UBC Undergraduate Research

Chemistry building, University of British Columbia life cycle assessment : final report Tesche, Cassie 2013-11-18

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Tesche_C_et_al_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 1.41MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108825.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108825-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108825-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108825-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108825-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108825-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108825-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108825-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108825.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportCassie TescheChemistry Building, University of British ColumbiaLife Cycle Assessment – Final ReportCIVL 498CNovember 18, 201310651535University 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  11/18/2013    Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Cassie Tesche CIVL 498C – TERM PROJECT Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 1 of 76  Executive Summary  This Life Cycle Assessment of the Chemistry building (originally known as the Science Building) has been completed as an extension of the original LCA completed by Adam Jarolim in 20101, as part of the UBC LCA Database Project, a growing collection of LCA environmental impact studies completed on academic buildings across the UBC Vancouver campus. This study’s purpose is to provide environmental impact information on the Chemistry building, but more importantly to contribute to an aggregate benchmark within the UBC LCA Database Project, which will be used to help UBC make more environmentally sustainable building choices in the future. The study has been completed using quantities obtained from building drawings and On-Screen Takeoff software, which were then used for modeling the building using various assemblies within the Athena Institute’s Impact Estimator software, with the environmental impacts of the Product and Construction Process stages of the building life cycle determined by Impact Estimator. The initial stage of this project was to review the files from Jarolim’s study, including the Impact Estimator files, the Inputs and Assumptions Document, the On-Screen Takeoff file, the building drawings, and Jarolim’s final report. Because of software updates to the Impact Estimator, model modifications were necessary in order to get the model to run. The building components were then sorted according to a Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (CIQS) modified Level 3 elemental system, including the respective model assemblies in Impact Estimator and the corresponding entry in the Inputs and Assumptions Documents. Further model modifications were necessary to properly sort the building assemblies. The model was then reviewed for inaccuracies, with corrections made where possible. Impact Estimator was used to generate reference flows for the building through Bill of Materials, as well as the environmental impacts of the building in seven impact categories (fossil fuel consumption, global warming, acidification, human health criteria – respiratory, eutrophication, ozone depletion, and smog formation). The results of the study of this building are presented in terms of elemental contributions to the overall impacts, as well as the life cycle contributions to the overall impact, and uncertainty in the study is discussed. These results were also used in creating a class benchmark for all of the buildings on campus that have been studied. The Chemistry building impacts have been compared to this benchmark, with further interpretation of the results, in Annex A, and further recommendations for LCA use in Annex B.                                                    1 Jarolim, Adam. Life Cycle Assessment Report, Chemistry Building UBC. Vancouver, 2010. Unpublished student report. Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 2 of 76  Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.0 General Information on the Assessment .......................................................................... 4 1.1 Purpose of the assessment .......................................................................................... 4 Intended Use of Assessment .............................................................................................. 4 Reasons for Carrying Out the Study .................................................................................... 4 Intended Audience ..................................................................................................................... 4 Use for Comparative Assertions .......................................................................................... 4 1.2 Identification of building ............................................................................................... 5 1.3 Other Assessment Information ..................................................................................... 6 2.0 General Information on the Object of Assessment ........................................................... 6 2.1 Functional Equivalent ................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Reference Study Period ............................................................................................... 7 2.3 Object of Assessment Scope ....................................................................................... 8 3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment..................................10 3.1 System Boundary .......................................................................................................10 3.2 Product Stage .............................................................................................................10 3.3 Construction Stage .....................................................................................................10 4.0 Environmental Data ........................................................................................................10 4.1 Data Sources ..............................................................................................................10 4.2 Data Adjustments and Substitutions ...........................................................................12 4.3 Data Quality and Uncertainties....................................................................................12 Data ...................................................................................................................................12 Model .................................................................................................................................12 Temporal............................................................................................................................12 Spatial ................................................................................................................................13 Variability Between Sources ..............................................................................................13 5.0 Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results ...........................................13 6.0 Model Development........................................................................................................14 6.1 Chemistry Building Model ...........................................................................................14 6.2 Reference Flows .........................................................................................................16 Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 3 of 76  7.0 Communication of Assessment Results..........................................................................18 7.1 Life Cycle Results .......................................................................................................18 7.2 Further Discussion of Results – Annexes ....................................................................20 Annex A - Interpretation of Assessment Results .......................................................................21 Benchmark Development ......................................................................................................21 UBC Academic Building Benchmark ......................................................................................21 Annex B - Recommendations for LCA Use ...............................................................................28 Annex C - Author Reflection ......................................................................................................30 Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions ...............................................................33  List of Figures Figure 1 - Chemistry Buildings, UBC10 ....................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 - Chemistry Building Life Cycle Assessment Impact Results - By Element ..................19 Figure 3 - Chemistry Building Life Cycle Impact Results - By Life Cycle Stage .........................20 Figure 4 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Fossil Fuel Consumption ..22 Figure 5 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Global Warming Potential 22 Figure 6 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Acidification ......................23 Figure 7 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Human Health Criteria (Respiratory) .............................................................................................................................24 Figure 8 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Eutrophication ..................25 Figure 9 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Ozone Layer Depletion ....25 Figure 10 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Smog Formation ............26 Figure 11 - Building Cost and Total Global Warming Potential of UBC Buildings ......................27 List of Tables Table 1 - Building Overview ....................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 - Assessment Information .............................................................................................. 6 Table 3 - Functional Equivalent Definition for Object of Assessment .......................................... 7 Table 4 - Building Definition Summary ....................................................................................... 9 Table 5 - Impact Categories Used in This Project .....................................................................13 Table 6 - Bills of Materials .........................................................................................................17 Table 7 - CEAB Graduate Attributes Demonstrated During Project ...........................................30 Table 8 - Impact Estimator Inputs Document ............................................................................33 Table 9 - Impact Estimator Inputs Assumptions Document .......................................................52   Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 4 of 76  1.0 General Information on the Assessment  1.1 Purpose of the assessment Intended Use of Assessment This life cycle assessment of the Chemistry building has been completed as part of the UBC LCA Database Project, a growing collection of LCA environmental impact studies on academic buildings across the UBC Vancouver campus. This assessment provides information on the environmental impacts of the Chemistry building, but more importantly, it is contributing to an aggregate benchmark within the UBC LCA Database Project that will help UBC make more environmentally sustainable building choices in the future. The Project will help to inform those in policy making and strategic planning, and provide a tool that they can use in their decision making. This assessment, as part of the UBC LCA Database Project, will also be used as an educational tool for future students in the Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings course, and as a demonstration of the potential that LCA holds for helping people make more sustainable choices in their buildings. Reasons for Carrying Out the Study The University of British Columbia has earned a reputation as a leader in sustainability, a reputation that it intends to maintain and to strengthen as it grows as a campus and institution. The UBC LCA Database Project aligns with one of the three goals within UBC’s Commitment to Sustainability, outlined in the 2012 UBC Strategic Plan: “Make UBC a living laboratory in environmental and social sustainability by integrating research, learning, operations, and industrial and community partners”2 The UBC LCA Database Project integrates research and learning with campus operations and planning, in working towards more sustainable building choices for the campus, and demonstrates UBC’s commitment to sustainability. Intended Audience While it is hoped that a wide range of audiences will review this report, including future students in the Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings course, LCA industry members, and other institutions or companies that may wish to learn from UBC’s experience in order to develop their own LCA database, the primary intended audience is policy and decision makers from UBC, including those involved in campus operations, the UBC Sustainability Initiative, and UBC Strategic Planning. Use for Comparative Assertions While the results of the life cycle assessment of this building are compared to the average results from other buildings on campus later in the report (see Annex A), the main use of this information in terms of making comparative assertions is to provide a benchmark for future                                                 2 University of British Columbia. Place and Promise: The UBC Plan. Vancouver, 2012. Web. http://strategicplan.ubc.ca/files/2009/11/UBC-PP-Layout-Aug2012.pdf, accessed November 15, 2013. Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 5 of 76  building designs to be compared to. Further discussion of the importance and use of benchmarks is provided in Annex A. 1.2 Identification of building Table 1 - Building Overview Size Basement, 1st, 2nd, 3rd Floor: 62,300 ft2 Address 2036 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia Primary Uses Design3: Office, research, and lecture space for the departments of Chemistry, Physics, Bacteriology, and Nursing and Public Health Current: Office, research, and lecture space for the Department of Chemistry Relevant History4 1912 – Competition for building designs opened; Sharp and Thompson selected 1914 – Tender bids for construction called for; all later returned unopened due to start of World War I 1915 – Building frame poured; funds were exhausted and construction stopped October 28, 1922 – UBC students marched in The Great Trek to protest overcrowding at the University’s Fairview campus and to push for the development of the Point Grey campus November 8, 1922 – Legislature authorized construction of Point Grey Campus March 26, 1923 – Construction contract with E.J. Ryan Contracting Co., Ltd. September 28, 1923 – Cornerstone of building laid Summer, 1925 – Building completed September 22, 1925 – First lecture held in the Science Building Architect Sharp and Thompson Cost Year: 1925 2012 Canada All-items CPI5: 9.1 121.7                                                 3 Cavell, Catherine. The Chemistry (Science) Building, UBC Campus, A History 205 Project. Vancouver: 1983. Unpublished student report. Available from Rare Books and Special Collections, ASRS Storage at I. K. Barber Learning Centre, University of British Columbia. 4 Cavell, Catherine. The Chemistry (Science) Building, UBC Campus, A History 205 Project. Vancouver: 1983. Unpublished student report. Available from Rare Books and Special Collections, ASRS Storage at I. K. Barber Learning Centre, University of British Columbia. 5 Statistics Canada. Table 326-0021 Consumer Price Index (CPI), 2009 basket, annual (2002=100 unless otherwise noted), CANSIM (database). Accessed November 12, 2013. Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 6 of 76  Cost: $960,7786 (including $79,800 contract for frame construction) $12,800,000 (Estimated) Time to Construct ~ 3 years, with 7 year break during World War I Contractors7 1915 frame construction – Robert McLean 1923-1925 building completion – E.J. Ryan Contracting Company  1.3 Other Assessment Information Table 2 - Assessment Information Client for Assessment Completed as coursework in Civil Engineering technical elective course at the University of British Columbia. Name and Qualification of the Assessor Cassie Tesche, M.Eng. Clean Energy Student, 2013; Adam Jarolim, BSc. Civil Engineering Student, 2010. Impact Assessment method Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, Version 4.2.0208, using US EPA TRACI impact assessment methodology, 2007. Point of Assessment 88 years since construction completion. Period of Validity 5 years. Date of Assessment Completed in December 2013. Verifier Student work, study not verified. 2.0 General Information on the Object of Assessment  2.1 Functional Equivalent  The functional unit for a life cycle assessment must be carefully chosen to quantify the performance of the object of assessment based on its function so that it can be used as a reference unit. When multiple LCAs are to be used, either in comparison or in aggregate to form a benchmark, both of which are done with this study, it is important to ensure a consistent functional unit (and thereby ensuring a consistent function) so that meaningful conclusions can be drawn. Two buildings of similar size and shape that serve different functions, such as library storage compared to lecture space, may have very different design standards, in this example based on loading, and therefore very different material requirements, and hence different impacts.                                                  6 Cavell, Catherine. The Chemistry (Science) Building, UBC Campus, A History 205 Project. Vancouver: 1983. Unpublished student report. Available from Rare Books and Special Collections, ASRS Storage at I. K. Barber Learning Centre, University of British Columbia. 7 Cavell, Catherine. The Chemistry (Science) Building, UBC Campus, A History 205 Project. Vancouver: 1983. Unpublished student report. Available from Rare Books and Special Collections, ASRS Storage at I. K. Barber Learning Centre, University of British Columbia. Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 7 of 76  Table 3 - Functional Equivalent Definition for Object of Assessment Building Type Institutional Technical and functional requirements Technical: Unknown; building pre-dates National Building Code Design functional: Academic Building: Office, research, and lecture space for the Departments of Chemistry, Physics, Bacteriology, and Nursing and Public Health Current functional: Academic Building: Office, research, and lecture space for the Department of Chemistry Pattern of use Design occupancy: Unknown Current occupancy of the two classrooms in the original building: 2288 Current occupancy of office and research space: Unknown Current building hours: Monday-Friday 07:00-19:00, Saturday/Sunday/Holidays - Closed Required service life Unknown; assumed 100+ years  2.2 Reference Study Period According to the standard EN 15978 (Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – Calculation method), the default length of the reference study period shall be the required service life of the building. Information is not available on the design service life of the Chemistry building; hence, given the age of the building, it has been assumed to be 100+ years. However, there is too much uncertainty surrounding the Use stage, Module B in EN 15978, of the building over its lifetime, so it has been excluded from this study. Also, the role of this building in the University’s long term campus plan is unknown and likely to change over time, so there is much uncertainty regarding the End of Life stage, Module C in EN 15978, and it has been excluded as well. Without knowing anything about the End of Life stage, it is impossible to estimate any environmental benefits or loads beyond the End of Life, such as those from reuse or recycling of construction materials, so Module D of EN 15978 is also excluded from this study. There is only enough information available to consider the Product and the Construction Process stages, Module A in EN 15978, with any reasonable degree of certainty in the reference study period.                                                  8 UBC Scheduling Services. http://www.students.ubc.ca/classroomservices/buildings-and-classrooms/?code=CHEM accessed November 15, 2013 Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 8 of 76  2.3 Object of Assessment Scope The scope of the product system being studied here is the original Chemistry (Science) building, based on the architectural and construction drawings that are available. Since the building’s completion in 1925, additions have been completed in 1958, 1961, and 19639. The Chemistry building, as defined by these drawings and within this study, is now only part of the greater complex of Chemistry buildings, seen in Figure 1,10 and is known as the Centre Block, or Chemistry D. Chemistry B, C, and E buildings are outside of the scope of this study because the amount of work involved in completing all buildings together is beyond that of an individual term project.  Within the original Chemistry building, only the structure and the envelope of the building are included in this study. Finishes, furnishings, and fixtures are excluded because of the variability of these items over the building’s lifetime. There would also be insufficient information available on these items if we wished to include them, and even if all information were available, there would be limits on what life cycle inventory data is available for those items, and on what could be modeled within the Impact Estimator. There would be too much variability between the various buildings on campus depending on their age and specific use. Including finishes, furnishings, and fixtures would introduce too much uncertainty and would not contribute to the strength of the study, and thus the scope of this LCA is limited to the building structure and envelope.                                                  9 Cavell, Catherine. The Chemistry (Science) Building, UBC Campus, A History 205 Project. Vancouver: 1983. Unpublished student report. Available from Rare Books and Special Collections, ASRS Storage at I. K. Barber Learning Centre, University of British Columbia. 10 Department of Chemistry, Research & Services. http://www.chem.ubc.ca/research-services/house-shops-and-services/mass-spectrometry/microanalysis/map accessed November 17, 2013. Figure 1 - Chemistry Buildings, UBC10 Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 9 of 76  The main structural elements of the original Chemistry building are primarily concrete, including the footings, slab on grade, cast in place walls, columns and beams throughout, and suspended slabs of all floors and the roof. The exterior is built from granite and other fieldstone11. Table 4 summarizes the building components and shows them sorted into a modified Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (CIQS) system of Level 3 Elements. This sorting was done so that further comparisons can be done beyond the total building effects, so that the LCA information and database can be used in parallel with building design. It allows practitioners to see what element of their building is the largest contributor to a given impact so that other design choices for that element can be considered. The CIQS format is also commonly used for presenting life cycle costing information, making it possible for decision-makers to consider economic criteria side by side with environmental data.  Table 4 - Building Definition Summary CIVL 498C Level 3 Elements Chemistry Building Components Quantity (Amount) Units Description of Quantity Measured A11 Foundations Concrete footings 1654 m2 total area of slab on grade A21 Lowest Floor Construction Concrete slab on grade 1654 m2 total area of slab on grade A22 Upper Floor Construction Concrete columns and beams with concrete suspended slabs 5796 m2 sum of the total area of all upper floors measured from the outside face of the exterior walls A23 Roof Construction Concrete columns and beams with concrete suspended slab; roof system modeled as 4 ply built up asphalt roof system, inverted, with rock-wool glass felt, thickness 8”12 1802 m2 sum of the total area of the roof measured from the outside face of the exterior walls A31 Walls Below Grade Cast-in-place; brick, modeled with concrete cinder blocks; stone exterior cladding modeled as stone ballast 1723 m2 sum of total surface area of the exterior walls below grade A32 Walls Above Grade Brick, modeled with concrete cinder blocks; stone exterior cladding modeled as stone ballast 3988 m2 sum of total surface area of the exterior walls above grade                                                 11 Jarolim, Adam. Life Cycle Assessment Report, Chemistry Building UBC. Vancouver, 2010. Unpublished student report. 12 Jarolim, Adam. Life Cycle Assessment Report, Chemistry Building UBC. Vancouver, 2010. Unpublished student report. Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 10 of 76  B11 Partitions Cast-in-place; plaster on brick, modeled with stucco on concrete cinder blocks 8481 m2 sum of total surface area of the interior walls 3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment 3.1 System Boundary As discussed in section 2.2, this study includes only Module A of EN 15798, consisting of the Product stage and the Construction Process stage. Modules B (Use stage), C (End of Life stage), and D (Benefits and loads beyond the system boundary) are excluded. As such, this study considers the raw material supply, transport, and manufacturing processes of the Product stage, the transport and construction-installation processes of the Construction Process stage, as well as the upstream and downstream processes associated with each of the Product and Construction Process unit processes. Examples of upstream processes include generation of the electricity used in manufacturing, and the extraction and refining of the fuels used in the transport processes, while downstream processes include things like disposal of waste materials during the construction processes 3.2 Product Stage The Product stage includes all processes necessary to get the construction processes to the manufacturing gate, hence the term “cradle to gate”. It includes such processes as extraction of the raw materials, the collection and transport of materials and wastes from the extraction site to the manufacturing and disposal sites, the manufacturing process of the product, production of the energy used in the manufacturing process, as well as the actual energy itself, the production of co-products during the manufacturing process, and the collection and transport of the products and waste to the “gate” and the disposal site, respectively. 3.3 Construction Stage The Construction Process stage includes all processes necessary to get the different construction products from the manufacturer’s gate to its place within the final construction work. This includes processes such as transportation from the manufacturer to the construction site, installation of the product on site, construction processes on site, transportation of materials on site, waste management processes on site, and final waste disposal. 4.0 Environmental Data  4.1 Data Sources The Athena Impact Estimator uses its own data from the Athena LCI Database, which it has developed over time as a result of its own research with assistance from industry in obtaining a Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 11 of 76  thorough life cycle inventory for a given product.13 Usually the Athena Institute develops its data in-house, under contract to trade associations and in cooperation with several manufacturers and plants across North America so that the resulting data is a good cross-sectional industry average formulation and environmental profile for the material being studied; the Athena Institute then applies local electricity, energy, and transportation data to the manufacturing effects to provide regionalized data.14 These data files are downloaded with the software, and are not available on their own because they are proprietary and because they require the data integration that is performed by the Impact Estimator.15 In an attempt to make their data more transparent, however, the Athena Institute makes available many of the LCA/LCI studies that it uses in its database.16  The databases also contain data on  energy use  transportation  construction and demolition processes including on-site construction of a building’s assemblies  maintenance  repair and replacement effects through operating life  demolition and disposal17 The Impact Estimator also draws on data in the U.S. Life Cycle Inventory (USLCI) Database, which was initiated partly by the Athena Institute and contains data contributed by the Athena Institute.18 The USLCI database a publicly available database that is managed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the Department of Energy in the United States.19 The U.S. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database is a publicly available database that allows users to objectively review and compare analysis results that are based on similar data collection and analysis methods.                                                 13 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. LCI Databases. http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/lca-databases/ accessed November 18, 2013 14 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Frequently Asked Questions. http://calculatelca.com/faqs/#ie4b_databases accessed November 18, 2013 15 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. LCA Background Data. http://calculatelca.com/software/impact-estimator/lca-database-reports/ accessed November 18, 2013 16 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Publications. http://www.athenasmi.org/resources/publications/ accessed November 18, 2013 17 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. LCI Databases. http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/lca-databases/ accessed November 18, 2013 18 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Frequently Asked Questions. http://calculatelca.com/faqs/#ie4b_databases accessed November 18, 2013 19 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. http://www.nrel.gov/lci/about.html accessed November 18, 2013 Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 12 of 76  4.2 Data Adjustments and Substitutions Because of the age of the building and the limited information available on the construction drawings about the materials used, and the limited number of ways to model the building in Impact Estimator, there are a number of large material type inaccuracies. The brick walls have been modeled as concrete cinder blocks, while the exterior field stone has been modelled as ballast. Slightly more similar modeling materials may be available, but the slight improvement in accuracy of the results was judged to be insignificant given the amount of uncertainty in the model, discussed in the next section, that cannot be improved upon. To model the actual building more accurately, extensive research would need to be done to estimate the impacts of manufacturing, transporting, and constructing these materials using the technologies (and therefore the energy and electricity mixes) of the early twentieth century. Instead, my area of focus was in ensuring that the quantities were properly modeled in the Impact Estimator. 4.3 Data Quality and Uncertainties There are five main sources of uncertainty in an LCA: data, model, temporal, spatial, and variability between sources. As discussed below, a large amount of uncertainty is present in this study, largely owing to the age of the building rather than the quality of the data in the LCI databases used. This uncertainty should be kept in mind when considering the results of the study.  Data Data uncertainty refers to the uncertainty in how the data used in an LCA was obtained, such as the data collection methods and the allocation methods used to produce the data. Inaccurate or non-existent data also falls under this category. This is a large source of uncertainty in this study, due to the age of the drawings and the minimal information that was provided on the products and processes used. Assumptions were made during the study, outlined in section 6.0 and in the Assumptions document in Table 9, that introduce data uncertainty. Model Model uncertainty refers to the unknowns in how the LCA is being done within the model. Some LCA software are more transparent and are clear about how their model is putting together all of the data and calculating its results. Because the Impact Estimator software is proprietary, the inner workings of the model are not available to the public. Users must provide their inputs, trust the software, and take whatever outputs it gives without being able to really see how the model turns the inputs into outputs. An example of this is the variance in the bill of materials for the exact same assemblies depending on how they are organized into projects. When all assemblies from the elemental projects were duplicated into a single Whole Building project, the resultant bill of materials was different from the bill of materials determined as the sum of the bill of materials from each of the elemental projects, as mentioned in section 6.0. With the high level of model uncertainty in using the Impact Estimator software, it is impossible to know where this difference is coming from. Temporal Temporal uncertainty refers to uncertainty related to time impacts, whether the variance in emissions over time, the age of the data, or how impacts of certain emissions can change over Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 13 of 76  time. This is a huge source of uncertainty in this study. The data used in the LCI Databases are new compared to when the Chemistry building was actually constructed, and it is unlikely that the emission factors that are used in the model accurately reflect the actual emissions and impacts caused in the manufacturing of the products in the building and during the construction process. As such, the results of this study should be taken more as the impacts that would be associated with reconstructing the Chemistry building today, rather than an accurate reflection of actual impacts. Spatial Spatial uncertainty refers to the regional differences in emissions in manufacturing and construction processes. For example, a manufacturing process that uses much electricity would have far higher impacts when done in Alberta compared to British Columbia because of the very different electricity mixes. The Impact Estimator attempts to eliminate as much of this uncertainty as possible by allowing users to select the location of their building and adjusting the data that is used in the model accordingly, but a level of uncertainty still remains. An example of spatial uncertainty related to the study of the Chemistry building would be the difference between where the actual granite and other fieldstone was taken from compared to what the model assumes for ballast, which is how the exterior stone was modelled. Impacts from the transportation processes during an LCA can be particularly subject to spatial uncertainty Variability Between Sources While attempts are made to standardize the methods and processes used during an LCA study, there will always still be a level of variability in the results of a study of the same product or system, depending on who is doing the study and what assumptions have been made. This introduces another level of uncertainty, the variability of data between sources. Product category rules are a good example of an attempt to reduce this variability within a given product category, so that the LCA data submitted to the LCI database for similar products has less variability due to variance in methods, and any differences in the data are due to actual differences in production of the product. 5.0 Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results The impact assessment method used by the Athena Impact Estimator is the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI), developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The TRACI impact assessment method includes the impact categories described below that were used in this project, as well as human cancer and non-cancer criteria, ecotoxicity, land use, and water use20. Table 5 - Impact Categories Used in This Project Impact Description of Cause/Effect Category Possible Endpoint                                                 20 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI). http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/traci/traci.html accessed November 15, 2013 Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 14 of 76  Category Chain Being Modeled Indicator Impacts Fossil Fuel Consumption Consumption of non-renewable fossil fuel energy reserves MJ  depletion of fossil fuel reserves Global Warming Gases in the atmosphere lead to increased absorption of radiation and the “greenhouse” effect kg CO2 eq  climate change  increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events Acidification Deposition of acid moles of H+ eq  ocean acidification leading to coral extinction  acid rain Human Health Criteria – Respiratory Particulate matter in the atmosphere, when breathed in, can irritate and damage the human respiratory system kg PM10 eq  increase in frequency and severity of asthma, bronchitis, etc. Eutrophication Increase in nutrients in an aquatic ecosystem due to added nitrates and phosphates kg N eq  hypoxia  decreased biodiversity Ozone Depletion Interruption of ozone cycle by chemicals and gases, leading to ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq  increased radiation reaching earth, contributing to further global warming  increase in rates of skin cancers Smog Formation Contribution to ground level ozone kg O3 eq  human health effects, including asthma, bronchitis 6.0 Model Development 6.1 Chemistry Building Model The Chemistry building was initially modelled by Adam Jarolim as a combination of assemblies in Impact Estimator, based on quantities taken off from the architectural and construction drawings using On-Screen TakeOff software, and other information from the drawings. The information contained on the drawings with regards to materials and specifications is very limited relative to what can be found on more current drawings, so assumptions often had to be made, as outlined in the Impact Estimator Inputs Assumption Document, included as Table 9 in Annex D. Any additions, corrections, and changes that I have made are highlighted with red text. When I received the model, I had to add a number of properties to the model in order to run the Impact Estimator, as the software had changed since the model was originally created in 2010, including the building height and the new Supported Area field for the beam and column assemblies.  During my portion of the project, the building components were sorted into their corresponding CIQS Level 3 element, as were the assemblies in Impact Estimator, and the entries in the Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 15 of 76  Impact Estimator Inputs Document and the Impact Estimator Inputs Assumptions Document, Table 8 and Table 9 respectively. In doing so, a number of assemblies had to be split so that portions of the building could be sorted properly. For example, some of the cast-in-place foundation walls had to be split into A31 Walls Below Grade, and some into B11 Partitions. To do so, the corresponding quantity takeoff was found in the On-Screen Takeoff file, duplicated, and each was adjusted to include only the portion of the wall included under each element. Next, the corresponding assembly in Impact Estimator was duplicated and adjusted to match the new quantities, and sorted appropriately. The Inputs and Assumptions Documents also had to be updated. Assemblies that were adjusted are distinguished by [1/2] or [2/2] in the assembly name. The only building components classified under element A11 Foundations are the concrete footings, which have been modeled in IE as concrete footing assemblies. Quantities for the footings were determined using an area condition in On-Screen Takeoff. The measured area had to be adjusted to compensate for the maximum footing thickness of 19.7”, as the actual footing thicknesses varied from 2’ to 3’6”. Without specifications from the drawings, assumptions had to be made about concrete strength, assumed to be 4000 psi, and flyash content, assumed to be average.  Element A21 Lowest Floor Construction contains the slabs on grade and basement floor concrete slabs. It should be noted that other modellers may have chosen to sort the basement floor slab under A22 Upper Floor Construction, however, as there is not a full floor between the slab on grade and the basement floor, I chose to sort it as stated. These building components were modeled as concrete slabs. Assumptions include a concrete strength of 3000 psi, average fly ash, and that a 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier was used.21 Some calculations, found in the Assumptions document, were necessary to adjust the slab thickness from actual to the possible values of 4” and 8” in Impact Estimator. Element A22 Upper Floor Construction contains the stairs, concrete columsn and beams for the basement, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors, and concrete suspended slabs for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors. Stairs were modeled as foundations because this was the only place in Impact Estimator that rebar specifications can be added. Linear and area conditions were used in On-Screen Takeoff to determine the amount of concrete. Assumptions for the stairs include concrete strength of 3000 psi and average fly ash. The concrete columns and beams assembly was used to model the columns and beams. Assumptions include a live load of 75 psf, which is appropriate for an institutional structure.22 The concrete suspended slabs, as before, used assumptions of 3000 psi concrete and average fly ash, and an assumed live load of 75 psf.  Element A23 Roof Construction consists of the concrete columns and beams supporting the roof and the small penthouse on top of the building, and the concrete roof slab. It is recognized                                                 21 Jarolim, Adam. Life Cycle Assessment Report, Chemistry Building UBC. Vancouver, 2010. Unpublished student report. 22 Jarolim, Adam. Life Cycle Assessment Report, Chemistry Building UBC. Vancouver, 2010. Unpublished student report. Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 16 of 76  that the roof area under the penthouse (and supporting columns and beams underneath) could be moved to A22 Upper Floor Construction, but because of the small area of the penthouse and for the sake of simplicity it was left under Roof Construction. The assumed live loading for the columns and beams was 75 psf. Detailed information on the roof system was not available, so it was assumed to be a 4 ply Built Up Asphalt Roof System – inverted, with Rockwool glass felt at a thickness of 8”.23 A 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier was also assumed. The actual roof system in place could be determined by arranging for a visit to the site, for any future modeling of this building, but as seen later in section 7.1, the element A23 consists of only ~10% of most impacts. Element A31 Walls Below Grade consists of cast in place foundation walls and concrete block walls. Cast in place walls used the linear condition in On-Screen Takeoff and were grouped by their specific height, with assumptions of concrete strength of 3000 psi, average fly ash, a 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier, and #5 rebar since #4 is not available in Impact Estimator. During my stage of modeling, a number of these assemblies had to be split up into the exterior walls (in this element) and the interior walls sorted under B11 Partitions. The revised quantities from On-Screen Takeoff can be seen in the Inputs and Assumptions Documents in Annex D. Concrete block walls were also estimated using the linear condition in On-Screen Takeoff, with the main assumption for the assembly in Impact Estimator being that concrete cinder blocks, with a standard width of 8”, are the best available replacement for the brick walls.24 The length of the wall was adjusted where needed to account for walls wider than 8”. Assumptions for these assemblies include #4 rebar, a 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier, and stucco in place of plaster on interior surfaces.  Element A32 Walls Above Grade consists of more of the concrete block walls, as described above, as well as the exterior stone cladding, which was modeled as stone ballast. Assumptions were made to calculate the mass of ballast needed in the model (see the Assumptions Document), and because the actual mass was greater than the limit accepted by Impact Estimator, 1/3 of the actual mass has been entered as the assembly, and the resulting bill of materials and impacts was multiplied by 3.  Element B11 Partitions is comprised of interior cast in place foundation walls, some of which were split off from the appropriate exterior walls as described earlier for A31, and concrete block walls. Assumptions described above for both wall types were repeated in these assemblies as well. 6.2 Reference Flows Reference flows are the materials needed for a product system to perform the function used in the definition of the functional unit. In this study, our reference flows are generated by the Bill of Materials that the Impact Estimator software provides for each project, showing what materials                                                 23 Jarolim, Adam. Life Cycle Assessment Report, Chemistry Building UBC. Vancouver, 2010. Unpublished student report. 24 Jarolim, Adam. Life Cycle Assessment Report, Chemistry Building UBC. Vancouver, 2010. Unpublished student report. Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 17 of 76  are used by the modeled components. Table 6 contains the Bill of Materials for each of the CIQS Level 3 elemental projects, as well as a summary Bill of Materials for the whole building. It should be noted that, as mentioned in section 4.3, when all assemblies in the elemental projects were duplicated into a single Whole Building project, the output Bill of Materials from Impact Estimator was different from that shown below. Table 6 - Bills of Materials Material Quantity Units Project: A11 Foundations   Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 249 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 0.37 Tonnes Project: A21 Lowest Floor Construction   3 mil Polyethylene 1127 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 276 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 11.0 Tonnes Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 0.96 Tonnes Project: A22 Upper Floor Construction   Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 729 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 606 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 217 Tonnes Project: A23 Roof Construction   #15 Organic Felt 8217 m2 3 mil Polyethylene 1912 m2 Ballast (aggregate stone) 113525 kg Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 266 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 221 m3 Galvanized Sheet 2.15 Tonnes MW Batt R11-15 15148 m2 (25mm) Polyethylene Filter Fabric 0.15 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 88.0 Tonnes Roofing Asphalt 13345 kg Project: A31 Walls Below Grade   3 mil Polyethylene 1785 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 207 m3 Concrete Blocks 9030 Blocks Mortar 173 m3 Nails 0.012 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 30.9 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 0.47 m3 Stucco over porous surface 918 m2 Unclad Wood Window Frame 403 kg Water Based Latex Paint 113 L Project: A32 Walls Above Grade   Ballast (aggregate stone) 1289141 kg Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 18 of 76  Concrete Blocks 45841 Blocks Mortar 877 m3 Nails 0.0078 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 174 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 0.31 m3 Stucco over porous surface 3962 m2 Unclad Wood Window Frame 2111 kg Water Based Latex Paint 484 L Project: B11 Partitions   3 mil Polyethylene 405 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 80.1 m3 Concrete Blocks 84624 Blocks Mortar 1616 m3 Nails 0.34 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 252 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 13.4 m3 Stucco over porous surface 7315 m2 Water Based Latex Paint 907 L Project: All Elements   #15 Organic Felt 8217 m2 3 mil Polyethylene 5228 m2 Ballast (aggregate stone) 1402665 kg Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 1558 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 1076 m3 Concrete Blocks 139494 Blocks Galvanized Sheet 2.15 Tonnes Mortar 2665 m3 MW Batt R11-15 15148 m2 (25mm) Nails 0.36 Tonnes Polyethylene Filter Fabric 0.15 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 772.29 Tonnes Roofing Asphalt 13345 kg Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 14.15 m3 Stucco over porous surface 12195 m2 Unclad Wood Window Frame 2515 kg Water Based Latex Paint 1505 L Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 0.96 Tonnes 7.0 Communication of Assessment Results 7.1 Life Cycle Results After resorting and refining the model in Impact Estimator, a Summary Measures Report was generated for each of the elemental projects, showing the calculated impacts for the seven impact categories discussed in section 5.0. Figure 2 shows the relative contributions of each element to the total impact generated by the building, for each of the impact categories. From this figure, it can be seen that the partitions (interior walls) are the largest contributor for all Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 19 of 76  except the respiratory human health criteria, for which walls above grade is the largest contributor. If this building was still in the design stage, the designers could look closer at these hotspots to determine what assemblies are the cause, and to consider alternative design choices. The uncertainties discussed in section 4.3 should be kept in mind when considering the results of this study.  Figure 2 - Chemistry Building Life Cycle Assessment Impact Results - By Element The Summary Measure Report data was also compiled by life cycle stage. Figure 3 shows the relative contributions of each of the product stage and construction process stage. The product stage is the majority contributor in all of the impact categories by quite a margin. As before, if this building were still in the design stage, the designers could investigate what assemblies are the biggest contributors and try to find alternative products to use in their design that have a lesser impact.  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 20 of 76   Figure 3 - Chemistry Building Life Cycle Impact Results - By Life Cycle Stage 7.2 Further Discussion of Results – Annexes The results of this LCA study are examined beyond the scope of the EN 15978 requirements for a building declaration in the Annexes of this report as follows: Annex A – Interpretation of Assessment Results, Benchmarking Annex B – Recommendations for LCA Use Annex C – Author Reflection Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions Annex E - Additional Inaccuracies or Improvements Beyond Scope of Study   Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 21 of 76  Annex A - Interpretation of Assessment Results Benchmark Development Benchmarking plays an important role in LCA because it gives meaning to the results by putting them into context. Knowing that the Chemistry building had a fossil fuel consumption for the whole building of 3553 MJ/m2 is great, and there is value in being able to see which elements and life stages are the greatest contributors to that fossil fuel consumption. With the introduction of benchmarks, however, that number gains new meaning by comparing it to the average value found during LCA of similar buildings by putting it into context. By establishing a benchmark, it can be determined whether 3553 MJ/m2 is considered to be high or low. In order to make these comparisons to the benchmark, however, it is important to ensure that the results are for functionally equivalent buildings, and that similar methods were used to obtain the results. This includes ensuring a common goal and scope for each LCA building study, and consistency in the model development used across buildings.  UBC Academic Building Benchmark Figure 4 through Figure 10 show the results of the Chemistry building compared to the class benchmark, taken at 7:00 pm on November 15, 2013. (Benchmarks used in the various building studies in the class will vary depending on when the benchmark data was taken and how many buildings’ results had been contributed.) All seven impact categories are considered. The data uncertainties discussed earlier in the report should be kept in mind when looking at this comparison. Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 22 of 76   Figure 4 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Fossil Fuel Consumption  Figure 5 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Global Warming Potential Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 23 of 76   Figure 6 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Acidification Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 24 of 76   Figure 7 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Human Health Criteria (Respiratory) Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 25 of 76   Figure 8 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Eutrophication  Figure 9 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Ozone Layer Depletion Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 26 of 76   Figure 10 - Comparison of Chemistry Building to Class Benchmark - Smog Formation The building cost and total global warming potential of the nine buildings that had cost information available at the time of benchmarking are shown in the scatter plot of Error! eference source not found. with the data point for the Chemistry building labeled. It can be seen that the Chemistry building lies in the higher range for the ratio of global warming potential to cost. Possible explanations include that the age of the building, as it was built in a time long before there was consideration given to the global warming potential of construction products or processes. Another possibility is that because it was built before the National Building Code of Canada was established, it is over designed for its purposes and therefore contains more materials than more recent buildings might.  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 27 of 76   Figure 11 - Building Cost and Total Global Warming Potential of UBC Buildings   Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 28 of 76  Annex B - Recommendations for LCA Use As the recent development and progress in the field of life cycle assessment of buildings shows, LCA has an important role in the future of building design. As environmental concerns become more and more important, whether due to genuine stakeholder values or concern for reputation, more and more companies will be seeking to make more sustainable building choices. Life cycle analysis, though there are many challenges ahead, can help provide the information that is needed to make these more sustainable choices. While the consideration of only the product and construction process stages in an LCA study provides an opportunity to make more sustainable choices in the products and materials that are going into the building, there is a great opportunity lost by excluding the operating and end of life stages. Similar to when looking at life cycle costing, by considering the operations and maintenance stage, designers can know whether investing in what seems like less sustainable products in the building design, possibly through more materials or more environmentally intense manufacturing processes, will be offset by the savings during operations. For example, if a building could consume 10% less natural gas for heating over a 60+ year lifespan, it may be worth investing (environmentally) in more insulation at the design stage, to get a net savings over the lifetime of the building. Also, by excluding the end-of-life phase, the results will not show the full environmental impacts. Two design options may be similar in the product, construction process, and operations phase, but one may contain materials that can be recycled while the other materials must be landfilled.  As is the challenge with any growing new field, there are challenges during development. Since LCA for building design is such a new field, there are inherent challenges in its development. As discussed earlier in the report, the existence of benchmarks is important to put the results of LCA into context, but these benchmarks don’t really exist yet. The UBC LCA Database Project is one of the first of its kind, and future LCA databases will hopefully have similar data eventually, but for all types of buildings (commercial, industrial, residential, and institutional), so that designers can compare their design to averages of similar buildings. There is also the growing pain of data availability, as LCA must be done on each construction product and process before it can be added to the LCI database. As the field grows, more and more information will be available, reducing uncertainty. Another challenge in LCA is prioritizing the different impact categories. While one design option may be a clear winner in terms of global warming potential, if the decision maker values local impacts like eutrophication and respiratory human health criteria, the chosen design may not be the one that with the far lesser global warming potential impact. The use of weighted decision making tools can help stakeholders with these decisions, but in prioritizing any one impact over another, the values of the stakeholders become embedded in the decision, and what one person may consider to be an environmentally sustainable design may not align with what others’ definitions when they read “sustainable”. UBC’s decision to pursue the UBC LCA Database Project is a big first step, but there is still much work to be done. As more classes of students in the LCA of Buildings course study more buildings on campus, and review and revise previous students’ studies of buildings, more data Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 29 of 76  will be available and more accurate benchmarks can be established. All the data in the database doesn’t do anything on its own, however, and UBC must commit to using it in their future building designs, through their strategic and campus planning and by providing the information to design consultants on future buildings.        Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 30 of 76  Annex C - Author Reflection What sparked my interest in this course was the first few classes of my Energy and the Environment course, in which we were introduced to the concept of Life Cycle Assessment as it applies to energy systems. The principle of looking at the whole picture in LCA is a very important concept and I wanted to learn more about it in all of its applications, so when I heard about the LCA of buildings course I signed up. Prior to this year I had no experience with LCA, or sustainability of buildings. It was very interesting to learn about the history of LCA and its current state, the structure and standards involved in LCA, which are so critical to have when making comparisons based on LCA results, the application of LCA in a whole building design, and about some of uncertainties that are involved in LCA. Though it was challenging at times to learn two new softwares, On-Screen Takeoff and Impact Estimator, it was very rewarding to see the results, and I can see myself possibly using them in the future.  I think that the most rewarding part of this course, like in some others at UBC, is the fact that I have contributed to something with meaning. My hours and hours of time, though they come with the reward of learning, and this report will not simply be graded and thrown away. I am impressed by UBC’s commitment to sustainability and I am excited to have been a part of it. Table 7 outlines my opinions on which of the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board graduate attributes I demonstrated over the course of this project. Table 7 - CEAB Graduate Attributes Demonstrated During Project Graduate Attribute  Description Selected Content Code Comments  1 - Knowledge Base Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. IDA = introduced, developed & applied Developed and demonstrated knowledge of LCA standards, processes, software, result reporting 2 - Problem Analysis An ability to use appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions. IDA = introduced, developed & applied Had to apply problem solving skills throughout all stages of the project 3 - Investigation An ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information in order to reach valid conclusions. ID = introduced & developed   Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 31 of 76  4 - Design An ability to design solutions for complex, open-ended engineering problems and to design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate attention to health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmental, cultural and societal considerations. N/A = not applicable Had to adapt the model in some ways, but did not really do any design 5 - Use of Engineering Tools An ability to create, select, apply, adapt, and extend appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities, from simple to complex, with an understanding of the associated limitations. IDA = introduced, developed & applied Learned and applied On-Screen Takeoff software and Athena Impact Estimator software over the course of the project 6 - Individual and Team Work An ability to work effectively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi-disciplinary setting. IA = introduced & applied Teamwork in classroom exercises 7 - Communication An ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and with society at large. Such ability includes reading, writing, speaking and listening, and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, and to give and effectively respond to clear instructions. IDA = introduced, developed & applied Written communication of technical information in a detailed final report; Understand and respond to instructions during the various stages of the project; Class presentation of results to LCA and UBC communities 8 - Professionalism  An understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer in society, especially the primary role of protection of the public and the public interest. A = applied Professionalism demonstrated during future final class presentation to UBC and LCA community Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 32 of 76  9 - Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment An ability to analyze social and environmental aspects of engineering activities.  Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, social, health, safety, legal, and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship. IDA = introduced, developed & applied Project and course are an exercise in the concept of sustainable design and development, and environmental stewardship 10 - Ethics and Equity An ability to apply professional ethics, accountability, and equity. IDA = introduced, developed & applied Giving proper credit to references in the report 11 - Economics and Project Management An ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including project, risk, and change management into the practice of engineering and to understand their limitations. I = introduced Had to investigate method of determining present value of past money (chose Consumer Price Index approach) 12- Life-long Learning An ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world in ways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. DA = developed & applied Had to identify the degree of knowledge needed to successfully use the software for our purposes and teach myself through the user guides and online training videos Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions Changes that I have made to these documents, besides resorting them, are highlighted in red text. Table 8 - Impact Estimator Inputs Document Element Quantity Units Assembly Type and Drawing for Takeoff Assembly Name Input Fields Input Values  Known/ Measured IE Inputs  Project     132-06-82A   Building Height (ft) (New input) 78 78  A11 Foundations 1,654 m2                                                             1.2  Concrete Footing   132-07-002 1.2.1  Footing_Thickness 2'     Length (ft) 22.58 25.38    Width (ft) 22.58 25.38    Thickness (in) (Corrected here; fine in model) 24 19    Concrete (psi) 4000 4000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #6 #6  1.2.2  Footing_Thickness 2' 6”     Length (ft) 45.35 56.99    Width (ft) 45.35 56.99    Thickness (in) (Corrected here; fine in model) 30 19    Concrete (psi) 4000 4000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #6 #6  1.2.3.  Footing_Thickness 3'     Length (ft) 11.27 15.51    Width (ft) 11.27 15.51  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 34 of 76    Thickness (in) 36 19    Concrete (psi) 4000 4000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #6 #6  1.2.4  Footing_Thickness 3'6”     Length (ft) 22.96 34.13    Width (ft) 22.96 34.13    Thickness (in) 42 19    Concrete (psi) 4000 4000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #6 #6  A21 Lowest Floor Construction 1,654 m2                   1.1  Concrete Slab-on-Grade   132-07-002 1.1.1 SOG_Basement     Length (ft) 108.94 108.94    Width (ft) 108.94 108.94    Thickness (in) 6 4    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average  4.1  Concrete Suspended Slab 6”   132-07-003 4.1.1 Floors_Basement [4.1.1 - 1/2]     Floor Width (ft) 918.1 918.1    Span (ft) 13.08 13.08    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Life load (psf) - 75  A22 Upper Floor Construction 5,796 m2                    1.3 Concrete Stairs  132-07-010 132-06-077 1.3.1  Stairs_Thickness 7”     Length (ft) 39.65 39.65    Width (ft) 39.65 39.65  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 35 of 76                           Thickness (in) (Corrected here; fine in model) 7 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #4  1.3.2  Stairs_Thickness 11”     Length (ft) 10.29 10.29    Width (ft) 10.29 10.29    Thickness (in) 11 11    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #6 #6  3.1  Concrete Column and Beam Basement   132-07-003 3.1.1  Column_Beams_Basement: 1     Number of Beams 27 27    Number of Columns 46 46    Floor to floor height (ft) 6.83 6.83    Bay sizes (ft) 26.67 26.67    Supported span (ft) 13.08 13.08    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   349  3.1.2  Column_Beams_Basement: 2     Number of Beams 2 2    Number of Columns 4 4    Floor to floor height (ft) 6.83 6.83    Bay sizes (ft) 32.5 32.5    Supported span (ft) 16 16    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   521  3.1.3  Column_Beams_Basement: 3     Number of Beams 2 2    Number of Columns 2 2  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 36 of 76    Floor to floor height (ft) 6.83 6.83    Bay sizes (ft) 12.17 12.17    Supported span (ft) 16 16    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   195  3.2 Concrete Column and Beams 1st/2nd/3rd Floors   1st - 132-07-004 2nd - 132-07-006 3rd - 132-07-008 3.2.1  Column_Beams_1st/2nd/3rd: 1     Number of Beams 113 113    Number of Columns 197 197    Floor to floor height (ft) 13.17 13.17    Bay sizes (ft) 26.67 26.67    Supported span (ft) 13.08 13.08    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   349  3.2.2  Column_Beams_1st/2nd/3rd: 2     Number of Beams 6 6    Number of Columns 12 12    Floor to floor height (ft) 13.17 13.17    Bay sizes (ft) 32.5 32.5    Supported span (ft) 16 16    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   521  3.2.3  Column_Beams_1st/2nd/3rd: 3     Number of Beams 6 6    Number of Columns 6 6    Floor to floor height (ft) 13.17 13.17    Bay sizes (ft) 12.17 12.17    Supported span (ft) 16 16    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   195  4.1  Concrete Suspended Slab 6”    Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 37 of 76  1st - 132-07-004 2nd - 132-07-006 3rd - 132-07-008 4.1.1 Floors_1st/2nd/3rd [4.1.1 - 2/2]     Floor Width (ft) 3700.8 3700.8    Span (ft) 13.08 13.08    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Life load (psf) - 75  4.2  Concrete Suspended Slab 10”   1st - 132-07-004 2nd - 132-07-006 4.2.1 Floors_1st/2nd     Floor Width (ft) 123.1 123.1    Span (ft) 16 16    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Life load (psf) - 75  A23 Roof Construction 1,802 m2                                                     3.3 Concrete Column and Beams Roof   132-07-009 3.3.1  Column_Beams_Roof: 1     Number of Beams 40 40    Number of Columns 66 66    Floor to floor height (ft) 21 21    Bay sizes (ft) 26.67 26.67    Supported span (ft) 13.08 13.08    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   349  3.3.2  Column_Beams_Roof: 2     Number of Beams 2 2    Number of Columns 4 4    Floor to floor height (ft) 21 21    Bay sizes (ft) 32.5 32.5    Supported span (ft) 16 16    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   521  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 38 of 76  3.3.3  Column_Beams_Roof: 3     Number of Beams 2 2    Number of Columns 2 2    Floor to floor height (ft) 21 21    Bay sizes (ft) 12.17 12.17    Supported span (ft) 16 16    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   195  3.4 Concrete Column and Beams Penthouse        132-07-009 3.4.1  Column_Beams_Penthouse: 1          Number of Beams 4 4    Number of Columns 6 6    Floor to floor height (ft) 10.67 10.67    Bay sizes (ft) 12.17 12.17    Supported span (ft) 15.83 15.3    Live load (psf) - 75    Supported Area (ft2) (New input)   193  5.1  Concrete Suspended Slab    132-07-009 5.1.1  Roof          Roof Width (ft) 1482.9 1482.9    Span (ft) 13.08 13.08    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Life load (psf) - 75  Envelope     Category 4ply Built up Asphalt  Roof 4ply Built up Asphalt  Roof System  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 39 of 76      System – inverted – inverted Material  Rockwool glass felt  Rockwool glass felt  Thickness(inches) - 8  Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material - Polyethylene 3 mil  A31 Walls Below Grade 1,723 m2                               2.1  Cast In Place   132-07-002 2.1.3  Walls_Foundation South 13'     Length (ft) 127 127    Height (ft) 13 13    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.1.4  Walls_Foundation South:2 14'4" [2/2]    Length (ft) 255 255    Height (ft) 14.33 14.33    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 40 of 76  2.1.5  Walls_Foundation West 13'6" [2/2]    Length (ft) 128 128    Height (ft) 13.5 13.5    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.1.6  Walls_Foundation West:2 11'     Length (ft) 77 77.00    Height (ft) 11 11    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.1.7  Walls_Foundation North 10'     Length (ft) 28 28    Height (ft) 10 10    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 41 of 76  Thickness - -  2.1.8  Walls_Foundation North:2 6'     Length (ft) 28 37.33    Height (ft) 6 6    Thickness (in) 16 12    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.1.9  Walls_Foundation Southeast Wing 3'6"     Length (ft) 212 212    Height (ft) 3.5 3.5    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  132-06-077 2.1.11  Walls_Basement Exterior 3     Length (ft) 119 119.00    Height (ft) 11.33 11.33    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylen Polyethylene  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 42 of 76  e 3 mil 3 mil Thickness - -  2.2  Concrete Block Wall   132-06-077 2.2.1  Walls_Basement Exterior 1     Length (ft) 677 677    Height (ft) 11.33 11.33    Rebar #4 #4  Window Opening       Number of Windows 38 38  Total Window Area (ft2) 785 785  Frame Type Wood Frame Wood Frame  Glazing Type - None  Door Opening   Number of Doors 6 6  Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope                 Category Cladding Cladding  Material Stone Aggregate (XBM 6.1)  Thickness - -  Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.2.2  Walls_Basement Exterior 2     Length (ft) 40 80    Height (ft) 11.33 11.33    Rebar #4 #4  Window Opening   Number of Windows 2 2  Total Window Area (ft2) 48 48  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 43 of 76      Frame Type Wood Frame Wood Frame  Glazing Type - None  Envelope                 Category Cladding Cladding  Material Stone Aggregate (XBM 6.1)  Thickness - -  Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  A32 Walls Above Grade 3,988 m2                                            2.2  Concrete Block Wall   1st - 132-06-078 2nd - 132-06-079 3rd - 132-06-080 2.2.5  Walls_1st: Exterior 1     Length (ft) 806 806    Height (ft) 13.167 13.167    Rebar #4 #4  Window Opening       Number of Windows 50 50  Total Window Area (ft2) 2148 2148  Frame Type Wood Frame Wood Frame  Glazing Type - None  Door Opening   Number of Doors 4 4  Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope       Category Cladding Cladding  Material Stone Aggregate (XBM 6.1)  Thickness - -  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 44 of 76                                                                                      Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.6  Walls_1st: Exterior 2     Length (ft) 38 76    Height (ft) 13.167 13.167    Rebar #4 #4  Window Opening       Number of Windows 2 2  Total Window Area (ft2) 88 88  Frame Type Wood Frame Wood Frame  Glazing Type - None  Envelope           Category Cladding Cladding  Material Stone Aggregate (XBM 6.1)  Thickness - -  Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.9 Walls_2nd: Exterior 1     Length (ft) 775 775    Height (ft) 13.167 13.167    Rebar #4 #4  Window Opening       Number of Windows 60 60  Total Window Area (ft2) 2213 2213  Frame Type Wood Frame Wood Frame  Glazing Type - None  Envelope   Category Cladding Cladding  Material Stone Aggregate  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 45 of 76                                                                                          (XBM 6.1) Thickness - -  Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.10  Walls_2nd: Exterior 2     Length (ft) 40 80    Height (ft) 13.167 13.167    Rebar #4 #4  Window Opening       Number of Windows 2 2  Total Window Area (ft2) 86 86  Frame Type Wood Frame Wood Frame  Glazing Type - None  Envelope           Category Cladding Cladding  Material Stone Aggregate (XBM 6.1)  Thickness - -  Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.13 Walls_3rd: Exterior 1     Length (ft) 799 799    Height (ft) 21 21    Rebar #4 #4  Window Opening       Number of Windows 33 33  Total Window Area (ft2) 988 988  Frame Type Wood Frame Wood Frame  Glazing Type - None  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 46 of 76                                                     Envelope           Category Cladding Cladding  Material Stone Aggregate (XBM 6.1)  Thickness - -  Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.14  Walls_3rd: Exterior 2     Length (ft) 33 66    Height (ft) 21 21    Rebar #4 #4  Window Opening       Number of Windows 2 2  Total Window Area (ft2) 84 84  Frame Type Wood Frame Wood Frame  Glazing Type - None  Envelope           Category Cladding Cladding  Material Stone Aggregate (XBM 6.1)  Thickness - -  Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  132-07-009 2.2.17 Walls_Penthouse: Exterior 1     Length (ft) 338 338    Height (ft) 10.67 10.67    Rebar #4 #4  Window Opening     Number of Windows 10 10  Total Window Area (ft2) 187 187  Frame Type Wood Wood Frame  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 47 of 76    Frame Glazing Type - None  Envelope           Category Cladding Cladding  Material Stone Aggregate (XBM 6.1)  Thickness - -  Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  6.1 Stone Cladding      6.1.1  XBM_Stone Ballast     Weight (lbs) (Corrected here; fine in model) 2 706 734.2 902245  B11 Partitions 8,481 m2                                                  2.1  Cast In Place   132-07-002 2.1.1 Walls_Foundation Trench 3'3"     Length (ft) 67 67.00    Height (ft) 3.25 3.25    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.1.2  Walls_Foundation Elevator 3'6"     Length (ft) 31 31    Height (ft) 3.5 3.5    Thickness (in) 8 8  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 48 of 76                                                                                    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.1.4  Walls_Foundation South:2 14'4" [1/2]     Length (ft) 80 80    Height (ft) 14.33 14.33    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.1.5  Walls_Foundation West 13'6" [1/2]     Length (ft) 179 179    Height (ft) 13.5 13.5    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.1.10  Walls_Foundation Trench 1'9" (Was missing from IE but is present here so I created an assembly for it in IE)    Length (ft) 125 125.00  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 49 of 76                                                          Height (ft) 1.75 1.75    Thickness (in) 8 8    Concrete (psi) 3000 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar #4 #5  Envelope     Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier  Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil  Thickness - -  2.2  Concrete Block Wall   B - 132-06-077 1st - 132-06-078 2nd - 132-06-079 3rd - 132-06-080 2.2.3  Walls_Basement Interior 1     Length (ft) 535 535    Height (ft) 11.33 11.33    Rebar #4 #4  Door Opening   Number of Doors 25 25  Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope     Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.4  Walls_Basement Interior 2     Length (ft) 1268 951    Height (ft) 11.33 11.33    Rebar #4 #4  Door Opening   Number of Doors 24 24  Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope     Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.7  Walls_1st: Interior 1     Length (ft) 418 418  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 50 of 76    Height (ft) 13.02 13.02    Rebar #4 #4  Door Opening   Number of Doors 17 17  Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.8 Walls_1st: Interior 2     Length (ft) 1294 971    Height (ft) 13.167 13.167    Rebar #4 #4  Door Opening   Number of Doors 28 28  Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope     Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board  Material Gypsum Regular 1/2” Gypsum Regular ½"  Thickness - -  2.2.11  Walls_2nd: Interior 1     Length (ft) 543 543    Height (ft) 13.167 13.167    Rebar #4 #4  Door Opening Number of Doors 15 15    Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope Category Cladding Cladding    Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface    Thickness - -  2.2.12 Walls_2nd: Interior 2     Length (ft) 1222 917    Height (ft) 13.167 13.167  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 51 of 76    Rebar #4 #4  Door Opening   Number of Doors 26 26  Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope     Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.15  Walls_3rd: Interior 1     Length (ft) 606 606    Height (ft) 13.167 13.167    Rebar #4 #4  Door Opening   Number of Doors 24 24oc  Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope     Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -  2.2.16 Walls_3rd: Interior 2         Length (ft) 1262 946  Height (ft) 13.167 13.167  Rebar #4 #4  Door Opening   Number of Doors 22 22  Door Type - Solid Wood  Envelope     Category Cladding Cladding  Material Plaster Stucco on porous surface  Thickness - -      Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 52 of 76  Table 9 - Impact Estimator Inputs Assumptions Document Element Quantity Units Assembly Group Assembly Type and Drawing for Takeoff Assembly Name Specific Assumptions Project       132-06-82A     A11 Foundations 1,654 m2           1  Foundation  The Impact Estimator, SOG inputs are limited to being either a 4” or 8” thickness.  Since the actual SOG thicknesses for the Chemistry building were not exactly 4” or 8” thick, the areas measured in OnScreen required calculations to adjust the areas to accommodate this limitation. The Impact Estimator limits the thickness of footings to be between 7.5” and 19.7” thick.  As there are a number of cases where footing thicknesses exceed 19”, their widths were increased accordingly to maintain the same volume of footing while accommodating this limitation.  Lastly, the concrete stairs were modelled as footings (ie. Stairs_Concrete_TotalLength).    1.2  Concrete Footing 132-07-002 1.2.1  Footing_Thickness 2' The area of this footing slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The thicknesses were set at 19” and the following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Footing Slab Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness/12))/(19/12) ]    = sqrt[ (510 x (24”/12))/(19”/12) ]  = 25.38 ft  Assume no vapour barrier  Assume concrete 4000 psi Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 53 of 76  1.2.2  Footing_Thickness 2'6” The area of this footing slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The thicknesses were set at 19” and the following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Footing Slab Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness/12))/(19/12) ]    = sqrt[ (2057 x (30”/12))/(19”/12) ]  = 56.99 ft  Assume no vapour barrier  Assume concrete 4000 psi 1.2.3  Footing_Thickness 3' The area of this footing slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The thicknesses were set at 19” and the following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Footing Slab Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness/12))/(19/12) ]    = sqrt[ (127 x (36”/12))/(19”/12) ]  = 15.51 ft  Assume no vapour barrier  Assume concrete 4000 psi Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 54 of 76  1.2.4  Footing_Thickness 3'6” The area of this footing slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The thicknesses were set at 19” and the following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Footing Slab Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness/12))/(19/12) ]    = sqrt[ (527 x (42”/12))/(19”/12) ]  = 34.13 ft  Assume no vapour barrier  Assume concrete 4000 psi A21 Lowest Floor Construction 1,654 m2           1  Foundation  The Impact Estimator, SOG inputs are limited to being either a 4” or 8” thickness.  Since the actual SOG thicknesses for the Chemistry building were not exactly 4” or 8” thick, the areas measured in OnScreen required calculations to adjust the areas to accommodate this limitation. The Impact Estimator limits the thickness of footings to be between 7.5” and 19.7” thick.  As there are a number of cases where footing thicknesses exceed 19”, their widths were increased accordingly to maintain the same volume of footing while accommodating this limitation.  Lastly, the concrete stairs were modelled as footings (ie. Stairs_Concrete_TotalLength).    1.1  Concrete Slab-on-Grade Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 55 of 76  132-07-002 1.1.1 SOG_Basement The area of this slab had to be adjusted so that the thickness fit into the 4" thickness specified in the Impact Estimator.  The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Slab Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness))/(4”/12) ]    = sqrt[ (17802 x (6”/12))/(4”/12) ]    = 108.94 ft  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier  Assume concrete 3000 psi 4  Floors The Impact Estimator calculated the thickness of the material based on floor width, span, concrete strength, concrete flyash content and live load.  The only assumptions that had to be made in this assembly group were setting the live load to 75psf, as well as setting the concrete strength 3,000 and fly ash to average.   4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab 6” Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 56 of 76  132-07-003 4.1.1 Floors_Basement  [4.1.1 - 1/2] To enter the area of the floors in to the Impact Estimator the width and span need to be designated. The following calculation was done to determine the total width (in feet) for all floors from the measured area. The smaller range of the span size, 13.08 ft, was used in the calculation:  = (Sum of all basement floor areas) / (Span size)  =(12009) / (13.08)  =918.1 ft  Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Assume average fly ash  Assume no envelope A22 Upper Floor Construction 5,796 m2           1  Foundation  The Impact Estimator, SOG inputs are limited to being either a 4” or 8” thickness.  Since the actual SOG thicknesses for the Chemistry building were not exactly 4” or 8” thick, the areas measured in OnScreen required calculations to adjust the areas to accommodate this limitation. The Impact Estimator limits the thickness of footings to be between 7.5” and 19.7” thick.  As there are a number of cases where footing thicknesses exceed 19”, their widths were increased accordingly to maintain the same volume of footing while accommodating this limitation.  Lastly, the concrete stairs were modelled as footings (ie. Stairs_Concrete_TotalLength).    1.3 Concrete Stairs Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 57 of 76  132-07-010 132-06-077 1.3.1  Stairs_Thickness 7” The thickness of the stairs was estimated to be 7 inches based on the cross-section structural drawings. The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Concrete Stair Volume) / (Slab Thickness/12) ]    = sqrt[ 917 /(7”/12) ]  = 39.65 ft  Assume concrete 3000 psi 1.3.2  Stairs_Thickness 11” The thickness of the stairs was estimated to be 11 inches based on the cross-section structural drawings. The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Concrete Stair Volume) / (Slab Thickness/12) ]    = sqrt[ 97 /(11”/12) ]  = 10.29 ft  Assume concrete 3000 psi 3  Columns and Beams The method used to measure column sizing was completely depended upon the metrics built into the Impact Estimator.  That is, the Impact Estimator calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the following inputs; number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, supported span and live load. Since the live loading was not located within the provided building information, a live load of 75psf on all four floors and the basement level were assumed.     3.1  Concrete Column and Beams Basement Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 58 of 76  132-07-003 3.1.1  Column_Beams_Basement: 1 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Some beams that are slightly larger and smaller where incorporated into this count  Supported area = Bay size X Supported Span  = 26.67 ft X 13.08 ft = 349 ft2 3.1.2  Column_Beams_Basement: 2 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Supported area (ft2) = Bay size X Supported span  = 32.5 ft X 16 ft = 521 ft2 3.1.3  Column_Beams_Basement: 3 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Supported area (ft2) = Bay size X Supported span   = 12.17 ft X 16 ft = 195 ft2 3.2 Concrete Column and Beams 1st/2nd/3rd Floors 1st - 132-07-004 2nd - 132-07-006 3rd - 132-07-008 3.2.1  Column_Beams_1st/2nd/3rd: 1 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Some beams that are slightly larger and smaller where incorporated into this count  Supported area = Bay size X Supported Span  = 26.67 ft X 13.08 ft = 349 ft2 3.2.2  Column_Beams_1st/2nd/3rd: 2 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Supported area = Bay size X Supported Span  = 32.5 ft X 16 ft = 521 ft2 Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 59 of 76  3.2.3  Column_Beams_1st/2nd/3rd: 2 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Supported area = Bay size X Supported span  = 12.17 X 16= 195 ft2 4  Floors The Impact Estimator calculated the thickness of the material based on floor width, span, concrete strength, concrete flyash content and live load.  The only assumptions that had to be made in this assembly group were setting the live load to 75psf, as well as setting the concrete strength 3,000 and fly ash to average.   4.1 Concrete Suspended Slab 6” 1st - 132-07-004 2nd - 132-07-006 3rd - 132-07-008 4.1.1 Floors_1st/2nd/3rd  [4.1.1 - 2/2] To enter the area of the floors in to the Impact Estimator the width and span need to be designated. The following calculation was done to determine the total width (in feet) for all floors from the measured area. The smaller range of the span size, 13.08 ft, was used in the calculation:  = (Sum of all floor areas except basement) / (Span size)  =(60415-12009) / (13.08)  =3700.8 ft  Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Assume average fly ash  Assume no envelope 4.2 Concrete Suspended Slab 10” Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 60 of 76  1st - 132-07-004 2nd - 132-07-006 4.2.1 Floors_1st/2nd To enter the area of the floors in to the Impact Estimator the width and span need to be designated. The following calculation was done to determine the total width (in feet) for all floors from the measured area. The larger range of the span size, 16 ft, was used in the calculation to get a thicker slab that more closely represents the 10” thickness:  = (Sum of all floor areas) / (Span size)  =(1969) / (16)  =123.1 ft  Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Assume average fly ash  Assume no envelope A23 Roof Construction 1,802 m2           3  Columns and Beams The method used to measure column sizing was completely depended upon the metrics built into the Impact Estimator.  That is, the Impact Estimator calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the following inputs; number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, supported span and live load. Since the live loading was not located within the provided building information, a live load of 75psf on all four floors and the basement level were assumed.     3.3 Concrete Column and Beams Roof Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 61 of 76  132-07-009 3.3.1  Column_Beams_Roof: 1 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Some beams that are slightly larger and smaller where incorporated into this count  Supported area = Bay size X Supported span  =26.67 X 13.08 = 349 ft2 3.3.2  Column_Beams_Roof: 2 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Supported area = Bay size X Supported Span   = 32.5 ft X 16 ft = 521 ft2 3.3.3  Column_Beams_Roof: 3 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Supported area = Bay size X Supported Span   = 12.17 ft X 16 ft = 195 ft2 3.4 Concrete Column and Beams Penthouse 132-07-009 3.4.1  Column_Beams_Penthouse: 1 Assume live loading to be 75 psf  Supported area = Bay size X Supported Span  = 12.17 ft X 15.83 ft = 193 ft2 5  Roof The live load was assumed to be 75 psf and the concrete strength was set to3000psi.   5.1  Concrete Suspended Slab  Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 62 of 76  132-07-009 5.1.1  Roof To enter the area of the roof in to the Impact Estimator the width and span need to be designated. The following calculation was done to determine the total width (in feet) for all roofs from the measured area. The smaller range of the span size, 13.08 ft, was used in the calculation:  = (Sum of all floor areas) / (Span size)  =(19396) / (13.08)  =1482.9 ft  Assume 4 ply Built up Asphalt Roof System – inverted, with Rockwool glass felt at a thickness of 8”.  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier A31 Walls Below Grade 1,723 m2           2  Walls   2.1  Cast In Place 132-07-002 2.1.3   Walls_Foundation South 13' Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier 2.1.4   Walls_Foundation South:2 14'4" [2/2] Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 63 of 76  2.1.5    Walls_Foundation West 13'6" [2/2] Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier 2.1.6   Walls_Foundation West:2 11' Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier 2.1.7   Walls_Foundation North 10' Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier 2.1.8   Walls_Foundation North:2 6' This wall was increased by a factor in order to fit the 12” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by increasing the length of the wall using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/12”]  = (28'') * [(16”)/12”]  = 37.33 feet  Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier 2.1.9    Walls_Foundation Southeast Wing 3'6" Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 64 of 76  132-06-077 2.1.11   Walls_Basement Exterior 3 Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier  Assume rebar #4  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate 2.2  Concrete Block Wall 132-06-077 2.2.1 Walls_Basement Exterior 1 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. This corresponds to the measured wall width.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood, fixed,  windows with no glazing  Assume solid wood doors  Stone cladding will be added as aggregate in the Extra Basic Materials section 6.1  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 65 of 76  2.2.2  Walls_Basement Exterior 2 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. Since the wall width is 16” use twice the length of block wall;  = (Wall length(ft)) * (Width/8”)  =(40) * (16/8)  = 80 ft  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood, fixed,  windows with no glazing  Stone cladding will be added as aggregate in the Extra Basic Materials section 6.1  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate A32 Walls Above Grade 3,988 m2           2  Walls   2.2  Concrete Block Wall Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 66 of 76  1st - 132-06-078 2nd - 132-06-079 3rd - 132-06-080 2.2.5  Walls_1st: Exterior 1 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. This corresponds to the measured wall width.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood, fixed,  windows with no glazing  Assume solid wood doors  Stone cladding will be added as aggregate in the Extra Basic Materials section 6.1  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate 2.2.6  Walls_1st: Exterior 2 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. Since the wall width is 16” use twice the length of block wall;  = (Wall length(ft)) * (Width/8”)  =(38) * (16/8)  = 76 ft  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood, fixed,  windows with no glazing  Stone cladding will be added as aggregate in the Extra Basic Materials section 6.1  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 67 of 76  2.2.9 Walls_2nd: Exterior 1 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. This corresponds to the measured wall width.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood, fixed,  windows with no glazing  Stone cladding will be added as aggregate in the Extra Basic Materials section 6.1  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate 2.2.10 Walls_2nd: Exterior 2 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. Since the wall width is 16” use twice the length of block wall;  = (Wall length(ft)) * (Width/8”)  =(40) * (16/8)  = 80 ft  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood, fixed,  windows with no glazing  Stone cladding will be added as aggregate in the Extra Basic Materials section 6.1  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 68 of 76  2.2.13 Walls_3rd: Exterior 1 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. This corresponds to the measured wall width.  Wall Height: Slab top to slab bottom + 7'8” for attic walls and decorative on the perimeter of the roof.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood, fixed,  windows with no glazing  Stone cladding will be added as aggregate in the Extra Basic Materials section 6.1  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 69 of 76  2.2.14  Walls_3rd: Exterior 2 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. Since the wall width is 16” use twice the length of block wall;  = (Wall length(ft)) * (Width/8”)  =(33) * (16/8)  = 66 ft  Wall Height: Slab top to slab bottom + 7'8” for attic walls and decorative on the perimeter of the roof.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood, fixed,  windows with no glazing  Stone cladding will be added as aggregate in the Extra Basic Materials section 6.1  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 70 of 76  132-07-009 2.2.17 Walls_Penthouse: Exterior 1 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. This corresponds to the measured wall width.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood, fixed,  windows with no glazing  Stone cladding will be added as aggregate in the Extra Basic Materials section 6.1  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate 6 Extra Basic Materials To model the stone cladding on all the exterior wall, ballast, or stone aggregate, will be used as a surrogate The surface area of each exterior will be multiplied by the  thickness and then multiplied by the density to determine the mass of stone required.   6.1 Stone Cladding     Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 71 of 76    6.1.1  XBM_Stone Ballast Assume that ballast is an appropriate approximation of exterior stone cladding.  Assume density of stone to be 2515 (kg/m^3) * 0.0624 = 156.9 (lbs/ft^3) *http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm  Total weight calculations:  =( Exterior Surface Area(ft^2)) * ( Cladding Thickness(ft)) * (Density(lbs/ft^3))  =( 51754) * (4”/12) * (156.9)  =2 706 734.2 lbs  Impact Estimator only allows ballast material only to be up to 6 digits so 902244.7 was add separately in the estimator, then the summary measures were multiplied by 3 and added to the original summary table. B11 Partitions 8,481 m2           2  Walls   2.1  Cast In Place 132-07-002 2.1.1  Wall_Foundation Trench 3'3" Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier 2.1.2   Walls_Foundation Elevator 3'6" Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 72 of 76  2.1.4   Walls_Foundation South:2 14'4" [1/2] Assume concrete 3000 psiAssume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier 2.1.5    Walls_Foundation West 13'6" [1/2] Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier 2.1.10   Walls_Foundation Trench 1'9" Assume concrete 3000 psi  Assume 3 mil polyethylene vapour barrier  This assembly didn't appear to be in the IE model, but it is listed in the report and in this document, so I copied Foundation_Trench 3'3" assembly and modified it according to the inputs given on the Inputs sheet 2.2  Concrete Block Wall     B - 132-06-077 1st - 132-06-078 2nd - 132-06-079 3rd - 132-06-080 2.2.3  Walls_Basement Interior 1 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. This corresponds to the measured wall width.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood doors  Assume no interior windows since not specified on plans  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 73 of 76  2.2.4 Walls_Basement Interior 2 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”.  Since the width of the wall is not 8” the following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length (in feet) inputs the wall;   = (Wall length(ft)) * (Width/8”)  =(1268) * (6/8)  = 951 ft  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood doors  Assume no interior windows since not specified on plans  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate 2.2.7  Walls_1st: Interior 1 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. This corresponds to the measured wall width.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood doors  Assume no interior windows since not specified on plans  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 74 of 76  2.2.8 Walls_1st: Interior 2 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”.  Since the width of the wall is not 8” the following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length (in feet) inputs the wall;   = (Wall length(ft)) * (Width/8”)  =(1294) * (6/8)  = 971 ft  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood doors  Assume no interior windows since not specified on plans  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate 2.2.11  Walls_2nd: Interior 1 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. This corresponds to the measured wall width.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood doors  Assume no interior windows since not specified on plans  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate Chemistry Building, University of British Columbia  Life Cycle Assessment – Final Report Page 75 of 76  2.2.12 Walls_2nd: Interior 2 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”.  Since the width of the wall is not 8” the following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length (in feet) inputs the wall;   = (Wall length(ft)) * (Width/8”)  =(1222) * (6/8)  = 917 ft  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood doors  Assume no interior windows since not specified on plans  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate 2.2.15  Walls_3rd: Interior 1 Assume concrete block for brick walls. The standard width of a concrete block is 8”. This corresponds to the measured wall width.  Assume rebar #4  Assume solid wood doors  Assume no interior windows since not specified on plans  Assume plaster on interior walls. Use stucco on porous surface as surrogate  

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108825/manifest

Comment

Related Items