UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment of academic buildings at UBC Elder, Michael; Panahi, Negar; Salehi, Ali 2014-11-19

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-Elder_M_et_al_SEEDS_2014.pdf [ 2.16MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108873.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108873-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108873-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108873-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108873-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108873-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108873-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108873-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108873.ris

Full Text

      "The only way forward, if we are going to improve the quality of the environment, is to get involved." Richard Rogers                Executive Summary   This report is the final project in CIVL 498C, a course that introduces students to the practice of Life Cycle Assessment. It is part of a continuing study of buildings on campus, with the purpose of improving UBC’s environmental footprint.   This study was based on a life cycle assessment of various buildings on campus done by students in the same course last year. Their results were updated and used as a benchmark for this project. The scope of this project is to gain more information about UBC’s buildings, so that strategic decisions about new projects can be made in the future. The results can also be used as an educational tool for people to learn more about the environmental impacts of buildings on campus.   Some of the most noteworthy findings in the life cycle assessment are:   - Concrete constitutes about 81% of all construction materials in terms of mass. - The ‘Upper Floor Construction’ of all the buildings is the largest building element assessed, with a total of 38% of all the construction materials. - ‘Roof Construction’ was found to have the most significant environmental impact. - The ‘Product Stage’ (manufacturing, transportation, material extraction) is the life cycle stage with the biggest impact   Comparisons were made between buildings in terms of “impact per square meter”. A number of environmental impacts were considered, such as global warming potential, ozone depletion potential, non-renewable energy use, and fossil fuel consumption. A cost analysis was also made, which can help designers make decisions between choosing construction materials.   Some strategies to institutionalize life cycle assessment at UBC were also outlined. There are a number of ways to educate people about the concept, such as events, guest lectures, a newsletter, or through social media. Designers of buildings on campus can use modelling tools and a life cycle inventory database to make the process easier. With strong communication and education, life cycle assessment can be institutionalized into UBC policy to move towards a green future. Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 4 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 2 Context for Use of LCA at UBC ................................................................................................ 6 2.1 UBC Climate Action Plan .................................................................................................. 6 2.2 The UBC RFI Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................... 6 2.3 The UBC LEED Implementation Guide ............................................................................. 7 2.4 Metrics of Sustainable Buildings ...................................................................................... 7 2.5 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Weights ............................................................................ 8 2.6 Vancouver Campus Plan Design Guidelines ..................................................................... 9 2.7 LEED v4 ............................................................................................................................. 9 2.8 Performance Objectives  ................................................................................................ 10 2.9 Energy Efficient Buildings Strategy: More Action, Less Energy  ..................................... 10 2.10 Learning Space Design Guidelines  ............................................................................. 11 3 LCA Study of Academic Buildings at UBC Vancouver Campus  ............................................. 12 3.1 Goal & Scope  ................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.1 Goal of Study  .......................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Scope of Study  ........................................................................................................ 13 4 LCA Model and Study Development  .................................................................................... 19 4.1 Stage 1  ........................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Stage 2  ........................................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Stage 3  ........................................................................................................................... 19 4.4 CIVL 498C 2014 Database  .............................................................................................. 20 5 Results and Interpretation  ................................................................................................... 21 5.1 Inventory Analysis  ......................................................................................................... 21 5.2 Impact Assessment  ........................................................................................................ 24 5.3 UBC Academic Benchmark  ............................................................................................ 28 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis  ........................................................................................................ 30 6 Next Step for Institutionalizing LCA at UBC  .......................................................................... 32 6.1 LCA Modeling Tools  ....................................................................................................... 32 2  6.1.1 UBC Policy  .............................................................................................................. 32 6.1.2 Athena Impact Estimator and Tally  ........................................................................ 32 6.2 LCA Databases  ............................................................................................................... 33 6.2.1 Mandatory Database  .............................................................................................. 33 6.2.2 Environmental Product Declarations  ..................................................................... 33 6.3 LCA Decision Making Material  ....................................................................................... 34 6.3.1 Community  ............................................................................................................. 34 6.3.2 Benchmarking  ........................................................................................................ 34 6.3.3 Cost  ........................................................................................................................ 35 6.3.4 Weighting  ............................................................................................................... 35 6.4 LCA Communication and Education Resources  ............................................................. 35 6.4.1 Internal Uses  .......................................................................................................... 35 6.4.2 External Uses  .......................................................................................................... 36 6.4.3 Communication  ...................................................................................................... 36 6.4.4 Education  ............................................................................................................... 36 6.4.5 Institutionalization Process  .................................................................................... 37 7 Conclusion  ............................................................................................................................ 38 8 Works Cited  .......................................................................................................................... 40 Annex A – Author Reflection ......................................................................................................... 43 Annex B – Impact Category Descriptions  ...................................................................................... 58 Annex C – Inputs and Outputs of Three Processes  ....................................................................... 61 Annex D – Table of Uncertainties  ................................................................................................. 62 Annex E – Elemental Construction Format  ................................................................................... 63 Annex F – Inventory Analysis Results  ............................................................................................ 64 Annex G – Material Categorization Index  ..................................................................................... 67 Annex H – Impact Assessment Results  ......................................................................................... 68 Annex I – UBC Academic Building Profiles  .................................................................................... 69 Annex J – UBC Academic Building Benchmarks  ............................................................................ 70 Annex K – Total Bill of Materials of UBC Academic Buildings  ........................................................ 71 Annex L – Sensitivity Analysis Results  ........................................................................................... 74 3  List of Figures   Figure 1: Building LCA System Boundary According to EN 15978 ................................................ 14  Figure 2: Level 3 CIQS Element Hotspots ...................................................................................... 25  Figure 3: Life Cycle Stage Hotspots ............................................................................................... 26  Figure 4: Process Module Hotspots for Each Life Cycle Stage ...................................................... 27  Figure 5: Process Module Hotspots for All Life Cycle Stages ........................................................ 28  Figure 6: UBC Buildings Global Warming Potential vs. Construction Cost (2013 $) ..................... 29  Figure 7: Building Life-Cycle Impact Difference ............................................................................ 30  Figure 8: Generic Unit Processes Considered Within Processes by Impact Estimator ................. 61  Figure 9: Material Categories Used in the Study .......................................................................... 67  Figure 10: Percentage Difference from Baseline .......................................................................... 70     List of Tables   Table 1: List of Buildings Included in the Study ............................................................................ 20  Table 2: Categorized Total Bill of Materials of All UBC Academic Buildings ................................. 22  Table 3: Categorized Total Bill of Materials for Each Element ...................................................... 22  Table 4: Total Material Mass of Each Element ............................................................................. 24  Table 5: Summary of Environmental Impacts of all UBC Academic Buildings .............................. 25  Table 6: Types of Uncertainties in LCA Study................................................................................ 62  Table 7: CIVL 498C Elemental Construction Format ..................................................................... 63  Table 8: Elemental and Whole Building Bill of Materials .............................................................. 64  Table 9: Level 3 CIQS Elemental Descriptions ............................................................................... 66  Table 10: Sum of Total Impacts per square meter ........................................................................ 68  Table 11: Average Total Impacts per square meter ...................................................................... 68  Table 12: Total Impact per square meter for All Life Cycle Stages ............................................... 68  Table 13: Profile of UBC Academic Buildings in the Study ............................................................ 69  Table 14: Total Bill of Materials for all UBC Academic Buildings .................................................. 71  Table 15: Sensitivity Analysis Results ............................................................................................ 74 4  1 Introduction    Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is emerging as an important tool for designing green buildings. A number of design guidelines for UBC were examined, and it was found that UBC can use LCA to fulfill the requirements. LCA can be used to meet UBC’s requirements for building LEED Gold status buildings.   A post-mortem Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study was carried out on more than 20 academic buildings at the UBC Vancouver Campus. The goal of the study is to provide a transparent educational as well as a strategic planning tool used for current and future building constructions at the University of British Columbia. All the LCA models of previous CIVL 498C students were modified using the Athena Impact Estimator. A unified database, called CIVL 498C 2014 Database, was created in order to provide access to all the building impact assessment results. Also, a comprehensive description of the goal and scope for the study was developed in accordance with ISO 14044:2006 to assure transparency and completeness. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) analysis of all the buildings were evaluated, which allowed us to identify the hotspots within UBC building structures and determine which materials contributed the most to the buildings’ environmental impacts.   Institutionalizing LCA at UBC may seem like a daunting task, but it can be achieved through a number of ways. People can be introduced to LCA through social media, events, or a newsletter, intended to open people’s mind about the concept. Those interested in using LCA can take courses or workshops to learn more. LCA modelling tools and databases can make the process easier. Over time, LCA could be used on more and more projects at UBC, until it is entrenched as a required part of design and construction on campus. 5  2 Context for Use of LCA at UBC    The concept of Life Cycle Assessment has been developed over a number of years, and it is becoming more and more relevant to UBC. The following section summarizes several guidelines and action plans, and explains how LCA can support sustainability programs within construction and design at UBC.    2.1 UBC Climate Action Plan The UBC Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies the key action areas in which campus development and infrastructure is on the top of the list (University of British Columbia, 2010). One of the major components included in campus development and infrastructure is determining whether buildings are residential or institutional. Actions for Campus Development and Infrastructure are compiled into five key activity areas. Leveraging experience in development and emissions reduction for academic and research purposes (DV-05) is one of the activity areas where LCA can be applied. According to the UBC’s CAP, an action to encourage sustainable procurement is working with UBC researchers to conduct life cycle analysis (LCA) on common purchases in an effort to define the embodied energy within the supply chain and to show buyers at UBC the life cycle cost of their choices. Although the above statement seems to be more about day-to-day purchases, a similar analysis could be performed regarding UBC’s building design and operation. It is interesting that UBC’s Climate Action Plan identifies LCA as an approach or tool to establish baseline inventory for the UBC food system, but it fails to do so for building design and operation.   The UBC’s CAP is implemented using a management system framework facilitating the continuous improvement of a plan. The process consists of an ongoing feedback loop known as the Deming Cycle with the following four components: Plan, Do, Check, and Act. The nature of LCA falls within the described system, since LCA is a tool continuously assessing the environmental impacts of projects. On technical report #2 of the Climate Action Plan, the inventory documents GHG emissions associated with the buildings operations (i.e. GHG by utility energy source); however, it does not consider the GHG emission from building construction and materials.   2.2 The UBC RFI Evaluation Criteria The UBC RFI Evaluation Criteria is a request for information documents informing contractors and bidders on how their response to the RFI is evaluated by the owner (i.e. UBC). UBC has assigned an innovative, holistic, integrated methodology and a work plan with a total 100 points, of which 5 points are awarded to life cycle assessment of project options and their costs (University of British Columbia, 2013). In addition, UBC requires an effective and a multi-disciplined team that is expected to have experience in an LCA of project options (5 points). However, the document is not clear whether the achievement of these points is mandatory or not. It seems reasonable that responses to the RFI will be marked out of 100, and the highest mark will be awarded the contract. Therefore, a respondent who lacks expertise in LCA could achieve points from other departments and still be awarded the project. 6   2.3 The UBC LEED Implementation Guide The UBC LEED Implementation Guide provides specific direction for the UBC Vancouver Campus to implement the LEED Canada Building Design and Construction 2009 Rating Systems. It has been developed to support all UBC policy and it is aligned with the UBC Vancouver Campus Plan. The LEED Canada BD+C 2009 Reference Guide is still the core document. This document “identifies mandatory credits that must be achieved for UBC projects along with specific guidance for both mandatory and optional credits, where applicable. It acts as an application guide where further UBC specific direction is offered and UBC performance priorities are described. It is imperative to note that direction is only given where applicable to the UBC context; all other cases are to follow the Reference Guide.” (University of British Columbia, 2013).   According to the guide, there are a total of 100 points available, of which 60 points are mandatory. Also, in order to obtain LEED Gold or LEED Platinum certification, you need 50-70 points and 80+ points respectively. The credits fall into various categories, from Sustainable Sites to Regional Priority. Innovation and Design Process is one of the elements under the Innovation in Design category that is assigned a total of 5 credits, of which all are mandatory (University of British Columbia, 2013). There have been numerous strategies that have earned ID credits under the LEED CANADA-NC 1.0 rating system at UBC. Life Cycle Assessment is one of the many strategies that could potentially achieve the 5 mandatory points. Therefore, one does not have to necessarily use LCA, no matter how beneficial, to achieve the mandatory credits. In order for LCA to become institutionalized, UBC should incorporate LCA into the guide as a standalone element (still under Innovation in Design category) worth of 1-2 mandatory credit(s), and reduce the value of Innovation and Design Process accordingly.   2.4 Metrics of Sustainable Buildings The article Metrics of Sustainable Buildings argues the following points (Ospelt, n.d.):  • Tools supporting green and sustainable design need to be simpler, more transparent and credible in order to be better integrated in mainstream design. • Every LCA tool faces a trade-off between scientific accuracy and objectivity on one hand and high aggregation for a simpler and effective level of communication to a wider audience on the other hand. • LCA does not cover social equity and local economics. • Many tools sees to neglect the fact that the scientific background for some of these impact categories are still very weak, for example global warming • Two ways to bring LCA results into design process: o 1) Aggregate by valuation into one index which adds another source of error and subjectivity o 2) Concentrate only on the most important issues • Greenhouse gases and global warming are considered to be the most important factors/impacts 7  • Toxicity is the 2nd most important impact, as it covers the widest range of effects on humans and nature. • Resource consumption is another impact that is totally different from the other impacts. That being said, its evaluation and characterization is in its early stages of development. • LCA and the database are very new. Therefore, its impacts and indicators should be reviewed regularly. • “A few impacts represent the biggest overall impact of buildings. For example, building construction only is a minor contributor to Eutrophication compared to overall loads”; thus it can be neglected. • Lack of inventory data is the reason why little info based on LCA has been used in the design process. • In Europe, the government is a supporter of LCA and the database is public, rather than being private. • If the LCA database is based on the average of several companies, disclosure of secret production data of a company can be prevented. Therefore, even more companies will be motivated to get involved and cooperate.   2.5 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Weights to Support Environmentally Preferable Purchasing in the United States The article Life Cycle Impact Assessment Weights to Support Environmentally Preferable Purchasing in the United States argues that although LCA is a quantitative method for understanding the environmental impacts of a product, all product purchasing decisions are still subjective. Thus, weights need to be introduced to link or transform the quantitative results of LCA to the value-based subjective choices or decision makers. For example, BEES, an LCA tool synthesizes the performance scores for all impact categories into a single score in order to compare the overall environmental performance of competing products. This is done through weighting, a value-based process that represents the scientific interpretation and ideological, political, and ethical principles. The motivation for employing weighting is based on the desire to simplify LCIA output, especially in circumstances where trade-offs across a product system occur. There are critics of LCA who argue that LCA should be an objective environmental evaluation procedure.   In order to develop this set of weights, NIST solicited input from a volunteer stakeholder panel. This paper presents the weight results from this stakeholder panel employing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as described by ASTM Standard E 1765-2. It is a systematic approach to finding the priorities of a range of decision criteria and then measuring the contribution of potential solutions to those criteria. In the context of BEES, the AHP is used to develop a set of importance weights for environmental impacts so that life cycle impact assessment results may be synthesized to measure overall environmental performance for alternative building products.   One criticism raised against the AHP concerns the requirement to explicitly state and incorporate subjective judgments. This requirement is rejected by some members of the operations research and 8  management science communities, who are reluctant to adopt a method that does not claim to be purely “objective.”   The AHP is well suited to facilitate interpretation of LCIA results. It does so by arranging and comparing decision criteria in such a way that decision makers can logically and consistently evaluate all of the criteria in a complex decision problem. Their low weights may indicate lack of immediate concern or that the remedial actions associated with the impact, for the most part, are underway. (Gloria, 2007)   2.6 Vancouver Campus Plan Design Guidelines The life cycle analysis of buildings at UBC is relevant to the Campus Design Guidelines provided. The guidelines state that “all projects must be designed to integrate sustainable best practices in design” (University of British Columbia, 2010), which goes hand in hand with the reasons for carrying out an LCA. An LCA will help designers make sustainable choices when choosing construction materials, such as sourcing materials locally or choosing long-lasting materials. An LCA can also establish comparative assertions to achieve the stated goal of ensuring “the quality and stature of a globally significant University” (University of British Columbia, 2010). Benchmarks can be set against other prestigious universities to showcase UBC’s dedication to the environment. More detail about benchmarking and comparative assertions is in the LCA Decision Making Methods section of the report.   UBC also aims for “economic sustainability through use of design and material selection strategies” (University of British Columbia, 2010), and LCA can be used to get quantifiable economic information about materials in order to make informed decisions. An LCA can help determine which materials will be most cost effective, by comparing values such as availability, transportation, maintenance requirements, and component service life. LCA also provides quantifiable impact results in order to procure “products that maximize lifecycle and can be reused or recycled” (University of British Columbia, 2010). Recycling on campus is widespread, so as part of the cradle-to-grave assessment, recyclable materials can be incorporated into the building, to be recycled at the end of the service life.   2.7 LEED v4 Undergoing an LCA of the buildings on campus can help fulfill the objectives outlined in LEED v4. Points can be awarded for “achieving a minimum level of energy efficiency for the building and its systems” (LEED, n.d.), which ties closely to the analysis in the life cycle inventory phase. LEED outlines requirements to “reduce construction and demolition waste disposed of in landfills and incineration facilities” (LEED, n.d.), and an LCA can be used to meet them. Points can also be awarded for choosing products with environmental product declarations which “have at least a cradle to gate scope” (LEED, n.d.). In summary, a life cycle assessment is a useful tool to complete the LEED requirements. 9  2.8 Performance Objectives The following objectives are established by UBC Technical Guidelines, which are mandatory requirements for UBC. Some of these requirements are as follows:  • It is important for all projects to comply with their performance targets and meet their sustainable design objectives such as reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. • Projects at UBC need to be designed in a way to achieve the minimum life cycle cost of ownership. The materials and equipment must be taken into account as well. • Building components, finishes and systems should be designed with the minimum maintenance requirement throughout its life cycle.  UBC is a “learning community” (UBC Building Operations, 2014) and as a community it needs a comfortable, creative, and uplifting environment.   2.9 Energy Efficient Buildings Strategy: More Action, Less Energy Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) determines the environmental impact of products, starting from the raw materials to ending with its recycling. LCA can be used to get LEED points in order to have a more sustainable environment. The construction industry is a large contributor to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This report covers what the government of British Columbia is doing to provide tools into the hands of residents to make new and better choices. Their goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions by  33% by 2020 and they are doing everything in their power to achieve this goal. The BC Energy Plan has a vision to minimize the environmental impact by using clean energy sources, meeting minimum requirements for Gold LEED points, upgrading and using new equipment in homes, etc. There was no mention of LCA in this article, even though the focus of the article is to have a more sustainable environment. The focus of energy efficiency is on the operation phase of the building through the lifecycle of the building and using better sources of energy. LCA can help look at aspects such as materials, heating, cooling and ventilation systems, which can optimize the building’s environmental performance and impact over its entire life cycle. The use of LCA can help and encourage designers and architects to use LCA studies in the design phase of new projects. This way, energy consumption and its impacts can be calculated and benchmarked in every stage of the building life cycle. For example, depending on the systems used in buildings or homes, LCA studies can show the phases with the most impact.    UBC has been exploring all aspects of sustainability in terms of economic, environmental and social impacts. UBC has been investing in energy management and through several projects over the past few years; they have reduced the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions throughout the campus, and have saved a significant amount of money. With this plan they are also touching base on Life Cycle Cost assessment and how a great amount of money can be saved through efficient use of energy on campus. 10   2.10 Learning Space Design Guidelines This report outlines the design guidelines for formal and informal learning spaces in UBC. It outlines in detail, the process of designing spaces such as planning, designing, furnishing, lighting, sustainability principles, functional programming, the review and approval phase and every other category that is required in order to design, renew or renovate a project.  Use of LCA in the Technical Guidelines of UBC can help architects and designers to have baseline quantitative and qualitative data when designing new spaces. By comparing the entire building and different elements of the building, architects and designers can measure the environmental impacts and show the results to the owners and shareholders. The results indicate that certain materials or a certain design will cause global warming, smog formation, or human health issues. Through the goal and scope phase of LCA, all the project participants and committee members can analyze the project outline and the purpose of the project. In the inventory analysis, using all the inputs and outputs of each element, the potential environmental impact can be discussed and measured. With the use of LCA in the Technical Guidelines, we can define what materials, models and methods have the least impact. 11  3 LCA Study of Academic Buildings at UBC Vancouver Campus    In accordance with the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards, this report will describe the Goal and Scope, summarize the Inventory Analysis and Impact Assessment Results, provide findings, and give concluding remarks.  The following Goal and Scope section outlines the details of the LCA study that was carried out on more than 20 existing academic buildings at UBC Vancouver Campus. All of the details of this study are explicitly outlined in the Goal & Scope section below. The buildings considered in this LCA study are listed in the Model Development section of this report.    3.1 Goal & Scope The first and most critical step in conducting an LCA study is to unambiguously define the goals and scope of the analysis (Johnson, 2006). The purpose of defining the Goal is to clearly state the intended purpose and application of the study, whereas the purpose of defining the Scope is to point out how the actual modeling of the study was carried out (Athena Institute, 2011). In order to clearly outline the details of parameters outlined in ISO 14040 and 14044:2006, the following format has been used or this LCA study report to describe the essential elements of goal and scope definition.  The Goal & Scope followed a similar format to that of Biosciences LCA Study, prepared by Athena Institute in 2011. An explanation of each parameter is provided, and there is a statement on how they are defined for the LCA Study of Academic Buildings at UBC Vancouver Campus.   3.1.1   Goal of Study The following are descriptions for a set of parameters which unambiguously state the context of this LCA study.  Intended application   Describes the purpose of the LCA study.    This LCA study will be used within a regional context in the following ways: • as a strategic planning and educational tool for current and future building projects via establishing a benchmark against the currently existing UBC buildings. For example, it could give UBC insight on various strategies for construction of the most energy- and cost-efficient buildings. • as a policy making tool for UBC on how to approach the institution of LCA in building design and operations. • as an educational and archetypal demonstration tool showing the latest developments in environmental impact accounting methods in order to help encourage and improve education on LCA and further its development in building construction and operation practices at UBC and the green building industry in general. 12   Intended audience   Describes those who the LCA study is intended to be interpreted by.   The results of this LCA study are to be primarily communicated to the UBC Green Building Management, UBC LCA researchers, and the general public. With LCA being an emerging topic of significance in the field of green building, other intended audiences of this LCA report could be but are not limited to industry and government groups observing and involved in this field.   Intended for comparative assertions   State whether the results of this LCA study are to be compared with the results of other LCA studies.   The results of this LCA study are intended for internal comparative assertions as part of a benchmark database for UBC LCA Database. However, this study has not been prepared for external comparative assertions, such as comparing the buildings to other institutions and schools.   3.1.2   Scope of Study The following are descriptions for a set of parameters that detail how the actual modeling of the study was carried out.  Product system to be studied   Describes the collection of unit processes that will be included in the study.   “A unit process is a measurable activity that consumes inputs and emits outputs as a result of providing a product or service” (Athena Institute, 2011). The main processes of the product system being studied in this LCA study are 1) the manufacturing of construction products, 2) the construction of the buildings, 3) the utilization of buildings, and 4) the demolition of buildings. These four processes are the building blocks of the LCA models that have been developed to illustrate the impacts associated with the academic buildings being studied in this LCA report. The unit processes and inputs and outputs considered within these four main processes are similar to that of the BioSciences LCA study done by Athena Institute in 2011 provided in Annex C.   It is notable that the unit processes of manufacturing the construction products, construction of the buildings, and utilization of the buildings capture the cradle-to-gate, whereas the building demolition unit process captures the grave. Here, cradle to gate refers to resource extraction, manufacturing construction products, and construction of buildings, while grave simply refers to the end of life for a product system (Athena Institute, 2011). In order to further define the product system being examined in this LCA study, one must define the system boundary.   System boundary Details the extent of the product system to be studied in terms of product components, life cycle stages, and unit processes. 13   This LCA study examines the construction products used to create the structures and envelopes of the academic buildings being studied at UBC Vancouver campus. Therefore, the product components must be defined by the materials within the studied products (Athena Institute, 2011).   The material product components (i.e. building assemblies) that were included from the products (i.e. buildings) are the footings, slabs on grade, walls, columns and beams, roofs, as well as all associated doors and windows, gypsum board, vapour barriers, insulation, cladding and roofing. These material product components are in turn assemblies of construction products. (Athena Institute, 2011)   The following figure demonstrates the life stages included within the system boundary from the product stage all the way to the end of life stage. The modules included within the analysis scope of this study are shown in blue.     Figure 1: Building LCA System Boundary According to EN 15978 (analysis scope shown blue)    As seen from the figure, the whole system studied here represents a cradle-to-grave scenario or process. The process begins with cradle-to-gate life cycle phase capturing the resource extraction, manufacturing of construction products, building construction, and maintenance and replacement. Then, it ends with grave life cycle phase which captures the demolition of the buildings and the transportation and disposal of demolition wastes (Athena Institute, 2011). 14  Functions of the product system Describes the functions served by the product focused on in the LCA study.   Each of the buildings modeled in this LCA study are designed to serve mainly as an academic institutional building on the UBC Vancouver campus. They also serve “as safe and climate controlled buildings separating their occupants and structure from the environment” (Athena Institute, 2011).   Functional unit A performance characteristic of the product system being studied that will be used as a reference unit to normalize the results of the study.   The functional units used as a reference to normalize the results of this LCA study are per square meter post-secondary academic building constructed. The functional units are used as a reference to draw comparison between academic buildings serving the same function yet differing in square meter (i.e. area). Alternatively, the functional unit of per post-secondary academic building constructed can be used to compare buildings of similar function and square footage. That being said, this LCA study only  includes the per square meter post-secondary academic building constructed.   Allocation procedures Describes how the input and output flows of the studied product system (and unit processes within it) are distributed between it and other related product systems.   The three allocation scenarios to be aware of are 1) a process outputting multiple products, 2) a waste treatment process having multiple inputs, and 3) an open loop recycling. The open loop recycling scenario is identified as when material are recycled or reused in subsequent life cycle stages (Athena Institute, 2011). It comprises of various procedures such as cut-off, relative loss of quality, 50/50 rule, and closed loop approximation.   Referring to Figure 1, it is evident that this LCA study follows an open loop recycling allocation scenario. Since the LCA in this study does not include the processes where raw materials are created and where demolished materials are treated (i.e. they are out of system boundary), it can be implied that the cut of allocation1 was the procedure used in this scenario.   Impact categories selected and methodology of impact assessment State the methodology used to characterize the LCI results and the impact categories that will address the environmental and other issues of concern.   This LCA study reports only on the impacts that meet the objectives of this study and are relevant to the intended audience of applications of the study. The following is the list of considered midpoint impact   1 According to Athena Institute, the cut-off allocation method entails only the impacts directly cause by a product within a given life cycle stage are allocated to that product (Athena Institute, 2011). 15  categories and their respective units used to express them (i.e. category indicators). Each impact category if further explained in Annex B.   • Global Warming Potential - kg CO2 equivalent • Acidification Potential - kg SO2 equivalent • HH Particulate - kg PM2.5 equivalent • Eutrophication Potential - kg N equivalent • Ozone Depletion Potential - kg CFC-11 equivalent • Smog Potential - kg O3 equivalent • Total Primary Energy - MJ • Non-Renewable Energy - MJ • Fossil Fuel Consumption – MJ   Depending on which impact categories considered, methodologies may vary. The primary methodology of impact assessment used for this LCA study has been the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) which is developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Athena Impact Estimator, developed by Athena Institute, was also used as the modeling tool required to explore the environmental impact or footprint of the product system studied. The interpretation and analysis of the results associated with the above impact categories are included in the Results and Discussion sections of this report.   Data requirements Explicit statement of measured, calculated or estimated data needed to inform your modeling of unit processes.   Two main types of data are used for developing LCA models. 1) Primary Data collected directly from the specific process being modeled and 2) Secondary Data for general processes reported by someone else (Sianchuk R. , 2014). In this case, secondary data was the main type of data used for developing the LCA study.   This LCA study was developed based on the following main sources of data: 1) Building assemblies 2) Data contained within the Impact Estimator (i.e. Athena LCI Database). All the measured, calculated, and estimated data for the building assemblies were developed by previous students of CIVL 498C via performing material take offs on architectural and structural drawings. This information was provided to us in order to reproduce Bill of Materials for the buildings studied in this assessment. The other source of data used in this study was the Athena Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database developed by Athena Institute and embedded in the Impact Estimator software. Although the Database is not publicly available, most of the reports and information that developed the database are available on the Athena Institute webpage [www.athenasmi.org] (Athena Institute, 2011). 16  Data quality requirements Quantitative and qualitative characterization of quality of modeling and data used in the study including its time related, geographical and technological coverage, precision, completeness, representativeness, consistency, reproducibility and uncertainty of the information.   The quality of modeling methods and data used in this LCA study can be addressed based on the sources of data: building assemblies and the LCI database.   The measurements, calculations, and estimates of the building assemblies were obtained by previous students of CIVL 498C. All the data collected were from the original architectural and structural drawings of the academic buildings on UBC Vancouver campus and were to be documented in a specific format to assure completeness. All the material take offs were derived by Quantity Take-Off software to improve consistency and precision. As for the reliability of the database, two buildings (Pharmaceutical Sciences Building and School of Music) were found to be lacking in completeness and precision; hence, excluded from the database.   The quality assessment of the data and modeling assumptions associated with the LCI database was beyond the scope this study due to proprietary nature of the Athena LCI Database. That being said,  there are several sources of uncertainties typically associated with LCA studies and LCI databases. The main types of uncertainties include data, model, temporal and spatial variability, and variability between sources. For example, some of the buildings (i.e. Math and Geography Buildings) in this LCA study were constructed in the 1920s, yet the LCI database being used is based on data available in 2014 which leads to misrepresenting the impacts of the original buildings. Further explanation and examples are provided in Annex D.   Assumptions Explicit statement of all assumptions used to by the modeller to measure, calculate or estimate information in order to complete the study of the product system.   The assumptions used in this LCA study are associated with the main sources of data identified earlier (i.e. building assemblies and Athena LCI Database).   A service life of 60 was assumed for LCA modeling of all the buildings. Other than that, all assumptions regarding measurement, calculation, and estimation of the building assemblies were made by previous students of CIVL 498C and can be found in the appendix of each building’s LCA report from last year. Assumptions associated with the LCI database “have all been developed by Athena Institute and are built in to the Impact Estimator [version 5.0.01]. This information is proprietary; however, parts can be accessed through the inner workings report found on the Athena Institute webpage” (Athena Institute, 2011).2   2 The Inner Working of the Impact Estimator for Buildings: Transparency Document - http://www.athenasmi.org/tools/impactEstimator/innerWorkings.html 17   Limitations Describe the extents to which the results of the modeling carried out on the product system accurately estimate the impacts created by the product system defined by the system boundary of the study.   The limitations to interpreting the result of this study are mainly associated with system boundary and data and modeling assumption.   Impacts created from recycling and reuse of materials from construction or demolition were outside the system boundary for this study.   This LCA study is based on the building assemblies measured, calculated, and estimated by last year’s students. The information on the building assemblies were developed by obtaining material take offs on the original architectural and structural drawings. Therefore, “the resulting LCA models are specific to these buildings as their bills of materials reflect their unique designs” (Athena Institute, 2011).   There are some modelling assumptions that are inherent when using the Impact Estimator software. Product manufacturing and fuel refining data is based on North American averages. The transportation matrix that estimates modes and distances of product transportation and waste is specific to Vancouver, BC. Also, the LCI data in the IE software was developed to reflect current circumstances and technology.   Type of critical review A review of the methods, data, interpretations, transparency, and consistency of the LCA study.   This LCA study has not been prepared for a critical review, but care was taken to ensure that the LCA process has been fully transparent.   Type and format of the report required for the study Statement of the type and format followed by the report.   This report is provided in accordance with ISO 14044 and follows the final report outline provided by the supervisor of this project, Rob Sianchuk. 18  4 LCA Model and Study Development    This section provides discussion on the development of the LCA model and study summarized in this report. This LCA study was carried out in three stages over the course of the term. The first stage was focused on updating the academic buildings in the UBC LCA Database, whereas the second stage was focused on benchmarking and assigning LEED points to the buildings in study. The last stage was to report on the current use of LCA at UBC and the updated UBC LCA Database, and to provide suggestions on the future of LCA at UBC.    4.1 Stage 1 In the first stage, each student was assigned an academic building from the UBC Vancouver campus and provided all the files and documents associated with that building. All the files and documents provided were developed by the CIVL 498C students of previous year (2013). Each student were to update the Athena Impact Estimator (i.e. *.AT4) files of each building by modifying the Building Life Expectancy to 60 years and produce a Bill of Materials and a detailed Summary Report of the building’s environmental impacts. The results of each building were then to be uploaded in a single document available to all students of CIVL 498C in order to update the UBC LCA database3.   4.2 Stage 2 In the second stage, each student was to create a benchmark of all building impact assessment results (i.e. the results from detailed Summary Reports) and total material mass by square meter (I.e. the  results from Bill of Materials) for whole building and each respective element4. Only the impact assessment results associated with the life stages within the system boundary were considered (i.e. A to C)5. Each student compared their own building design to the whole building class benchmark previously calculated and to comment if any LEED MR point can be awarded. This stage allowed us to study the accuracy of the building’s LCA model and to see whether any building’s results were off compared to the baseline6.   4.3 Stage 3 Stage 3, combined with the other two Stages, make up the CIVL 498C final project. In this stage, each group of three students were to provide a final report on the context for use of LCA at UBC, the academic buildings at UBC Vancouver campus, and strategies for institutionalizing LCA at UBC. The CIVL 498C 2014 LCA database was further optimized in order to eliminate any inconsistency in the results.     3 The updated UBC LCA database is referred to as CIVL 498C 2014 LCA database throughout this report. 4 Refer to 2013 CIVL 498C Level 3 Elemental Construction Format in Annex E for more information on the building elements considered in this study. 5 Refer to System Boundary in Goal and Scope section for more information. 6 Baseline was calculated as the average of all the buildings’ impact assessment results. 19  4.4 CIVL 498C 2014 Database The CIVL 498C 2014 database initially included the Impact Assessment results and the Bill of Materials associated with 24 academic buildings at UBC Vancouver campus listed below. However, after further optimization and reliability assessment of the database, two buildings were excluded from the scope of study due to unreliable or missing critical information. The list of academic buildings included and excluded from the study is as follows.    Buildings Included in the Study Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory AERL Geography GEOG Allard Hall ALRD Hebb HEBB Henry Angus ANGU Hennings HENN  Civil and Mechanical Engineering  CEME Institute for Computing, Information, and Cognitive Systems  ICICS Chemical and Biological Engineering CHBE Fred Kaiser KAIS Chemistry CHEM Douglas Kenny KENN Chemistry North Wing CHEMN Frederic Lasserre LASR Chemistry South Wing CHEMS Mathematics MATH Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability  CIRS  Macmillan  MCML Earth Sciences Building ESB Neville Scarfe SCRF Forest Science Centre FSC Wesbrook WSBK  Buildings Excluded from the Study  School of Music  MUSC It was excluded due to missing information regarding area quantities and Bill of Materials.  Pharmacy  PHRM It was excluded due to unreliable impact assessment results. Table 1: List of Buildings Included in the Study 20  5 Results and Interpretation    This section summarizes the environmental impacts and materials used in academic building designs at UBC. It also provides discussion on what the results demonstrate about designing buildings that minimize environmental impacts and on rules of thumb for the design of elements by assembly type and material selection. Following these discussions are some recommendations for future efforts in institutionalizing LCA at UBC.    5.1 Inventory Analysis In the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis, an inventory of flows to and from the product system in question is created. To develop the inventory, “flow model of the technical system is constructed using data on inputs and outputs. The input and output data needed for the construction of the model are collected. Then, the environmental loads of the system are calculated and related to the functional unit, and the flow model is finished” (Athena Institute, 2011). The input data for this study was obtained by previous students from each building’s structural and architectural drawings. These inputs were then fed into the Athena Impact Estimator to create a Bill of Materials.   Bill of Materials (BoM)   The Bill of Materials generated for each building includes a list of all the materials with their amount used in the construction of the building. For consistency, the amount of materials used for all the buildings is provided in Tonnes. It should be noted that Bill of Materials output from Impact Estimator also takes account into material waste from construction of the buildings.7   The table in Annex K illustrates the total Bill of Material results of the whole building for all UBC Academic Buildings studied. The total Bill of Material results of each building element for all UBC Academic Buildings are also presented in Annex F.   The Bill of Material results for the whole building (Annex K) and each element (Annex F) have been categorized into different material categories in order to make identification of construction materials easier. The Material Categorization Index used for this purpose is included in Annex G. The followings are the summary of the results for all the elements including the whole building.           7 Athena Impact Estimator calculates construction wastes by assigning a Construction Waste Factor to each specific construction material (e.g. 1 m3 of Concrete 30 MPa (Flyash av.) with 0.05 Construction Waste Factor is equivalent to 1.05 m3) 21   Material Category Unit Whole Building % Wood Tonnes 1,508.65 0.53% Wall Coverings Tonnes 3,186.66 1.12% Metal Tonnes 9,909.93 3.47% Roof Materials Tonnes 5,910.16 2.07% Masonry/Bricks Tonnes 31,250.53 10.95% Concrete Tonnes 231,826.60 81.24% Insulation Tonnes 284.75 0.10% Glass Tonnes 1,444.47 0.51% Plastics Tonnes 15.97 0.01% Miscellaneous Tonnes 26.37 0.01% Total Tonnes 285,364.10 100%  Table 2: Categorized Total Bill of Materials of All UBC Academic Buildings  As seen from the above table, concrete makes up about 81%8 of the total material used in construction of all UBC Academic Buildings9.  Masonry, with 11% and Metal, with 3.5% are respectively the second and third most used construction materials. The fourth and fifth most used material in construction of all the buildings are roof materials, with 2.1% and wall coverings, with 1.1%. The rest of the materials identified are relatively insignificant as each makes up less than 1% of the total.   The following table contains the total Bill of Material results of all UBC Academic Buildings9 for each element (i.e. A11, A21… B11). Refer to Annex F for a description of each element.   Material Category Unit A11 A21 A22 A23 A31 A32 B11 Wood Tonnes 0.00 48.11 466.96 454.01 24.91 191.03 323.62 Wall Coverings Tonnes 9.01 30.38 100.92 159.65 168.33 705.33 2,013.05 Metal Tonnes 83.16 185.17 5,062.36 1,239.46 321.31 1,211.62 1,806.84 Roof Materials Tonnes 0.00 0.00 435.82 4,337 56 0.14 1,134.99 1.65 Masonry/Bricks Tonnes 0.00 0.00 217.52 8.79 871.47 11,870.94 18,281.80 Concrete Tonnes 38,397.12 15,330 57 102,840.93 21,515.80 14,638.93 22,101 28 17,001 97 Insulation Tonnes 0.01 0.00 21.18 98.13 16.93 89.81 58.68 Glass Tonnes 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.75 67.60 1,132.47 214.65 Plastics Tonnes 0.87 3.05 0.00 4.17 1.99 5.42 0.47 Miscellaneous Tonnes 0.00 1.47 1.44 4.10 0.39 7.26 11.71 Total Tonnes 38,490.17 15,598.76 109,147.15 27,851.43 16,112.00 38,450.15 39,714.44  Table 3: Categorized Total Bill of Materials for Each Element  A11 Foundations Concrete is the primary source of material in this element as it makes up about 99.8% of the total materials used which is reasonable due to the nature of the element. There are other materials used such as metals, wall coverings, and plastic; however, they make up less than 15% of the total.         8 It should be noted that these numbers represent the sum of materials used in construction of all the buildings studied and does not represent a mean or average value for these buildings. 9 Refers to all the academic buildings at UBC Vancouver campus that are included in the study (as previously discussed) 22  A21 Lowest Floor Construction Similarly, concrete, with 98% is found to be the primary source of material used for this element. About 186 tonnes of metal were used for the lower floor construction of all the academic buildings, which amounts to about 1% of the total materials used. Wood, wall coverings, plastics, and paint materials are among other materials used for this element.   A22 Upper Floor Construction Concrete, with 94%, is once again considered to be the most construction material used for this element. It is notable that amount of concrete used in the construction of the upper floor of all the academic buildings makes up about 44% of the total concrete and 36% of the total materials used in the construction of all UBC Academic Buildings. This amount could potentially be one of the reasons for a high GHG impact associated with this element. Metal is the second most material used with 5% and the remaining 1% is made up of wood, roof materials, masonry, wall coverings, and insulation and miscellaneous materials. The amount of metal used in this element makes up 51% of the total metal used for the construction of all the buildings.   A23 Roof Construction Although concrete is the most material used for roof construction, it is not as significant as in the previous elements. In roof construction, concrete makes up 77% and roofing materials make up about 16% of the total materials used for this element. The roof material used in A23 accounts for almost 73% of all roof materials used for construction of all the buildings. As seen from the table, every type of material identified under Material Category is used in roof construction of all the buildings.   A31 Walls Below Grade As expected from the nature of this element, concrete is found to be the most material used making up 91% of the total materials used in the construction of all the walls below grade for all the buildings. Masonry and metal are the next most used materials each accounting for 5% and 2% of the total materials for this element. The use of glass material seems to have increased from previous elements although not enough to make up for more than a percent of the total materials.   A32 Walls Above Grade In construction of this element, the amounts of concrete and masonry materials account for 57% and 31% respectively. The amount of masonry used in this element also accounts for 38% of the total masonry used in all the buildings. Metal, roof materials, and wall coverings combined made up 8% of the total materials used in this element. The amount of glass used had considerably increased (i.e. relative  to previous elements) accounting for 3% of the total materials in A32 and 78% of the total glass  materials used for all the buildings.   B11 Partitions Masonry or brick is found to be the most material used in the construction of this element for all the buildings. It accounts for 46% of the construction materials used in this element and about 59% of all the masonry materials used for construction of the buildings. The remaining major materials used are 23  concrete, wall coverings, and metal respectively making up 43%, 5%, and 5% of the total materials used in constructions of this element for all the buildings. The table below contains the total material mass used for construction of each element for all the buildings.   Element Unit Total Material Mass % A11 Tonnes 38,490.17 13% A21 Tonnes 15,598.76 5% A22 Tonnes 109,147.15 38% A23 Tonnes 27,851.43 10% A31 Tonnes 16,112.00 6% A32 Tonnes 38,450.15 13% B11 Tonnes 39,714.44 14% Whole Building Tonnes 285,364.10 100%  Table 4: Total Material Mass of Each Element  The results from above table show a staggering amount (i.e. 38%) of materials being used for upper floor level construction of all the buildings.   5.2 Impact Assessment Inventory Analysis is by Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) in which the LCI outputs are characterized based on their potential environmental impact. Refer to Annex B for a description of the impact categories included in this study.   The impact assessment phase aims to evaluate the potential environmental impacts based on the LCI results. Next, the inventory parameters are sorted and assigned to impact categories in the classification stage. Characterization involves the conversion of the LCI results to common units, and the converted results are aggregated in the same impact category (Athena Institute, 2011). The factors used in the process are called ‘characterization factors’.   This LCA study was prepared with Athena IE, using TRACI as the database. The buildings were assessed from cradle-to-grave, where there impacts are considered from the manufacturing to the end of service life. However, recycling of building materials after demolition and earth work during construction was not considered. Equivalent units were set to compare the impacts in each category.   The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results from the LCA models of all UBC Academic Buildings are presented in the following tables and figures. The results presented are in terms of Level 3 elements (i.e. A11, A21…B11) and life cycle stages. The following table illustrates the sum and average of Total Impacts per m2 of total constructed area10 for all the buildings. Refer to Annex I for more information on total constructed area of each element as well as whole building.   10 Total constructed area for the whole building is calculated as the sum of ground floor and upper floor areas (see Annex I) 24  c .,._e 0><:. .,._e f:' .s 0 ;, e  Impact Category Units Total Baseline Global Warming Potential kg C02 eq 8.72E+03 3.96E+02 Acidification Potential kg502 eq 5.72E+01 2.60E+OO HH Particulate kg PM2.5 eq 2.70E+01 1.23E+00 Eutrophication  Potential kg N eq 6.65E+00 3.02E-01 Ozone Depletion Potential kg CFC-11 eq 4.10E-05 1.86E-06 Smog Potential kg 03 eq 1.19E+03 5.42E+01 Total Primary Energy MJ 1.49E+05 6.77E+03 Non-Renewable  Energy MJ 1.41E+05 6.43E+03 Fossil FuelConsumption MJ 8.67E+04 3.94E+03  Table 5: Summary of Environmental Impacts of all UBC Academic Buildings (Total Impact / m2)  The average ofTotal lmpact per m2 of all the buildings were calculated to generate a baseline for future benchmark ing purposes. Similar results have been generated for a ll Level 3 elements presented in Annex H. The follow ing figure summar izes the impact assessment results of level3 elements for all UBC Academic Buildings. It is generate d from the Mean of Toto/Impacts per m2 table in Annex H.       100%  90%  80%  70%  60% SO% 40% 30%  20%  10%  0% .,._fl. · 1;- · ><:. e 0 0 :§fl. " x..X.. 0 0 • <-'?! :;.,e o4J c., 0 (J v<z; ..,o e '!-.'?! 9:-tt; .:;., '\ '>><:. e o"'o 0 0 o'> "   Figure 2: level 3 CIQS Element Hotspots 25  "' A,O · .._o The figure above gives a general idea as to where hotspots are within the UBC Academic Building structures. It is evident that A23 Roof Construction, A32 Walls Above Grade, and A22 Upper Floor Construction are the primary cont ributors in the UBC Academic Buildings' environmenta l performance. A ll three of these elements have conc rete materials as their primary source of material. Looking at each element separate ly :  A23 has a significant amount of roof materials which makes up about 73% of all the roof materials used for all the buildings. Roof materials are sub-categorized into organic felt, ballast,EPDM membrane, bitumen membrane,polyethylene filter fabric,roofing aspha lt,PVC membrane, and type Ill glass fe lt. Roof materials are a major contributor of eutrophication and acidificat ion which just ifies the high percent impact of A23. Also, roofing materials such as gravel tend to be heavy thus requiring a lot of energy for transportation .A32 contains 78% of the tota l glass materials and A22 has 44% of total concrete and 51% of total metalmaterials used for the construction of all the buildings. These materials could potentially be the origin for all the high impacts across different categories.   The following figure illustrates LCIA results by life stages within system boundary. Product stage seems  to be the most impactfulamong all impact categories except eutrophicat ion potentia l in which use stage is the dominant contributor . Construct ion process is a significant contributor to only smog and acidification potentials. End of life stage is consistently a minor contributor among all impact catego ries except smog potential. As seen from the results, product stage is found to be the hotspot and the main area of focus for improving the LICA results.       100% 90% 80% 70% 60% SO% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% •PRODUCT {Al to A3)  •USE (B2, B4 & B6) •CONSTRUCTION PROCESS (A4 & AS)  •END OF LIFE (Cl to C4)    e · 0 e e e e e QC o-: 0><.: i/; 0><.: 0 o-: <v"' <v"' e . 4> 0 0 0 c., o · e (. 0 ·'i...'(, ·(, e ' ) ., <::>e e"' .::,e  <vv><.: e o"' !>" G 00 «o"   Figure 3: Life Cycle Stage Hotspots 26  The following series of figures illustrate the same results based on process modules in order to further investigate the impact associated with each stage. The results seem to be only consistent for the end of life stage. Transportation plays a minor role in this stage; thus more attention should be given to greener strategies for demolishing buildings, and disposal and waste processing of construction materials.   The inconsistencies for the first three life stage results seem to be from transportation of materials. Smog, being air pollution, is generally the result of air emissions from vehicles and industries. Therefore, the distance between the location of extraction and manufacturer or manufacturer and the construction sites could be the reason for such a high impact contribution percentage. This also explains why transportation plays a major role in the construction process stage’s total impact.   Overall, manufacturing is the primary concern for improving LCA of construction materials. Hence, many organizations have been seeking after LCA certification in construction material. Recently, the US Green Building Council officially declared ingraining LEED v.4 with MRc1 and MRc2 - 2 LCA based credits in Materials and Resources (Athena Institute, 2013). This is possibly the start up for LCA to become a necessary fixture with which manufacturers could gain transparent sustainability credits (Russell, 2013).     Figure 4: Process Module Hotspots for Each Life Cycle Stage 27    Figure 5: Process Module Hotspots for All Life Cycle Stages     5.3 UBC Academic Benchmark This section provides the results of benchmarking UBC Academic Buildings against a baseline created, similar to Stage 2 of the CIVL 498C final project. The Pharmacy Building and School of Music were excluded from the benchmarking due to missing or erroneous results. A baseline was calculated by averaging the results for all the buildings. It should be noted that the Douglas Kenny building did not have any walls below grade construction. Therefore, KENN was excluded from averaging the results associated with A31 Walls Below Grade. The results are summarized in a series of tables included in Annex H.   Figure 10 in Annex J benchmarks the overall performance of all UBC Academic Buildings against the baseline and alongside each other. The results indicate that buildings such as HEBB, ALRD, CEME, and LASR which were built more than 30 years ago (i.e. in 1960s-1970s) have the lowest overall impact. Looking at the buildings constructed in that last 10 years (i.e. CIRS, AERL, KAIS, & CHBE), it is notable that CIRS, a LEED Platinum certified building, has the lowest overall impact in most of the categories. Hence, it is not surprising that “CIRS was designed to be a best practice project” (UBC Sustianability , n.d.).   Figure 6 illustrates a scatter plot of global warming potential and total costs of the UBC Academic Buildings. The CIVL 498C 2014 database was missing construction cost data for some of the buildings (GEOG, HENN, and SCRF), thus they were excluded from this section of the study. The construction costs are 2013 costs calculated by previous students and available in CIVL 498C 2014 database. 28  $100,000,000.00    $80,000,000.00  $70,000,000.00 ANGU   ESB FSC      MCML      ICICS   $50,000,000.00 ALRD    $30,000,000.00  $20,000,000.00 KAIS   CIRS  LASR CHBE WSBK  $10,000,000.00  $0.00    MATH   CEME HEBB CHEM  KENN  CHEMN CHEMS  AERL 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900  Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq)  Figure 6: UBC Buildings Global Warming Potential vs. Construction Cost (2013 $)  Starting from the lower-left corner of the plot, Math and Civil and Mechanical Engineering buildings seem to be performing very well relative to others. As moving to the higher-right corner of the plot, the GWP and construction costs both increase, indicating a relatively poor performance. MacMillan and ICICS are found to be the two worst performing buildings. CIRS building, which is considered to be a best practice among other buildings, demonstrates a relatively well performance against the others.   From the benchmarking results, it is implied that older buildings are generally performing better than the average. There are, however, limitations to reliability of these results. The Math building - built in the 1920s - is a prime example here. Back in the 1920s the construction costs were relatively cheaper and the use of more natural materials was more widespread than today. 29  "' •• * !I 1 5.4 4 Sensitivity Analysis  A sensitivity analysis is mainly used to evaluate the sensitivity of results to an independent variable. In this case, a sensitivity analysis is used as a tool to determine which material properties and assembly types impact the overall environmental impact of a building. In order to perform a sensitivity analysis on the buildings in this study, modifications to material properties and assemblies must be made through each building's .AT4 files (i.e. Impact Estimator output files). Since the files for most of the buildings were not accessible, our group relied on the results of a sensitivity analysis on selected construction materials used in Math building (Annex L).   The following modifications were made to material properties and assembly types in order to maintain the structural soundness of the building:  • Concrete 30 MPa (Fiyash av) was changed to Concrete 30 MPa (Fiyash 35%)  • Stud Spacing of Wood Joists were changed from 16" oc to 24" oc • Concrete 30 MPa (Fiyash av) was changed to Concrete 60 MPa (Fiyash av)  The original impact assessment results of the building was considered as the baseline. Then the impact  of each modification was individually evaluated against the baseline. The results of the analysis are detailed in a table in Annex L. The following figure summarizes the building life cycle impact variations as a result of each modification.   •Concrete 60 MPa •Stud Spacing 24" oc r;; r< •Flyash 35%  0 r< '#.      l./1.. 0   ....     .... 0 .,; .,; •u I !1 • l/1. N N .,_ 9 9 ;: .... 9 l./.1,. 9  * 9 9 0 -1 .,_ "' .,_ "'     .,_ "' 9 -1         Gl08A l ACI Dif tCATI ON     HH PARTICUlATE  EUTROPHICAT ION OZONE SMOG POTENTIAL  TOTAL PRIMAAV  NON ·R ENtWA8lE      FOSSilf UH WA R M I NG POTE NTIA L POTENT IAL DEPLETIO N ENE:AGY EN E RGY CONSUMP TION P01£NT1Al   POTENT IAl    Figure 7:Building Life-Cycle Impact Difference 30  It is notable that flyash percentage had the most overall impact on the building’s life cycle assessment results. Increasing the flyash to 35% resulted in building life-cycle impact reductions across all impact categories. Increasing the strength of the concrete to 60 MPa while maintaining an average percent flyash resulted in an overall increase in the life cycle assessment results of the building. Increasing the stud spacing of wood joist showed a similar behaviour to that of flyash as it also resulted in a building  life cycle impact reduction. It is important to underline that Math building is among the smallest buildings at UBC which makes this a relatively small-scale sensitivity analysis. The results of a larger scale analysis might be much more drastic.  Such a sensitivity analysis is most beneficial when it is applied during the design phase as it allows designers to approach design alternatives more objectively. An example would be utilizing a comprehensive sensitivity analysis to evaluate the environmental impacts of constructing a new building versus renovating an existing one at UBC. Incorporating sensitivity analysis into the LCA study will certainly allow designers to develop proposed designs that can achieve LEED MR points. Next section further discusses the future of LCA at UBC and where or how this LCA study can be used. 31  6 Next Step for Institutionalizing LCA at UBC   To institutionalize a new topic, it is important to properly educate people and make them realize the importance of it. People are open to learning new topics if it interests them. Vancouver is already a highly sustainable city and many residents are introduced and educated on what green means to some extent. Therefore, introducing them to life cycle analysis will not be too challenging. But how can one tell something is truly "green"? And what is being done to achieve the goal of green? In order to make a difference in our world, we need to start making changes and alter the path we have been walking on. When people are motivated to find solutions to problems, they will do anything in their power to solve them.   6.1 LCA Modeling Tools   6.1.1 UBC Policy There are different modeling tools within LCA, such as Athena Impact Estimator, Excel, Eco-Calculator, Tally, etc. One of the more well-known and accurate ones is the Athena Impact Estimator, which is offered in the CIVL 498C-Life Cycle Assessment course in the Engineering Department at UBC, and also available for staff and students. University of British Columbia has many technical guidelines and regulations that designers and architects need to meet when designing a new project at UBC such as the minimum Gold LEED requirement. Since 2008, all new and renovated buildings at UBC need to meet the minimum requirement of Gold LEED (University of British Columbia, 2013). Architects and designers are able to gain 5 LEED points if they do an LCA study, which currently optional (University of British Columbia, 2013). Therefore, one thing that can be done to grow LCA at UBC is to make LCA a mandatory deliverable. LCA could also become a mandatory requirement of the new projects at the campus.   When institutionalizing a “new phenomenon and a new idea into the business world, it has to be done often enough for it to become a routine use.” (Frankl, 2000). In order to institutionalize LCA studies at UBC, it is important for the policy makers and those in charge of the technical and design guidelines of UBC to incorporate LCA studies as a mandatory deliverable (top bottom effort). At UBC the integration of LCA studies started from the bottom up effort from graduate students and after a few years of continuous research, education and development, staff and faculty members are also joining the topic of LCA (top bottom effort) (Sianchuk, 2013).   6.1.2 Athena Impact Estimator and Tally The Athena Impact Estimator is an LCA-based software that helps designers to incorporate environmental information into their design and study the impact of different materials. It gives “architects, engineers and analysts access to advance life cycle inventory data without requiring advanced skills.” (ASMI, 2014). Once given the accurate information like different materials, size and quantity, the Athena Impact Estimator measures and reports footprint data for the environmental impacts and calculates the bill of materials associated with those impacts. If doing the LCA studies is a 32  mandatory deliverable of UBC, then companies designing and building new projects are obligated to learn LCA and LCA modeling such as the Athena Impact Estimator.   Another great idea is to introduce the Tally program into the Building Information Modeling (Civl 526- BIM) mandatory course offered to the graduate students at the Engineering Department of UBC. In that course, students are introduced to Revit and 4D modeling. Tally is a program that can easily be incorporated into that course since it is a Revit plug-in. Tally is an Autodesk Revit application that has  the ability “to quantify the environmental impact of the building materials for the entire building analysis as well as comparative analysis of design options.” (Autodesk, 2014). Tally demonstrates and measures the environmental impact of materials just by clicking on the material. Therefore students not only learn how to do a 4D modeling, but they also learn and get introduced to LCA and different impacts each material can have. This leads to better decision making when designing a project.   The LCA and BIM courses can also be offered as a mandatory course in the Architecture, Interior Design Departments and Landscaping Departments. This way, students graduate with the LCA knowledge and background, and companies designing new projects at UBC can take advantage of their knowledge.   6.2 LCA Databases   6.2.1 Mandatory Database In today’s society, leveraging from other business’s knowledge is crucial. Leveraging can lead to a multiple management benefits such as, faster growth, faster innovation, quality improvement, saving in cost and resources, employee and customer satisfaction. Many companies have been using benchmarking to constantly improve their performance. The CIVL 498C-Life Cycle Assessment course has been offered for 7 years now and over these years, as part of the course deliverable, students have developed a database with all the necessary information taken from on-screen takeoff software, to measure the bill of materials and different environmental impacts of them. The database developed in CIVL498c includes the bill of materials and life cycle inventory assessment for most of the buildings on campus. This database could be a great benchmark for the future projects built at UBC.   As part of making the LCA study at UBC a mandatory regulation and guideline, as mentioned in the previous section, designers and architects would be updating this database once they have designed a new project. Then this database could become a reference point for the future projects and therefore every project that’s being designed and built would be benchmarked against this database. Therefore every project would be better than the rest of the buildings built before. Designs and use of materials would improve after each building and this could be a path to a more sustainable environment with less environmental impacts.   6.2.2 Environmental Product Declarations UBC will keep track of all EPDs used in construction projects and will make them available to use for everyone. “An Environmental Product Declaration, EPD®, is a verified document that reports 33  environmental data of products based on life cycle assessment (LCA) and other relevant information and in accordance with the international standard ISO 14025” (Environdec, n.d.). The EPDs provide a quick method to involve LCA in the construction process. Over time as more EPDs are collected the LCA process will become faster and easier.   6.3 LCA Decision Making Material   6.3.1 Community Certain considerations will be made to ensure that the decisions made in the LCA are in the best interests of the community. For example, Divest UBC is a new organization on campus that aims to “reduce exports of greenhouse gases” and advocates “UBC divestment from fossil fuel” (UBCC350, 2014). If the movement generates a large amount of support on campus, then their objectives may need to be considered in the LCA.   Every year, the Alma Mater Society holds elections which occasionally ask for student opinions about environmental issues at UBC. In 2014, students voted 76.9% in favour of UBC divesting from fossil fuels (Alma Mater Society, 2014). In the coming years, there may be more concern about specific environmental issues, and the AMS may hold referendums about them. The results of the referendums will be observed when weighting the criteria for the LCA.   6.3.2 Benchmarking There are many things that an LCA at UBC could be benchmarked against. Buildings at UBC can have comparative assertions to others on campus, other buildings in Vancouver, or other campuses worldwide.   A benchmark could be set against older buildings on campus to demonstrate that UBC is moving towards a greener future. An LCA could produce quantifiable comparisons between construction materials used in elements of buildings. Over time, as more and more green buildings are built on campus, the standard will become higher and higher. This will ensure that campus is constantly becoming greener.   The city of Vancouver is aiming to be the greenest city in the world by 2020 (City of Vancouver, 2012), and undertaking an LCA on campus would help UBC contribute to the city’s prestigious reputation. Buildings on campus could be benchmarked against the most environmentally friendly buildings in the city, to show that UBC’s are as good or better. For example, the City of Vancouver National Works Yard is Vancouver’s greenest building. It achieved LEED Gold status by using ground source heating, photovoltaic power, vegetated roofs, recycled construction waste, and use of local materials (Sustainable Solutions, 2009). The Vancouver Convention Centre hosts zero-waste events, uses water recovery systems, optimizes energy use, and has one of the largest living roofs in the continent (Vancouver Convention Centre, 2009). The Van Dusen Botanical Garden Visitor Centre is self-sustaining, through its use of rainwater collection, geothermal energy, and solar power (SAB Magazine, 2014). 34  These examples of green buildings in Vancouver are a very high standard to benchmark against. Buildings that succeed in comparison to the greenest buildings in Vancouver would be very significant and prestigious sites on campus.   UBC also aims to be a world-class university (University of British Columbia, 2010), so an LCA could be used to make comparative assertions against other campuses. The University of Northern British Columbia is regarded to be one of the greenest universities in Canada. It uses many windows to reduce the need for light, LED lights to reduce electricity, and has a highly sustainable bio-energy power plant (University of British Columbia, 2012). The University of Ottawa has a unique 5-storey living wall which provides air filtration to the Social Sciences building (University of Ottawa, 2012). York University uses recycled concrete, roads that incorporate storm water management, natural light, and low use of volatile organic compounds (York University, 2014).  Setting a benchmark against these prestigious universities would help establish UBC as a world-class university.   6.3.3 Cost Cost can have a considerable effect on the feasibility of constructing a green building. For example, community members or stakeholders may be advocating the use of a particular environmentally friendly material. Even though using that material may result in a green building, it may be unattainable due to cost. Material costs can arise due to availability or transportation, to the point that it is not cost- efficient. Maintenance requirements can also affect decisions in an LCA. Some materials may be environmentally friendly, but could need replacement in a short amount of time. Doing an LCA could help UBC make financial decisions when designing new buildings.   6.3.4 Weighting The impacts of the buildings will be weighted according the desired benchmarks, costs, and input from the community. One approach to get feedback appropriately is to establish a stakeholder panel (Gloria, 2007). The panel generally consists of stakeholders, producers, users, and LCA Experts. Next, a number of environmental impacts are discussed, and a survey is taken to decide which ones are the most significant. A variety of statistical techniques such as hierarchy, relative weights, and consistency can help determine the final scores. However, the main limitation of this method is the subjective nature of the voters. Their opinions may differ greatly, and the results can be affected.   6.4 LCA Communication and Education Resources   6.4.1 Internal Uses An LCA can be used internally to determine which buildings on campus are making the most impact on the environment, so that UBC can attain its sustainability goals. An LCA can be applied to determine “environmental critical points” (Frankl, 2000) in a product’s life cycle. Knowing the critical points can help designers on campus in making sound decisions. An LCA can also be applied to the construction of new buildings or renovations, so that they are environmentally friendly and cost effective. 35  In the long-term, an LCA can be used to make strategic decisions in cost analysis and material choices. A building may have a high up front cost, but an LCA can help ensure that it is designed to be long lasting. As mentioned earlier, an LCA can help make strategic cost decisions when choosing materials.   6.4.2 External Uses The results of an LCA can be used externally to showcase UBC’s dedication to the environment. As part of UBC’s goal to be a world-class university, the LCA results could be published publicly, to show that UBC is truly a green campus. Publicly sharing the LCA could generate more interest in the topic at UBC. Sessions, lectures, or workshops could be held to discuss the results.   However, presenting the results can often be challenging because of the “complexity of the results” (Frankl, 2000). The results often show many numbers in a lot of categories, so it is important to present them in an organized manner. There are many assumptions such as system boundaries, service life, and energy use. There may also be uncertainties in the data or results that need to be addressed. If UBC publicly shares an LCA, it will need to show a lot of information but it will also need to be transparent about the assumptions and uncertainties.   6.4.3 Communication An LCA database for UBC could be developed and regularly updated with new information. It could be presented publicly to let students know which buildings are most environmentally friendly, or it could be private and be used when designing new buildings.   UBC could put up a website, blog, or publication to document the progress of LCA on campus. It could  be presented in a way that would be easy for people new to LCA to understand. A one-page document could sum up the most important findings for casual readers, and a detailed document can also be posted for those interested. Users could also sign up for a newsletter, which would be updated regularly with new LCA findings and keep people informed about sustainability events on campus.   In the last few years, social media has been one of the most dominant ways to reach people. For example, the UBC Sustainability Facebook page has over 1,000 people subscribed. The page regularly posts about news, issues, events, and developments on campus. A similar page about LCA could be established. It could help generate interest in a more ‘fun’ manner, by using easier learning techniques such as a simple “Did You Know?” page, filled with interesting facts about LCA at UBC. If an important accomplishment is made, it is easy for the news to spread through social media. For example, if a building at UBC succeeds in the benchmark against all other universities in Canada, then that accomplishment could be shared on the social media page and users will spread the news.   6.4.4 Education Guest lecture events on campus could be used to educate students about LCA. The lectures would explain the benefits of LCA and the progress that UBC has made. Students could learn about ways to get involved with LCA on campus or in the workplace. For example, a professional engineer could present an 36  introductory lecture about LCA, with a focus on the overall concept and the benefits it can provide to society.   Workshops could give students a hands-on approach to learning about LCA. It could take the format of a one-day accelerated education about LCA. The overall concepts would be taught, and the participants would have to use them to complete a task. The results would be compared with others at the end, and the instructor could provide feedback. The activity could involve an assessment for a new building on campus.   LCA could be integrated into a number of engineering departments at UBC. Civil engineering can include LCA in a wide variety of construction projects. Mining engineering students may benefit from LCA concepts in designing mines. Materials engineering could incorporate LCA concepts when creating long- lasting designs.   In the future, an organization similar to APEGBC could be established to focus on LCA in British Columbia. Currently, the Life Cycle Initiative is one of the biggest organizations devoted to LCA. Something similar could be established in the region. Engineers could learn about other projects in the region, and important knowledge about LCA can be exchanged.   An LCA certificate program could be established at UBC, just like the LEED certificate. It would be a strong part of a resume for graduating students. Companies could also start having a requirement for students with an LCA certificate.   6.4.5 Institutionalization Process Institutionalizing LCA at UBC may be complicated and time-consuming, but it can be more feasible if it is approached in a few phases.   First, LCA could be implemented in a small area or on a specific construction project in the “habitualization stage” (Frankl, 2000). During this phase, the users can get familiar with LCA and learn how to use it effectively. A building like the new SUB would be a good example for this.   Next, LCA can be “semi-institutionalized” (Frankl, 2000). In this phase, LCA would be introduced more widely on campus, and more people will be learning how to use it. This is a very crucial step because the outcome of this phase could determine if UBC will decide to adopt LCA in the long term. If LCA is found to be beneficial, then plans can be made to implement LCA at UBC permanently.   LCA could eventually be institutionalized as a certification similar to LEED. Certain standards or benchmarks could be outlined, and buildings could be rated on many impact categories. If buildings attain a certain score, they could be presented with a plaque and a logo certifying the LCA performance. 37  7 Conclusion   The practice Life Cycle Assessment goes hand in hand with UBC’s goals of becoming an environmentally friendly, world-class university. UBC has a requirement that new buildings must reach LEED Gold status, so LCA will become an invaluable tool to make this possible.   The study done in this report is a post-mortem LCA with the primary intention of providing a transparent strategic planning and educational tool for current and future building constructions at the UBC Vancouver campus. In order to achieve this result, all the UBC Academic Building LCA models developed by previous students were modified with the main assumption of a 60-year life service. A thorough description of the goal and scope of the study according to ISO 14044:2006 was developed as a means  to help carry this study to the end. A section of the report was dedicated to giving the audience a  general background on what has been done for development of the LCA models and study. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) analysis results were provided to demonstrate the environmental performance of the UBC Academic Buildings and the materials used in their constructions.   Since this study is also intended to help promote development of Life Cycle Assessment in the green building industry, every effort has been made to be as transparent and thorough as possible in developing this LCA study. All the supporting documents and files critical to carrying this study are either cited in the report or provided separately.   The most noteworthy findings from the study’s life cycle inventory analysis and impact assessment are as follows:   • Approximately 232,000 Tonnes of concrete was used for the construction of all the buildings studied. This amount is equivalent to 81% of all the construction materials used. • The amount of materials used for upper floor construction of all the buildings make up 38% of the total materials used. • Roof construction is the primary hotspot within the buildings as it has the highest environmental impact of all elements. • Delving deeper, the Product Stage (manufacturing, transportation, material extraction) was found to be the life cycle stage with the highest material impacts (i.e. the hotspots).   Next, the overall impact per square meter of all UBC Academic Buildings was benchmarked against the UBC baseline to show the overall percent performance of each building. Due to the significant nature of Global Warming, a construction cost analysis of all the buildings based on their CO2 emission rates was also carried out. Among all the buildings constructed to LEED standards, the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability and Fred Kaiser were found to be good investments.  Finally the results of a sensitivity analysis for Math building is provided to give a general idea on which material properties or assembly types the impact basement results are most sensitive to. A thorough 38  and detailed sensitivity analysis of all the buildings would allow for more sustainable alternatives when designing new buildings or renovating existing ones so that they can achieve LEED points.   LCA can be institutionalized on campus to greatly reduce the environmental impacts for decades to come. People can be educated about LCA through events, newsletters, or social media. Those interested in practicing LCA can learn about it in classes, workshops, or guest lecture events. LCA modelling tools and an LCI database will make the application of LCA more feasible. Eventually, LCA could become a part of UBC’s environmental policy and a mandatory deliverable for building designs. With the use of LCA, the UBC campus will become a prime example of a green university, and will inspire many other campuses to do the same. 39  8 Works Cited   Alma Mater Society. (2014). Elections 2014 Results. Retrieved from http://www.ams.ubc.ca/studentsociety/elections-2/elections/  Athena Institute. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment of UBC Biological Sciences Complex Renew Project. Vancouver: UBC Project Services.  Athena Institute. (2013). Green design codes and standards now have LCA paths – finally, a performance basis is coming to sustainable design. Retrieved from Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: http://www.athenasmi.org/resources/about-lca/lca-in-construction- practice/  Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (ASMI). (2014). IE for Buildings. Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/impact-estimator/  Autodesk, Inc. (2014). Tally. Retrieved from https://apps.exchange.autodesk.com/RVT/en/Detail/Index?id=appstore.exchange.auto desk.com%3Aapptally2122trial_windows64%3Aen  City of Vancouver. (2012). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Greenest-city-action-plan.pdf  Environdec . (n.d.). What is an EPD? Retrieved from http://www.environdec.com/en/What-is- an-Epd/#.VGmFvcl5WSp  Frankl, P. (2000 ). Life Cycle Assessment as a Management Tool. Retrieved from http://civl498c.wikispaces.com/file/view/Frankl%2C%202000.pdf/528033598/Frankl%2 C%202000.pdf  Gloria, T. L. (2007). Life Cycle Impact Assessment Weights to Support Environmentally Preferable Purchasing in the United States. Retrieved from (2007). Life Cycle Impact Assessment Weights to Support Environmentally Preferable Purchasing in the United States. Retrieved from http://civl4  Government of British Columbia. (2008). Energy Efficient Buildings Strategy: More Action, Less Energy. Retrieved from http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/efficiency/PDF/EEBS-2008- Web.pdf  Johnson, T. W. (2006). Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Steel and Concrete as Building MAterials Using the Life Cycle Assessment Method. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  LEED. (n.d.). LEED Credit Library. Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/credits/new- construction/v4 40  Ospelt, C. (n.d.). The Metrics of Sustainable Buildings. Retrieved from http://www.technicalguidelines.ubc.ca/files/sustainable_bldgs.pdf  Russell, A. (2013). Life Cycle Assessment Improvements of Frederic Lasserre Building at UBC. Vancouver.  SAB Magazine. ( 2014). 2014 Award-Winning Project: Vandusen Botanical Garden Visitor Centre. Retrieved from http://www.sabmagazine.com/blog/2014/06/04/2014-award-winning- project-vandusen-botanical-garden-visitor-centre-vancouver/  Sianchuk, R. ( 2013). Bottom meets Top: Institutionalizing LCA at the University of British Columbia. Retrieved from http://lcacenter.org/lcaxii/abstracts/697.htm  Sianchuk, R. (2014, 9 17). Goal and Scope. CIVL 498C Life Cycle Assessment. Vancouver, BC, Canada.  Sustainable Solutions. (2009). City of Vancouver National Works Yard. Retrieved from http://www.sustainablesolutions.com/database/rte/City%20of%20Vancouver%20Natio nal%20Works%20Yard.pdf  UBC Building Operations. ( 2014). Performance Objectives. Retrieved. Retrieved from http://www.technicalguidelines.ubc.ca/technical/performance_obj.html  UBC Sustianability . (n.d.). CIRS Building Manual. Retrieved 11 8, 2014, from UBC: A Place of Mind: http://cirs.ubc.ca/building/building-manual/building-materials UBCC350 Organization. (2014). Divest UBC campaign. Retrieved from http://www.ubcc350.org/ University of British Columbia. (2010). The UBC Vancouver Campus Plan. Retrieved from http://planning.ubc.ca/sites/planning.ubc.ca/files/documents/planning- services/policies-plans/VCP_Part3.pdf  University of British Columbia. (2010). UBC Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from http://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/uploads/CampusSustainability/CS_PDFs/ PlansReports/Plans/UBCClimateActionPlan.pdf  University of British Columbia. (2013). Request for Information (RFI) #2013010129. Retrieved from https://aibcclassifieds.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/2013010129-architect-and- consultant-team-old-sub-august-8-2013-final.pdf  University of British Columbia. (2013). UBC LEED Implementation Guide. Retrieved from http://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/uploads/CampusSustainability/CS_PDFs/ GreenBuildings/UBCLEEDImplementationGuideline_20130424.pdf  University of British Columbia. (2014). Learning Space Design Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructuredevelopment.ubc.ca/facilities/learningspaces/documents/Lea rningSpaceDesignGuidelines.pdf 41  University of Northern British Columbia. (2012). Sustainability Report [2007 - 2012]. Retrieved from        http://www.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/green/unbc-sustainability- report.pdf  University of Ottawa. (2012). A faculty at the forefront of sustainability. Retrieved from http://socialsciences.uottawa.ca/faculty-forefront-sustainability  Vancouver Convention Centre. (2009). Vancouver Convention Centre Sustainability Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.vancouverconventioncentre.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/03/vancouver-convention-centre_sustainability-fact- sheet_final.pdf  York University. (2014). Sustainability @ York U. Retrieved from http://www.yorku.ca/susweb/whatyorkisdoing/buildings.html 42  Annex A – Author Reflection     Michael Elder  Discussion  I have had previous experience with sustainability in my past courses at UBC. Last year, I took CIVL 405 - Environmental Impact Studies. In that course, we learned about many different impacts and categories, and how to mitigate them. We also learned about legislation relating to environmental issues, and we did a detailed environmental case study on a potential construction project. I also took the CIVL 445 Capstone project course, where we were assigned to design a new building at the UBC Botanical Garden. I focused on the sustainability of the potential building. I read through many of LEED’s points requirements and stated how the building could achieve them.  Brief Course Overview  In CIVL 498C, we got an overview of the entire LCA process. We first learned about the history  of LCA, and did an assignment to get familiarized with the concepts. Next, we learned about the terminology and the process of an LCA. We did an activity that involved the LCA concepts. We were then assigned to do an LCA of a building at UBC, and create a report.  Interest in Course  I was interested in this course because I enjoyed learning about sustainability in previous courses. In other courses, I only dealt with environmental impact assessment in a qualitative manner, but in this course we got to produce quantified impact results.  Observations  I’m interested in the future of LCA. I found it very interesting that LCA had so many potential social and economic impacts. The White Paper outlined the social impacts, so I may check on how those are coming along in the future.  Right now, most engineering students are deeply familiar with the concept of ‘sustainability’, but it seems that few students know a lot about LCA. Hopefully in the future, more courses about LCA are available. LCA is a good topic to learn because it involves many skills. There is a lot of data interpretation, decisions, calculations, and communication in the process. LCA also requires a knowledge database about environmental issues. 43  CEAB Graduate Attributes            Name          Description     Select the content code most appropriate for each attr ibute from the dropdown menu Comments on w hich of the CEAB graduate attr ibutes you believe were addressed during your class experience. Reflect on the experiences you got from the games, lectures, assign ments, quizzes, guest speakers organized for the class, and your final project experience.      1 Knowledge Base Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering funda mentals, and specia lized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. A = applied We used mathematics and engineering knowledge  in the LCA calculat ions.      2 Problem Analysi s A n ability to use appropriate  knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions. DA = developed & applied We used problem analysis in the paper plane activity, and on a larger sca le in the final project.      3 Investigation A n ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experi ments, analysis and interpretation of data,and synthesis of information in order to reach va lid conclusions. IDA = introduced, developed & applied This was a key part of the course.A lot of investigation, interpretat ion, and synthesis of information were involved in the final project. 44        4 Design A n 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, environmenta l, cultura l and societal considerations. ID = introduced & developed Design principles wer e involved in the institutionalizat ion part of the report. We had to develop a solution for how LCA could be institutionalized at UBC.      5 Use for Engineering Tools A n ability to create, select, apply, adapt, and extend appropriate  tech niques, resources, and modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities,from simple to complex,with an understanding of the associated limitations. lA = introduced & applied Engineering Tools were an important part of this course. We learned how to use Impact Estimator and were introduced to Tally.      6 Individual and Team Work A n ability to work effect ively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi- disciplinary setting. A = applied Individualwor k was  done in Stage 1and 2 of the project,and Stage 3 was done as a team .The paper plane activity was a team project. 45   7 Communication A n ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and wit h society at large. Such ability includes reading, writing, speaking and listening,and the ability to comprehend and write effect ive reports and design documentation, and to give and effectively respond to clea r instructions. DA = developed & applied Communication is very important in this course, because we are creating a report that others may be using in the future.      8 Professionalism An understanding of the roles and responsi bilities of the professional engineer in society, especially the primary role of protection of the public and the public interest. I= introduced Professionalism is involved in the LCA, w hen keeping the interest of the public whe n making decisions.      9 Impact  of Engineering on Society and the Environment A n ability to analyze socia l and environmental aspects of engineering activities. Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, socia l,health, safety, lega l,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 This is the most important attribute. There are many categories of impacts,and our project put them into considerat ion. 46       10 Ethics and Equity A n ability to apply professiona l ethics, accountability,and equity . I= introduced Ethics and accountability should be considered when making an LCA .      11 Economics and Project Management A n ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including project,risk, a nd change management into the practice of engineering and to understand their limitations. 10 = introduced & developed We learned about how an LCA can provide economic benefits.      12 Life-long Learning A n 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. I= introduced We learned a bit about ways to get involved after university,like the Life Cycle Initiat ive. 47  Negar Panahi   Discussion Prior to taking the CIVL 498C course, I have been exposed and have taken courses on sustainability. Coming from an architecture background, I have designed many green buildings and studied projects that are green and sustainable and had to meet certain LEED points. I have also read many articles and a couple of books on sustainability over the past few years. The  very first book I read was The Ecology of Commerce” by Paul Hawken. Even though I have read briefly about the life cycle of different materials but was never really introduced to LCA studies.  Brief Course Overview During this course, we were introduced to life cycle assessment and covered why it is an important topic. We covered LCA history, different impact categories, LCA terminology and processes, and uncertainty. Different activities, quizzes and assignments were given to us to better understand the topic. We also learned how to use Athena Impact Estimator and was also introduced to Tally software.  Interest in Course Sustainability has always been an interest to me. During my architecture years, I enjoyed designing sustainable and green buildings. Taking this course has not only helped me fully understand the life cycle (cradle to grave) of materials, but has also helped me quantify impacts as well.  Observations I enjoyed this project because it helped me think outside of the box and really understand LCA in different categories. I had to read a lot of outside sources and gather data in order to do this project. I have always been interested in sustainability and green design and now LCA has become a huge interest to me. I am hoping to grow my knowledge in LCA and hopefully find a job that practices LCA studies. I believe that LCA is such an important topic for everyone with any educational background to understand. I think this course needs to a mandatory course for at least engineering students at UBC and other universities. It is very important for engineers to understand LCA. 48  CEAB Graduate Attributes          Name        Descr iption   Select the content code most appropriate for each attribute from the dropdown menu  Comments on which of the CEA B graduate attributes you believe were addressed during your class experience. Reflect on the experiences you got from the ga mes, lectures,assignments, quizzes,guest speakers organized for the class,and your final project experience.      1 Knowledge Base Demonst rated compete nce in university level mathematics,natural sc iences,engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. A = applied Iapplied my mathemat ics, sustainability and architectural know ledge and background throughout the course and the assignments and deliverables. Coming from the architectural background helped me understand the concept.      2 Problem Analysi s An ability to use appropriate know ledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions. DA = developed & applied Iused my problem ana lysis skills for variety of act ivities throughout the course. Ifound the interact ive in-class exercises helpful. They helped me become more of an analyt ical person and think outside of the box.      3 Investigation An ability to conduct investigat ions of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information in order to reach valid concl usions. IDA = introduced, develo ped & applied The topic and practice of LCA was introduced during the term, and there was a lot of investigat ion and interpretation used throughout the course, especially for the final project.   49  4 Design An ability to design solutions for complex, open-ended engineering problems and to design systems, components or processes that meet specifie d needs w ith appropriate attent ion to health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmenta  l,cultural and societal considerations. lA = introduced & applied For the final project we had to come up with ideas and design solutions on how to institut ionalize LCA at UBC      5 Use for 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. lA = introduced & applied Engineeringtools,such as Athena Impact Estimator was used and applied in allthe projects throughout this course . Learning this program w as very valuable. Tally,Revit's plug-in, was a lso introduced to us.      6 Individualand Team Work An ability to work effect ively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi- disciplinary setting. A= applied Individualwork was done during Stages 1and 2 of the project. The paper plane activity done in class and assignment 2 was a team work and the stage 3 was a lso a group work. Stage 3 was divided between each group members and followed by group meetings and group work.   50  7 Communication An ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and with soc iety at large. Such ability includes reading, writing, speak ing and listening,and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, and to give and effect ively respond to clear instructions. IDA= introduced, developed & applied Communicat ion was an important facto r of this course. LCA terminology was introduced and developed throughout the course. It is important to communicate clear ly in this project,since the report maybe be used as future references.      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. IDA= introduced, developed & applied It is important to understand the need and interest of the public when doing an LCA study. In this project, all the assumpt ions and studies were professiona l.      9 Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment An ability to analyze social and environmental aspects of engineering activit ies. Such ability includes an understanding of the interact ions that engineering has w ith the economic, social, health, safety, legal,and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interact ions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship. IDA= introduced, developed & applied Throughout the course and in out project,most catego ries of impacts were considered and studied. In order to have a more sustainable environment all these factors need to be conside red. 51       10 Ethics and Equity An ability to apply professional ethics, accountabil ity, and equity. A = applied Professional and engineering ethics and equity has been applied to this report and throughout the course .      11 Economics and Project Management An ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including  project,risk, andchange manageme nt into the practice of engineering and to understand their limitat ions. I= introduced We learned about economic benefits and life cycle costing that comes from LCA studies.      12 Life-long Learning An ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing wor ld in ways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. 10 = introduced & developed Being interested in the sustainability area,this course has helped me understand the full process of cradle to grave. I am hoping to grow my knowledge and knowledge of others in LCA and find a jo b that practices LCA.   52  Ali Salehi   Discussion I was first introduced to the term “sustainability” in CIVL 200 Engineering and Sustainable Development by Dr. Susan Nesbit. When I took a project-based course, CIVL 445 Engineering Design and Analysis, I got to explore this topic more freely. I was to design a green roof for a multi storey commercial building in downtown Vancouver. Part of the project was to study the positive impacts of such a feature in a building on not only the environment but also people’s health and social life. I got more exposure to sustainability in a graduate level course (CIVL 526 Virtual Design and Construction) as part of a green building design. One of the primary goals of our project was to develop an environment friendly design for the soon-to-be-built Engineering Student Centre. Unfortunately at that time I did not have any knowledge of the Impact Estimator or Tally otherwise, I would have applied them in my project.   Brief Course Overview In CIVL 498C, we learned about the history and current state of LCA. We were introduced to major institutions and organizations involved in development of LCA. We got familiarized with ISO 14040 and 14044 (LCA standards which we used to develop our goal and scope accordingly) as well as environmental product declarations (EPDs). We also learned about LCA terminology and methodology as part of our LCA study and report. We gained working and introductory knowledge of different modeling tools such as Athena Impact Estimator and Tally. The different types of uncertainty associated with LCA were also covered as a part of an interactive in-class exercise. Finally, we were to utilize everything we learned to report on our own LCA study.   Interest in Course I was interested in this course because I wanted to be more exposed to the green building industry. The background knowledge I had prior to enrolling in this course was limited to subjective and qualitative assessment of the sustainability state of a product. This course allowed me to think more objectively when it comes to sustainable design and decision-making.   Observations I am interested in the future of LCA in the building industry as it will be the industry I will be working in. I have always been fascinated by green building designs and am looking forward to getting involved in such projects and gaining hands on experience. I found the incorporation of LCA into BIM modeling, even though at a conceptual level, to be very interesting and will most definitely follow up on that. I came across an interesting diagram11 describing LCA as a “fragmented circle”.  11 Source: http://www.southwest-environmental.co.uk/ 53  CEAB Graduate Attributes          Name        Description   Select the content code most appropriate for each attribute from the dropdown menu  Comments on which of the CEAB graduate attributes you believe were addressed during your class experience. Reflect on the experiences you got from the games, lectures,assignments, quizzes, guest speakers organized for the class, and your final project experience.      1 Knowledge Base Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sc iences, engineering fundamenta ls,and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. A= applied Iused my mathematics and engineering knowledge for in- class exercises throughout the course and mainly for the final report data ana lysis.      2 Problem Analysis An ability to use appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substant iated conclus ions. DA = developed & applied Throughout the course and project we were able to eva luate different information or situat ions,break them down into their key components, and analyze the different ways to solving them. These not only helped me to develop my analytical thinking skills but also pushed me into thinking more critically .      3 Investigation An ability to conduct investigat ions of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretat ion of data, and synthes is of information in order to reach valid conclusions. IDA= introduced, developed & applied The finalstage of the LCA study in this course involved a vast amount of information. Although analyzing them was frust rating at times, Ifound the outcome and the results to be intriguing. 54       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 attent ion to health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmenta l, cultural and societal considerations. DA = developed & applied A main part of our study revolved around what we think of the future of LCA. In fact, this is what made our study more unique in comparison to previous studies in this course. We used our background knowledge as well as research skills to develop alternat ives for solving the problem at-hand.      5 Use for 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. lA = introduced & applied Impact Estimator was the engineering tool that we were introduced to and used in carrying out the LCA study. We were also brief ly introduced to other software such as SimaPro, On Screen Takeoff and Tally. I found Tally to be very interesting and would like to learn more about it.      6 Individualand Team Work An ability to work effect ively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi- disciplinary setting. A= applied Iliked the fact the project was divided in different stages. The first two were carried out individually, and the last part was group wo rk. It allowed us to exper ience them both and assess the pros and cons of each. Itake this as a life lesson .   55  7 Communication An ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and w ith soc iety at large. Such ability includes reading, writing,speak ing and listening,and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation,and to give and effect ively respond to clear instructions. DA = developed & applied The outcome of this course is part of a future that is to be interpreted by our successors. Therefore, it was very cruc ialfor us to communicate our results as transpa rent and as complete as possible. The study a lso involved an extensive amount of research that we made sure to give credit to through the application of APA formatting.      8 Professionalism An understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the professiona l engineer in society, especially the primary role of protection of the public and the public interest. lA = introduced & applied Every effort was made in development of this study to be as transparent and as professiona l as possible.      9 Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment An ability to analyze socia l and environmenta l aspects of engineering activit ies. Such ability includes an understanding of the interact ions that engineering has w ith the economic, social, health, safety,legal,and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interact ions;and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmenta l stewardship. IDA= introduced, developed & applied This study focused primarily on various facets of LCA such as health,environmenta    l,and economic. Throughout the course,we were also introduced to soc ialand lega l aspects of LCA which we did not get to apply to our study as much as others. 56       10 Ethics and Equity An ability to apply professional ethics, accountabil ity, and equity. A = applied Professional ethics were applied in carrying out the study and preparing the report.      11 Economics and Project Management An ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including  project,risk, andchange manageme nt into the practice of engineering and to understand their limitat ions. I= introduced We were introduced to Life Cycle Costing so not to conf use it with Life Cycle Assessment. There is no doubt that these two overlap w ith each other so often that combined can be referred to as Life Cycle Analysis. Ibelieve that LCC was neither developed nor applied in this study.      12 Life-long Learning An ability to identify and to address their own educat ional needs in a changing wor ld in ways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. I= introduced Itook this course as an elect ive to get more familia r with green building designs. By the end of the course,not it broaden my knowledge of this topic, it also helped me to enhance my socia l inclusion and self-sustainability.   57  Annex B – Impact Category Descriptions   Impact Category Definitions   This section briefly describes the nine environmental measures used to summarize the environmental assessment results provided by the Impact Estimator Version 5.0.01.   Acidification Potential (AP)   Acidification is a more regional rather than global impact effecting human health when high concentrations of NOx and SO2 are attained. The AP of an air or water emission is calculated on the basis of its H+ equivalence effect on a mass basis.    Aquatic Eutrophication Potential   Eutrophication is the fertilization of surface waters by nutrients that were previously scarce. When a previously scarce or limiting nutrient is added to a water body it leads to the proliferation of aquatic photosynthetic plant life. This may lead to a chain of further consequences ranging from foul odours to the death of fish. The calculated result is expressed on an equivalent mass of nitrogen (N) basis.    Global Warming Potential (GWP)   Global warming potential is a reference measure. The methodology and science behind the GWP calculation can be considered one of the most accepted LCIA categories. GWP will be expressed on an equivalency basis relative to CO2 – in kg or tonnes CO2 equivalent.   Carbon dioxide is the common reference standard for global warming or greenhouse gas effects. All other greenhouse gases are referred to as having a "CO2 equivalence effect" which is simply a multiple of the greenhouse potential (heat trapping capability) of carbon dioxide. This effect has a time horizon due to the atmospheric reactivity or stability of the various contributing gases over time.   As yet, no consensus has been reached among policy makers about the most appropriate time horizon for greenhouse gas calculations. The International Panel on Climate Change100-year time horizon figures have been used here as a basis for the equivalence index:   CO2 Equivalent kg = CO2 kg + (CH4 kg x 28) + (N2O kg x 265)   A recent IPCC report, "CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis" provided an updated list of GWP equivalence factors, that have not as yet been updated (June 2014) in TRACI, but the Impact 58  Estimator includes updated values for nine of the most common GWP contirbutors (Methane, Nitrous Oxide (N2O), CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-22, HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, HFC-134a and Sulphur Hexaflouride). When the EPA publishes an updated list of TRACI characterization factors, the Impact Estimator will be updated with all the new factors.   While greenhouse gas emissions are largely a function of energy combustion, some products also emit greenhouse gases during the processing of raw materials. Process emissions often go unaccounted for due to the complexity associated with modelling manufacturing process stages. One example where process CO2 emissions are significant is in the production of cement (calcination of limestone). Because the Impact Estimator uses data developed by a detailed life cycle modelling approach, all relevant process emissions of greenhouse gases are included in the resultant global warming potential index.    Human Health (HH) Criteria Air-Mobile   Particulate matter of various sizes (PM10 and PM2.5) have a considerable impact on human health. The EPA has identified "particulates" (from diesel fuel combustion) as the number one cause of human health deterioration due to its impact on the human respiratory system – asthma, bronchitis, acute pulmonary disease, etc. It should be mentioned that particulates are an important environmental  output of plywood product production and need to be traced and addressed. The Institute used TRACI’s "Human Health Particulates from Mobile Sources" characterization factor, on an equivalent PM2.5 basis, in our final set of impact indicators.    Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)   Stratospheric ozone depletion potential accounts for impacts related to the reduction of the protective ozone layer within the stratosphere caused by emissions of ozone depleting substances (CFCs, HFCs, and halons). The ozone depletion potential of each of the contributing substances is characterized relative to CFC-11, with the final impact indicator indicating mass (e.g., kg) of equivalent CFC-11.    Photochemical Ozone Formation Potential (Smog)   Under certain climatic conditions, air emissions from industry and transportation can be trapped at ground level where, in the presence of sunlight, they produce photochemical smog, a symptom of photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP). While ozone is not emitted directly, it is a product of interactions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).  The “smog” indicator is expressed on a mass of equivalent O3 basis. 59     Total Primary Energy   Total Primary Energy Consumption is reported in mega-joules (MJ) at the bottom of the Energy Consumption absolute value table as well as the Detailed and Condensed Summary Measure tables. Embodied primary energy includes all energy, direct and indirect, used to transform or transport raw materials into products and buildings, including inherent energy contained in raw or feedstock materials that are also used as common energy sources. (For example, natural gas used as a raw material in the production of various plastic (polymer) resins.) In addition, the Impact Estimator captures the indirect energy use associated with processing, transporting, converting and delivering fuel and energy. If the user inputs Operating Energy Consumption, it will also be included in Total Primary Energy.    Non-Renewable Energy   Non-Renewable Energy is a subtotal of Total Primary Energy, by energy type, that includes all fossil fuel energies and nuclear energy.    Fossil Fuel Consumption   Fossil Fuel Consumption is a subtotal of Total Primary Energy, by energy type, that includes all fossil fuel energies. 60  Annex C – Inputs and Outputs of Three Processes    The unit processes and inputs and outputs considered within these three main processes are outlined below. Figure 8: Generic Unit Processes Considered Within Processes by Impact Estimator                                                      Source: (Athena Institute, 2011) 61  Annex D – Table of Uncertainties    The following table is taken directly from the Lasserre Building LCA Study (by Andrew Russell in 2013) for educational purposes only12. The table provides explanations and examples for different types of uncertainty.  Table 6: Types of Uncertainties in LCA Study  Type of Uncertainty  Sources of Uncertainty  Example within LCI Databases     Data  Collection, allocation procedures (mass or economic), inaccurate or missing data, lifetimes of substances, travel potential in impacts (eutrophication , acidification Travel potential exists as TRACI acidification category developed on U.S. empirical models with specific location.22 Vancouver weather and geography different, resulting in uncertainty with travel potential   Model Linear vs. non-linear model (increasing, constant or decreasing returns?) Characterization factors inaccurate or not known As Athena and US LCI databases are young (10-15 years), the models are still improving as years of data strengthen them    Temporal Differences in seasonal factory emissions, e.g. Sawmill lumber diameter changing from winter to summer. Data vintage. Climate effect on impact severity (temp).  Lasserre built with vintage 1960’s materials, transport, energy, processing and construction techniques but Athena and US LCI use current data.       Spatial     Regional differences (factories, energy mix, preferred transport), regional environment sensitivity, distribution of emissions (plane vs. factory) Athena uses North American industry averages for construction materials.  Some Lasserre materials may be international (China, Japan, and Europe). TRACI assumes North American context for characterization factors while some impacts may be felt elsewhere in production chain like bauxite extraction in Australia.  Variability between Sources Differences between factory practices and standards. Human exposure patterns (sawmill workers vs. residents nearby, elderly vs. youth) Athena assumes similar Human exposure to process when worker would have much higher exposure to paint than occupant once dry.     12 All the credits go to the original author of the table. 62  Level 3 Elements included in CIVL 498C Final Project Other CIQS Level 3 Elements to be included for CIVL 498C Final Projects    Units    Description of what to measure A11 Foundations  A12 Shoring m2 Total area of the slab-on-grade. A21 Lowest Floor Construction   m2  Total area of the slab-on-grade.  A22 Upper Floor Construction    m2 Sum of the total area of all upper floor(s) measured from the outside face of the exterior walls.   A23 Roof Construction A34 Eaves Soffit A34 Fascia    A34 Skylight, A34 Roof Finish, A34 Flashing and Coping, A34 Trafficable roof surface,    2  Sum of total area of the roof(s) measured from the outside face of the exterior walls. A31 Walls Below Grade   m2 Sum of total surface area of the exterior walls below grade.  A32 Walls Above Grade A33 Exterior Doors & Screens A35 Parapet wall A35 Projections, Balconies, Canopies, Sunshades     A35 Insulated Soffit   m2  Sum of total surface area of the exterior walls above grade.  B11 Partitions  B12 Interior Doors Frames & Hardware  2 Sum of total surface area of the interior walls.  Annex E – Elemental Construction Format    CIVL 498C Elemental Construction Format  The following table illustrates the building elements included in this LCA study. Note that A12 Backfill and Excavation are out of scope of this LCA study.    Table 7: CIVL 498C Elemental Construction Format                       m               m  Source: CIVL 498C 2014 Course Materials 63    Annex F – Inventory Analysis Results   Table 8: Elemental and Whole Building Bill of Materials  ID Material Units Whole Building A11 A21 A22 A23 A31 A32 B11 1 #15 Organic Felt Tonnes 148.17 0.00 0.00 22.34 118.36 0.14 7.16 0.17 2 1/2" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board Tonnes 100.36 0.00 0.00 13.00 0 00 0.00 21.10 66 25 3 1/2" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board Tonnes 95.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.28 5.78 18.61 35.74 4 1/2" Regular Gypsum Board Tonnes 1047.97 0.17 0.00 0.79 0.79 48.99 362.98 634 25 5 3 mil Polyethylene Tonnes 1 05 0.00 0.08 0.00 0 35 0.24 0.33 0 05 6 5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board Tonnes 341.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 341.17 7 5/8" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board Tonnes 0 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0 00 8 5/8" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board Tonnes 205.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.37 0.00 108.44 19 33 9 5/8" Regular Gypsum Board Tonnes 1073.85 8.03 27.67 75.97 0.00 96.94 143.62 721.62 10 6 mil Polyethylene Tonnes 14.10 0.87 2.97 0.00 3.82 1.75 4.27 0.42 11 8" Concrete Block Tonnes 11856.07 0.00 0.00 95.24 7.24 190.91 2750.06 8812.61 12 Air Barrier Tonnes 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0 00 13 Aluminum Tonnes 223.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.08 0.67 176.49 39 99 14 Aluminum Clad Wood Window Frame Tonnes 2.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.28 0 00 15 Aluminum Window Frame Tonnes 55.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.83 47.77 1 87 16 Ballast (aggregate stone) Tonnes 4552.78 0.00 0.00 367 81 3063.98 0.00 1120.99 0 00 17 Blown Cellulose Tonnes 4.84 0.00 0.00 0 00 4.84 0.00 0.00 0 00 18 Cedar Wood Bevel Siding Tonnes 2.27 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.79 1.48 19 Cedar Wood Shiplap Siding Tonnes 165.00 0.00 24.21 23 58 67.35 1.14 48.73 0 00 20 Cold Rolled Sheet Tonnes 8.38 0.00 0.00 0 80 1.45 0.41 5.21 0 51 21 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash 35%) Tonnes 2583.84 152.82 0.00 1453.79 0.00 243.06 0.00 734.17 22 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) Tonnes 74681.75 23027.50 8510.59 11607.72 6428.71 4740.28 8109.67 12257 28 23 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash 25%) Tonnes 11081.11 712.04 685.60 9259 07 424.40 0.00 0.00 0 00 24 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash 35%) Tonnes 4563.98 1392.54 533.33 0 00 0.00 2200.57 160.41 277.12 25 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) Tonnes 121065.90 13112.22 5601.05 66100 90 12656.02 6723.85 13409.31 3462 56 26 Concrete 60 MPa (flyash av) Tonnes 691.94 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 691.94 0.00 0 00 27 Concrete Brick Tonnes 1852.19 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 251.42 1390.48 210 29 28 Concrete Tile Tonnes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 29 Double Glazed Hard Coated Air Tonnes 33.75 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 33.75 0 00 30 Double Glazed Hard Coated Argon Tonnes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 31 Double Glazed No Coating Air Tonnes 353.73 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 65.90 250.42 37.41 32 Double Glazed Soft Coated Argon Tonnes 10.95 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 10.95 0 00 33 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) Tonnes 8.56 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.24 0.00 6.84 1.48 34 Expanded Polystyrene Tonnes 27.76 0.00 0.00 0 00 3.69 7.04 16.61 0.43 35 Extruded Polystyrene Tonnes 127.50 0.00 0.00 21.18 44.60 5.67 49.10 6 96 36 FG Batt R11-15 Tonnes 58.53 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.23 16.80 37.49 37 FG Batt R20 Tonnes 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.36 0 00 38 Fiber Cement Tonnes 13.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.76 0 00 64    ID Material Units Whole Building A11 A21 A22 A23 A31 A32 B11 39 Galvanized Decking Tonnes 88.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.84 0.00 0.00 0 00 40 Galvanized Sheet Tonnes 257.36 0.00 0.33 4.06 24.63 16.33 42.40 169.61 41 Galvanized Studs Tonnes 459.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 156.95 29.28 85.34 188 39 42 Glass Facer Tonnes 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.00 0 00 43 Glazing Panel Tonnes 1013.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.53 1.70 814.93 169.70 44 GluLam Sections Tonnes 331.84 0.00 0.00 137 88 193.96 0.00 0.00 0 00 45 Hollow Structural Steel Tonnes 73.46 0.00 0.00 52.49 20.97 0.00 0.00 0 00 46 Joint Compound Tonnes 277.52 0.80 2.68 8.63 6.82 16.13 49.99 192.47 47 Laminated Veneer Lumber Tonnes 168.66 0.00 0.00 36.48 132.18 0.00 0.00 0 00 48 Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried Tonnes 159.73 0.00 23.91 82.76 53.07 0.00 0.00 0 00 49 MBS Metal Roof Cladding - Commercial (26 Ga.) Tonnes 20.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.58 0.00 0.00 0 00 50 MBS Metal Wall Cladding - Commercial (24 Ga.) Tonnes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 51 MDI resin Tonnes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 52 Metal Wall Cladding - Commercial (26 Ga.) Tonnes 28.29 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 2.88 25.41 0 00 53 Metal Wall Cladding - Residential (30 Ga.) Tonnes 0.66 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 54 Metric Modular (Modular) Brick Tonnes 3149.58 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 36.42 2759.55 353.61 55 Modified Bitumen membrane Tonnes 336.06 0.00 0.00 0 00 336.06 0.00 0.00 0 00 56 Mortar Tonnes 13550.34 0.00 0.00 122 28 1.55 308.37 4333.54 8784.60 57 MW Batt R11-15 Tonnes 65.43 0.00 0.00 0 00 44.86 0.00 6.76 13 81 58 Nails Tonnes 42.02 0.01 0.36 1.44 10.53 1.93 6.32 21.42 59 Natural Stone Tonnes 59.10 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 59.10 0 00 60 Ontario (Standard) Brick Tonnes 783.25 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 84.36 578.20 120.69 61 Open Web Joists Tonnes 83.25 0.00 0.00 0 00 83.25 0.00 0.00 0 00 62 Oriented Strand Board Tonnes 32.32 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 15.04 17 28 63 Paper Tape Tonnes 3.18 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.19 0.57 2 21 64 Parallel Strand Lumber Tonnes 154.10 0.00 0.00 154.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 65 Polyethylene Filter Fabric Tonnes 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.46 1.36 0.00 0.00 0 00 66 Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) Tonnes 41.75 0.00 0.00 2.43 39.31 0.00 0.00 0 00 67 Precast Concrete Tonnes 16423.73 0.00 0.00 14417 06 2006.67 0.00 0.00 0 00 68 PVC Membrane 48 mil Tonnes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 69 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections Tonnes 8396.01 73.33 144.31 4929 33 804.26 262.07 810.09 1372.61 70 Roofing Asphalt Tonnes 755.62 0.00 0.00 45 20 710.41 0.00 0.00 0 00 71 Screws Nuts & Bolts Tonnes 27.52 0.00 0.00 0 26 3.28 1.90 10.31 11.78 72 Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried Tonnes 389.13 0.00 0.00 3 08 6.57 16.67 79.27 283 54 73 Softwood Plywood Tonnes 83.71 0.00 0.00 29 08 0.89 6.06 26.38 21 32 74 Solvent Based Alkyd Paint Tonnes 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.34 0 34 75 Solvent Based Varnish Tonnes 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0 00 65      ID Material Units Whole Building A11 A21 A22 A23 A31 A32 B11 76 Spandrel Panel Tonnes 30.72 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.77 0.00 22.42 7 54 77 Stucco over metal mesh Tonnes 153.32 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 6.17 139.64 7 52 78 Stucco over porous surface Tonnes 567.27 0.00 0.00 2 39 0.00 33.06 268.50 263 33 79 Type III Glass Felt Tonnes 107.15 0.00 0.00 0 00 107.15 0.00 0.00 0 00 80 Unclad Wood Window Frame Tonnes 21.88 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 1.05 20.83 0 00 81 Vinyl Siding Tonnes 0.81 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0 00 82 Water Based Latex Paint Tonnes 25.53 0.00 1.47 1.44 4.10 0.26 6.89 11 37 83 Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire Tonnes 135.03 9.83 40.17 73 33 11.71 0.00 0.00 0 00 84 Wide Flange Sections Tonnes 7.59 0.00 0.00 0.66 6.93 0.00 0.00 0 00    Table 9: Level 3 CIQS Elemental Descriptions  Reference Flows: CIVL 498C Level 3 Elemental Format  Description A11 Foundations Strip and Pad Footings A21 Lowest Floor Construction Slab on grade on lowest floor A22 Upper Floor Construction Columns, beams, suspended slab floors, stairs A23 Roof Construction Supporting Columns and beams, roof slab A31 Walls Below Grade Exterior below grade walls A32 Walls Above Grade Exterior above grade walls B11 Partitions All interior walls 66  Annex G - Material Categorization Index    Figure 9: Material Categories Used in the Study      67    Annex H – Impact Assessment Results   Table 10: Sum of Total Impacts per square meter  Sum of Total Impacts per m2 Impact Category Units A11 A21 A22 A23 A31 A32 B11 Whole Building Global Warming Potential kg CO2 eq 2.64E+03 1.14E+03 4.44E+03 5.64E+03 2.05E+03 3.39E+03 3.30E+03 8.72E+03 Acidification Potential kg SO2 eq 1.81E+01 7.91E+00 2.79E+01 3.44E+01 1.37E+01 2.44E+01 2.16E+01 5.72E+01 HH Particulate kg PM2.5 eq 5.95E+00 2.63E+00 1.22E+01 1.76E+01 4.58E+00 1.50E+01 9.63E+00 2.70E+01 Eutrophication Potential kg N eq 8.51E-01 4.46E-01 1.67E+00 1.12E+01 7.74E-01 3.13E+00 1.29E+00 6.65E+00 Ozone Depletion Potential kg CFC-11 eq 1.23E-05 4.10E-06 1.90E-05 2.78E-05 1.08E-05 1.86E-05 1.23E-05 4.10E-05 Smog Potential kg O3 eq 4.47E+02 1.96E+02 6.31E+02 6.93E+02 3.05E+02 4.19E+02 4.37E+02 1.19E+03 Total Primary Energy MJ 2.18E+04 1.04E+04 4.98E+04 1.19E+05 2.07E+04 1.03E+05 5.54E+04 1.49E+05 Non-Renewable Energy MJ 2.02E+04 9.59E+03 4.69E+04 1.14E+05 1.94E+04 9.88E+04 5.27E+04 1.41E+05 Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ 1.96E+04 9.05E+03 3.80E+04 9.62E+04 1.74E+04 3.10E+04 2.91E+04 8.67E+04   Table 11: Average Total Impacts per square meter  Mean of Total Impacts per m2 Impact Category Units A11 A21 A22 A23 A31 A32 B11 Whole Building Global Warming Potential kg CO2 eq 1.20E+02 5.18E+01 2.02E+02 2.56E+02 9.78E+01 1.54E+02 1.50E+02 3.96E+02 Acidification Potential kg SO2 eq 8.21E-01 3.59E-01 1.27E+00 1.56E+00 6.51E-01 1.11E+00 9.81E-01 2.60E+00 HH Particulate kg PM2.5 eq 2.71E-01 1.20E-01 5.55E-01 8.00E-01 2.18E-01 6.82E-01 4.38E-01 1.23E+00 Eutrophication Potential kg N eq 3.87E-02 2.03E-02 7.61E-02 5.07E-01 3.69E-02 1.42E-01 5.86E-02 3.02E-01 Ozone Depletion Potential kg CFC-11 eq 5.59E-07 1.86E-07 8.62E-07 1.26E-06 5.12E-07 8.46E-07 5.61E-07 1.86E-06 Smog Potential kg O3 eq 2.03E+01 8.92E+00 2.87E+01 3.15E+01 1.45E+01 1.90E+01 1.98E+01 5.42E+01 Total Primary Energy MJ 9.93E+02 4.72E+02 2.26E+03 5.39E+03 9.84E+02 4.70E+03 2.52E+03 6.77E+03 Non-Renewable Energy MJ 9.19E+02 4.36E+02 2.13E+03 5.16E+03 9.26E+02 4.49E+03 2.40E+03 6.43E+03 Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ 8.92E+02 4.11E+02 1.73E+03 4.37E+03 8.31E+02 1.41E+03 1.32E+03 3.94E+03   Table 12: Total Impact per square meter for All Life Cycle Stages   PRODUCT (A1 to A3) per m2 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS (A4 & A5) per m2 USE (B2, B4 & B6) per m2 END OF LIFE (C1 to C4) per m2  Impact Category  Units  Manufacturing  Transport  Total  Construction- Installation Process  Transport  Total  Replacement Manufacturing  Replacement Transport  Total De-construction, Demolition, Disposal & Waste Processing  Transport  Total Global Warming Potential kg CO2 eq 6,672.43 187.02 6,858.24 451.11 446.13 897.20 475.65 23.03 498.56 300.26 163.65 463.87 Acidification Potential kg SO2 eq 39.41 1.86 41.06 3.38 4.24 7.61 2.88 0.22 3.10 3.72 1.48 5.19 HH Particulate kg PM2.5 eq 21.64 0.10 21.74 0.74 0.24 0.98 3.96 0.01 3.98 0.21 0.09 0.30 Eutrophication Potential kg N eq 1.44 0.13 1.57 0.18 0.29 0.47 4.26 0.02 4.27 0.25 0.10 0.35 Ozone Depletion Potential kg CFC-11 eq 3.52E-05 6.46E-09 3.52E-05 1.43E-06 1.55E-08 1.42E-06 4.33E-06 7.86E-10 4.34E-06 1.17E-08 5.35E-09 1.70E-08 Smog Potential kg O3 eq 656.15 64.73 720.81 93.40 147.44 240.82 39.28 7.82 47.10 131.05 51.25 182.31 Total Primary Energy MJ 116,057.96 2,817.52 118,867.17 5,098.28 5,779.98 10,876.45 12,353.01 307.41 12,659.74 4,523.62 1,996.76 6,518.87 Non-Renewable Energy MJ 109,848.30 2,816.53 112,688.35 4,833.80 5,777.54 10,605.83 11,494.42 307.32 11,802.44 4,372.57 1,995.39 6,367.73 Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ 56,518.18 2,811.88 59,331.61 4,634.81 5,768.35 10,401.70 10,340.86 306.76 10,648.07 4,356.62 1,991.19 6,348.68 68      Annex I – UBC Academic Building Profiles   Table 13: Profile of UBC Academic Buildings in the Study  Element Unit HENN  MCML ICICS  HEBB  CHEMN  WSBK ANGU CHEMS CHEM ESB  ALRD  Cost $  -  $67,719,000.00  $67,719,000.00  $10,450,631.51  $10,000,000.00  $36,698,519.00  $87,307,309.00  $1,659,655.00  $12,800,000.00  $75,000,000.00  $56,560,000.00 A11 Foundations m2   1217   3292  2151  369  616  2510  1522  1217  1,654  1178 2506.55 A21 Lowest Floor Construction m2 1217 3292 2151 1898 616 2510 1522 1217 1,654 1178  2506.55 A22 Upper Floor Construction m2 2635 8962 3543 3879 1199 3182 6473 2635 5,796 7524.7  9710.5 A23 Roof Construction m2 1202 2987 1387 1411 332 222 2351 1202 1,802 708  7439.4 A31 Walls Below Grade m2 737 2515 424 1050 707 833 635 737 1,723 1953.7  7542.2 A32 Walls Above Grade m2 2047 4118 2373 3723 1296 3182 3280 2047 3,988 6221.9  6639.5 B11 Partitions m2 1161 13664 9629 1296 1925 2026 6073 1161 8,481 9863.1 9679 Whole Building m2 3851 12254 5694 5777 1815 5692 7995 3851 7450 8703 12217 Element Unit  MATH CEME CHBE  LASR  KAIS  AERL  GEOG SCRF KENN CIRS  FSC   Cost $ $932,618.26    $6,700,000.00  $36,675,628.00  $34,600,000.00  $33,889,182.00  $10,600,000.00  -  - $2,255,362.64  $23,000,000.00  $66,580,000.00 A11 Foundations m2  1,451.17  6555.4  3192  1055  2704  1708  272.39  1332  2,655.00  1309  4357 A21 Lowest Floor Construction m2 1,451.17 6555.4 3192 1055 2704 1708 80.83 1332 2,655.00 1440 4357 A22 Upper Floor Construction m2 1,366.64 7006 7597 4220 10464 3543 4740.28 3671 6,317.00 3635 11187 A23 Roof Construction m2 1,453.04 4286.1 1164 1055 2699 1388 2394.58 1349 2,356.00 1854 3387 A31 Walls Below Grade m2 588.45 447.1 832 798 529 664 54.26 1961 0 1877 2497 A32 Walls Above Grade m2 2237.56 6055 8 3311 2020 3609 3154 3188.65 2142 17,913.00 6901 9564 B11 Partitions m2 2,580.13 9363 3 1044 3013 14875 4894 3935.37 2139 10,564.00 2544 21434 Whole Building m2 2,817.81 13,561.40 10,788.81 5,275.00 13,168.00 5,251.00 4,821.11 5,002.55 8,972.00 5,074.80 15,544.00 69   Annex J – UBC Academic Building Benchmarks   Figure 10: Percentage Difference from Baseline 70  Annex K – Total Bill of Materials of UBC Academic Buildings   Table 14: Total Bill of Materials for all UBC Academic Buildings  Material Mass Value Mass Unit #15 Organic Felt 148.17 Tonnes 1/2" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 100.36 Tonnes 1/2" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 95.41 Tonnes 1/2" Regular Gypsum Board 1,047.97 Tonnes 3 mil Polyethylene 1.05 Tonnes 5/8" Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board 341.17 Tonnes 5/8" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 0.31 Tonnes 5/8" Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 205.14 Tonnes 5/8" Regular Gypsum Board 1,073.85 Tonnes 6 mil Polyethylene 14.10 Tonnes 8" Concrete Block 11,856.07 Tonnes Air Barrier 0.17 Tonnes Aluminum 223.23 Tonnes Aluminum Clad Wood Window Frame 2.28 Tonnes Aluminum Window Frame 55.47 Tonnes Ballast (aggregate stone) 4,552.78 Tonnes Blown Cellulose 4.84 Tonnes Cedar Wood Bevel Siding 2.27 Tonnes Cedar Wood Shiplap Siding 165.00 Tonnes Cold Rolled Sheet 8.38 Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash 35%) 2,583.84 Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 74,681.75 Tonnes Concrete 30 MPa (flyash 25%) 11,081.11 Tonnes Concrete 30 MPa (flyash 35%) 4,563.98 Tonnes Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 121,065.90 Tonnes Concrete 60 MPa (flyash av) 691.94 Tonnes Concrete Brick 1,852.19 Tonnes Concrete Tile 0.00 Tonnes Double Glazed Hard Coated Air 33.75 Tonnes Double Glazed Hard Coated Argon 0.00 Tonnes Double Glazed No Coating Air 353.73 Tonnes Double Glazed Soft Coated Argon 10.95 Tonnes EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 8.56 Tonnes Expanded Polystyrene 27.76 Tonnes Extruded Polystyrene 127.50 Tonnes FG Batt R11-15 58.53 Tonnes FG Batt R20 0.51 Tonnes 71   Fiber Cement 13.76 Tonnes Galvanized Decking 88.84 Tonnes Galvanized Sheet 257.36 Tonnes Galvanized Studs 459.97 Tonnes Glass Facer 1.45 Tonnes Glazing Panel 1,013.87 Tonnes GluLam Sections 331.84 Tonnes Hollow Structural Steel 73.46 Tonnes Joint Compound 277.52 Tonnes Laminated Veneer Lumber 168.66 Tonnes Large Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 159.73 Tonnes MBS Metal Roof Cladding - Commercial (26 Ga.) 20.58 Tonnes MBS Metal Wall Cladding - Commercial (24 Ga.) 0.00 Tonnes MDI resin 0.00 Tonnes Metal Wall Cladding - Commercial (26 Ga.) 28.29 Tonnes Metal Wall Cladding - Residential (30 Ga.) 0.66 Tonnes Metric Modular (Modular) Brick 3,149.58 Tonnes Modified Bitumen membrane 336.06 Tonnes Mortar 13,550.34 Tonnes MW Batt R11-15 65.43 Tonnes Nails 42.02 Tonnes Natural Stone 59.10 Tonnes Ontario (Standard) Brick 783.25 Tonnes Open Web Joists 83.25 Tonnes Oriented Strand Board 32.32 Tonnes Paper Tape 3.18 Tonnes Parallel Strand Lumber 154.10 Tonnes Polyethylene Filter Fabric 1.81 Tonnes Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) 41.75 Tonnes Precast Concrete 16,423.73 Tonnes PVC Membrane 48 mil 0.00 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 8,396.01 Tonnes Roofing Asphalt 755.62 Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts 27.52 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 389.13 Tonnes Softwood Plywood 83.71 Tonnes Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 0.82 Tonnes Solvent Based Varnish 0.03 Tonnes Spandrel Panel 30.72 Tonnes Stucco over metal mesh 153.32 Tonnes Stucco over porous surface 567.27 Tonnes Type III Glass Felt 107.15 Tonnes 72   Unclad Wood Window Frame 21.88 Tonnes Vinyl Siding 0.81 Tonnes Water Based Latex Paint 25.53 Tonnes Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 135.03 Tonnes Wide Flange Sections 7.59 Tonnes 73  Annex L – Sensitivity Analysis Results    Table 15: Sensitivity Analysis Results  Flyash av to Flyash 35% Impact Categories Units Baseline Proposed % Difference Global Warming Potential kg CO2 eq 101.60 97.65 -3.9% Acidification  Potential kg SO2 eq 0.77 0.74 -3.1% HH Particulate kg PM2.5 eq 0.39 0.38 -1.9% Eutrophication  Potential kg N eq 0.44 0.44 -0.2% Ozone Depletion Potential kg CFC-11 eq 4.58E-07 0.00 -5.4% Smog Potential kg O3 eq 17.57 17.08 -2.8% Total Primary Energy MJ 2,134.47 2,115.16 -0.9% Non-Renewable  Energy MJ 1,786.04 1,769.34 -0.9% Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ 1,752.75 1,735.66 -1.0%  Stud Spacing 16 oc to 24 oc Impact Categories Units Baseline Proposed % Difference Global Warming Potential kg CO2 eq 101.60 100.86 -0.7% Acidification  Potential kg SO2 eq 0.77 0.76 -1.1% HH Particulate kg PM2.5 eq 0.39 0.39 -0.5% Eutrophication  Potential kg N eq 0.44 0.44 -0.2% Ozone Depletion Potential kg CFC-11 eq 4.58E-07 0.00 0.0% Smog Potential kg O3 eq 17.57 17.31 -1.5% Total Primary Energy MJ 2,134.47 2,117.43 -0.8% Non-Renewable  Energy MJ 1,786.04 1,775.91 -0.6% Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ 1,752.75 1,743.28 -0.5%  Concrete 30MPa to 60 Mpa Impact Categories Units Baseline Proposed % Difference Global Warming Potential kg CO2 eq 101.60 103.61 2.0% Acidification  Potential kg SO2 eq 0.77 0.78 1.6% HH Particulate kg PM2.5 eq 0.39 0.39 1.0% Eutrophication  Potential kg N eq 0.44 0.44 0.1% Ozone Depletion Potential kg CFC-11 eq 4.58E-07 0.00 2.6% Smog Potential kg O3 eq 17.57 17.83 1.5% Total Primary Energy MJ 2,134.47 2,147.50 0.6% Non-Renewable  Energy MJ 1,786.04 1,797.86 0.7% Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ 1,752.75 1,764.16 0.7%  74  

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.18861.1-0108873/manifest

Comment

Related Items