardized list of elements in the building, this study uses a modified version of the Canadian I nstitute of Quantity Surveyors (CIQS) Level 3  to sort the materials. IN CIQS t he                                                           11 (Connaghan, 2009)  12 (Geography Students Association, 2013)  13 (Connaghan, 2009)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 10 of 59 Figure 3 Full list of CIQS Elements at all four levels elements ordered hierarchically into four levels to allow different levels of aggregation and summarization as follows:   >evel ϭ elements are referred to as ͚Dajor 'roup Elements͛.  >evel Ϯ elements are referred to as ͚'roup Elements͛  >evel ϯ elements are referred to as ͚Elements͛  >evel ϰ elements are referred to as ͚Sub- Elements͛  The full version of the CIQS Level 3 Elements is not applied as the study refers to the previ ous report of the Geography building 14  to acquire the information about the materials used in the building. Therefore, the report excludes the elements which are not assessed in the previous report, i.e. A12 Basement Excavation, B2 Finishes, B3 Fittings & E quipments, C Services, D Site & Ancillary works (Figure 3). The decision to omit these building components, are associated with the limitations of available data and the IE software 15 , as well as to minimize the uncertainty of the model 16 . Moreover, to simpl ify the study some elements are merged into one element group: Doors and windows are included in the walls element group rather than having their separate group (A33). Table 4 provides a list of components included in each element category in Geography Bui lding.                                                            14 (Connaghan, 2009)  15 Athena IE does not have data on finishes, electrical, plumbing or H VAC materials (Athena Institute, 2013) . 16 (Connaghan, 2009)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 11 of 59 3. Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment 3.1. System Boundary The system boundary determines the processes that are taken into account for the object of assessment.  EN 1579 8 prefers that the system boundary include all building life cycle modules and all the upstream and downstream processes needed to establish and maintain the function(s) of the object of assessment, from the acquisition of raw materials to their disposal or to the point where materials exit the system boundary during the defined reference study period  (Figure 4) . Upstream includes energy and resource extraction (Product and Construction stages) and downstream include resource use and waste generation (Use and End of life stages).  This LCA study includes only Product and Construction stages in the building life  cycle, i.e. A1 - 5 modules. Table 5 indicates upstream and downstream processes supporting module s included in this study over the reference study period (1 year).   CIVL 498C Level 3 Elements Description Quantity (Amount) Units A11  Foundations  Columns concrete footings, Exterior walls strip footings, Crawl space walls 272.39  m2  A21  Lowest Floor Construction  Tank Room, Neutralizing Tank, Store room , and Ground  Concrete floors  80.83  m2  A22  Upper Floor Construction  Suspended Slabs, wood joist floors (Inclined and stepped floors), stairs construction, ground floor beams, foundation and ground posts, and girders 4,854.65  m2  A23  Roof Construction  First floor beams, posts, truss, two layer wood joist roof (the top layer is inputted as stud wall in IE)  2,394.58  m2  A31  Walls Below Grade  Basement level concrete walls for Tank Room, Neutralizing Tank, and Store room (See Drawing 406 - 0 6 - 0 16)  54.26  m2  A32  Walls Above Grade  Ground and first floor exterior walls, walls laths (extra materials), doors and windows 3,188.65  m2  B11  Partitions  Ground and first floor interior walls, interior walls laths (extra materials), doors and windows  3,935.37  m2  Table 4 Geography Building Definition Figure 4 Display of modular information for the different stages of the building assessment A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 12 of 59 3.1.1. Product Stage17 The product stage is also known as 'cradle to gate' for the building products and services that are reference flows for the construction stage of the object of assessment. Product Stage in Athena LCI is developed by tracking energy use and emissions to air, water and land f or each of the following modules:  3.1.1.1. Raw Material Supply For this module, resource use and emissions are assessed per unit of raw resources such as timber, iron ore, coal, limestone, aggregates and gypsum. In addition to the actual harvesting, mining or quarr ying of a resource, data from the extraction phase includes activities such as reforestation and beneficiation (a mining technique that involves separating ore into valuable product and waste).  3.1.1.2. Transport This module includes the transportation of raw resources to the mill or plant, which defines the boundary between extraction and manufacturing.  3.1.1.3. Manufacturing Manufacturing, typically accounts for the largest proportion of embodied energy and emissions associated with the life cycle of a building product. In Athena inventory studies, this stage starts with the delivery of raw resources and other materials to the mill or plant gate and ends with the finished product ready for shipment. The Impact Estimator software combines resource extraction and manufacturing into a single activity stage (Product)  for results reporting purposes.  3.1.2. Construction Stage18 The on- site construction stage is like an additional manufacturing step where individual products, components and sub- assemblies come together in the manufacture of the building. This stage covers the processes from the factory gate of the different construction products to the practical completion of the construction work.   Life Cycle Stage Product  Construction processes Life Cycle Module A1 Raw Material Supply A2 Transport A3 Manufacturing A4 Transport A5 Construction-Installation Processes Upstream Processes Raw material, Fuel, water consumption Fuel production and consumption Raw material, water and fuel consumption Fuel production and consumption Raw material, Fuel, water consumption Downstream Processes Solid waste, air and water pollutions Air pollutions  Solid waste, air and water pollutions Air pollutions  Solid waste, air and water pollutions Table 5 Upstream and downstream processes supporting each LCA module                                                            17 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3a ) 18 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3a)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 13 of 59 3.1.2.1. Transport In the Athena tools, this stage starts with the transportation of individual products and sub -assemblies from manufacturing facilities to distributors in various Canadian and US regions. Average or typical transportation distances to building sites within each city are applied. This is an important life cycle stage that is often overlooked in life cycle assessments for products alone. Transportation of materials is based on a weighted average of the distances from which materials are sourced, by different modes of transportation (diesel road, diesel rail, RFO barge, RFO ship). For example, if LA gets a certain percentage of it͛s wood from BC, the pacific northwest and the south east, the distances travelled, for each mode of transport are summed up and averaged according to the percentage from each region. All our data is Eorth merican, and is assumed to manufactured in the US or Canada, as of yet we don͛t account for materials coming from overseas 19 . 3.1.2.2. Construction-Installation Processes The on- site construction activity stage also includes storage of products, site clearing, waste generation and management until disposal, the energy use of machines like cranes and mixers, the transportation of equipment to and from the site, concrete form - work, ancillary materials, and temporary heating and ventilation.  4. Environmental Data 4.1. Data Sources This study uses of the Athena LCI Database for material process data, and the US LCI Database for energy combustion and pre- combustion processes for electricity generation and transportation. Athena Institute has developed their own life cycle inventory (LCI) databases for building materia ls to be used in their Impact Estimator software for buildings . These databases are built from the ground up using several actual mill or engineered process models across the continent and are not reliant on trade or government data sources. This way, a good cross- sectional industry average formulation and environmental profile for each material is produced. The manufacturing effects of that average formulation are then regionalized for each location by applying manufacturing technology, recycled content differences for products produced in various regions, local electricity, energy and transportation grids. The data has developed not only for building materials and products but also for energy use, transportation, construction and demolition processes including on- site construction of a building͛s assemblies, maintenance, repair and replacement effects through the operating life, and demolition and disposal20 . U.S. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database is a publicly available database developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL) and its partners to help life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners answer questions about environmental impact. This database provides individual gate - to- gate, cradle-to- gate and cradle- to- grave accounting of the energy and material flows into and out of the                                                           19 (Athena Institute, 2013)  20 (Athena Institute, 2013) , (Athena Sustainable M aterials Institute, 2013b)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 14 of 59 environment that are associated with producing a material, component, or assembly in the U.S. This LCI Database Project was initiated on May 1, 2001, and gained national prominence at a meeting of interests hosted by the Ford Motor Company. Funding agencies and representatives of industrial, academic, and consulting communities voiced strong support for the project. As a result, an advisory group with 45 representatives from manufacturing, government, and nongovernment  organizations, as well as LCA experts, worked together to create the database 21 . 4.2. Data Adjustments and Substitutions Table 6 presents the material type and property inaccuracies found in Geography Building Impact Estimator model.    “>ath and Wlaster” which is the interior cladding material for interior and exterior walls is replaced with “'ypsum board”. do improve the model, literature should be researched to find a >C study on “>ath and Wlaster” material as a wall cladding. However, we cannot access the I E database to add the new cladding material. An option is to not add any interior cladding for the wall in IE  and add the impacts found for “>ath and Wlaster” in the literature in the final results. Impacts should be multiplied to the wall area that is calculated in our study.  4.3. Data Quality The primary source of data for this LCA is the original architectural drawings from when the Geography Building was initially constructed in 1924.  Additional structural drawings from 2004 were also used to determine the live loading on the building. Two main software tools are to be utilized to complete the study͖ Kn Center͛s Kn- Screen daŬeoff and the thena Sustainable Daterials /nstitute͛s Impact Estimator (IE) for buildings.  The drawings used in this study lack some 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 and limitations to what it can model, which necessitate d further assumptions to be made. These assumptions and limitation will be discussed further in Table 16 in Appendix D. Here are some examples of uncertainties exist in this study:   >ath and plaster is considered to be Ъ” regular gypsum board on the inside of all exterior walls, as well as both sides of all interior walls (Appendix D). This assumption used on such a widely used material can then greatly affect the environmental impacts that this building will have. This assumption could be a potential source of uncertainty in the model͛s results22 .                                                              21 (NREL, 2013)  22 (Connaghan, 2009)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 15 of 59 Level 3 Element Description of Inaccuracy(ies) IE Input(s) Effected Improvement Strategy(ies) A11 Foundations     The real concrete (psi) is unknown  All foundation concrete footings and crawl walls   Look into building original detail drawings or as built maps in UBC Archives    The real concrete flyash % is unknown   The real rebar numbers is unknown  A21 Lowest Floor Construction  The real concrete (psi) is unknown  Foundation and ground Concrete Floor  Look  into building original detail drawings or as built maps in UBC Archives    The real concrete flyash % is unknown  Live load are not based on known/measured data (45 psf)  Ground Concrete Floor  Changed to 50 psf, based on the 2nd floor live load mentioned in Drawing 401 - 0 7 - 0 01  A22 Upper Floor Construction  The specific decking wood type and thickness is unknown  Ground and first Floor Floor Area  Look into building original detail drawings Concrete (psi), Concrete flyash %, Rebar number Inputs are unknown  Entrance stairs Look into building original detail drawings or as built maps in UBC Archives  A23 Roof Construction Roof envelope vapor Barrier material and decking thickness is unknown   Roof Area  Look into building original data or check on site Roof envelope Cladding material is not entered in IE  Roof Area  The material is added to IE   Live load are different from known/measured data (entered 50 instead of 35 psf mentioned in Drawing 401 - 0 7 - 0 0 for roof area)  Roof Area  IE limits  A31 Walls Below Grade  Concrete (psi), Concrete flyash %, Rebar number Inputs are unknown  All foundation walls  Look into building original detail drawings or as built maps in UBC Archives  A32 Walls Above Grade Wall sheathing is not entered. Instead wood shiplap siding is added as a cladding material. Ground Exterior Wall  Based on Drawing 401 - 07 - 001 note G.5 sheathing is added (plywood) Door type and door glazing type are not known  Ground Exterior Wall                                          First Floor Exterior Wall Look into building original drawings or check on site  Interior cladding material is not consistent with known data due to IE limits  Ground Exterior Wall                                          First Floor Exterior Wall Find an LCA study on Lath and Plaster and replace it with Gypsum board in IE  B11 Partitions   Door type are not known  Ground and first floor  Walls                 Look into building original drawings or check it in the building  Envelope material is not consistent with known data due to IE limits  All interior walls  Find an LCA study on Lath and Plaster and replace it with Gypsum board in IE  Table 6 Material type and property inaccuracies in Geography building IE model  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 16 of 59  Not all characteristics of emissions are taken into account when doing an impact assessment. The impact assessment software converts specified amounts masses of emissions into their equivalent environmental and human impacts. Although this data had been collected through many environmental and health studies, the impacts are still dependent on an infinite number of factorsͶsuch as time, temperature, environment sensitivity, etc.Ͷ compromising the accuracy of these impact equivalencies. In addition, there are a number of chemicals wit hin the environment that can react together to produce other chemicals. This reaction could potentially create more or less hazardous chemicals. Overall, this lack of detail could result in over -  or underestimation of environmental impacts 23 .  The way that the emissions are converted to impacts can also cause uncertainty in the summary measures. TRACI, the impact assessment methodology used for this study, relates emissions to impacts through characterization factors. These factors, however, are linear and do  not take into account the initial amount that the environment is able to absorb without effects, as well as the drop off of effects when there are so many emissions that further emissions do not cause any more harm. This could cause over-  or underestimations of the impacts, depending on the relationship the each emission has with the environment 24 .  Finally, the way in which the impact assessment methodology allocates impacts to different products along the line of production can affect the overall results. Co- products from the same unit process can be quantified by mass, volume, economic value, etc. Depending on which method of quantification is used, the impacts allocated to each co - product will differ 25 . 5. List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results Using Athena IE for buildings, this study measures resources, material and energy flows to and from nature over the raw material extraction and supply, transport, manufacturing, and construction modules for the Geography Building and assesses t he potential impact of those flows on ecosystems and human health. Potential effects are assessed and categorized through the following “mid- point” metrics developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the Tool for the Reduction and Assessm ent of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) version 2.2: fossil fuel consumption, global warming ;“carbon footprint”Ϳ, acidification ;“acid rain”Ϳ, eutrophication ;“algal bloom”Ϳ, human health criteria (respiratory), photochemical oxidant creat ion ;“summer smog”Ϳ, and onjone depletion ;“onjone hole”Ϳ26 . While the indicators do not directly address the ultimate environmental impacts, they do provide a convenient way to summarize and compare the masses of inventory data, and at least make decisions o n the basis of whether an alternative is likely to result in a reduction of flows from and to nature27 .                                                            23 (Connaghan, 2009)  24 (Connaghan, 2009)  25 (Connaghan, 2009)  26 (Connaghan, 2009) , ;K͛Connor, Deil, Baer, Θ <offler, ϮϬϭϮͿ, (W. Trusty, 2009)  27 (Wayne B Trusty & Horst, 200 3)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 17 of 59 Fossil Fuel consumption, measured by MJ of fuel consumed, is the p otential to lead to the reduction of the availability of low cost/energy fossil fuel supplies. Fossil fuel shortages leading to use of other energy sources, which may lead to other environmental or economic effects 28  Global warming potential, measured in kg CO 2  eƋuivalent, is the potential for the earth͛s climate to change based on the build- up of chemicals, and subsequent heat entrapment. The chemicals that affect this summary measure include greenhouse gases, and the total effect is based on their “radiative forcing and lifetime”29 . Acidification, measured in moles of H+ equivalent, is the potential for an increase of acidity of water and oil systems to occur. This can occur through both wet and dry depositions, and is caused by SO 2  and NO x  emissions30 . H uman H ealth respiratory effects potential is affected by the “total suspended particulates, particulate material (PM) less than 10 ʅm in diameter (PM 10 ), PM less than 2.5 ʅm in diameter (PM 2.5 ), and by emissions of SKϮ and EKdž”, and is measured in Ŭg WDϮ.ϱ eƋuivalent. These particles can have todžic effects on human health, including “chronic and acute respiratory symptoms, as well as mortality”31  Eutrophication potential, which is measured in kg N equivalent, is the potential for materials and their emissions to fertilize surface waters with previously scarce nutrients. This can then cause an expansion of aquatic photosynthetic plant species, leading to possible odours, decrease in marine habitat and production of chemicals that could be a health hazard 32 . Ozone depletion potential, measured in kg CFC - 11 equivalent, is the potential for reduction of the protective ozone due to accelerated destructive chemical reactions caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons and other chemicals. This reduction can cause lower level ozone level, which can cause increased UVB levels and harmful effects on marine life, crops and human health Ͷincluding cancer 33 . Smog potential, which is measured in kg NO x  equivalent, is the potential for material emissions to cause smog. This can cause harmful effect on human health, including asthma and mortality, and can be deleterious to plant life34 . 6. Model Development The quantity of materials consumed in the project  is assessed, using the model which last year student has developed in On - Screen Takeoff version 3. 9 .0 .6 , a software tool designed to perform material takeoffs with increased accuracy and speed in order to enhance the bidding capacity of its                                                           28 (Bare, Norris, Pennington, & Mckone, 2003)  29 (Bare et al., 200 3)  30 (Bare et al., 200 3)  31 (Bare et al., 200 3)  32 (Bare et al., 200 3)  33 (Bare et al., 200 3)  34 (Bare et al., 200 3)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 18 of 59 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.  In the last year study, t he measurements generated are formatted into the inputs required for the IE building LCA software , i.e. Foundations, Floors, Walls, Roofs, and ext ra materials. The Takeoff model and the original architectural drawings from when the Geography Building are  used to check the accuracy of the quantity of materials (length, area, and number) used as the IE input data.  In this project, IE Inputs are sorted based on a modified version of level 3 of CIQS format  as described in section 2.3 (Table 4).  Overall, the drawings were high quality, allowing the takeoffs to be performed with ease. There was lack of information conc erning concrete properties, foundation assembly heights and wall cross-sections, and assumptions were made based on research. In addition, some material quantities required assemblies to be factored due to limitations with the IE software 35 . Further detailed information and calculations on all assumptions made as well as the formatted IE inputs can be found in Appendi x  D.  Here is a description of how each of your Level 3 elements was modeled , including assumptions and challenges associated with each of the programs:  6.1. A11 Foundation The Foundation element consist of columns concrete footings, Exterior walls strip footings, and Crawl space walls.  For the foundation element, concrete footings were calculated using all three measurement conditions, and were assumed to be composed of concrete with 4000psi strength, #4 rebar reinforcement and average fly ash content. Column footings on the foundation were measured using the count condition with the width and length provided from drawing 401 - 06 - 0 16, and the thicknes s provided from drawing 401 - 0 6 - 1 7. They were then labeled based on the dimensions Ͷe.g. ϰ͛džϰ͛ Concrete Footing. The strip footing below the exterior concrete wall was modeled using the width provided from drawing 401 - 06 - 01 6 and the linear condition used to measure the Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings, and was labeled accordingly.  Crawlspace walls are the walls in the foundation level which are not the exterior walls for the basement, but rather raise the ground floor (Section Drawings: 401 - 0 6 - 1 9/20).  Crawlspace walls on the foundation levels were modeled using linear conditions labeled based on their thickness, material, floor level and if they were interior or exterior walls (e.g. Foundation 8 ” /nterior Concrete tallͿ. They were assumed to have a height of 3.5ft, based on an average of  measurements from drawings 401 - 06 - 019 and 401 - 0 6 - 0 20, as well as concrete with 4000psi  strength, #5 rebar reinforcement and average fly ash content36 . For the foundation exterior crawlspace wall with footings, thickness of ϭϬ” was given, however ϴ” was used due to IE limitations, therefore length of the exterior wall was multiplied by a factor of ;ϭϬ”/ϴ”Ϳ for a total length of ϭϯϲϯ.ϳϱ͛ to meet the concrete volume.                                                           35 (Connaghan, 2009)  36 (Connaghan, 2009)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 19 of 59 6.2. A21 Lowest Floor Construction Based on Drawing 401 - 0 7 - 0 01 section D, the building does not have any slab- on- grade. The only surfaces that are built on the site ground are Tank Room, Neutralizing Tank, Store room, and Ground Concrete floors. The floors were modeled using the area condition, and were labeled based on their material, floor level and location (e.g. Ground Concrete Floor). For all the floors, an assumed live load of 50psf was also used based on drawing 401 - 07 - 00 1, a list of specifications from a 2004 renovation. Foundation Concrete Floor was modeled as a slab on grade using the area condition, with a thicŬness measurement of ϰ”. dhe concrete for the slab was assumed to have strength of 4000psi and average fly ash content 37 . 6.3. A22 Upper Floor Construction Upper Floor Construction includes suspended Slabs, wood joist floors (Inclined and stepped floors), stairs construction, ground floor beams, foundation and ground posts, and girders. Although, Ground Floor Area and Ground Level Lecture Room are the lowest floor in most of the building area, they are included in A22 rather than A21. It is due to the CIQS categorization which includes the Suspended floors and decks and Inclined and stepped floors in A22 element category.  The floors in the Geography building were modeled using the area condition, and were labeled based on their material, floor level and location (Ground Sloped Lecture Room). For all the floors, an assumed live load of 50 psf was also used based on drawing 40 1 - 0 7 - 001. An assumed span of 16ft was also used to fit within the 11.8ft -  32.0ft span limitation of the IE software. The wood joist floors were  assumed to have Ъ” thicŬ plywood decŬing based on Ŭnowledge of the decŬing being wood. /n addition, the spans were assumed to be 10ft to fit within the 0.98ft -  15.0ft span limitation of the IE software. Finally, the sloped section of the lecture room was modeled to have a slope based on the dimensions of the risers and treads of the steps, as seen in drawing 401 - 0 6 - 019. A sloped wood joist floor was modeled, and the addition material used for the steps was added as extra basic material. This volume of material was calculated based on the number of steps, and the dimensions of the risers and treads. In addition, it was assumed that the steps had a width of 50ft, based on a drawing measurement, and the wood steps were Ъ” thicŬ38 . The beams and girders were modeled in On - Screen Takeoff using linear conditions combined with cross section dimensions given by the drawing 401 - 06 - 01 6, 401 - 06 - 0 17 and 401 -  06 - 18. The posts were also modeled using dimensions from the above drawings and drawing 401 - 0 6 - 0 20 for post heights, as well at count conditions. All  beams, girders and posts included in A21 and A22 were labeled based on dimensions, floor level and material, and were modeled using extra basic materials to simplify calculations.  The difference                                                           37 (Connaghan, 2009)  38 (Connaghan, 2009)  Figure 5 Concrete stairs thickness assessment A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 20 of 59 Figure 7 Four separate roof area in which their upper portion was modeled as wall sections between measured data and IE input for Ground 8''x1 8 '' Wood Beam and Ground 6''x8 '' Wood Beam (5.1.1 and 5.1.4 in Table 15) in last year model, which were due to a typo mistake , was corrected. The ground level concrete stairs are on the lowest level. However, they are not included in A21 as stair structure is only included in A22 element category of modified version of CIQS. They were measured using the area condition. Concrete thickness assumed to be linear by estimating the average thickness between the crest and the trough of the step , estimated from the cross section as shown in drawing 401 - 0 6 - 0 20 , as seen in Figure 5. The wood stairwells were modeled using extra basic material based on the drawing 401 - 0 6 - 0 18. Volumes calculated basic on the number of steps, the dimensions of the risers and treads, and an assumed thicŬness of Ъ”. Ϯ”džϴ” stringer boards were also considered in the quantity takeoff of the steps 39 . 6.4. A23 Roof Construction The roof of the building was made up of two wood joist sections, as seen in Figure 6 . The lower portion was modeled as a wood joist roof with a span of 10ft due to IE limitations, while the upper portion was modeled as ϰ separate wall sections with Ϯ”džϰ” wood studs (Figure 7 ). In addition, for sloped sections of the “wall sections,” the section was assumed to be flat. From the roof detail, cedar shiplap was added to the envelope, as well as roof asphalt based on site inspections. In addition, it was assumed  there was a 6mil polyethylene layer to meet the vapor barrier requirements of a roof.   The First Floor Truss, were modeled using extra basic material. The wood, steel rod and steel sheets of the truss were modeled based on the drawing 401 - 0 6 - 0 18.   6.5. A31 Walls below Grade Walls Below Grade  includes basement level concrete walls for Tank Room, Neutralizing Tank, and                                                           39 (Connaghan, 2009)  Figure 6 Roof detail for the Geography Building A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 21 of 59 Store room (See Drawing 406 - 0 6 - 0 16).  Basement walls on the foundation levels were modeled using linear conditions labeled based on their thicŬness, material, floor level and if they were interior or edžterior walls ;e.g. &oundation ϲ” /nterior Concrete Wall). They were assumed to have a height of 3.5ft, based on an average of measurements from drawings 401 - 06 - 019 and 401 - 0 6 - 0 20, as well as concrete with 4000psi strength, #5 rebar reinforcement and average fly ash content40 . dhicŬness of ϲ” and ϳ” was given for walls below grade, however ϴ” was used due to /E limitations, therefore length of the edžterior wall was multiplied by a factor of ;ϲ”,ϳ”/ϴ”Ϳ for a total length of ϲϲ.ϬϬ͛ and ϲϵ.ϭϮϱ͛ to meet the concrete volume. 6.6. A32 Walls above Grade The exterior walls on ground and first floor levels were modeled using linear conditions labeled based on their thickness, material, floor level and if they were interior or exterior walls (e.g. Ground exterior Wall ). The exterior walls on the ground and first floors a ppeared to have no insulation installed when the building was initially constructed, and were therefore assumed to have no insulation. All doors, edžcept for the steel vestibule which was assumed to be a ϯϮ”džϳ͛ steel interior door, were assumed to be ϯϮ”džϳ͛ solid wood doors. The windows were assumed to be fixed windows with standard glazing, and were modeled as wood frames based on site inspections. Total lath volumes for the exterior and interior  walls (walls above grade and partitions) were calculated by multiplying the calculated lath volume per ϭ͛džϭ͛ areaͶas seen in Table 7  with assumed lath dimensions and spacingͶby the twice the total area of the wall, to account for laths on both sides of the walls. Finally, all wood stud walls with lath and plaster reƋuired Ъ” of regular gypsum to be used as a surrogate material for the plaster, with the laths modeled as edžtra basic material based on ϰ͛džϮ”džЬ” dimensions and Ь” spacing41 .In the last year model the number of windows , length of the wall, and total area of the windows in Ground and First Floor Exterior Walls (2.2.5 and 2.2.6 in Table  16 ) were divided by 4 (and modeled 4 times) to accommodate limits on the number of windows. As this limitation is resolved in IE version 4.2.0.208, used in this study, the IE  inputs are changed to real quantities.  6.7. B11 Partitions The interior walls on ground and first floor levels were modeled using linear conditions labeled based on their thickness, material, floor level and if they were interior or exterior walls (e.g. Ground  Ϯ”džϰ” Stud Interior Wall, etc.). Hallway walls were also assumed to have plywood sheathing, based on drawing 401 -0 6 - 0 30, a drawing from a building renovation in 1963. The doors and windows within the ground and first floor walls were modeled using count conditions. ll doors were assumed to be ϯϮ”džϳ͛ solid wood doors. &inally, all wood stud walls with lath and plaster reƋuired Ъ” of regular gypsum to be used as a surrogate material for the plaster, with the laths modeled as edžtra basic material based on ϰdž͛Ϯ”džЬ” dimensions and Ь” spacing42 .                                                           40 (Connaghan, 2009)  41 (Connaghan, 2009) , (Wikipedia, n.d.)  42 (Connaghan, 2009) , (Wikipedia, n.d.)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 22 of 59 6.8. Bill of materials for CIQS level 3 elements A reference flow is a quantified amount of the product(s), including product parts, necessary for a specific product system to deliver the performance described by the functional unit. The purpose of the reference flows is to translate the abstract functional unit into specific product flows for each of the compared systems, so that product alternatives are compared on an equivalent basis, reflecting the actual consequences of th e potential product substitution43 . 'eography building͛s bill of materials in metric units for each Level 3 Element, taken from reordered building model, in IE version 4.2.0.208,  is presented in Table 7 - 13.   Material Quantity Unit Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 187.890 2  m3  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 5.794  Tonnes Table 7 A11  Foundations List of Materials Material Quantity Unit Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 10.4564  m3  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 0.2886  Tonnes Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 0.0463  Tonnes Table 8 A21  Lowest Floor Construction List of Materials Material Quantity Unit Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 8.7282  m3  Galvanized Sheet 1.1034  Tonnes Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 152.138 7  m3  Nails 1.0241  Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 0.0526  Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 2.5429  m3  Softwood Plywood 5967.65 81  m2 (9mm)  Table 9 A22 Upper Floor Construction List of Materials Material Quantity Unit 1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 2039.27 11  m2  Cedar Wood Shiplap Siding 2039.27 11  m2  Double Glazed No Coating Air 601.476 3  m2  Joint Compound 2.0352  Tonnes Nails 0.4949  Tonnes Paper Tape 0.0234  Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts 0.7751  Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 67.4235  m3  Softwood Plywood 2588.96 89  m2 (9mm)  Stucco over porous surface 2039.27 11  m2  Unclad Wood Window Frame 4851.04 36  kg  Water Based Latex Paint 571.874  L  Table 10 A23  Roof Construction List of Materials                                                           43 (Weidema, Wenzel,  Petersen, & Klaus Hansen, 2004)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 23 of 59 Material Quantity Unit Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 9.2268  m3  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 0.3264  Tonnes Table 11 A31 Walls Below Grade List of Materials Material Quantity Unit 1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 2039.27 11  m2  Cedar Wood Shiplap Siding 2039.27 11  m2  Double Glazed No Coating Air 601.476 3  m2  Joint Compound 2.0352  Tonnes Nails 0.4949  Tonnes Paper Tape 0.0234  Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts 0.7751  Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 67.4235  m3  Softwood Plywood 2588.96 89  m2 (9mm)  Stucco over porous surface 2039.27 11  m2  Unclad Wood Window Frame 4851.04 36  kg  Water Based Latex Paint 571.874  L  Table 12 A32  Walls Above Grade List of Materials Material Quantity Unit 1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 8093.98 54  m2  Galvanized Sheet 0.0619  Tonnes Joint Compound 8.0779  Tonnes Nails 0.69  Tonnes Paper Tape 0.0927  Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 76.8397  m3  Softwood Plywood 1554.93 61  m2 (9mm)  Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 0.2948  L  Water Based Latex Paint 86.1659  L  Table 13 B11  Partitions List of Materials 7. Communication of Assessment Results  Life Cycle Results Environmental impacts of each level 3 CIQS category  is assessed by reordering and improving previously generated whole building LCA model, in IE version 4.2.0.208. IE utilizes the Athena Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database, in order to generate a cradle - to- grave LCI profile for the building. In this study,  LCI profile results focus on the manufacturing and transportation of materials and their installation in to the initial structure and envelope assemblies. As this study is a cradle - to- gate assessment, the expected service life of the Geography Building is  set to 1 year, which results in the maintenance, operating energy and end- of- life stages of the building͛s life cycle being left outside the scope of assessment. Table 15 summarizes the environmental impacts of Geography Building for each. Figure 8 - 1 4  illustrate hotspots for each environmental impact category among different level 3 CIQS categories. Figure 1 5 - 21 show the hotspots for each environmental impact category among different lifecycle stages.  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 24 of 59 Level 3 Elements life cycle stages Process Module Impact Assessment metrics Fossil Fuel Consumption Global Warming Acidification  Human Health Criteria  ʹRespiratory Eutrophication Ozone Layer Depletion Smog (MJ)  (kg CO2eq)  (moles of H+eq)  (kg PM10eq)  (kg Neq)  (kg CFC - 11eq)  (kg O3eq)  A11 Foundations  Product Manufacturing  382293.43  53191.64  348.72  132.437  20.86  0.00030499  7084.963  Transport 27140.94  1598.19  10.23  0.285  0.71371426  0.00000007  362.2357  Total 409434.37  54789.83  358.95  132.722  21.57421  0.00031  7447.199  Construction Process Construction-installation Process  49460.02  4840.13  34.96  6.765  1.89408003  0.00001525  1013.930  Transport 32109.54  2445.65  11.44  0.353  0.82462679  0.0000001  404.5892  Total 81569.56  7285.78  46.4  7.118  2.718707  0.000015  1418.519  Total Non - Transport 431,753.45  58,031.77  383.68  139.20  22.75  0.000320  8,098.89  Transport 59,250.48  4,043.84  21.67  0.64  1.54  0.00000017  766.82  Total 491,003.93 62,075.61 405.35 139.84 24.29 0.0003204 8,865.72 A21 Lowest Floor Construction Product Manufacturing  21764.03829  2997.061972  19.62189787  7.391938489  1.170463235  1.69731E - 05  395.2683  Transport 1517.757107  89.22978733  0.571566504  0.015898087  0.039872569  3.64571E - 09  20.23806  Total 23281.79539  3086.291759  20.19346437  7.407836576  1.210335804  1.69768E - 05  415.5063  Construction Process Construction-installation Process  3439.578956  310.0167803  2.265753894  0.380143492  0.125950162  8.48645E - 07  67.57603  Transport 1835.015245  136.9825871  0.653300245  0.020018018  0.046976723  5.46648E - 09  23.1018  Total 5274.594201  446.9993674  2.919054139  0.40016151  0.172926885  8.54111E - 07  90.67784  Total Non - Transport 25,203.62  3,307.08  21.89  7.77  1.3  1.78217E - 05  462.84  Transport 3,352.77  226.21  1.22  0.04  0.09  9.11219E - 09  43.34  Total 28,556.39 3,533.29 23.11 7.81 1.38 1.78309E-05 506.18 A22 Upper Floor Construction  Product Manufacturing  218620.9638  14873.75553  157.1053041  41.74899925  17.0772458  1.44211E - 05  3858.053  Transport 24885.02864  1876.73284  8.856197888  0.272464175  0.637652539  7.49063E - 08  313.1889  Total 243505.9925  16750.48837  165.961502  42.02146343  17.71489834  0.000014496  4171.241  Construction Process Construction-installation Process  14528.25482  1827.04894  14.52604271  2.256462536  1.143693432  7.25534E - 07  390.7883  Transport 10448.8563  735.2749322  3.702821922  0.111218219  0.264558676  2.93672E - 08  130.9264  Total 24977.11112  2562.323873  18.22886463  2.367680755  1.408252108  7.54902E - 07  521.7147  Total Non - Transport 233,149.22  16,700.80  171.63  44.01  18.22  0  4,248.84  Transport 35,333.88  2,612.01  12.56  0.38  0.9  0  444.12  Total 268,483.10 19,312.81 184.19 44.39 19.12 0 4,692.96 A23 Roof Construction Product Manufacturing  3623340.814  54938.59494  428.2836425  169.2028255  23.02873221  6.00073E - 06  5651.402  Transport 15190.05274  1104.543513  5.35144469  0.163090844  0.384131581  4.41776E - 08  189.2782  Total 3638530.867  56043.13845  433.6350872  169.3659164  23.41286379  6.04491E - 06  5840.68  Construction Process Construction-installation Process  65544.28345  2777.608805  23.96001123  8.345909645  1.351995055  3.81585E - 07  528.2405  Transport 22361.46347  1364.30266  7.8852817  0.225912882  0.555097407  5.46847E - 08  278.7892  Total 87905.74691  4141.911466  31.84529293  8.571822527  1.907092462  4.36269E - 07  807.0297  Total Non - Transport 3,688,885.10  57,716.20  452.24  177.55  24.38  0  6,179.64  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 25 of 59 Transport 37,551.52  2,468.85  13.24  0.39  0.94  0  468.07  Total 3,726,436.61 60,185.05 465.48 177.94 25.32 0 6,647.71 A31 Walls Below Grade  Product Manufacturing  19424.05456  2636.099818  17.29457602  6.51350592  1.081798689  1.49774E - 05  349.3773  Transport 1342.584312  79.21609601  0.505895999  0.014084029  0.035300926  3.23566E - 09  17.91258  Total 20766.63887  2715.315914  17.80047202  6.527589949  1.117099615  1.49806E - 05  367.2899  Construction Process Construction-installation Process  3111.276795  283.6056354  2.131579544  0.336518089  0.119713362  7.48857E - 07  64.5364 7  Transport 1579.780997  120.3273071  0.562906561  0.01737292  0.040571364  4.79972E - 09  19.90560  Total 4691.057792  403.9329424  2.694486105  0.353891009  0.160284726  7.53656E - 07  84.44207  Total Non - Transport 22,535.33  2,919.71  19.43  6.85  1.20  0.000016  413.91  Transport 2,922.37  199.54  1.07  0.03  0.08  0.000000008  37.82  Total 25,457.70 3,119.25 20.49 6.88 1.28 0.000016 451.73 A32 Walls Above Grade Product Manufacturing  631612.5969  48182.98028  447.4894123  67.5204599  27.13864743  0.001031771  6692.724  Transport 26072.1485  1855.052692  9.186875522  0.277799096  0.657786674  7.43E - 08  324.9645  Total 657684.7454  50038.03297  456.6762878  67.79825899  27.79643411  0.001031845  7017.688  Construction Process Construction-installation Process  32475.33864  2508.920627  21.52191619  3.635458662  1.495172609  3.51061E - 06  475.9976  Transport 41403.08889  3170.997285  14.70818972  0.455364603  1.061173405  1.26419E - 07  520.0933  Total 73878.42753  5679.917912  36.23010592  4.090823265  2.556346014  3.63703E - 06  996.0909  Total Non - Transport 664,087.94  50,691.90  469.01  71.16  28.63  0  7,168.72  Transport 67,475.24  5,026.05  23.9  0.73  1.72  0  845.06  Total 731,563.17 55,717.95 492.91 71.89 30.35 0 8,013.78 B11 Partitions Product Manufacturing  308037.0487  18678.30968  168.6496474  35.07972162  17.03204313  3.89498E - 05  1874.165  Transport 34543.75451  2189.12222  11.7679071  0.345965257  0.835086295  8.82167E - 08  416.4193  Total 342580.8032  20867.4319  180.4175545  35.42568687  17.86712942  0.000039038  2290.584  Construction Process Construction-installation Process  29596.05985  2092.806094  16.96219833  2.813114431  1.575608201  3.8834E - 06  196.4491  Transport 32562.49891  2454.580992  11.52189103  0.355155713  0.830101305  9.79301E - 08  407.4446  Total 62158.55876  4547.387086  28.48408935  3.168270144  2.405709506  3.98133E - 06  603.8937  Total Non - Transport 337,633.11  20,771.12  185.61  37.89  18.61  0  2,070.61  Transport 67,106.25  4,643.70  23.29  0.7  1.67  0  823.86  Total 404,739.36 25,414.82 208.9 38.59 20.27 0 2,894.48 Total  Product Manufacturing  9548936.305  314084.9224  2530.628792  781.8951431  174.1191312  0.001683792  40973.68  Transport 216670.8429  14536.28439  76.87734089  2.27245384  5.46481879  5.84939E - 07  2720.127  Total 9765607.148  328621.2068  2607.506133  784.1675969  179.58395  0.001684377  43693.80  Construction Process Construction-installation Process  345991.7566  24875.4428  196.8144262  41.82864182  13.07420374  4.01477E - 05  4609.942  Transport 223400.2537  16255.93974  79.20846516  2.407869995  5.681078943  6.4895E - 07  2800.856  Total 569392.0103  41131.38254  276.0228914  44.23651181  18.75528269  4.07966E - 05  7410.797  Total Non - Transport 9,894,928.06   338,960.37  2,727.44  823.72  187.19  0.00172  45,583.62  Transport 440,071.10  30,792.22  156.09  4.68  11.15  0.0000012  5,520.98  Total 10,334,999.16 369,752.59 2,883.53 828.40 198.34 0.00173 51,104.60 Table 14 Summary of environmental impact of each level 3 element A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 26 of 59         Figure 9 Fossil Fuel Consumption Comparison Between level 3 elements Figure 10 Global Warming Comparison Between level 3 elements Figure 8 Acidification Comparison Between level 3 elements A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 27 of 59    Figure 12 Ozone Layer Depletion Comparison Between level 3 elements Figure 11 Eutrophication Comparison Between level 3 elements Figure 13 Smog Comparison Between level 3 elements Figure 14 Human Health Criteria Comparison Between level 3 elements A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 28 of 59 Figure 15 Fossil Fuel Consumption Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements                        Figure 16 Global Warming Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 29 of 59  Figure 18 Acidification Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements Figure 17 Human Health Criteria (Respiratory) Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 30 of 59  Figure 20 Eutrophication Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements Figure 19 Ozone Layer Depletion Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 31 of 59                Figure 21 Smog Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 32 of 59 References Athena Institute. (2013). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://calculatelca.com/faqs/  Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013a). Technical Details. Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/our - software- data/lca- databases/ Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013b). LCI Databases. Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/our - software- data/lca- databases/ Bare, J. C., Norris, G. A., Pennington, D. W., & Mckone, T. (2003). The Tool for the Reduc tion and Assessment Impacts. Journal of industrial ecology, 6(3/4), 49 7ʹ8.  Connaghan, J. (2009). A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building (p. 68). Vancouver. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2429/2352 2  Department of Geography -  UBC. (n.d.). Geog raphy Floorplans. The University of British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.geog.ubc.ca/department/floorplans.html  European Commission Research & Innovation Environment. (2012). G - 06 (Buildings) / G - 07 (Products) Functional equivalent. EeBGuide Project. Retrieved from http://www.eebguide.eu/?p=1715  Geography Students Association. (2013). Building Construction. Geography Students Association. Retrieved from http://www.ubcgsa.ca/about/building - construction- 2/  NREL. (2013). U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Databa se. Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/lci/  K͛Connor, :., Deil, :., Baer, S., Θ <offler, C. ;ϮϬϭϮͿ. >C in constructionථ: status , impact , and limitations. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute,PE INTERNATIONAL, Inc.  Saghafi, M. D., & Hosseini Teshnizi, Z. S. (2011). Recycling value of building materials in building assessment systems. Energy and Buildings, 43(11), 3181 3ʹ 188. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.08.016  The University of British Columbia Library. (2013). Geography Building Floorplans. UBC Library Archives. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/bldgs/geog.html  Todd, J. A. (2013). Life Cycle and LEED. Environmental Design & Construction, 16(1), 43 4ʹ7. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pd fviewer/pdfviewer?sid=017e3eeb -8c49 - 47 00 - af3e - 342f388f68ac%40sessionmgr10&vid=1&hid=12  Trusty, W. (2009). Incorporating LCA in Green Building Rating Systems. Environmental Managers Magazine, (december), 19 2ʹ2.  Trusty, W. B., & Meil., J. K. (1999). Building  life cycle assessment: residential case study. In Mainstreaming Green: Sustainable Design for Buildings and Communities. Chattanooga, TN.  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 33 of 59 Trusty, Wayne B, & Horst, S. (2003). Integrating LCA Tools in Green Building Rating Systems. In USGBC Greenbuilding International Conference & Expo. Austin.  UBC Sustainability. ;n.d.Ϳ. C/s> ϰϵϴC: Eorth merica͛s largest building environmental impact study. Retrieved from http://sustain.ubc.ca/stories/civl - 498c - north- america%E2%80%99s - largest-building- environmental- impact- study UBC Sustainability. (2013). Campus as a Living Laboratory. Retrieved from http://sustain.ubc.ca/our -commitment/campus- living- lab University of British Columbia. (2009). Fifty Years of Geography at UBC. UBC Department of Geography. Retrieved November  11, 2013, from http://www.geog.ubc.ca/department/history.html  Weidema, B., Wenzel, H., Petersen, C., & Klaus Hansen. (2004). The Product , Functional Unit and Reference Flows in LCA (pp. 1 4ʹ7).  Wikipedia. (n.d.). Lath and plaster -  Wikipedia, the free enc yclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lath_and_plaster                 A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 34 of 59 Figure 22 Global Warming Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements Annex A - Interpretation of Assessment Results Benchmark Development There is a need for a standard against which to measure and interpret the performance of a system. This is the basis of benchmarking. It is crucial that the projects which are used to develop a benchmark have common goal & scope and model development , so that they include similar criteria in their assessments. Moreover,  in comparative studies between different systems/options it is essential to define the functional equivalent. Functional equivalent is a representation of the required and quantified functional and/or technical requirement for a building or an assembled system  (part of works), which is used as a basis for comparison.  Functional equivalent needs to include building type, relevant technical and functional requirements, the pattern of use and the required service life 44 .  UBC Academic Building Benchmark  In this study, the benchmarking for institutional building on UBC Vancouver campus where obtained by assessing the average impact for each TRACI environmental impact category per square meter of the level 3 CIQS elements and the building total area. Figure s 2 4 - 30  draw comparisons between the environmental impacts of the 'eography Building and the C/s>ϰϵϴC ϮϬϭϯ students͛ projects benchmarks for their lifecycle stages and for their level 3 elements. Figure 31  is a scatter plot of total cost and global warming potential impacts of all studies.  Geography building is highlighted among the other buildings.                                                                44 (European Commission Research & Innovation Environment, 2012; W. B. Trusty & Meil., 1999)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 35 of 59  Figure 24 Acidification Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements Figure 23 Fossil Fuel Consumption Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 36 of 59   Figure 25 Human Health Criteria (Respiratory) Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements Figure 26 Eutrophication Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 37 of 59  Figure 27 Ozone Layer Depletion Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements Figure 28 Smog Benchmarking for Life Cycle Stages and level 3 elements A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 38 of 59 Anex B - Recommendations for LCA Use LCA is a study of the environmental impacts of a system over a specific life span. The presented study was a Cradle- to- Grave (including Product and Construction stages) environmental impact analysis of the Geography Building on UBC campus. However, having a holistic perspective in LCA study  is crucial, both in terms of lifecycle stages and elements included, in order to identify all the impacts and hotspots in a system. A lthough LCA for separate elements is helpful for having more sustainable choices in material/product selection, these studies are not enough to optimize the overall impact of a building. For instance, material with less embodied energy may be preferred in a Cradle- to- Grave LCA study, but they may be less preferred when the energy consumption in the building͛s use stage is included in assessments. A building LCA study, early in the design stage will significantly affect the material/component, or service selection decisions. More over an LCA study for an existing building can help maŬing efficient decisions to improve the building͛s performance. I n order to have an accurate LCA study, a detailed region specific LCI database is required , so that the environmental impacts of products and systems are assessed based on location characteristics such as available technology, distances, energy type, environmental sensitivity of the place, etc. Institutes such as Athena and NREL have already developed a thorough datab ase for Eorth merica͛s regions. However, as the interest in using LCA method in the construction industry increases, more studies will be Figure 29 Scatter plot of Total Cost and GWP impacts of CIVIL 498C 2014 studies  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 39 of 59 conducted on building products and buildings. Using these case studies, more comprehensive region specific LCI databases will be created. Also benchmark for different building types and functions will be developed against which buildings͛ performance can be assessed. Incorporating LCA in building assessment certifications, such as including it in the latest version of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Certification (LEED v.4) can significantly  help promoting the use of LCA in building industry 45 . A challenge in LCA is how to interpret the results. The results of an LCA study are presented as mid -point environmental impact categories, which are not connected to each other in the way they are reported. Thus, different studies may prioritize the  impact categories differently based on the sensitivity of the context, stud y goals, or even personal benefits. To make the study result more reliable, a third party institute can conduct region specific studies to identify the categories which may have more significant impact or sensitivity in that place and assign weightings to the impact categories based on that analysis. UBC has high environmental goals and its campus is considered as a living laboratory for the technological, environmental, economic and societal aspects of sustainability 46 . Such ambitions make UBC a perfect place for actively applying and developing LCA methods in design, maintenance, and renovation of different building types on campus. The first step is to develop a database of different building on campus to create a benchmark for assessment and comparison purposes. This initiation has already been started in CIVL 498C course. However, as these studies are done mainly by undergraduate students who do not have much expertise in LCA, it is necessary that these studies be reviewed and improved by LCA professionals. Moreover, this database can be sorted  and categorize for different purposes. For instance, old buildings can have their own category for comparison and renovation/improvement decision makings.  Annex C - Author Reflection The first time I read about LCA was in 2011 when I was conducting a research on incorporating the recycling value of construction materials in building assessment systems, such as LEED 47 .  Through that study I realized that current material assessment methods and strategies incorporated in building rating systems are more focused on upstream impacts, mainly operation stage and more recently production stage. dhey mainly do not consider the building or product͛s whole lifecycle in their assessment. Thus, they may not be able to help the stakeholders choose the best product/s ervice for their projects. I also read about LCA challenges  and uncertainties in regard to how to allocate environmental impacts to different functional units of a system, how to predict the end of life of a system, and also the lack of a comprehensive region specific LCI database.  Currently I am a graduate student at UBC in Master of Advanced Studies in architecture (MASA) program. In my thesis I am studying  the influence of different stakeholders' priorities on extending useful lifetime of construction materials. Sometimes the environmental benefits of these strategies are                                                           45 (Todd, 2013)  46 (UBC Sustainability, 2013)  47 (Saghafi & H osseini Teshnizi, 2011)  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 40 of 59 not in line with influential staŬeholders͛ priorities/benefits, involved in different stages of construction products lifecycle, thus stakeholders do not put so much effort into applyin g them. In my case studies, I am studying lifecycle costs/benefits of construction products and allocating them to different stakeholders in volved in products lifecycle. I was highly interested to know the details of LCA methods and how they actually assess and assign different environmental impacts. It was not easy to understand it just by reading the publications. Thus I audited the CIVL 498C course to experience using LCA methods for a building. During the course I realized that getting involved in detai ls of LCA study is so challenging and different from the concept of the LCA. I learned to deal with detailed quantities of materials used in a building and incorporate them in modeling softwares to obtain LCA environmental result. This experience greatly h elped me to understand the importance and challenges of LCA.  Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions  Major Group Elements Group Elements Element Quantity Units Assembly Type Assembly Name Input Fields Known/Measured Information IE Inputs A  Shell A1  SUBSTRUCTURE A11  Foundations 272.39 m2                     Concrete Footing             1.1.1 -  2'3" Concrete Footings                Length (ft)  175.500  175.500                Width (ft) 2.250  2.250                Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average               Rebar -  #4              1.1.2 -  2'9" Concrete Footings                Length (ft)  22.000  22.000                Width (ft) 2.750  2.750                Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average               Rebar -  #4              1.1.3 -  1'9" Concrete Footings                Length (ft)  267.750  267.750                Width (ft) 1.750  1.750                Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 41 of 59               Rebar -  #4              1.1.4 -  2'3"x2' 9" Concrete Footings                Length (ft)  16.500  16.500                Width (ft) 2.250  2.250                Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average               Rebar -  #4              1.1.5 -  3'3" Concrete Footings                Length (ft)  65.000  65.000                Width (ft) 3.250  3.250                Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average               Rebar -  #4              1.1.6 -  4'x4' Concrete Footings                Length (ft)  8.000  8.000                Width (ft) 4.000  4.000                Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average               Rebar -  #4              1.1.7 -  Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings                Length (ft)  1091.000  1091.000                Width (ft) 1.667  1.667                Thickness (in)  9.000  9.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average               Rebar -  #4              2.1.1 -  Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings                Length (ft)  1091.000  1363.750                Height (ft)  3.500  3.500                Thickness (in)  10.000  8.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  Average                Rebar -  #5              2.1.2 -  Foundation Exterior Wall without Footings                Length (ft)  47.000  58.750                Height (ft)  3.500  3.500                Thickness (in)  10.000  8.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 42 of 59               Concrete flyash %  -  Average                Rebar -  #5              2.1.4 -  Foundation 8'' Interior Concrete Wall                Length (ft)  342.000  342.000                Height (ft)  3.500  3.500                Thickness (in)  8.000  8.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  Average                Rebar -  #5    A2  STRUCTURE A21  Lowest Floor Construction 80.83 m2                     Slabs on grade             1.2.1 -  Foundation Concrete Floor               Length (ft)  34.438  34.438                Width (ft) 16.000  16.000                Thickness (in)  4.000  4.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average           4.1 Suspended Slab             4.1.1 -  Ground Concrete Floor                Floor Width (ft) 19.938  19.938                Span (ft) 16.000  16.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Live load (psf)  -  50.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average     A22 Upper Floor Construction 4740.28 m2                     4.2 Wood Joist Floor             4.2.1 -  Ground Floor Area                Floor Width (ft) 2257.600  2257.600                Span (ft) 10.000  10.000                Decking Type  Wood Plywood                Live load (psf)  50.000  50.000                Decking Thickness  -  1/2 in              4.2.3 -  Ground Sloped Lecture Room                Floor Width (ft) 253.200  253.200                Span (ft) 10.000  10.000                Decking Type  None  None                Live load (psf)  50.000  50.000                Decking Thickness  -  1/2 in              4.2.4 -  Ground Level Lecture Room  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 43 of 59               Floor Width (ft) 92.500  92.500                Span (ft) 10.000  10.000                Decking Type  Wood Plywood                Live load (psf)  50.000  50.000                Decking Thickness  -  1/2 in              4.2.2 -  First Floor Floor Area                Floor Width (ft) 2493.000  2493.000                Span (ft) 10.000  10.000                Decking Type  Wood Plywood                Live load (psf)  50.000  50.000                Decking Thickness  -  1/2 in            Stair Construction             1.1.8 -  Ground Entrance Stairs                Length (ft)  20.000  20.000                Width (ft) 5.667  5.667                Thickness (in)  8.000  8.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average               Rebar -  #4              1.1.9 -  Ground Entrance Stairs 2                Length (ft)  29.000  29.000                Width (ft) 7.000  7.000                Thickness (in)  12.000  12.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average               Rebar -  #4              1.1.10 -  Ground Entrance Stairs 3                Length (ft)  7.500  7.500                Width (ft) 3.000  3.000                Thickness (in)  8.000  8.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  average               Rebar -  #4              5.1.35 -  Ground Lecture Room Stairs                Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.096  0.096              5.1.36 -  Ground Interior Stairs Up                Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.139  0.139              5.1.37 -  FF Interior Stairs Down  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 44 of 59               Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.109  0.109              5.1.38 -  Ground Lecture Room                Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.178  1.178            Columns & Beams             5.1.1 -  Ground 8''x1 8'' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.444  0 444              5.1.2 -  Ground 8''x1 6'' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.515  1.515              5.1.3 -  Ground 8''x1 4'' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.345  0.345              5.1.4 -  Ground 6''x8 '' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.064  0 064              5.1.5 -  Ground 10''x1 6'' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.507  0.507              5.1.18 -  Ground 6''x8 '' Wood Post                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.540  0.540              5.1.19 -  Ground 8''x8 '' Wood Post                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.648  0.648              5.1.20 -  Ground 8''x1 0'' Wood Post                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.810  0.810            5.1 Wood             5.1.12 -  Foundation 6''x6 '' Wood Girder                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  4.650  4.650              5.1.13 -  Foundation 6''x1 0'' Wood Girder                Softwood 2.680  2.680  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 45 of 59 Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)              5.1.14 -  Foundation 6''x8 '' Wood Girder                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.284  1.284              5.1.15 -  Foundation 6''x6 '' Wood Post                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  2.688  2.688              5.1.16 -  Foundation 8''x1 0'' Wood Post                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  2.333  2.333              5.1.17 -  Foundation 8''x8 '' Wood Post                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.187  0.187      A23  Roof Construction 2394.58 m2                     3.1 Wood Joist                     3.1.1 -  Roof Area                Roof Width (ft) 2577.500  2577.500                Span (ft) 10.000  10.000                Decking Type  -  None                Live load (psf)  35.000  50.000                Decking Thickness  -  1/2 in              Envelope Category Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier                Material  -  Polyethylene 6 mil                Thickness (in)  -  -                Category Cladding Cladding               Material  Shiplap Wood Shiplap Siding -  Cedar               Thickness (in)  -  -                Category Roof Envelopes Roof Envelopes               Material  Asphalt  Roofing Asphalt                Thickness (in)  -  -              2.2.12 -  Roof Area                Wall Type Exterior  Exterior                Length (ft)  63.000  63.000                Height (ft)  68.000  68.000                Sheathing None  None                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 46 of 59             2.2.13 -  Roof Area 2                Wall Type Exterior  Exterior                Length (ft)  50.000  50.000                Height (ft)  19.000  19.000                Sheathing None  None                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              2.2.14 -  Roof Area 3                Wall Type Exterior  Exterior               Length (ft)  17.300  17.300                Height (ft)  61.000  61.000                Sheathing None  None                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              2.2.15 -  Roof Area 4                Wall Type Exterior  Exterior                Length (ft)  45.500  45.500                Height (ft)  14.000  14.000                Sheathing None  None                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried            Columns & Beams                     5.1.6 -  First Floor 8''x14' ' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.345  0.345              5.1.7 -  First Floor 6''x10' ' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.170  0.170              5.1.8 -  First Floor 6''x8' ' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.116  0.116              5.1.9 -  First Floor 10'' x16' ' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.667  1.667              5.1.10 -  First Floor 8''x16' ' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) 0.896  0.896  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 47 of 59 (Mbfm)              5.1.11 -  First Floor 10'' x18' ' Wood Beam                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.555  0.555            5.1 Wood                     5.1.21 -  First Floor 8''x8' ' Wood Post                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.024  1.024              5.1.22 -  First Floor 6''x8' ' Wood Post                Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.384  0.384              5.1.23 -  First Floor Truss               Softwood Lumber (large, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  1.854  1.854            5.2 Steel                     5.2.1 -  First Floor Truss               Rebar Rod Light Sections (Tons) 0.360  0.360                Cold Rolled Steel (Tons) 1.587  1.587    A3  EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE A31 Walls Below Grade 54.26 m2                       2.1.3 -  Foundation 6'' Interior Concrete Wall                Length (ft)  88.000  66.000                Height (ft)  3.500  3.500                Thickness (in)  6.000  8.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  Average                Rebar -  #5              2.1.5 -  Foundation 7'' Interior Concrete Wall                Length (ft)  79.000  69.125                Height (ft)  3.500  3.500                Thickness (in)  7.000  8.000                Concrete (psi) -  4000.000                Concrete flyash %  -  Average                Rebar -  #5      A32  Walls Above Grade 3188.65 m2                     Walls Above Grade                     2.2.1 -  Ground Exterior Wall                Wall Type Exterior  Exterior                Length (ft)  1096.000  1096.000  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 48 of 59               Height (ft)  13.500  13.500                Sheathing Plywood  Plywood                Stud thickness  2 x 6  2 x 6                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              Window Opening  Number of Windows 332.000  332.000                Total Window Area (ft2)  3229.722  3229.722                Frame Type Wood Wood             Door Opening  Glazing Type  -  Standard Glazing                Number of Doors 10.000  10.000                Door Type -  Solid Wood             Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category Cladding Cladding               Material  Lath and Stucco  Stucco -  Over porous sruface               Thickness  -  -                Category Cladding Cladding               Material  Shiplap Wood Shiplap Siding -  Cedar               Thickness  -  -              5.1.24 -  Ground Exterior Wall Lath              Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  5.058  5.058              2.2.2 -  First Floor Exterior Wall                Wall Type Exterior  Exterior                Length (ft)  1050.000  1050.000                Height (ft)  12.000  12.000                Sheathing Plywood  Plywood                Stud thickness  2 x 6  2 x 6                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.              Window Opening  Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried                Number of Windows 334.000  334.000                Total Window Area (ft2)  4024.583  4024.583                Frame Type Wood Wood               Glazing Type  -  Standard Glazing              Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category Cladding Cladding A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 49 of 59               Material  Lath and Stucco  Stucco -  Over porous sruface               Thickness  -  -                Category Cladding Cladding               Material  Shiplap Wood Shiplap Siding -  Cedar               Thickness  -  -              5.1.25 -  First Floor Exterior Wall Lath              Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  3.811  3.811  B  INTERIORS B1 PARTITIONS & DOORS B11  Partitions 3935.37 m2                       2.2.3 -  Ground 2''x4 '' Stud Interior Wall                Wall Type Interior  Interior                Length (ft)  617.000  617.000                Height (ft)  13.500  13.500                Sheathing -  None                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              Door Opening  Number of Doors 21.000  21.000                Door Type -  Solid Wood             Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -              5.1.26 -  Ground 2''x4 '' Stud Interior Wall lathath               Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  3.528  3.528              2.2.4 -  Ground 2''x4 '' Stud Interior Wall with Steel Vestibule                Wall Type Interior  Interior                Length (ft)  17.000  17.000                Height (ft)  13.500  13.500                Sheathing 1/4" Ply. Both Sides  Plywood                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              Door Opening  Number of Doors 1.000  1.000                Door Type Steel Vestibule  Steel Interior Door              Envelope Category -  Gypsum board  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 50 of 59               Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -              5.1.27 -  Ground 2''x4 '' Stud Interior Wall with Steel Vestibule Lath              Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.094  0.094              2.2.5 -  Ground 2''x6 '' Stud Interior Wall                Wall Type Interior  Interior                Length (ft)  145.000  145.000                Height (ft)  13.500  13.500                Sheathing -  None                Stud thickness  2 x 6  2 x 6                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"               Thickness  -  -              5.1.28 -  Ground 2''x6 '' Stud Interior Wall lath              Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.870  0.870              2.2.6 -  Ground 2''x4 '' Stud Hallway Wall                Wall Type Interior  Interior                Length (ft)  919.000  919.000                Height (ft)  13.500  13.500                Sheathing 1/4" Ply. Both Sides  Plywood                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              Door Opening  Number of Doors 44.000  44.000                Door Type -  Solid Wood             Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -              5.1.29 -  Ground 2''x4 '' Stud Hallway Wall lath              Softwood Lumber (small, 5.149  5.149  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 51 of 59 kiln dried) (Mbfm)              2.2.7 -  Ground 2''x4 '' Stud Lecture Room Wall                Wall Type Interior  Interior                Length (ft)  126.000  126.000                Height (ft)  1.500  1.500                Sheathing 1/4" Ply. Both Sides  Plywood                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -              5.1.30 -  Ground 2''x4 '' Stud Lecture Room Wall lath              Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.084  0.084              2.2.8 -  First Floor 2''x4' ' Stud Interior Wall                Wall Type Interior  Interior                Length (ft)  631.000  631.000                Height (ft)  12.000  12.000                Sheathing -  None                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              Door Opening  Number of Doors 16.000  16.000                Door Type -  Solid Wood             Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gypsum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -              5.1.31 -  First Floor 2''x4' ' Stud Interior Wall lath              Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  3.233  3.233              2.2.9 -  First Floor 2''x6' ' Stud Interior Wall                Wall Type Interior  Interior                Length (ft)  195.000  195.000                Height (ft)  12.000  12.000                Sheathing -  None                Stud thickness  2 x 6  2 x 6                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 52 of 59             Door Opening  Number of Doors 7.000  7.000                Door Type -  Solid Wood             Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -              5.1.32 -  First Floor 2''x6' ' Stud Interior Wall lath              Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.982  0.982              2.2.10 -  First Floor 2''x16' ' Stud Interior Wall               Wall Type Interior  Interior                Length (ft)  37.000  74.000                Height (ft)  12.000  12.000                Sheathing -  None                Stud thickness  2 x 16  2 x 8                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category -                  Material  Lath and Plaster                  Thickness  -                5.1.33 -  First Floor 2''x16' ' Stud Interior Wall lath               Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  0.197  0.197              2.2.11 -  First Floor 2''x4' ' Stud Hallway Wall                Wall Type Interior  Interior                Length (ft)  704.000  704.000                Height (ft)  12.000  12.000                Sheathing -  None                Stud thickness  2 x 4  2 x 4                Stud Spacing 16 o.c.  16 o.c.                Stud Type Kiln dried  Kiln dried              Door Opening  Number of Doors 35.000  35.000                Door Type -  Solid Wood A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 53 of 59             Envelope Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gysum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -                Category -  Gypsum board                Material  Lath and Plaster  Gypsum Regular 1/2"                Thickness  -  -              5.1.34 -  First Floor 2''x4' ' Stud Hallway Wall                Softwood Lumber (small, kiln dried) (Mbfm)  3.464  3.464  Table 15 Level 3 Sorted Impact Estimator Inputs  Major Group Elements Group Elements   Assembly Type Assembly Name Assumptions A  Shell A1  SUBSTRUCTURE A11  Foundation       Concrete Footing        Column footings on the foundation were measured using the count condition with the width and length provided from drawing 401 - 06 - 0 16, and the thickness provided from drawing 401 - 06 - 17.         Concrete strength was not given and was therefore assumed to be 4000psi   Rebar was not given and was therefore assumed to be #4   Concrete fly ash content was not given and was therefore assumed to be average        Length of footing was calculated by multiplying the length of each footing by the number of footings of that type         1.1.1 -  2'3" Concrete Footings           Length:  2.25*78=175.5 ft          1.1.2 -  2'9" Concrete Footings           Length:  2.75*8=22 ft          1.1.3 -  1'9" Concrete Footings           Length:  1.75*153=267.75 ft          1.1.4 -  2'3"x2' 9" Concrete Footings           Length:  2.75*60=16.5ft          1.1.5 -  3'3" Concrete Footings           Length:  3.25*20=65ft          1.1.6 -  4'x4' Concrete Footings           Length:  4*2=8ft          1.1.7 -  Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings           The strip footing below the exterior concrete wall was modeled using the width provided from drawing 401 - 06 - 016 and the linear condition used to measure the Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings.          Length of footing was given by the length takeoff from the Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings (2.1.1)          2.1.1 -  Foundation Exterior Wall with Footings  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 54 of 59         Crawlspace wall below exterior walls of the ground level (Section Drawings: 401 - 06 - 16/19/20)           dhicŬness of ϭϬ” was given, however ϴ” was used due to /E limitations, therefore length of the edžterior wall was multiplied by a factor of ;ϭϬ”/ϴ”Ϳ for a total length of ϭϯϲϯ.ϳϱ͛ to meet the concrete volume.         Length = 1091 *10"/8" = 1363.75 ft          2.1.2 -  Foundation Exterior Wall without Footings          Crawlspace wall below ground entrance stairs (Section Drawings: 401 - 06 - 16/20)          Total Length = 47*10"/8" = 58.75 ft          2.1.4 -  Foundation 8'' Interior Concrete Wall           Crawlspace wall below Ground concrete floor, interior stair cases and lecture hall . Details in section A - A, B - B Drawing 401 - 06 - 019/02 0.    A2  STRUCTURE A21  Lowest Floor Construction       Slabs on grade         1.2.1 -  Foundation Concrete Floor          Foundation Concrete Floor was modeled as a slab on grade using the area condition, with a thicŬness measurement of ϰ” from section drawings ;ϰϬϭ- 06 - 19/020).           Concrete strength was not given and was therefore assumed to be 4000psi   Concrete fly ash content was not given and was therefore assumed to be average       4.1 Suspended Slab         4.1.1 -  Ground Concrete Floor           Span assumed to be 16ft.  The floor area, 19.938ft, is then attained by dividing the concrete floor area from takeoff model into 16ft.           Live load assumed to be 50 psf based on live load for first floor.           Concrete strength was not given and was therefore assumed to be 4000psi   Concrete fly ash content was not given and was therefore assumed to be average     A22 Upper Floor Construction      Alth ough, Ground Floor Area and Ground Level Lecture Room are  the lowest floor in most of the building area, they are included in A2 2 rather than A21. It is due to  the CIQS categorization which include s the Suspended floors and decks and Inclined and stepped floors in A22 element category.        4.2 Wood Joist Floor        An live load of 50psf is given for roof loading in drawing 401 - 07 - 001, a list of specifications from a 2004 renovation.        Spans were assumed to be 10ft.         dhe wood joist floors were assumed to have Ъ” thicŬ plywood decŬing based on Ŭnowledge of the decŬing being wood.         4.2.3 -  Ground Sloped Lecture Room           the sloped section of the lecture room was modeled to have a slope based on the dimensions of the risers and treads of the steps, as seen in drawing 401 - 06 - 019           A sloped wood joist floor was modeled, and the addition material used for the steps was added as extra basic material (5.1.38 -  Ground Lecture Room).           No plywood decking was added to this floor area because the steps were modeled using extra wood (5.1.35)        Stair Construction A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 55 of 59         1.1.8 -  Ground Entrance Stairs           The concrete stairs on the ground level which were measured using the area condition, with the average thickness estimated from the cross section as shown in drawing 401 - 06 - 020.           The concrete stairs are on the lowest level. However, as stair structure is only included in A22 element category of modified version of C/YS, used in this >C, / didn͛t include the ground level stairs in A21, but rather in A22 element category.         Concrete thickness assumed to be linear by estimating the average thickness between the crest and the trough of the step, as seen in Figure 5          5.1.35 -  Ground Lecture Room Stairs           Steps were assumed to have dimensions of ϳ͛džЪ”          Stringer board ;or diagonalͿ assumed to have dimensions of Ϯ”džϴ”          Volumes were calculated based on wood dimensions and lengths, and were doubled to accommodate identical stairwells (Note: Lengths of treads, risers and diagonals given in Table 18 )         5.1.36 -  Ground Interior Stairs Up           Steps were assumed to have dimensions of ϱ.ϱ͛džЪ”          Stringer board ;or diagonalͿ assumed to have dimensions of Ϯ”džϴ”          Volumes were calculated based on wood dimensions and lengths, and were doubled to accommodate identical stairwells (Note: Lengths of treads, risers and diagonals given in Table 19 )         5.1.37 -  FF Interior Stairs Down           Steps were assumed to have dimensions of ϱ.ϱ͛džЪ”          Stringer board ;or diagonalͿ assumed to have dimensions of Ϯ”džϴ”          Volumes were calculated based on wood dimensions and lengths, and were doubled to accommodate identical stairwells (Note: Lengths of treads, risers and diagonals given in Table 20 )         5.1.38 -  Ground Lecture Room           Steps were assumed to have dimensions of ϱϬ͛džЪ”          Stringer board ;or diagonalͿ assumed to have dimensions of Ϯ”džϴ”          Volumes were calculated based on wood dimensions and lengths (Note: Lengths of treads, risers and diagonals given in Table 21 )       Columns & Beams       5.1 Wood        Volumes of beams, posts and girders were calculated based on given dimensions and modeled length, and converted into Mbfm        V Mbfm = (w"*d"*l")*12in/ft)/(1000bmf/Mbfm)      A23  Roof Construction      The roof of the building was made up of two wood joist sections. The lower portion, highlighted in Figure 6 , was modeled as a wood joist roof, while the upper portion was modeled as ϰ separate wall sections with Ϯ”džϰ” wood studs.       Sloped sections of the “wall sections” were assumed to be flat.       3.1 Wood Joist        Spans were assumed to be 10ft. The roof width is then assessed by dividing the roof area from takeoff model into 10ft.         Roofing asphalt assumed based on known asphalt roof         Polyethylene 6mil vapour barrier assumed  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 56 of 59        An live load of 35psf is given for roof loading in drawing 401 - 07 - 001; however, the roof live load is inputted as 50psf due to IE limits.          2.2.12 -  Roof Area           Width of roof area given by dividing the highlighted area by the length, as shown in Figure 7           Area modeled twice to account for symmetric design          2.2.13 -  Roof Area 2           Width of roof area given by dividing the highlighted area by the length, as shown in Figure 7           Area modeled twice to account for symmetric design          2.2.14 -  Roof Area 3           Width of roof area given by dividing the highlighted area by the length, as shown in Figure 7           Area modeled twice to account for symmetric design          2.2.15 -  Roof Area 4           Width of roof area given by dividing the highlighted area by the length, as shown in Figure 7        5.1 Wood         5.1.23 -  First Floor Truss          Extra wood for the first floor truss was calculated as seen in the Table 22        5.2 Steel         5.2.1 -  First Floor Truss          Steel for the first floor truss was calculated as extra material (Tables 23 a nd 24 )          Zods were assumed to be “Zebar Zod >ight Sections”          Wlates were assumed to be “Cold Zolled Sheet”   A3  EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE A31 Walls Below Grade      dhe foundation concrete walls were assumed to have a height of ϯ.ϱ͛, based on an average of measurements from drawings 401 - 06 - 019 and 401 - 06 - 020.       Concrete strength was not given and was therefore assumed to be 4000 psi   Rebar was not given and was therefore assumed to be #4   Concrete fly ash content was not given and was therefore assumed to be average         2.1.3 -  Foundation 6'' Interior Concrete Wall          Exterior wall for neutralizing tank in the basement. Details in Drawing 401 - 06 - 016           dhicŬness of ϲ” was given, however ϴ” was used due to /E limitations, therefore length of the edžterior wall was multiplied by a factor of ;ϲ”/ϴ”Ϳ for a total length of ϲϲ.ϬϬ͛ to meet the concrete volume.         Length = 88 *6"/8" = 66 ft          2.1.5 -  Foundation 7'' Interior Concrete Wall           Exterior wall for tank room in the basement. Details in section B - B Drawing 401 - 06 - 020           dhicŬness of ϳ” was given, however ϴ” was used due to /E limitations, therefore length of the edžterior wall was multiplied by a factor of ;ϳ”/ϴ”Ϳ for a total length of ϲϵ.ϭϮϱ͛ to meet the concrete volume.         Length = 79 *7"/8" = 1363.75 ft  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 57 of 59     A32  Walls Above Grade      The doors and windows within the ground and first floor walls were modeled using count conditions.       ll doors, edžcept for the steel vestibule which was assumed to be a ϯϮ”džϳ͛ steel interior door, were assumed to be ϯϮ”džϳ͛ solid wood doors.     The windows were assumed to be fixed windows with standard glazing, and were modeled as wood frames based on site inspections.      Window glazing was not given and was therefore assumed to be standard glazing       Total lath volumes for the exterior and interior walls were calculated by multiplying the calculated lath volume per ϭ͛džϭ͛ areaͶas seen in Table 21  with assumed lath dimensions and spacingͶby the twice the total area of the wall, to account for laths on both sides of the walls. B  INTERIORS B1 PARTITIONS & DOORS B11  Partitions      The doors and windows within the ground and first floor walls were modeled using count conditions.       ll doors, edžcept for the steel vestibule which was assumed to be a ϯϮ”džϳ͛ steel interior door, were assumed to be ϯϮ”džϳ͛ solid wood doors.     The windows were assumed to be fixed windows with standard glazing, and were modeled as wood frames based on site inspections.      Window glazing was not given and was therefore assumed to be standard glazing       Ъ” regular gypsum board was used as a surrogate for plaster due to /E limitations      Shiplap siding was assumed to be cedar given that the laths in the building are cedar as well      Batten and paper were not modeled due to IE limitations          2.2.6 -  Ground 2''x4' ' Stud Hallway Wall           Hallway walls were also assumed to have plywood sheathing, based on drawing 401 - 06 - 030, a drawing from a building renovation in 1963.          2.2.7 -  Ground 2''x4' ' Stud Lecture Room Wall           This wall was added to accommodate the additional wall height within the lecture room           height of ϭ.ϱ͛ was assumed as the average increased wall height         2.2.10 -  First Floor 2''x16' ' Stud Interior Wall           Stud thicŬness of Ϯ”džϭϲ” was given, however Ϯ”džϴ” was used due to /E limitations, therefore length of the edžterior wall was multiplied by a factor of ;ϭϲ”/ϴ”Ϳ for a total length of ϳϰ͛ to meet the concrete volume         Length = 37 *16"/8" = 74 ft           Gypsum board was only modeled once due to doubling in the wall length  Table 16 Level 3 Sorted Assumptions      # of Steps Tread (in) Rise (in) Diagonal (ft) Volume (fbm)  1st Flight 8  10  6  8  48  Table 17 Ground Lecture Room Stairs  A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 58 of 59  # of Steps Tread (in) Rise (in) Diagonal (ft) Volume (fbm)  1st Flight 1 4  10  6  13.5  69.33  Table 18 Ground Interior Stairs Up   # of Steps Tread (in) Rise (in) Diagonal (ft) Volume (fbm)  1st Flight 1 1  10  6  10.5  54.33  Table 19 First Floor Interior Stairs Down   # of Steps Tread (in) Rise (in) Volume (fbm)  1st Flight 1 2  34  7  117 8  Table 20 Ground Lecture Room Steps  Dimensions Spacing Boards per 4'x4' Boards per 1'x1' Volume per Board (fbm) Volume per 1'x1' (fbm)  4'x2"x1/4" 1/4"  21.333  1.333  0.167  0.222  Table 21 Laths quantity measurements   # Material  Dimension Length/Height (ft) Area (sqft) Volume (fbm) Rise Run Total Volume 1  Wood Tie Beam 10"x10 "  51.00  42.50  425.00  0.00  51.00  425.00  1 Wood Tie Beam 10"x12 "  51.00  51.00  510.00  0.00  51.00  510.00  2 Wood Post  10"x12 "  13.50  13.50  135.00  13.50  0.00  270.00  2 Diagonal Posts  10"x12 "  15.05  15.05  150.46  12.50  8.38  300.93  2 Diagonal Posts  10"x8 "  14.98  9.98  99.85  12.50  8.25  199.69  2 Diagonal Posts  10"x6 "  14.84  7.42  74.20  12.50  8.00  148.41   Total V = 18 54.03 fbm  Table 22 Extra wood for the first floor truss    A Life Cycle Analysis of the Geography Building November 25, 2013 Zahra Hosseini Page 59 of 59 # Material  Dimension Length/Height (ft) Area (sqft) Volume (fbm) Rise 2  Rod (End upset) 2"  13.500  0.022  0.295  0.589  2 Rod (End upset) 1.5"  13.500  0.022  0.295  0.589  1 Rod (End upset) 1.25"  13.500  0.022  0.295  0.295   Total V=    1.473 ft3  Total W=  720.147 lbs  Total W=  0.360 tons  Table 23 First Floor Truss steel Rods # Material  Dimension Length/Height (ft) Area (sqft) Volume (fbm) Rise 2  Plate  1/2"x1 0"  5.750  4.792  2.396  4.792  6 Plate  3/8"x3 "x10 "  -   0.208  0.078  0.469  4 Plate  8"x8"x 3/8"  -   0.444  0.167  0.667  6  6"x6"x 3/8"  -   0.250  0.094  0.563   Total V= 6.490 ft3  Total W= 3173.562 lbs  Total W= 1.587 tons  Table 24 First Floor Truss steel Plates   

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.18861.1-0108744/manifest

Comment

Related Items