Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment of the Civil and Mechanical Engineering Building Van Hemmen, Cayley Nov 18, 2013

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Hemmen_Cayley_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 2.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108883.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108883-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108883-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108883-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108883-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108883-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108883-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108883-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108883.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportCayley Van HemmenLife Cycle Assessment of The Civiland Mechanical EngineeringBuildingCIVL 498CNovember 18, 201310651531University of British Columbia Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.  1 | P a g e   PROVISIO This study has been completed by undergraduate students as part of their coursework at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and is also a contribution to a larger effort – the UBC LCA Project – which aims to support the development of the field of life cycle assessment (LCA). The information and findings contained in this report have not been through a full critical review and should be considered preliminary. If further information is required, please contact the course instructor Rob Sianchuk at rob.sianchuk@gmail.com   i       Life Cycle Assessment of The Civil and Mechanical Engineering Building  CIVL 498C:  Life Cycle Assessment University of British Columbia   Due: November 18, 2013   Submitted to:  Rob Sianchuk, B.Sc. WPP  Department of Wood Science, University of British Columbia Room #4431  ʹ242 4 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z4   Prepared By:  Cayley Van Hemmen  Civil Engineering Student, 2013   With Contribution From:  Tyler Algeo  Civil Environmental Engineering Student, 2011        ii Table of Contents List of Tables  ................................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures  ............................................................................................................................................... vi 1.0  Executive Summary  ............................................................................................................................. 1  2.0  General Information on the Assessment  ............................................................................................ 2  1.1 Purpose of the assessment  ........................................................................................................ 2  1.2 Identification of building  ............................................................................................................ 3  1.3 Other Assessment Information  .................................................................................................. 4  3.0  General Information On The Object of Assessment  ........................................................................... 5  2.1 Functional  Equivalent  ................................................................................................................ 5  2.2 Reference Study Period  ............................................................................................................. 7  2.3 Object of Assessment Scope  ...................................................................................................... 7  3.0  Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used In This Assessment  ................................................... 10  3.1 System Boundary  ..................................................................................................................... 10  3.2 Product Stage  ........................................................................................................................... 11  3.2.1 Extraction of Raw Material Production  ................................................................... 11  3.2.2 Manufacturing of products  ...................................................................................... 11  3 .2.3 Generation Of Energy Input  ..................................................................................... 11  3.2.4 Production of Ancillary Materials  ............................................................................ 11  3.2.5 Packaging  ................................................................................................................. 12  3.2.6 Transportation Up To Production Gate  ................................................................... 12  3.2.7 Collection and Transport of Waste and Waste Management Processes.  ............... 12  3.3 Construction Stage  ................................................................................................................... 12  3.3.1 Transportation From The Manufacturing Gate to the Construction Site  ................ 13  3.3.2 Storage of products, including the provision of heating, cooling, humidity etc. ..... 13  3.3.3 Installation of the product into the building (including ancillary materials) and on site transformation of construction products. ........................................................................ 13  3.3.4 Waste management processes on the construction site and waste handling until final disposal. ............................................................................................................................ 13   iii 4.0  Environmental Data ........................................................................................................................... 15  4.1 Data Sources  ............................................................................................................................ 15  4.1.1 LCI Data Collection Overview  ................................................................................... 15  4.1.2 Athena LCI Database  ................................................................................................ 15  4.1.3 US LCI Database  ....................................................................................................... 15  4.2 Data Adjustments and Substitutions  ....................................................................................... 16  4.3 Data Quality  ............................................................................................................................. 19  4.3.1 Data Uncertainty  ...................................................................................................... 19  4.3.2 Model Uncertainty  ................................................................................................... 19  4.3.3 Temporal Uncertainty  .............................................................................................. 20  4 .3.4 Spatial Uncertainty  .................................................................................................. 20  4.3.5 Variability Between Objects/Sources Uncertainty  .................................................. 20  4.3.6 Quality of LCI Databases  .......................................................................................... 21  5.0  List of Indicators Used For Assessment And Expression of Results  .................................................. 22  6.0  Model Development .......................................................................................................................... 26  6.1 Original Model Development  ................................................................................................... 26  6.1.1 Original Model Assembly Groups  ............................................................................ 27  6.1.2 Inaccu racies in the Original Model  .......................................................................... 28  6.2 CIQS Sorting  ............................................................................................................................. 28  6.3 Model Improvements  .............................................................................................................. 29  6.1 Bill of Materials  ........................................................................................................................ 30  6.1 Reference Flows  ....................................................................................................................... 30  6.4 Reference Flow and Bill of Materials  ....................................................................................... 31  7.0  Communication and Assessment of Results  ..................................................................................... 33  7.1 Life Cycle Results  ...................................................................................................................... 33  8.0  Annex A  ʹInterpretation of Assessment Results  .............................................................................. 35  8.1 Benchmark Development  ........................................................................................................ 35  8.2 UBC Academic Building Benchmark  ......................................................................................... 35   iv 8.2.3 Comparing CEME to UBC Building Benchmark  ........................................................ 35  8.2.3 UBC Building Global Warming Vs. Cost Impacts  ...................................................... 37  9.0  Annex B  ʹRecommendations for LCA Use  ........................................................................................ 38  9.1 Importance of Life Cycle Modules Beyond Product and Construction Stages  ........................ 38  9.2 LCA Applied in Design to Manage the Environmental Performance of Buildings  ................... 38  9.3 Availability and Quality of Data and Benchmarks  .................................................................... 38  9.4 Issues in Application ................................................................................................................. 39  9.5 Steps to Operationalize LCA Methods  ..................................................................................... 39  1 0.0  Annex C -  Author Reflection  ............................................................................................................ 41  1 0.1 Previous Experience  ............................................................................................................... 41  1 0.2 Overview of CIVL 498C  ........................................................................................................... 41  1 0.3 Interest in CIVL 498C and LCA of A Building  .......................................................................... 41  1 0.4 CEAB Graduate Attributes Demonstrated  ............................................................................. 42  1 1.0 Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions  ........................................................................ 44    v List of Tables  Table 1 -  Description of CEME's 5 Areas  ....................................................................................................... 3  Table 2 -  Summary of CEME's Assessment Information  ............................................................................... 4  Table 3 -  Functional Equivalent With Respect To CE ME  ............................................................................... 7  Table 4 -  CEME's Building Definition  ............................................................................................................. 9  Table 5 -  CEME Upstream and Downstream Processes  .............................................................................. 10  Table 6 -  Impact Category -  Global Warming  .............................................................................................. 22  Table 7 -  Impact Category -  Ozone Depletion  ............................................................................................. 23  Table 8 -  Impact Category -  Eutrophication Potential  ................................................................................ 23  Table 9 -  Impact Category -  Acidification Potential  .................................................................................... 24  Table 10 -  Impact Category -  Smog Potential  ............................................................................................. 24  Table 11 -  Impact Category -  Human Health Criteria  .................................................................................. 25  Table 12 -  Impact Category -  Fossil Fuel Consumption ............................................................................... 25  Table 13 -  List of CEME Drawings Used In LCA  ............................................................................................ 26  Table 14 -  Original Model Assembly Groups  ............................................................................................... 28  Table 15 -  CIQS Elements  ............................................................................................................................ 29  Table 17 -  Bill of Materials for CEME  .......................................................................................................... 32  Table 1 8 -  Level 3 Elements By % Impact In Table Format  ......................................................................... 33  Table 19 -  Benchmark Values Compared To Level 3 Elements  ................................................................... 36  Table 20  -  CEAB Graudate Attributes  .......................................................................................................... 42    vi List of Figures Figure 1  ʹDisplay of Building Cycle Information  .......................................................................................... 7  Figure 2  ʹCIQS Elements Development For CEME  ....................................................................................... 8  Figure 3  ʹUS LCI Databases Action Plan  ..................................................................................................... 16  Figure 4 -  Level 3 Elements By % Impact of Total Impact Category  ............................................................ 33  Figure 5 -  Percentage DIfference s Between CEME and Class Benchmarks Illustrated In a Graph  ............. 36  Figure 6 -  Glbal Warming Impact Vs. Cost  .................................................................................................. 37  Figure 7 -  Table Displaying Learning Expectations Before Performing Final Project  .................................. 42  Figure 8 -  Table Displaying Actual Learning After Performing Project  ....................................................... 42     1  1.0 Executive Summary This report contains an in- depth Life Cycle Analysis of the Civil and Mechanical Engineering  (CEME) Buildin g at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia.  The life cycle analysis scope includes the envelope and structure of CEME from  cradle to gate, that is, from the building͛s product manufacturing to end of construction stage.   The methods used to achieve a detailed analysis included contributions from two authors.  The first author included a thorough on screen takeoff  of CEDE͛s level three elements including foundations, walls/floors above and below grade, roof structure and interior partition walls.  The second contributor then assessed the quality of the initial study and made improvements to the accuracy of that study.   An impact assessment was then performed on each element to determine its contribution by impact category to overall impacts for CEME as a whole.  The results of the impact assessment were then compared to 22 other institutional buildings at UBC to determine how CEME equated.   /t was determined that CEDE͛s had less of an environmental impact than the majority of other buildings at UBC as it͛s impact category values were lower than the benchmarŬ͛s value.  Furthermore, CEDE͛s level three element “Ϯϯ Upper &loor Construction” contributed the most in all seven impact categories included in the Athena Impact Estimator.   Finally, it was discovered that the product stage had a larger impact that the construction stage for all level three elements, it was approximately 80 - 9 0% larger in all cases.   This report also includes interpretations of the results such as recommendations for LCA use to be put in practice and an author͛s reflection of the project and C/s> ϰϵϴC as a whole.    2  2.0 General Information on the Assessment 1.1 Purpose of the assessment The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the environmental performance of the Civil and Mechanical Engineering Building (CEME) throughout the life cycle of the building.  It s intended use is to be used as a tool to evaluate what the main sources of environmental impact in an institutional building͛s design are and to investigate how to reduce a building͛s impact.  Furthermore this study can be used as a materials inventory for CEME.  Policy makers can also use the study to help influence the decisions they make when establishing new sustainability guidelines for new construction to be performed at UBC.  The study is intended for comparative assertions as it compares the environmental performance of the CEME building next to 22 other academic buildings located on campus at UBC.  The function the buildings have in common is square foo tage and their environmental impacts will be compared to each individual building, as well as the benchmark value.   The intended audience for this study is the University of British Columbia, other academic institutions and industry professionals.  Industr y professionals can include institutional building owners, engineers, architects and building developers who are interested in learning about how to perform an Life Cycle Assessment on new construction or learn more about the Life Cycle Assessment process for buildings in general.  It can further be used by any individuals involved in the developmental planning department or policy making at UBC as a reference tool.    In terms of comparing CEME to other buildings at UBC, the level of detailed required for each building will vary according to the individual performing each separate LCA study.  Some individuals will have more detailed and accurate models due to the level of information available to them, while others will not as the are working with older dra wings.  Because this report will be for UBC planning purposes only, the benchmark value will contain a variety of very detailed reports and undetailed reports.  As the average value is taken, the level of detail required should be as detailed as the user c an make it with the information they  have available.  This model of CEME  has been improved from the previous LCA study, and is as thorough as it can be with the information that was available.   3  1.2 Identification of building The Civil and Mechanical Engine ering building is approximately 111, 159 square feet and is divided into five sections, Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.   Table 1 below describes the purpose of each of the five sections.  The building itself cost $6.7  Million dollars  when it was constructed and was completed within two years from 1974 to 1976.  The net present value of the construction is $16, 720, 000.  The calculations for this number can be found on the attached excel spreadsheet.  The architect and engineers who conducted the design process was P hilips, Barnett, Architects and Engineers.     Area Building Intended Use 1  Mechanical Engineering Laboratory and Shops.  2  Mechanical Engineering Laboratory and Offices.  3  Common Facilities 4  Civil Engineering Laboratory and Offices  5  Pollution Control  and Surveying Table 1 - Description of CEME's 5 Areas  The building is located at 2002  ʹ6250 Applied Science Lane, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4.  The primary use of the CEME is as an institutional learning facility for civil an d mechanical engineering students, office space for civil and mechanical engineering professors as well as an administrative building for the two faculties respectively.  There are nine classrooms in the building, twenty- nine laboratories, seventy- two offices and eight large multipurpose study spaces/workspaces.  There are four different types of laboratories in the building: soil, environmental, mechanical and computer.  The five sections can be divided into 4 categories, basement, main floor, upper floor and penthouses.  The penthouses are used mainly for mechanical purposes.    CEDE͛s structure can be described as concrete columns supporting concrete beams, which support a precast T- Beam joist floor.  The exterior walls are made of predominantly pre - cast concrete panels and concrete block walls.  The interior walls are made up of a variety of concrete block, wood stud and steel stud walls.  The window glazing is assumed to be standard with aluminum frames and insulated steel stud wall panel with asbestos.  ϭ” insulation and asphalt roofing for a precast concrete t- beam is assumed for the roof structure.  4   1.3 Other Assessment Information Table 2 listed below provides a summary of assessment information.   Client for Assessment Completed as coursework in Civil  Engineering technical elective course at the University of British Columbia. Name and qualification of the assessor First Author Cayley Van Hemmen  ʹCivil Engineering Student 2013  Second Author Tyler Algeo  ʹCivil Environmental Engineering Student 2011  Impact Assessment Method Impact Assessment Method:  Mid Point Impact Estimation Method TRACI, Version 2012 (Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and  Other Environmental Impacts)  Impact Estimator: Athena Impact Estimator Version 4.2.0208  Point of Assessment 3 7 years.  Period of Validity 5 years.  Date of Assessment Completed in December 2013.  Verifier Student work, study not verified.  Table 2 - Summary of CEME's Assessment Information   5  3.0 General Information On The Object of Assessment 2.1 Functional Equivalent  /SKϭϰϬϰϰ defines a function unit to be “ performance characteristic of the product system being studied that will be used as a reference unit to normalinje the result of the study.“  Essentially it is a unit that defines and quantifies what is being produced by the product system as a whole in respect to inputs and outputs in the Life Cycle Assessment Study.   It defines the function one measures the performance of a system over.  The most common functional unit to use to incorporate an entire building is meters square d of floor area, which was used in this assessment.  &unctional units are important for this intended application of CEDE͛s >C as >C is commonly used as a decision- making support tool in the design p rocess.  The function unit is very important when comparing one building to another building, as it is the normalizing factor between them when comparing impacts.  Therefore, if a policy maker were deciding on how large to construct a building, they would consider the function unit of CEDE͛s building to its environmental impacts.  dhe following table below concisely describes CEDE͛s functional equivalent.  Aspect of Object of Assessment Description Building Type CEME is an institutional building containing:  -  Office Spaces  -  Classroom Spaces -  Multipurpose Rooms / Study / Workspaces  -  Soil and Environmental Laboratories  -  Computer Laboratories  -  Mechanical Laboratories  -  Penthouses  Technical and Functional requirements  Not a LEED Building therefore do not need to meet an d special regulatory requirements.  However, building was required to meet the National Building Code and the BC Building Code1 , which was established in 1973.                                                             1 Author Unknown -  Office of Housing and Construction Standards (2013).  History of British Columbia Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/pub/regHistory.pdf   6  The client specifically requested the following building requirements that are unique to CEME:  -   “Civil Engineering Design Studio” within the building to give students the opportunity to work together and collaborate in groups to mirror the industry working environment. 2  -  Environmental/Soil/Mechanical Laboratories to teach various subjects such as solid waste management, geotechnical and environmental engineering principles.3  Pattern of use  Design Occupancy The design drawings do no specify the design number of building occupants.  However, as per UBC classroom services, the current capacity for rooms 102, 1202, 1204, 1206, 1210, 1212, 1215 is approximately 303 occupants. 4   This number does not include the administrative offices or laboratories.  A more accurate representation would be around 600 but this is approximate.  Pattern of Use The building was designed for maximum occupancy during weekdays between the building hours of 07:0 0  ʹ23: 00.  Required service life  The building service life was not specified on the drawings and the information is not listed on the UBC classroom services website.  Therefore as per www.technicalguidelines.ubc.ca it states all key building                                                           2 University of British Columbia (2013). Civil Engineering Design Studio For Undergraduate Students. Retrieved from http://www.civil.ubc.ca/about/facilities/designstudio.php  3 University of British Columbia (2013). Environmental Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.civil.ubc.ca/home/env_lab/  4 University of British Columbia (2013). Buildings and Classrooms, Civil and Mechanical Engineering.  Retrieved from http://www.students.ubc.ca/classroomservices/buildings - and- classrooms/?code=CEME   7  envelopes should have a service life of 100 years unless it is a temporary structure.  In this case, it is not. 5  Table 3 - Functional Equivalent With Respect To CEME 2.2 Reference Study Period The required service l ife for CEME is assumed to be 100  years, as it is not explic itly stated on the drawings.  100  years is a typical value for institutional buildings.  For our LCA model however, it is assumed the service life of CEME to be set to 1 year, as the study is a cradle to gate assessment.  This is because the life Cycle Inventory Assessment results focus on only the manufacturing/transportation/installation of materials in the building͛s construction.  dhis will allow the maintenance and operational energy, end- of- life states and supplementary information beyond the building life cycle to be excluded from the buildings life cycle assessment scope.  The replacement rates for building materials were not included in scope as they were not part of CIVL 498C. Those three excluded states are shown below as categories B,  C, and D. 2.3 Object of Assessment Scope The scope of this study is assumed to be the entire product system of CEME including its structure, envelope and operational energy.  This includes all structures from the foundations to                                                           5 University of British Columbia (2013). Performance Objectives.  Retrieved from http://www.technicalguidelines.ubc.ca/technical/performance_obj.html  Figure 1 - Display of Building Cycle Information  8  the roofing.  There are no deviations from the scope that are excluded.  In order to ensure the cradle- to- gate scope is accurate, the LCA encompasses associated transportation affects, the manufacturing of the materials and the construction of the overall structure/envelope. It was decided to use CIQS (Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveryors) as it is a Canadian standard format.  Each element is a major component that fulfills the same function in every building.  dhe system divides the elements into ϰ categories: >evel ϭ ͚Dajor Elements͛, >evel Ϯ ͚'roup Elements͛, >evel ϯ ͚Elements͛, and >evel ϰ ͚Sub- Elements.͛ 6 For this project, only Level 1 elements ͚Shell͛ and ͚/nterior Daterials͛ are included.  dhe elements chosen can be shown in the Figure 2.  These elements were specifically chosen as they only include the shell and envelope of the building.  The remaining interior Lev el 2 elements (Finishes, fittings and equipment) were excluded accordingly.  Furthe rmore, dhe >evel ϭ elements, ͚C -  Services͛, D͚ -  Site and Ancillary torŬ͛ and Z͚ -  'eneral ZeƋuirement͛ either fit into the Kperation and Daintenance of the building which is not part of the scope of this cradle to gate assessment, or were not applicable. As stated earlier, CEME contains two floors, the main floor on grade as well as an upper second floor.  The building also includes a basement and a couple penthouses.    Al l building foundations support this structure.  The table below describes in further detail what in contained in each CIQS section for the scope of this project.                                                            6Sianchuk, R. (2013). CIQS Elemental Format.  Retrieved from http://civl498c.wikispaces.com/file/view/Final%20Project_CIQS%20Elements_07 1 013.pdf/457 6525 62/Final%20Project_CIQS%20Elements_07 1013.pdf  Figure 2 - CIQS Elements Division For CEME  9  CIVL 498C Level 3 Elements Description Quantity (Amount) Units A11  Foundations -  All column foo tings (F.1 - 31, f.Str, f.ramp) -  All strip footings (f.A, f.B, f.B/C/E/F, f.B/C/E/F- 2, f.C, f.D, f.G, f.J, f.JJ, f.JJJ)  6555.4  m2  A21  Lowest Floor Construction  -  Concrete Slab On Grade (First Floor Construction In CEME)  6555.4  m2  A22  Upper Floor Construction -  Concrete Slab (Second Floor CEME)  -  IConcrete Precast Double T (Second Floor CEME)  -  Columns and beams supporting the first and second floors 7006.0  m2  A23  Roof Construction -  Open Web Steel Joists (Roof Structure) -  Concrete Precast Double T (Roof Structure) -  Columns and beams supporting the roof. 4286.0  m2  A31  Walls Below Grade  -  All basement walls were determined to be only exterior.  447.1  m2  A32  Walls Above Grade  -  All remaining exterior walls (excluding basement walls)  -  Includes extra basic materials in the window frames surrounding the building. 6055.0  m2  B11  Partitions  -  All interior walls (There were no basement interior walls) 9363.3  m2  Table 4 - CEME's Building Definition   10  3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used In This Assessment 3.1 System Boundary The system boundary includes the unit processes, geographical area and time period we are studying.  For the assessment of CEME, the life cycle modules included are the A1 - 3 Product Stage and the A4 - 5 Construction Process Stage.  The  table below Illustrates a general overview of what upstream and downstream processes support these modules over the reference study period.  UPSTREAM PROCESSES DOWNSTREAM PROCESSES  A1 - 3  Product Stage  A1  Raw Material Supply -  At this point the material enters the system boundary. -  Searching For Raw Materials  -  Investigative work for resources. -  Disposal of wastes that result from extraction of raw materials.  A2  Transport -  Preparing materials for delivery to manufacture. (EX.  Wrapping in Styrofoam for protection etc.)  -  Receiving materials and processing them. (EX.  Removing packaging)    A3  Manufacturing  -  Preparing materials for manufacturing (Ex. Cutting lumber etc.) -  Disposal of excess material wastes due to manufacturing process. A4 - 5  Construction Process Stage A4  Transport -  Preparing materials for delivery.  -  Receiving materials on the construction site.   A5  Construction Installation Process  -  Moving materials when ready for installation. -  Preparation work before installation  ʹEX.  Installing formwork for c oncrete slab. -  Disposal of construction waste and excess materials. -  At this point the material leave the system boundary.  Table 5 - CEME Upstream and Downstream Processes   11  3.2 Product Stage The process information included for the product phase includes extraction of raw materials, manufacturing of products, generation of the energy input, production of ancillary materials, packaging, transportation up to production gate and construction site, collection and transport of waste, and waste management.  3.2.1 Extraction of Raw Material Production LCI data collection includes impact s associated with the extraction of raw materials.  It includes all impacts such as emissions to air, water and land from the extraction phases.  For example,  all activities that are associated with mining a resource will be encompassed, such as the technique of separating valuable ore from waste. Transportation of the raw material extracted to a manufacturing plant is also included in this phase.  It is import ant to note that some land impact measures cannot be addressed, such as loss of biodiversity, because of its complexity and the fact it is already tracked by other regulatory bodies. 7  3.2.2 Manufacturing of products Athena states the manufacturing stage be gins with the delivery of resources to the manufacturing plant and is finished when the product is ready to be transported to the next stage.  Let it be aware that the Athena LCA Impact Estimator combines the resources extraction and manufacturing stage for simplicity when reporting results.   3.2.3 Generation Of Energy Input The method of refining is a good example that illustrates effect of the amount of generation of energy input depending on the material in the product stage.  For example, steel made in  integrated plants requires more energy to make than if steel was made in mini - mills from scrap feedstock energy. 8  3.2.4 Production of Ancillary Materials Production of ancillary materials can also be included in the life cycle of a product depending on the system boundary.  For example, in the production of corrugated packaging, containerboard                                                           7  Athena Sustainable Building Materials Institute (2013).  Technical Details. Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/resources/about - lca/technical- details/ 8 Markus Engineering Services, Athena Sustainable Building Materials Institute (2002). Cradle to Gate Life Cycle Inventory: Canadian and US Steel Production By MIL Type.   Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/wp - content/uploads/201 1/10/1_Steel_Production.pdf   12  mills ancillary inputs such as wood and paper pulp, pulping and bleaching chemicals and wood fiber production are included. 9  3.2.5 Packaging Packaging is also includ ed in various LCA modules depending on the material being produced.  For example, particleboard is packaged and stacked in a warehouse before it is shipped to site.  The material used to package it and the energy required to package it is all included in t he production stages. 1 0  3.2.6 Transportation Up To Production Gate Transportation to the production site usually is one of the larger contributors to the production module stage.  As per the exercise in CIVL 498C, it was evident that by speeding up the transportation process the material would be delivered much faster and more likely to use less waste.  Transportation is also included in the production module, but only encompasses the emissions that come from the transportation from the manufacturing plant to the construction site. 3.2.7 Collection and Transport of Waste and Waste Management Processes. Collection, transport and disposal of waste is usually included in the manufacturing models.  For example, an LCA of particleboard includes all processes involved in the transportation of on- site waste at the production plant. 10   Furthermore, the impacts associated with waste disposal are included and are outlined in “Section 3.3.4  ʹWaste Management Processes In Construction Stage”  3.3 Construction Stage The process information included for the construction phase accounts for the following four categories: transportation from manufacturing stage, storage of products, installation and waste management.                                                             9 PE - Americas, Five Winds Intern ational, Corrugated Packaging Alliance (2010).  Corrugated Packaging Life Cycle Assessment Summary Report.  Retrieved from http://www.corrugated.org/upload/LCA%2 0Summary%20Report%20FINAL%2 03 - 24 - 10.pdf  10 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2013).  A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Canadian Particleboard – 2013 Update.  Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/wp - content/uploads/2013/10/CtoG - LCA - of-Canadian- PB - Update.pdf  13  3.3.1 Transportation From The Manufacturing Gate to the Construction Site The effect of transportation of materials from the manufacturing gate to the construction site will only have a large impact if the material being delivered is widely available.  For example, the transportation impact will be very low for concrete as concrete is produced in a large number of locations.  However, specialty items that are only produced in one city will have a large transportation effect as it will have to specially be either shipped in by train or by airplane depending on the construction sites location.11  All of the transportation distances are based on regional surveys and therefore will account for differences in location.12 3.3.2 Storage of products, including the provision of heating, cooling, humidity etc. Depending on where the construction is taking place, heating/cooling might be required for materials on site.  Athena takes this into account as best it can, by accounting for the proportion of energy that will be needed for storage of materials.  In the case of the conc rete wall, if a slab-on grade were to be construction in a cold climate like Fort McMurray in the winter season, heating would be required during the casting and curing process.  Athena accounts for the difficulties whether the wall will be constructed in cold climates below zero, so they factor a proportion of energy needed to heat concrete equal to the time of the year in that location where the temperature drops below zero. 7  3.3.3 Installation of the product into the building (including ancillary materials) and on site transformation of construction products. The Athena impact estimator software also take into account all of the energy used to build and erect the element in the construction phase.  For example, it will include all energy associated with building a cast- in- place concrete wall, such as assembling the formwork and rebar, and pouring the concrete.  The database will include all transportation of materials, such as the energy it takes for on - site equipment to move rebar on site using either f orklifts or cranes.  7 3.3.4 Waste management processes on the construction site and waste handling until final disposal. The Athena Impact Estimator Software includes waste management in construction.  Continuing from the early example of a concrete wall b eing construction, Athena takes into account that                                                           11 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2013).  Frequently Asked Questions – Impat Estimator For Buildings.  Retrieved from http://calculatelca.com/faqs/#ie4b_project_data   12 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2013).  Athena Impact Estimator V 4.2 Software and Database Overview.  Retrieved from http://calculatelca.com/wp -content/uploads/2011/11/ImpactEstimatorSoftwareAndDatabaseOverview.pdf  (Page 19)   14  there will be approximately 5% of concrete lost due to spillage/dumping and also accounts for the approximate reuse of formwork until it has degraded to the point of waste.  Assumptions of overall waste of materials are made, in the case of the concrete wall; it would be an overall 10% loss. 7  The process includes all transportation energy factors for disposal as well.   15  4.0 Environmental Data 4.1 Data Sources 4.1.1 LCI Data Collection Overview Typically LCI dat abases are developed by using input and output data on a material to create flow models that illustrate the activities of a product in its supply chain. Data is collected using survey questionnaires or representative industry data that include questions ab out a products inputs and outputs of the product that accounts for 99% of energy flows.  The data is collected from a specific group of producers, typically middle of the line companies that are not the best or worst in their field, in order to get a more accurate representative model.  Regional differences are accounted for in these databases.13 4.1.2 Athena LCI Database Currently, Athena maintains their LCI database.  They are an independent third - party separate from the NREL and build their database witho ut any trade or government sources.  Athena experts with background in LCA connect with the construction industry to conduct life cycle inventories on various products using survey questionnaires.  Athena is unique in that they try to include all materials used in the construction of an item.  For example, Athena collects information on not only a gypsum wallboard, but also information on the specific type of mud used for taping to finish the wallboard.  Their LCI databases also include information on construction/demolition processes, transportation and energy use, as well as standard information on building materials.14 4.1.3 US LCI Database The US LCI Database  concept was developed on May 1, 2001 from a conference given by Ford Motors. 15  It gained quick su pport and was created by an advisory group of 45 individuals who represented the following industries:  Manufacturing, Government, Non - Government and LCA                                                           1 3  Trusty. W, Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2010).  An Overview of Life Cycle Assessments:  Part One of Three Zetrieved from “Knline Bulding Safety :ournal” at http://www.athenasmi.org/wp -content/uploads/2012/05/BSJ_overview_life_cycle_assessment.pdf   1 4  Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2013).  LCI Databases.  Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/our - software- data/lca- databases/  1 5  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2013).  U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Databases.  Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/lci/about.html   16  Experts.   This advisory board came together to create a 20 - page document outlining the development guidelines for the >C/ database, including their goal of creating “publically available >C/ data modules for commonly used materials, products and processes.”  /n ϮϬϬϵ, the NREL outlined a detailed plan to continue to improve the quality of the LCI Database by identifying the critical areas that needed improvement and created goals to improve that area.  These goals are outlined in the figure below from the NERL website:  Currently, the US LCI Database is run and managed by a two - man project management team from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Michael Deru and Alberta Carpenter, both of whom have professional backgrounds in life cycle analysis. 16   4.2 Data Adjustments and Substitutions The largest issue presented in this model was that it had no material specifications listed for any of the concrete/rebar used.  These inconsistencies are laid out in the Annex D  ʹInputs and Assumptions section of the report.  As it was assumed that the concrete was 25 MPa, but the impact estimator only allows the user to select either 20 MPa or 30 MPa, material substitutions were used to illustrate the difference in impacts in entering 25 MPa of concrete into the model instead of 20 Mpa.  The process I used is described in the following 7 steps:   Step 1: Determine the impacts for the singular wall that is assumed to be 25 Mpa.    This was done by showing the reports for the wall on the Athena Impact Estimator.                                                            1 6  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2013) Project Management Team.  Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/lci/project_team.html   Figure 3 - US LCI Database Action Plan  17   Step 2: Determine the impacts for only the concrete material in the same volume as the original wall  minus the concrete lost to waste (5%).   Use the impact estimator to see the summary of impacts.   Step 3: Take original wall impacts and minus the "extra wall materials" impacts.  This will give you  the impacts to build the wall (includes the formwork, rebar etc.) but minus the concrete.   Step 4:  Find an EPD for concrete manufacturing.  The EPD/m3 is shown below. I chose the  Mix Code: 3F1EG9D1 and Plant: Ma rtinez from Central Concrete at  http://www.nrmca.org/sustainability/EPDProgram/Central_Concrete_EPD .pdf   This EPD gave a value for primary energy consumption.  The value is incorrect but is  used for purposes of illustrating my knowledge to calculate the final impact value.   The was no value given for HH Particulate so I assumed a value of 1 for purpo ses of this   18  Test.  The EPD Values are shown below.   Step 5: Multiply the EPD values by the hollowed out concrete volume.  (Original Concrete Volume 267.5, Concrete Volume With Waste Excluded: 254.78)   Step 6: Re- add the newly calculated impact back in to the Step 3 Phase  (The impact values for the formwork, rebar etc. Minus the concrete).   These final values are the new impacts the wall would have if it included 25 MPA instead  of 20 MPA as assumed.   19   Step 7: The next step would be to upload these re sults back into Athena  4.3 Data Quality There are 5 different types of uncertainty present in the CEME LCA model, data, model, temporal, spatial and variability.  Below is a description of each type of uncertainty present in the model and an example.  4.3.1 Data Uncertainty Data uncertainty is present in two stages of an LCA, the inventory analysis stage and the impact assessment stage.17  Within the Inventory Analysis Stage, there are four different types: collection, allocation methods used to create data, inaccuracy or no data.  All of these stems from an LCI database having either empirical inaccuracy, incomplete or outdated measurements and missing data.  Within the Impact Assessment Stage, there are two uncertainties: uncertainty in lifetimes of substances and travel potential.   An example that migh t be present in an LCI database is that data uncertainty might exist from human error.  For example, the instrumentation might not be calibrated properly or might be used incorrectly.  4.3.2 Model Uncertainty Model uncertainty could include linear vs. non - linear modeling in the inventory analysis stage and characterization factors may be unknown in the impact assessment stage.  18   The impact estimator assumes that ecological processes act linearly.  This is not always the case;  in fact many processes are non- linear. 15 Moreover, characterization factors may be incorrect as they are calculated using very simplified environmental models, which in turn have their own uncertainties.15  A good example of this is tha t LCA does not take into account the sensitivity of                                                           17Sianchuk, R.  (2013). Week 8 – Uncertainty In LCA.  Retrieved from http://civl498c.wikispaces.com/file/view/Week8_Uncertainty.pdf/4625921 98/Week8_Uncertainty.pdf      18Henriksson, J., Guinee, J. Heijungs, R., de K oning, A., and Green, D. (201 3). A Protocol for Horizontal Averaging of Unit Process Data – Including Estimates For Uncertainty.  Retrieved from http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/295/art%253A1 0.1007 %25 2Fs1136 7 - 0 13 - 064 7 -4.pdf?auth66=13849 1958 6_ba8dbe506d38cdf91d24f54e9165ba52&ext=.pdf    20  the surrounding environment in regards to the computation of acidification factors.15  It is unlikely that model uncertainty plays a large part in CEME as the building is located in a controlled surrounding environment, with mostly commonly used materials that have common characterization factors.  4.3.3 Temporal Uncertainty Differences in industrial yearly production of factory emissions and data vintage are common temporal uncertainty factors in the inventory analysis stage.14 For example, LCI commonly uses emission data rates that are determined from taking an average value, dividing emissions overall by production over a certain period of time. 15  Therefore, if more emissions were produced during the first half of the year when a material was purchased, the data would not be accurate.   Furthermore, emissions usually differ by year as well, and the mean value is taken over all years of data that have been accumulated.  Emissions from an early decade are often very different than modern emissions but only a mean value is usually taken, a cause of data vintage.   During the impact assessment stage, the two types of temporal uncertainty are effects of climate and interpretation of impacts over time. For exam ple, wind speed and temperature vary per region but also vary per time periods.  As temporal variation is not available over short time periods in the inventory analysis stage, it will affect the impact assessment.  Impacts over time uncertainty are caused due to the differences in lifetimes of substance s͛ impact categories, as something like global warming potential differs depending on the time period to investigate effects.  4.3.4 Spatial Uncertainty  Spatial uncertainty is caused by regional differences between manufacturing plants.  It is  caused due to unavailability of data for specific regions, as it is usually unknown.  Furthermore, much of the LCA site- specific data is applicable to Europe as it has been calculated using detailed environmental information from that area.  H owever, it might not be applicable to the United States or Canada.  For example, Canada might have different eutr ophication creation factors than Europe does. 4.3.5 Variability Between Objects/Sources Uncertainty Variability between  objects and sources includes differences between factories, different technologies that produce the same product and differences in human exposure patterns.  Variability in life cycle inventories will occur due to the different production techniques manufacturing firms use to develop the same product.  Human exposure patterns differ as every  21  human varies in body weight, consumption of food, etc. and therefore their human toxicity potential will vary. 4.3.6 Quality of LCI Databases The quality of the LCI da tabases is standard.  The oldest database as per the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute is from 1999, and on aluminum frames. 19  Most of the databases are very recent and updated, the majority are newer than 2005.  For this project, to reduce uncertaint y, as a reader one must interpret the LCA results cautiously as many uncertainties are present.  CEME draws information from various sections, the largest being from the concrete and steel products sections   The quality of those are quite high as they are  as recent as 2005 and have been updated from the original 1993 data.  Furthermore, they also include production profiles from the US LCI databases, one of the largest existing databases.                                                              1 9  Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2013).  Database Details.  Retrieved from http://www.calculatelca.com/wp - content/uploads/2012/10/LCI_Databases_Products.pdf    22  5.0 List of Indicators Used For Assessment And Expression of Results  The impact assessment method used in this project was Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI).  The impact estimator software used was the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings Version 4.2.02.  The fol lowing tables below illustrate the 7 impact categories used in the impact assessment of CEME and include:  a general description of the cause/effect chain model, its category indicator and a list of potential endpoint impacts. Global Warming Potential20 Impact Category Global Warming Potential  Midpoint Impact The absorption of infrared radiation. This in turn causes the atmosphere temperature to increase. Category Indicator Kg CO 2  eq  Cause/Effect Chain Model Emissions to Air  Infrared Radiation Absorbed  Causes increase in global temperature, change in sea levels and precipitation  Leads to human health impacts, agricultural/forestry/special/water resource effects, and coastal area damage.  Potential Endpoint Impact -  Sea levels rising due to glaciers melting. -  Tree mortality decreases due to reduction in water caused by regional warming. -  Global precipitation increase.  -  Floods and droughts becoming more common. -  Less fresh water availability.  -  Changing Ecosystems21  Characterized By -  US EPA  ʹTRACI  -  Intergovernm ental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  Table 6 - Impact Category - Global Warming                                                           20Sianchuk, R.  (2013). Week 6 – Impact Assessment.  Retrieved from http://civl498c.wikispaces.com/file/view/Week6_Impact%20Assessment.pdf/4584 6190 4/Week6_Impact%20Assessment.pdf   21 National Geographic (2013).  Effects of Global Warming.  Retrieved from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global - warming/gw- effects/   23  Ozone Depletion Potential20 Impact Category Ozone Depletion Potential  Midpoint Impact Change in the ozone layer due to emissions of CFC - 11  Category Indicator Kg CFC - 11  eq  Cause/Effect Chain Model Emissions to Air  Causes Reduction of the Ozone Layer in Stratosphere  Increases UBV concentration on earth   Species/Material Damages, Human Health Impacts, Agricultural Effects Potential Endpoint Impact -  Human Heath impacts such as UV mutation, skin cancers, etc.  -  Changes in plant growth  ʹUV lighting activated defence proteins in plants, increases vitamin production, increases/decreases growth rate depending on plant, increases/decreases plan size dependi ng on plant, and affects plant composition. Characterized By -  US EPA  ʹTRACI  -  World Meteorological Organization (WMO)  Table 7 - Impact Category - Ozone Depletion Eutrophication Potential20 Impact Category Eutrophication Potential  Midpoint Impact Effect on algae growth in water bodies with high N and P content.  It includes the probability of nitrogen entering a water body.  Category Indicator Kg N eq.  Cause/Effect Chain Model Water Emissions and presence in water body  Growth of algae and weeds  Oxygen depletion in water due to dead biomass and release of toxins  Potential Endpoint Impact -  Stratification of warm waters during the summertime. (Hypoxia)  Characterized By -  US EPA  ʹTRACI  Table 8 - Impact Category - Eutrophication Potential Acidification Potential20 Impact Category Acidification Potential   24  Midpoint Impact Effect on increasing the acidity of water and soil due to the formation of acidifying H+ ions in relation to SO 2  Category Indicator Kg SO 2  eq.  Cause/Effect Chain Model Air emissions, the emission surrounding atmospheric concentrations & environment(Including temperature and climate)  Deposition  Leaching of Al, H+ ions, and nutrient cations acidifies water/soil sources Causes changes to ecosystem and reduces plant and animal mortality. Potential Endpoint Impact -  Acid Rain causes fish/frog mortality to decrease.  -  Causes plant mortality to decrease. Characterized By -  US EPA  ʹTRACI  Table 9 - Impact Category - Acidification Potential Smog Formation Potential20 Impact Category Smog Potential  Midpoint Impact Capacity to influence the photochemical creation of ozone in the troposphere. Category Indicator Kg O 3  eq.  Cause/Effect Chain Model Air emissions in combination w ith sKC͛s/EKx S/Temperature/Sunlight  High ozone concentration in troposphere  Reduced photosynthesis and human͛s inhaling smog  Decreases human/plant mortality and has negative affects on human health. Potential Endpoint Impact -  Causes human health impacts such as Asthma, bronchitis and emphysema and could lead to premature death. Characterized By -  Leads to the following negative human health impacts:  asthma, heart disease, chronic breathing, emphysema, pneumonia, premature births in pregnant women and low birth weights.   Table 10 - Impact Category - Smog Potential Human Health and Respiratory Effects Potential20 Impact Category Human Health Criteria -  Air  Midpoint Impact Capacity to influence human exposure to <10 microns air bourne  25  particulate matter. Category Indicator Kg PM 2.5  eq.  Cause/Effect Chain Model Humans inhale air emissions  Human alveoli receive particulate matter  Human body reacts to harmful substances in particulate matter  Causes negative human health impacts Potential Endpoint Impact -  Causes human health impacts such as Asthma, bronchitis and emphysema and could lead to premature death. Characterized By -  US EPA  ʹTRACI  Table 11 - Impact Category - Human Health Criteria Fossil Fuel Consumption20 Impact Category Fossil Fuel Consumption Midpoint Impact Feedstock and embodied energy of a material that is used to transform or transport raw materials into a building. Category Indicator M J  ʹMega - Joules  Cause/Effect Chain Model Construction processes cause energy to be used to create materials and to construct buildings  energy and electricity used  energy used from fossil fuels causes CO 2  emissions Same endpoints as global warming, water and land pollution, etc. Potential Endpoint Impact -  Water and Land Pollution  -  Thermal Pollution  -  National Security Impacts. 22  Characterized By -  Unique to Athena Sustainable Materials Institute as it directly relates to building construction. Table 12 - Impact Category - Fossil Fuel Consumption                                                            22 Union of Concerned Scientists (200 2).  The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels.  Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our - energy- choices/coal- and- other- fossil- fuels/the- hidden- cost- of-fossil.html   26  6.0 Model Development The following sections will describe first how the original model was developed and then how it was improved and resorted using CIQS format.  6.1 Original Model Development The first author, Tyler Algeo, used OnScreen Takeoff Version 3.6.2.25 to model CEME.  The drawings used are illustrated in the table below and were compiled from the UBC LBS Facilities and Capitol Planning Records Department:    OnScreen Takeoff was used to model the elements in the following assembly groups: Foundations, Floors, Walls, Columns and Beams, Roofs, and Ext ra Basic Materials.  The elements were then recorded in the “nnedž D -  /nputs and ssumptions Document” for the original Drawing Label Description of Drawing 3 0 6 - 06 - 008  Overview of Site Plan  3 06 - 06 - 009  Area 4  ʹGround Floor Plan  306 - 06 - 010  Area 1 and Area 5  ʹGround Floor Plan  306 - 06 - 011  Area 2  ʹGround Floor Plan  306 - 06 - 012  Area 5  ʹGround Floor Plan  306 - 06 - 013  Area 4  ʹSecond Floor Plan  306 - 06 - 014  Area 2  ʹSecond Floor Plan  306 - 06 - 015  A rea 3  ʹSecond Floor Plan  306 - 06 - 016  Area 2  ʹBasement, Penthouses  306 - 06 - 017  All Areas  ʹRoof Plan  306 - 06 - 018  All Areas  ʹBuilding Sections 306 - 06 - 019  Area 1 and Area 2  ʹBuilding Sections 306 - 06 - 020  All Areas  ʹElevations Part 1  306 - 06 - 021  All Area s  ʹElevations Part 2  306 - 06 - 022  All Areas -  Wall Sections  306 - 06 - 025  All Areas  ʹWindow Details 306 - 06 - 026  All Areas  ʹStair Details 306 - 06 - 029  All Areas  ʹBuilding Details 306 - 07 - 002  All Areas  ʹFoundation Layout Part 1  306 - 07 - 003  All Areas  ʹFoundation Layout Part 2  306 - 07 - 004  All Areas  ʹFoundation Layout Part 3  306 - 07 - 005  All Areas  ʹFoundation Layout Part 4  306 - 07 - 006  Area 2  ʹStructural Ground Floor  306 - 07 - 007  Area 3  ʹStructural Ground Floor  306 - 07 - 008  Area 4  ʹStructural Ground Floor  3 06 - 07 - 009  Area 5  ʹStructural Ground Floor  Table 13 - List of CEME Drawings Used In LCA  27  measurements taken in the OnScreen Takeoff.  Then the elements were inputted into the Athena Impact Estimator.  Due to limitations of A thena, many of the inputs had to be manipulated in order to obtain the correct volumes and areas.  The changes made from the actual values measured in OnScreen Takeoff to the ones inputted in Athena are also recorded on the Annex D document.    separate “ssumptions” tab records any assumptions made for each element.   6.1.1 Original Model Assembly Groups The following table describes how the original model was labeled. Assembly Group Labeling Modeling Information Foundations -  On - Grade slabs were based on t hickness of slab, Ex. “Kn'radeSlabϭ- ϰ was a ϰ” slab. -  Three types of footings were present: Column, Strip Footings and Basement Walls. -  Column footings formatted “f.η” where the number corresponded to the number of footings in the drawings. -  Strip Footings formatted “f.” where the letter  would change depending on what type of strip footing it was. -  Basement walls used same labeling as Strip Footings -  Foundation Slabs modeled using Area Condition on OnScreen Takeoff  -  Column Footings modeled using Count Condition -  Strip Footings modeled using linear condition.  Volumes of strip footings were summed and broken down and adjusted for the IE.  -  See Assumptions Annex D for further information. Floors -  Named using short form of what they represent.  For edžample “SuspSlab” represented suspended slab. -  Suspended Slabs, Precast concrete T - Beams and Slabs on Grade modeled using Area Condition of Onscreen.  -  Stairs were modelled as a footings by approximating the thickness and then measured angularly to find the volume. -  T- beam floors were divided into a small span and long length to ensure they could be inputted into impact estimator (But retained the same area) Walls -  Walls were labeled as per the following diagram:   Each wall type corresponds to the following labeling:  -  1 -  Precas t -  2 - Concrete Block  -  3 -  Poured Concrete Wall  -  4 -  Wood Stud Wall -  5 -  Concrete Block Fire Wall  -  6 - Partial Height Wood Stud Wall  -  7 -  Wood Stud Wall with Type 1 Insulation  -  8 -  Wood Study Wall with Type 2 Insulation  -  9 -  Steel Stud Wall -  10 -  Steel Stud Partition Wall  -  11 -  Steel Stud Partition Wall With Fiberglass Insulation  -  Doors were counted and measured in OnScreen Takeoff using the Count Condition.  -  Walls were measured in OnScreen Takeoff using the Linear Condition.  -  Concrete block walls were estimated to have a longer length to accommodate for the fact that they are only supposed to be 200mm in length but the impact estimator only allows 6in or 8in thicknesses.  -  Windows in CEME typically illustrated as per below sketch:   -  The Wall section of the above window could not be modeled in IE as each wall assembly only has one window imput, therefore the materials were added into “Edžtra Basic Daterials” -  All windows were considered to be inoperable  28  in the model to simplify the inputs. -  See Assumptions Annex D for further information. Columns and Beams -  Columns labeled as “C.η.” or “C.η.η” -  The first # corresponds to each building area (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) while the second represents corresponds to the level (First Floor, Second Floor, Basement, Penthouse)  -  Columns counted using OnScreen Take off Count Condition -  Supported Area was calculated using OnScreen Takeoff Area Condition.  -  See Assumptions Annex D for further information. Roofs -  The only roof type modeled was the Open Web Steel Joist.   -  Roof was modeled using the Area condition of OnScreen  Takeoff Area Condition.   Extra Basic Materials -  Gypsum Board, Insulation, Steel and Wood were the extra materials modeled for the windows.  They are labeled accordingly. -  Used to model the window condition wall section as per the “talls” subsection.  Table 14 - Original Model Assembly Groups 6.1.2 Inaccuracies in the Original Model dhe interpretation of CEDE͛s drawings posed the largest number of inaccuracies in the model.  Many assumptions needed to be made about every single assem bly characteristic, such as assuming the rebar used is #4 and that the live loads are assumed to be 75 psi.  There is no way to check these numbers without the full set of drawings, which were not available.  There were also elements present in the model that was outside of the ability for the Impact Estimator to Model, or outside of the scope of the assessment.  Thes e most significant one that is excluded is the underside of the overhangs in CEME are too complex for the Impact Estimator to model as they are made from plaster.  Furthermore, the foundations were treated to have a constant thickness while in actuality they have a variety due to their function of accommodating different large lab equipment.   Moreover, the penthouses located on the roof were unable to be modeled as there were corrugated metal sheeting around a frame of columns and open webbed steel joists, and the impact estimator did not have the capacity to include the unique wall envelope, only the columns.  Another inaccuracy introduced from the original model was that the drawings were hand drawn and scanned, which added difficulty when trying to find limits during measuring of objects.   6.2 CIQS Sorting The re- sorted Level 3 elements can be found in Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Ass umptions.  The following table below gives a brief description of what is included in each CIQS category for CEME.  LEVEL 3 ELEMENT WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS CATEGORY SPECIFIC TO CEME A11 Foundations  -  Column Footings  29  -  Strip Footings A21 Lowest Floor Construc tion -  Slab on grade -  Mezzanine Floor Slab  A22 Upper Floor Construction  -  All Second Level Floors  -  All Penthouse Floors  -  All Columns and Beams Supporting the Upper Floors (Excluding columns and beams supporting the roof) A23 Roof Construction  -  Roofing structural frame and insulation -  Assumed Roofing Membrane  -  All Columns and Beams Supporting the Roof Structure A31 Walls Below Grade  -  All exterior walls in the basement level.  -  Corresponding windows and doors. A32 Walls Above Grade  -  All exterior walls above grade.  -  Corresponding windows and doors. B11 Partitions  -  All Interior walls above and below grade.   Table 15 - CIQS Elements 6.3 Model Improvements Unfortunately, the previous OST for CEME  became corrupted and was lost.  Therefore the previous author͛s version of OnScreen Takeoff  3.6.2.25 could not be used with the newer version of OnScreen Takeoff 3.9.  It  was assumed that his results were accurate unless proven otherwise.  Below is a table that illustrates the upgrades to the original model that were made.  These improvements are also found in Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions that outlines the changes in further detail.    30    Dany more improvements could have been made, but it was impossible to checŬ dyler͛s initial assumptions without his original OST file.  Many of the original taŬeoff͛s were recounted but it was impossible to checŬ every assumption.    6.1 Bill of Materials Describe the concept of reference flows and present your building͛s bill of materials in metric units and table format for each Level 3 Element.   6.1 Reference Flows Describe the concept of reference flows and present your building͛s bill of materials in metric units and table format for each Level 3 Element.            Table 16 - Detailed Description of CEME Model Improvements  31  6.4 Reference Flow and Bill of Materials A reference flow is defined as the measure of the outputs that fulfills the function expressed by the functional unit in a given product system 23  The purpose of a reference flow is to decipher the functional unit into particular product flows.24   In C EDE͛s case, the reference flow is a materials list of the product, which is the overall building and envelope.  The following table illustrates the bill of materials/reference flow per Level 3 Element for CEME.  Level 3 Element Materials Quantity  Units A1 1 Foundations  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av)  504.45  m3  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections  1.46  Tonnes A21 Lowest Floor Construction  6 mil Polyethylene  2282.06  m2  Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av)  251.12  m3  Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire  1.94  Tonnes A22 Upper Floor Construction Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av)  1235.20  m3  Hollow Structural Steel  6.16  Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections  107.63  Tonnes A23 Roof Construction  #15 Organic Felt  28426.9 3  m2  24 Ga. Steel Roof (Commercial)  877.72  m2  Ballast (aggregate stone) 275598.34  kg  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av)  894.20  m3  Extruded Polystyrene  6550.44  m2 (25mm)  Galvanized Decking  42.83  Tonnes Galvanized Sheet  4.95  Tonnes Modified Bitumen membrane  1615.61  kg  Nails  2.14  Tonnes Open Web Joists  38.90  Tonnes Preca st Concrete 31.67  m3  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections  235.15  Tonnes Roofing Asphalt  83877.4 5  kg  Screws Nuts & Bolts  0.01  Tonnes Solvent Based Alkyd Paint  468.80  L  Type III Glass Felt  56853.8 6  m2  Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire  0.40  Tonnes A31 Walls B elow Grade  Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av)  149.88  m3  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections  0.07  Tonnes                                                           23Sianchuk, R.  (2013). Week 8 – Uncertainty In LCA.  Retrieved from http://civl498c.wikispaces.com/file/view/Week8_Uncertainty.pdf/4625921 98/Week8_Uncertainty.pdf      24 Weidema, B., Wenzel, H., Petersen, C., Hansen K. (2004).   The Product, Functional Unit and Reference Flows in LCA.  Retrieved from http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/Publications/200 4/87 - 761 4 - 2 33 - 7/pdf/87 - 76 14 - 234 -5.PDF    32  A32 Walls Above Grade  1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board  5134.75  m2  3 mil Polyethylene  476.46  m2  Aluminum  44.95  Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av)  747.66  m3  Double G lazed No Coating Air  2054.36  m2  EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil)  3074.58  kg  Expanded Polystyrene  136.71  m2 (25mm)  Extruded Polystyrene  4390.83  m2 (25mm)  FG Batt R11 - 15  1622.95  m2 (25mm)  Galvanized Sheet  2.60  Tonnes Galvanized Studs  1.58  Tonnes J oint Compound 5.12  Tonnes Nails  3.00  Tonnes Paper Tape  0.06  Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections  36.79  Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts  0.07  Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln - dried 0.05  m3  Solvent Based Alkyd Paint  12.38  L  Water Based Latex  Paint  2.80  L  B11 Partitions  1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board  6974.37  m2  5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board  157.90  m2  Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av)  256.46  m3  Concrete Blocks  33835.4 3  Blocks  Double Glazed No Coating Air  0.10  m2  Expanded Polystyrene  13.02  m2 (25m m) Extruded Polystyrene  521.47  m2 (25mm)  FG Batt R11 - 15  6804.86  m2 (25mm)  Galvanized Sheet  17.18  Tonnes Galvanized Studs  2.69  Tonnes Joint Compound  7.12  Tonnes Mortar  647.02  m3  Nails  1.62  Tonnes Oriented Strand Board  1906.92  m2 (9mm)  Pape r Tape 0.08  Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections  132.67  Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts  0.12  Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln - dried 76.94  m3  Solvent Based Alkyd Paint  74.28  L  Water Based Latex Paint  176.54  L  Table 17 - Bill of Materials for CEME  33  7.0 Communication and Assessment of Results 7.1 Life Cycle Results The following figures below displays the building results for CEME.   Each impact category (Fossil Fuel Consumption, Global Warming etc.) is expressed as a total  of 100%, with the percentage displayed for each level 3 elements.   A  summary table is also provided to show where the data was contrived.  As shown below, in CEME, the element with the largest impact in all categories is the A22 Upper Floor Construction.  This is probably because CEME has a large surface area.  In regards to life cycle stages, the largest ͚hotspot͛ impacts come from the manufacturing stages over the construction stages.  As we determined to use a service life input of 1 year, the use and end of life stages will have little to no impact.  Figure 4 - Level 3 Elements By % Impact of Total Impact Category  Table 18 - Level 3 Elements By % Impact In Table Format  34   This concludes the building declaration section of the report.  The next four sections that are included are An nedžes that are a reflection of the author͛s edžperience as well as a further interpretation of the results and how they can be used effectively in society.  The annexes are as follows:  1.  Interpretation of Assessment Results  2.  Recommendations for LCA Use  3.  Annex C   ʹAuthor Reflection  4.  Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions   35  8.0 Annex A – Interpretation of Assessment Results 8.1 Benchmark Development Benchmarking is useful in LCA as it is an iterative tool that allows industry professionals, researchers and the general public to easily make sense of LCA - based information.  It allows individuals to compare their products impacts with another products impacts.25  In the case of CEME, it can be compared to other buildings at UBC, in terms of the 7 environmental i mpacts illustrated in Section 5.0 of this report.  The most beneficial tool of a benchmark is to allow individuals to easily interpret the results of an LCA analysis, as many find it easier to compare a result to a benchmark that represents an average, rat her than just looking at a number that represents global warming potential.  The functional equivalence of a benchmark normalizes the data.  Defining the goal and scope of a project is important for model development as well as benchmark development.  When  developing the goal, the following question must be asked,  “there will the information be put to use͍”  /n CEDE͛s case, the information will be used for comparative assertions with the other 22 buildings being evaluated, which is defined under the goal category in ISO 1404 4.  The goal will state the reasons for carrying out the study instigate discussion and determine the intended audience all of which are necessary to determine what will be compared for the benchmark.  The scope definition will define wha t is being included in the benchmark, what is to be compared.  8.2 UBC Academic Building Benchmark 8.2.3 Comparing CEME to UBC Building Benchmark   The following table and chart below illustrates CEME compared to the class benchmark.  The following buildings were not included in this graph due to lack of information uploaded in stage 4: Chemistry North, Wesbrook, Geography, Chemistry South Wing, Pharmacy, Douglas Kenny .                                                             25 Nissinen, A., Heiskanen, E., Grönroos, J., Honkanen, A., Katajajuuri, J. - M., Kurppa, S. (200 9).  -  Developing LCA-based benchmarks for sustainable consumption for and with users  Retrieved from http://orgprints.org/11268/1/LCA.pdf    36   Figure 5 - Percentage DIfferences Between CEME and Class Benchmarks Illustrated In a Graph  CIQS Level 3 Element  Building Fossil Fuel Consumption Global Warming Acidification  Human Health Criteria  ʹRespiratory Eutrophication Ozone Layer Depletion Smog (MJ)  (kg CO2eq)  (moles of H+eq)  (kg PM10eq)  (kg Neq)  (kg CFC -11eq)  (kg O3eq)  Whole Building Benchmark   4,555.82   386.82   2.68   0.96  2.01E - 01  1.61E - 06   45.54  CEME  4,106.60  306.02  2.14  0.56  0.2  0  39.79  A11 Foundations  Benchmark   979.55   139.47   0.88   0.33  3.88E - 02  7.40E - 07   20.04  CEME  169.35  23.14  0.1 6  0.05  0.01  0  3.78  A21 Lowest Floor Construction Benchmark   379.95   43.79   0.28   0.10  1.85E - 02  2.09E - 07   5.96  CEME  261.92  31.05  0.22  0.07  0.01  0  5.32  A22 Upper Floor Construction Benchmark   2,291.89   222.78   1.36   0.36  1.09E - 01  5.18E - 07   23.08   CEME  1,254.69  113.68  0.73  0.16  0.07  0  15.02  A23 Roof Construction  Benchmark   3,695.56   244.35   1.55   0.48  1.52E - 01  1.13E - 06   26.49  CEME  2,322.16  111.28  0.68  0.16  0.07  0  9.27  A31 Walls Below Grade  Benchmark   638.16   70.17   0.49   0.18  2.62E - 02  3.73E - 07   8.40  CEME  524.75  55.41  0.39  0.12  0.03  0  9.39  A32 Walls Above Grade  Benchmark   1,300.08   121.24   1.05   0.51  4.71E - 02  6.08E - 07   12.95  CEME  669.63  56.59  0.5  0.13  0.03  0  7.96  B11 Partitions  Benchmark   1,337.24   124.59   0.81   0.31  6 .62E - 02  4.68E - 07   13.18  CEME  568.87  48.89  0.33  0.09  0.03  0  6.13  Table 19 - Benchmark Values Compared To Level 3 Elements   37  The Level 3 Element with the largest percent difference from the benchmark value is A11 Foundations.  This could be due to the lack of detailed footing drawings for the building.  I improved this value as outlined in Section 6.0 as the previous author of this report did not include any material of the footings below the ground.  However, there is still a large  difference between the benchmarŬ.  tith more detailed drawings, a better representation of CEDE͛s footing structure could be developed and more likely it would be a smaller percentage difference from the benchmark.  A lot of the categories have a large pe rcentage difference with the benchmark as well, such as A23, A32, and B11.  This could be due to the large amount of concrete used in the building structure. 8.2.3 UBC Building Global Warming Vs. Cost Impacts  The figure below compares the difference between total cost and global warming potential of a building for all the buildings at UBC.  Generally, the graph shows a trend that the more money a building costs, the higher the global warming impact it will have on the environment. This makes sense as when a building costs more, it uses more materials and therefore has a larger impact on the environment.   CEME is on the bottom half of the trendline.  This is probably due to the fact that it is mostly constructed out of concrete, which is a relatively cheap material. It follows the trendline accurately.  Figure 6 - Global Warming Impact Vs. Cost  38  9.0 Annex B – Recommendations for LCA Use The following topics discuss the recommendations to operationalize LCA in building design.  9.1 Importance of Life Cycle Modules Beyond Product and Construction Stages The scope of this assessment did not include the life cycle modules beyond the cradle to gate stages; it only included the product and construction modules.  However, it is very important  to consider the use and end of life modules as they have to account for a large amount of environmental impacts.  For example, the use stage includes maintenance, repair, replacement and refurbishment stages.  Many products have replacement cycles, meanin g they need to be replaced after a certain time period as they are no longer functional.  Over the lifetime of a building, a product could be replaced a number of times, could add additional product and construction stages to the buildings overall impact.  If mechanical systems are included in a buildings life cycle analysis, the operation and maintenance stages have an even larger impact than the construction stages.  Furthermore, at the end of life stage, an extremely large amount of energy is used to disassemble a building.  This stage includes de- construction demolition, transport, waste processing and disposal.  All of these sta ges have a significant impact.  For example, imagine how many times it would take a single dump truck to remove all the debris from a large high rise that was demolished.   The use and end of life cycles have a large contribution to a buildings overall impact, and therefore must be considered.  9.2 LCA Applied in Design to Manage the Environmental Performance of Buildings By using LCA as a tool for competitive assertions, during the design stage, users can compare their buildings design to current buildings in practice to see how they measure up.  By using the impact estimator, users can determine which components contribute the largest impacts on the environment.  They then can manipulate their building design in the impact estimator using a trial and error process to decrease their components impacts.   9.3 Availability and Quality of Data and Benchmarks In the case of this study,  we have used a benchmark value consisting of 22 buildings that are contained at UBC.  In practice currently, there is a much larger surplus of benchmarks available  39  for European buildings than for American buildings. 26   There are many building benchmarks available, but not all can be applied appropriately to any building LCA study, it depends on the context.  For example, a residential building benchmark would not be appli cable in the LCA study of CEME.  Appropriate benchmarking for buildings must ensure the  buildings are the same time, for example if they are all institutional building, and must also have the buildings place in the same geographical area with similar climates.27   For products, when using a benchmark value, the product must have the same use function (the reason the functional unit is defined).  There are many benchmarks available in products currently, but they all vary in type.   9.4 Issues in Application In this study, the impact categories we prioritized were the ones included in TRACI as w ell as Fossil Fuel Consumption, which is included in the Athena Impact Estimator.  However, issues in real life application arise in choosing which impact categories are most important as individual͛s opinions are influenced by their own personal experienc es.  For example, during an CIVL 498C lecture, an aversion survey was performed by the class.  During this exercise, the students were asked to rank the value they put on importance for each impact category listed.  The activity was done as a personal reflection.  After they were completed, the students were told to discuss with their groups why they chose what they did and to re- rank the categories.  After re - ranking, almost every student changed his or her original numbers.  This was because many presented reasonable arguments that the other group members might not have thought of.  For example, after individual ranŬing and speaŬing with my group, there was a person who͛s sister who developed a lung condition due to HH particulates in the air in China.  I then gave a higher ranking to the HH Particulates as her story inspired me to.   Therefore, the issues in application/interpretation can vary according to whom is deciding their importance. 9.5 Steps to Operationalize LCA Methods The steps I would take to o perationalize LCA methods at UBC are as follows:                                                            26 De Cristofar, L., Konig, H., (20 12).  Benchmarks for Life Cycle Costs and Life Cycle Assessment of Residential Buildings. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.108 0/09 6132 18.20 12.702017   27 Peng, T. National Ready Mixed Concrete Associ ation (2011)  ʹMIT Research:  Life Cycle Assessment of Residential Buildings.  Retrieved from http://www.nrmca.org/sustainability/CSR06%2 0 -%20MIT%20Research%20LCA%20of%20Residential%20Buildings.pdf    40  -  Conduct a separate LCA study on all UBC buildings to determine a benchmark value  (As determined in this study)  Have an individual with LCA professional background (Rob Sianchuk) to check over the study to d etermine they are accurate. -  Use this benchmark value to determine where UBC͛s buildings currently fall in comparison to other universities.    -  Every time a new building is being considered, use the UBC building benchmark value to determine where UBC͛s buildings fall in comparison to the previous buildings at UBC.   -  Ensure architect and engineers have the information from the LCA benchmarks so they can use this information to influence their design when working for UBC.     41  10.0 Annex C - Author Reflection 10.1 Previous Experience  My only previous exposure to LCA prior to this class was learning about it in my LEED Green Building Associates Prep class given by UBC Continuing Studies.  Life Cycle Analysis was introduced in the “Daterials and Zesources” module and how it can be applied in LEED.  In this class I learned about what LCA was and how LCA can be used in practical design to compare various products.  It introduced the limitations to LCA and a brief overview of the process to perform one.  Furthermore the class introduced the comparison tool BEES and the Athena Impact Estimator.  In respect to sustainability, since the beginning of my term as a civil engineering student at UBC sustainability in building design has been a major focus.  I have taken a coupl e classes regarding sustainability, including CIVL 201 and CIVL 202, and at present CIVL 405.   10.2 Overview of CIVL 498C CIVL  498C focuses  on giving student an overview of what LCA is.  It provides students with an understanding of the standards and methodologies of LCA and how to interpret/understand LCA studies.  The course progressed through four main topics, including the history/current state of LCA, the overall structure of LCA through a detailed explanation of ISO 14044 and 14040 , the development of a whole building LCA study and uncertainty in current LCA practices.  10.3 Interest in CIVL 498C and LCA of A Building What interested me most about CIVL 498C was that we were going to learn about how to perform our own LCA study on a building at UBC.  I thought this would be an applicable skill to have, especially for future LEED projects I might get to work on.  Furthermore, I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the building drawings a t UBC to expand on my skills of identifying materials in structures and my onscreen takeoff skills.   Below are two graphs illustrating the differences from my expectations from before the project compared what I actually learned after performing the final project.  The biggest change as illustrated in the graphs is the amount I actually learned about the LCA process.  In class we got a brief overiew of many topics, but what I liked about the final project was that I learned about certain subjects such as uncertainty and LCI Databases in further detail.  Moreove r, I found we got an overview of what last years students did, and we could contribute ourselves to their previous reports.   42  This made my work feel productive, as I was not just repeating work they had already done, but I was contributing my own ideas and improving on the previous author͛s model.  dhat is why / increased the percentage of “nalynjing the Zesults of a >C Study.”   Figure 7 - Table Displaying Learning Expectations Before Performing Final Project    Figure 8 - Table Displaying Actual Learning After Performing Project 10.4 CEAB Graduate Attributes Demonstrated The table below illustrates on which of the 12 CEAB Graduate attributes I believe I demonstrated in this project: 43  Table 20 - CEAB Graduate Elements Table  44  11.0 Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions The inputs and assumptions are illustrated below.  The excel file can be found in D ropbox .    45    46    47    48    49    50    51      52      53     54     55    56    57   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108883/manifest

Comment

Related Items