Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment : level 3 building elements of the Douglas Kenny Building Carnes, Kendrick 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-Carnes_Kendrick_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 2.11MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108889.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108889-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108889-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108889-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108889-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108889-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108889-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108889-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108889.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportKendrick CarnesLIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: Level 3 Building Elements of the Douglas Kenny BuildingCIVL 498CNovember 18, 201310651545University 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     LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT Level 3 Building Elements of the Douglas Kenny Building       Kendrick Carnes CIVL 498C  Page 1  E xecutive Summary    Life Cycle Assessment is the only tool in which decisions regarding environmental impacts can be made. LCA uses sufficient scientific data to provide impact results to air, land, and water while analysing products and product systems. This project breaks down a previous LCA on The University of British Columbia͛s Douglas <enny Building. dhe previous >C looked at the cradle to gate which is similar to this study. The previous model was reviewed and all assumptions were evaluated. The previous model was then broken up into CIQS level 3 building elements. These building elements make up the complete building. The level 3 building elements is the format that professional surveyors who give cost estimates to clients use. By categorizing building materials into level 3 elements LCA can be brought in to the design stage of buildings. By having LCA in the design stage a client can make decisions based on LCA results and costs. The previous LCA study used a LCA tool called the Athena Impact Estimator which is a computer program designed for building LCA. The previous model was reorganized in AIE into level 3 elements and then basic materials and impact results were calculated. The use of a functional unit allowed for the normalization so that comparison between elements and eventually buildings can be compared. The impact results for the Douglas Kenny Building are fairly high since the majority of the building is made of cement. It was found that the main impacts from the cement manufacturing were due to the product manufacturing stage. When compared to a benchmark from 16 other LCA studies that were completed during the same time, the Douglas Kenny building exhibited higher performance. The benchmark for every impact category was higher than the impacts obtained from the Douglas Kenny Building. The method, data, model, goal and scope are subjected to various degrees of uncertainties.         Page 2  Ta ble of Cont ent s   Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.0 General Information on the Assessment ................................................................................................ 4 Purpose of the assessment ....................................................................................................................... 4 Identification of building ........................................................................................................................... 4 Other Assessment Information ................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 General Information on the Object of Assessment ................................................................................ 6 2.1 Functional Equivalent.......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Reference Study Period....................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Object of Assessment Scope ............................................................................................................... 6 3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment ......................................................... 8 3.1 System Boundary ................................................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Product Stage ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Construction Stage .............................................................................................................................. 10 4.0 Environmental Data .............................................................................................................................. 10 4.1 Data Sources ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Data Adjustments and Substitutions ...................................................................................................... 11 Data Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 12 5.0 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results ....................................................... 13 6.0 Model Development ............................................................................................................................. 14 7.0 Communication of Assessment Results ................................................................................................ 18 Life Cycle Results ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 24 Annex A - Interpretation of Assessment Results ........................................................................................ 25 Benchmark Development ....................................................................................................................... 25 UBC Academic Building Benchmark ........................................................................................................ 26 Annex B - Recommendations for LCA Use .................................................................................................. 28 Page 3  Annex C - Author Reflection ........................................................................................................................ 30 Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions................................................................................ 35 Annex E  ʹNet Present Value Cost .............................................................................................................. 62   Lis t of Figures  Figure 1 Fossil Fuel Consumption ............................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2 Global Warming Potential ............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3 Acidification Potential ................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4 Human Health Midpoint Impact ................................................................................................... 21 Figure 5 Eutrophication Potential ............................................................................................................... 21 Figure 6 Ozone Layer Depletion Potential .................................................................................................. 22 Figure 7 Smog Potential .............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 8 The difference in percent between the building and element from the UBC 2013 benchmark .. 26 Figure 9 Building cost for each building looked at in the 2013 UBC study verses the Global Warming Potential for each building and building element. ..................................................................................... 27 Figure 10 Inexpensive Buildings vs. Global Warming Potential .................................................................. 28  List of Tables Table 1 Assessment Information .................................................................................................................. 5 Table 2 Functional Equivalent Definition ...................................................................................................... 6 Table 3 Building Definition Template............................................................................................................ 8 Table 4 Descriptions of Measurements for Level 3 Elements .................................................................... 16 Table 5 Bill of Materials for Each Element .................................................................................................. 17    Page 4  1.0 Genera l Info rma tio n on the Ass essment  P ur p os e of the ass e s s men t   The purpose of doing a building life cycle assessment (LCA) is to quantify the environmental performance of the building. By quantifying the product inputs, the construction process inputs and outputs, energy, material use, and disposal of the product, the total environmental impacts for the building can be assessed. By analysing the environmental impacts, the product systems that have the least environmental impacts can be seen.  Green building systems and standards are becoming more dominant in building regulation. As UBC strives to be more sustainable, LCA will become increasingly more important since they are an exceptional tool to measure sustainability from a scientific approach. The format of this assessment is particular in that it will make it easier to use LCA instep with building design.  Previous LCA studies were done on UBC buildings in the years previous to 2013. The previous >C͛s modeled the entire building from cradle grave. In doing so, environmental impacts for the entire building were analysed.  The purpose of this LCA is to categorize the different elements that make up the building and complete individual >C͛s on each element. By collaborating with other individuals who completed elemental >C͛s on other UBC buildings a benchmark was created. This benchmark was created by averaging each element from all the buildings studied.   This LCA can be used by UBC͛s sustainability office, UBC building development team, developers, architects, engineers, governments and so on, to compare which elemental building designs have the least environmental impact and thus more sustainable. This is done by completing comparative assertions on a building͛s element to abenchmarŬ and to other building͛s elements.  High attention to detail is required to obtain accurate environmental impact results. The level of detail that goes into completing a LCA is very significant. All data collected must be accurate and justifiable so that calculations for quantifying building material and the impacts associated with the product can be reliable.  I den tif ic ati on of bu i l ding   This LCA studied the environmental impacts associated with the building elements from the Douglas <enny building͛s. dhe Douglas <enny building is also Ŭnown as UBC͛s “Psychology Building” and is located at 2136 West Mall on the West Side of the UBC campus.   Page 5  The building was designed by Reno Negrin and Associates and was constructed in the years between 1982 and 1984. The total construction cost of the Douglas Kenny Building was $1.25 million in 19821 which is roughly $2.56 million in today s͛ dollars. The design of the building is relatively simple in the sense that UBC in the early ϭϵϴϬ͛s had a limited budget2. At that time in 1982, UBC had a budget shortfall of $7.4 million and as a result UBC increased tuition an average 32.8%3.    The Douglas Kenny Building is almost entirely constructed of concrete with steel stud interior walls. The gross floor area of the building is 8972m2. This is measured from the outside of the exterior walls. It has four main floors with a penthouse used as a mechanical room. The main floors are comprised mainly of offices, research laboratories, and classrooms. The building contains 110 offices, 183 labs, 21 classrooms, 20 washrooms, and a large atrium that extends all four floors to a 300m2 skylight.   Ot her Ass es s men t I nfor mati o n   As previously mentioned, this study was based off the results obtained from a whole building LCA that was done in March 2010 by a UBC student. Both studies used US EPA TRACI methodology and Athena Impact Estimator. Further assessment information is given in Table 1 below. Table 1 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: Kendrick Carnes, Environmental Engineering Second Author: Not Available Impact Assessment method US EPA TRACI methodology, Athena Impact Estimator 4.2.0208 Point of Assessment 29 years Period of Validity 5 years. Date of Assessment Completed in December 2013. Verifier Student work, study not verified.                                                           1 (Author, Unknown, 2010) 2 (Library, UBC, 2013) 3 (Library, UBC, 2013) Page 6  2.0 Genera l Info rma tio n on the Object of Ass essment  2.1 Funct io nal Eq ui v alen t   In order to compare the impacts from one building to another, a common unit was chosen. The common unit or functional unit that was chosen for this >C was “per meters sƋuared”.  dhis unit allows for comparison between elemental impacts with different uses and between buildings with different uses. These different uses require different building systems. For example, a building used mainly for offices would have far more partitions than a building that would be used for large lectures. This functional unit allows us to normalize the environmental impact, which enables us to quantify the element͛s building performance against elements and other buildings which is this >C͛s intended application. Table 2 Functional Equivalent Definition Aspect of Object of Assessment Description Building Type Institution Technical and functional requirements Office Space, Research Laboratories, classrooms Pattern of use House UBC Psychology Department, promote interaction between faculty members and students Required service life 100 year  2.2 Refer enc e Stu dy Peri od   Dost >C͛s have a r ference study period for the entire building life and/or the required service life. In the case of this LCA, the reference study period was from cradle to gate so a service life of one year was chosen rather than a service life of say 100 years. The reason for this is that the main goal of this LCA is to assess building elements from a design prospective rather than a functional perspective. By eliminating the product use and end of life phases the impacts associated with the various design elements of the building were isolated.  2.3 Obj ec t of Ass es s men t Sc o pe   The object of assessment scope is the building structure that sits on the Douglas Kenny Building footprint. The assessment only looked at the building structure and did not take into account finishes such as flooring, electrical systems, HVAC systems, and other ͚details and finishings͛.   The Douglas Kenny Building is built on ten types of rectangular footings and five type of strip footings. The slab on grade was constructed on the ground surface with minimal excavation required covering an area of 2655m2. Since the building was constructed at grade it does not have any walls below grade and Page 7  therefore all exterior walls were assumed to be above grade. All concrete used in the building was categorized as 25mpa concrete. As mentioned the majority of the building was constructed using concrete. The columns, beams and floors are all constructed using concrete as well.  The columns in the building are round and extend four floors from the slab on grade. Between the columns are large square concrete girders spanning all directions with smaller intermediate beams built into the concrete pad floor system running in a single direction.4 The two type of roofing systems are made of concrete for the main roof and steel for the penthouse roof. The concrete roof is similar to the floor system with an additional membrane and ballast aggregate. The penthouse roof system consists of an open web steel joist structure with metal roof deck. The roof deck is overlaid by a roof membrane as well as 75mm rigid insulation and a 50mm aggregate ballast.  The other area that makes up the roof is the 300m2 skylight. The support for the skylight is made of hollow structural steel. The skylight is connected to a curtain wall that extends down into the atrium. Connected to the atrium is a series of interior walls with many glass windows facing into the atrium. Attached to the atrium are 200mm thick concrete walls. The remaining interior walls are steel stud with drywall on either side. The previous model broke down the building categories into five specific categories. The five categories from the previous model were the following: Foundations, Walls, Columns and Beams, Roofs, Floors, and Extra Basic material. For this LCA the previous five categories were broken down into Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyor͛s ;C/YSͿ >evel ϯ El ments. The definition of an element is defined by the C/YS as, “a major component common to most buildings, fulfilling the same function irrespective of its design, specification or construction”5. The elements and descriptions are shown in Table 2. The main reason for splitting the model into Level 3 elements is so that the results from this LCA can be brought into the designing stage when designing future buildings at UBC and elsewhere. By having the environmental impacts broken down into level 3 elements, a designer can compare different level 3 elemental designs and choose which one is most cost effective and sustainable.                                                                4 (Author, Unknown, 2010) 5 (CIQS, 2011) Page 8  Table 3 Building Definition Template CIVL 498C Level 3 Elements Description Quantity (Amount) Units A11  Foundations  Rectangular and Strip Footings 2655 m2 A21  Lowest Floor Construction  Slab On Grade, Ground Floor Beam 2655 m2 A22  Upper Floor Construction  Stairs, Stairwell floor, 2nd/3rd/4th/Penthouse Column and Beams Supporting Floor, 2nd/3rd/4th Floor Construction 6317 m2 A23  Roof Construction  Roof, Columns and beams Supporting Roof, Skylight, Roof Parapet 2356 m2 A31  Walls Below Grade  None 0 m2 A32  Walls Above Grade  Exterior Walls (Cast in Place, Steel Stud),  17913 m2 B11  Partitions  Interior Walls(All floors Steel Stud), Concrete Block Wall, Brick, Standard Glazing 10564 m2 3.0 Sta tement of Boundaries and Scena rios Used in the Assessment  3.1 Sys te m Bou n dar y   This LCA study has a fairly narrow scope, in that only two stages are considered.  The life cycles included in this study only include the product stage and the construction process stage. The product stage includes the raw material supply, transport and manufacturing. The construction stage includes transport and construction and installation processes. Each stage takes into account the inputs and outputs for the particular stage process. Inputs include energy, materials, and resources while the outputs are the finished product, co-products, emissions, and waste.  Page 9  Each stage looked at has its own upstream and downstream processes. Upstream processes are processes that occur before a particular stage. Similarly, downstream processes are processes that occur after a particular stage.  The scope is dependent on the LCA tool that was used for this study. The tool used for this LCA study is a computer program called the Athena Impact Estimator (AIE). The AIE has different inputs depending on the system boundary of the object to be assessed. These inputs are discussed in detail in 3.2 and 3.3. The estimator automatically takes into account the environmental impacts of the following processes given accurate inputs are entered:  1. Material Manufacturing  2. Related Transportation  3. On-Site Construction 4. Regional Variation in Energy 5. Building Type and Lifespan 6. Maintenance and Replacement Effects 7. Demolition and Disposal  The Athena Institute, the company responsible for the AIE, has completed hundreds of LCA studies and obtains all their data “in house”6. The data is backed by the most current and reliable data available. The software draws from LCI and LCA data files that are built in to the program. These LCA files are completed following ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. Each file that the program draws from is a complete LCA on the building product material.  Some of these studies that the manufacturer approved can be found on the Athena website. These studies include the construction, demolition and disposal phases of the product.  3.2 Pro d uc t Sta ge   The product stage is an upstream process for the construction stage. This stage produced reference flows for the construction stage of the building. dhe product stage is Ŭnown as a “cradle to gate” process. The product stage includes three main sub stages which are raw material supply, transport, and manufacturing of all the building material products. The product stage includes the delivery of the finish product to the “gate” in this case, the construction site.  As mentioned in ϯ.ϭ the /E draws on relevant >C files for particular building materials. dhese >C͛s were completed for each building material that is found in the AIE. The AIE has inputs for the city that the building is constructed in. That being said, the software uses local suppliers data for each product in the program. The software has regional statistics for building materials. These stats are very thorough in                                                           6 (Institute, Athena Sustainable Materials, 2013) Page 10  that they have accounted for almost every possible scenario. For example, the concrete for the Douglas Kenny Building probably came from a local manufacturer. This local manufacturer is probably located near a port in which raw materials are barged to. The delivery of raw supplies by the barge would most likely have a lower environmental impact than from trucking the raw materials in.  The software takes into account these details and many other details to provide a probability based assessment on where and how the building materials are manufactured and transported. The software includes the regional variation in energy as well. Here in British Columbia our impacts from energy use are minor compared to the impacts from Alberta where they burn coal instead of relying on hydro power.  The software considers all these details when the providing outputs for each building material. The environmental impacts for each building element as well as for the entire building can be found in Annex D.  C on struct ion Stage   The construction stage covers the processes from the factory gate of the different construction products to the practical completion of the construction work. The Construction processes impacts are evaluated during the Construction Stage. Similarly to the Product Stage, the Athena Impact Estimator takes into account many details for the construction process. The Software takes into account how the building material is assembled into the building structure. This may include temporary heating of the material or storage processes. One main environmental impacts for the construction stage is energy use. This energy is the energy that is required to construct the building through to structural completion. For example, lumber and other building materials require the use of a fork lift to transport them around the construction site, and thus the burning of fossil fuels are evaluated. The software also includes the impacts from transporting the finished product to the construction site. The software relies on data collected for average distances from a manufacture to a construction site within Vancouver. Furthermore the software takes into account construction waste for the various materials. For example, it is known for a given product that a certain percent of that product will be thrown out as waste instead of being consumed in the building. The disposal of this waste is also included within each products initial LCA of which the AIE draws from. Other impacts looked at within the construction stage are the emissions to air, water and land during the on-site activity.  4.0 Environmenta l Data  4.1 Data Sourc es   The environmental data that this study is based on is from the Athena LCI Database for the material process data and the US LCI Database for energy combustion and pre-combustion for electricity generation and transportation. The Athena LCI Database is very large, with LCI and LCAs for the most widely used building products. Athena Institute claims that the AIE can model 95%of the building stock Page 11  in North America.7 The Athena LCI and LCA studies are all done in house by their own experts in LCA who follow ISO standards, CSA standards, and US EPA standards. The AIE supports the US Environmental Protection gency͛s dZC/ v Ϯ.ϭ ;ϮϬϭϮͿ in the sense that it uses the sidž midpoint impact estimation models. The midpoint impacts are discussed further in section 5.0.  thena͛s edžperts have been doing >C and >C/ studies for Ƌuite some time now. They have over 150 ISO compliant LCA and LCI studies completed. The first version of the AIE was released in 2002 when LCA for buildings was initially starting out. The AIE is built from the ground up as it does not rely on trade or government data. All data is actual data obtained by thena͛s edžperts for actual mill or engineered processes. The UC LCI data base is managed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).  Data Adj us tm en ts and Subs tit u tio ns   Overall, the previous model was based on good, appropriate assumptions with accurate calculations. The data and inputs for the previous model was checked and the assumptions were evaluated. Research was done on the Athena Website and other LCA databases to see if old data could be replaced with new, more relevant data. The previous study was done in March of 2010 and thus it was difficult finding new LCA studies.  Like any model, some inaccuracies were present. The largest material inaccuracy was from the assumption that all concrete in the building was 30Mpa instead of the actual concrete strength of 25Mpa. This assumption was made because the AIE only has inputs for 15MPA or 30Mpa. No 25Mpa LCA studies were found during the research so the assumption and adjustments remained unaltered. Another inaccuracy was from the footing columns. The AIE has a maximum thickness of 500mm while some of the footings in the building are actually much greater. Simple calculations were done in the previous model to extend the length input in the AIE to make up for the extra volume lost in a reduced thickness. The thickness was checked in the AIE, which is the most recent version however the max thickness is still 500mm. The volume calculations were checked and verified so that the assumption was validated. A minor material type inaccuracy was found for the brick used on the interior atrium wall. It was found that the brick may actually contain veneer however after the construction drawings were checked it was still unclear whether or not the brick contains veneer so the original assumption was kept.  The program On-Screen Takeoff was used in the original survey of the building for the material quantification. The original survey file was looked over and evaluated and found that there wasn͛t any major errors. The previous student did an exceptional job in quantifying the different building materials so no further adjustments were necessary.                                                            7 (Institute, Athena Sustainable Materials, 2013) Page 12   Data Quali ty   Data quality describes the characteristics of the data used in terms of its ability to satisfy stated requirements. It is challenging for an LCA to be accurate in every single way. Many assumptions are made where there is insufficient data or data is unavailable or inaccurate; because of this there are many uncertainties throughout a model and LCA. The types of uncertainty in the LCA method are associated with data, model, temporal, spatial and variability between sources.  Data is highly dependent on the methods associated with the data collection. The Athena Database uses average results from industry and so not all data may be completely accurate. Supplies may have come from other sources where data isn͛t available. dhere is some uncertainty in the inventory analysis where the collection and allocation methods are inaccurate or values are missing. The age of data is also important to the overall quality of data. The Douglas Kenny Building was built 29 years ago and since then many things have changes so actual impacts may be significantly different. Technology is also constantly improving so that waste is minimized and efficiencies are enhanced. There are uncertainties having to do with the impact assessment, where the lifetime and the travel potential of substances may vary. For example, in the case of Eutrophication, nutrients may not reach waterways and thus not have an eutrophication impact.  The actual model of the product system also has uncertainty associated with it by having different functions of the outputs. Models can be linear or non-linear depending on the product system. For example, the impacts for producing 100kg of a material may be significantly different for producing 10 batches of 10kg of the same material. Most processes increase in efficiency as an optimum output is reached. Depending on these relationships the model may or may not be accurate.  Temporal variability is important especially in Northern areas where fluctuations in weather can be significant. There may be varying emissions depending on the time of year caused by say heating in the winter, maintaining a certain temperature for system processes, etc.  The different treatment methods and end of pipe ideologies are also included in temporal variability. These methods and ideologies are constantly changing. Twenty years ago dilution was an accepted waste treatment method and now it may be frowned upon by certain individuals, groups, governments, etc.  Spatial Variability uncertainties were minimalinjed by the detailed >C and >C/͛s that the thena /nstitute have carried out. Factory inputs, outputs and emissions may differ from region to region. Some regions may have typically higher impacts. Different regions may also be impacted differently than other regions. In other words, some regions may be more sensitive to say eutrophication than acidification.   There is also some variability between objects and sources. For example, there may be differences between two similar factories but with different technology. Two factories may produce the same product but their impacts may be completely different depending on the technology used in the Page 13  process. The difference between sources is mainly due to the difference in exposure patterns where some objects may react different to the exposure.   5.0 Lis t of Ind icators Used for Ass es sment and Express io n of Resu lts   The impact assessment method that is used in the Athena Impact Estimator is US EPA͛s TRACI. TRACI uses a six point midpoint estimators to assess major environmental impacts. In addition to the six midpoint estimators, fossil fuel consumption is also considered in the AIE. The six midpoint estimators are the following:   Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq)  Acidification Potential (kg SO2 eq)  Human Health Particulate (kg PM2.5 eq)  Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq)  Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq)  Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) Global Warming Potential is measured in units of kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. One kilogram of CO2 equivalent has the same global warming impact of 1 kg of CO2. Methane contributes to global warming much more than CO2, so methane would have a higher value of CO2 equivalent. Global warming has countless possible endpoint impacts, which to name a few include rising ocean temperatures, draughts, more intense rainfall and hurricanes.  Acidification Potential is measured in units of kilograms of sulfur dioxide equivalent. One kilogram of SO2 equivalent has the same acidification impact as one kilogram of SO2. Acidification Potential describes the potential effect of acidification of soils and water by transformation of pollutants into acid. Potential endpoint impacts include acidification of lakes, oceans, soil, poor crop yields, destruction of plant life, disruptions in ecosystems and so on. Human health (HH) particulate is a measure of very small pieces of matter that are of great concern due to their ability to be inhaled by humans. HH Particulate is measured in units of particulate matter that is 2.5 microns in diameter equivalent. Once inhaled the fine particulate matter is able to travel deep into an individual͛s lungs. Adverse health effects are associated with fine particulate matter. Eutrophication Potential is a measure of increased biological activity in the air, water and soil as a result of an increase in available nutrients. Eutrophication potential is measured in kg of nitrogen equivalent. Usually nutrients limit the amount of biological activity in a medium. Once nutrients are added the biologically activity increase dramatically consuming an energy source and the nutrients. Once the energy source or nutrient source is depleted the biological microbes or bacteria die and fall to the bottom if in a water body. Once on the bottom they decay consuming the oxygen in the medium and thus causing an oxygen depleted medium. This entire process is known as Eutrophication. Possible Page 14  effects of eutrophication include death of fish and other marine species, toxicity to mussels, clams and other filter feeders.  Ozone depletion is caused by compounds that react with the ozone layer made up of O3 to form O2 and another co-product depending on the compound. Ozone depletion is measured in kilograms of chloral floral carbons (CFC-11) equivalent. The ozone protects the earth from harmful ultraviolent radiation. By depleting the ozone layer possible effects include increase cases of skin cancer, cell damage, and plant damage.  Smog Potential is measured in kilograms of ozone equivalent. Smog deteriorates air quality immensely leading to health effects such as asthma, carbon monoxide poisoning, eye and nose irritation, bronchitis and other respiratory effects. Some compounds that contribute to smog are Sulfur compounds (SOX) and Nitrogen compounds (NOx).  6.0 Model Development   The original inputs were obtained using construction drawings to quantify building materials. The software, OnScreen TakeOff was used to make quantifying the building materials more manageable and more accurate. OnScreen TakeOff is used by surveying companies who give cost estimates based on the quantity and price of the building materials. In our case we used the software to quantify the building materials in order to calculate the environmental impacts associated with the different materials.   As introduced in section 2.3 the previous model was broken down into Level 3 elements. The first step in breaking down the previous model was to look at the inputs and assumptions documents from the previous model. From the input document the level 3 elements were easily broken down into CIQS Level 3 elements. This was done by looking at each input and making a decision of which element each input fell under. Since the inputs were already broŬen into the “five categories” it made things simple to distinguish since the categories were similar. The building inputs were broken down into the following six elements listed below. Further information on assumptions and model inputs can be found in Annex-D. A11-Foundation dhe previous model͛s first category was foundations and so all the inputs in AIE were copied to a new model called A͚11  ʹFoundation .͛ The inputs under this model were the 10 types of rectangular footings and the 5 types of strip footings. The concrete used throughout the entire building was specified at 25Mpa. The software does not have an input for 25 Mpa concrete so the next closest strength, 30 Mpa was used. No new LCI data was found for 25 Mpa concrete and so the old assumption was accepted.  A21  ʹLowest Floor Construction The lowest floor construction model included the slab on grade concrete and the vapour barrier layer, and ground floor beam. The previous model had a single entry for the slab on grade and the vapour Page 15  layer in such that an envelope was entered in. The software has inputs of 100 and 200mm available for the thickness of concrete. The thickness of concrete in the building was 130mm and so a volume calculation was done in order to make up for the difference in selection 100mm thickness. After review the envelope was accepted as an accurate representation. A 22- Upper Floor Construction Upper Floor Construction consisted of all floors except from the ground floor, stairs, and all columns and beams not supporting the roof. All the floors except the ground floor were modeled in the previous model as a single entry. This entry was copied over to the new model since it included exactly what is required for the U͚pper Floor Construction element .͛ The material for the stairs was originally modeled as part of the foundations due to the freedom to specify the amount of rebar. Since there still isn͛t a stair function in the AIE, the stairs input were copied over to the new model. The columns and beams for each floor was entered as a single input. These were also copied to ͚Upper &loor Construction  ͛except of course the ground floors columns and beams.  A 23- Roof Construction The two Roof systems from the old model were copied into the new model without any changes. The concrete roof system is similar to the floor system where the beams are built into the roof system. The AIE has the exact input for the penthouse roof system so this input was used in the model. The skylight was originally modeled as a curtain wall since the software doesn͛t have an input for sŬylights. The curtain wall supports the skylight so it was also modeled under R͚oof Construction'. The last input that was modeled as R͚oof Construction  ͛was the 1.2m tall 200mm thick parapet that surrounds the main roof. The parapet was viewed as part of the roof system and therefore was also modeled as Roof Construction. The parapet could have been modeled under W͚alls Above Grade  ͛since it could be argued as an extension of an exterior wall.  A-32 Walls Above Grade As mentioned previous there are no walls below grade so all exterior walls are modeled as walls above grade. The majority of exterior walls consist of 200mm thick cast in place concrete wall followed by 89mm steel stud interior and filled with B͚att  ͛insulation and covered with 15.9mm sheet of poly drywall on the interior. The other exterior walls are the walls that make up the penthouse. They are modeled as steel stud walls with metal cladding. The windows that make up the exterior wall were also modeled as W͚alls Above Grade .͛ The AIE has an input function for the wall envelope which includes the type and quantity of windows.   B-11 Partitions Pretty much all inputs from the previous model that was not already classified into elements was modeled as Partitions. Categories that fell into the Wartition͛s element include all interior walls, interior windows and doors, washroom walls, concrete block wall, and the brick that surrounds the atrium. Steel Page 16  Stud walls made up the majority of the interior walls. The ground floor alone had over one kilometer of walls. This is mainly due to the extreme number of small offices and laboratories.  &rom each of these models a reference flow was obtained which is the “measure of the outputs from processes in a given product system required to fulfil the function expressed by the functional unit”8. Each element has a certain function that it performs. These different elements can then be compared to other element based on the functional unit. For all the elements the functional unit is meters squared. The areas however are different for each element. Table 4 defines what the functional unit represents.  Table 4 Descriptions of Measurements for Level 3 Elements CIVL 498C Level 3 Elements Units Description of What Was Measured A11  Foundations  m2 Total Area of Slab On Grade A21  Lowest Floor Construction  m2 Total Area of 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  m2 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  m2 Sum of total surface area of the exterior walls above grade.  B11  Partitions  m2 Sum of total surface area of the interior walls   As you can see the functional unit is the same for all element but what the unit represents is different. After each model was complete in the AIE, a bill of materials was obtained. The bill of materials for each element is given in Table 5.                                                               8 (National Standard Of Canada, 2006) Page 17  Table 5 Bill of Materials for Each Element Element Material Quantity Unit A11 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 474.6 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 3.04 Tonnes A 21 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 374.8 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 6.06 Tonnes Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 3.12 Tonnes A 22 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 2331.4 m3 Precast Concrete 578.2 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 577.8 Tonnes Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 7.33 Tonnes A 23 5/8"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 437.6 m2 Aluminum 6.08 Tonnes Ballast (aggregate stone) 107100 kg Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 182.30 m3 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 78.37 kg Extruded Polystyrene 6446.9 m2 (25mm) Galvanized Decking 3.94 Tonnes Galvanized Sheet 0.42 Tonnes Glazing Panel 15.14 Tonnes Hollow Structural Steel 10.86 Tonnes Joint Compound 0.44 Tonnes Modified Bitumen membrane 18539.1 kg Nails 0.13 Tonnes Open Web Joists 4.63 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.01 Tonnes Precast Concrete 172.5 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 4.55 Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts 0.21 Tonnes Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 2.18 Tonnes A 31 - 0.0 - A 32 1/2"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 641.4 m2 1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 3585.7 m2 6 mil Polyethylene 4076.5 m2 Aluminum 15.09 Tonnes Commercial(26 ga.) Steel Cladding 641.4 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 579.7 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 684.5 m3 Double Glazed No Coating Air 555.5 m2 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 1031.8 kg FG Batt R11-15 10699.2 m2 (25mm) Galvanized Sheet 7.50 Tonnes Galvanized Studs 12.32 Tonnes Joint Compound 4.22 Tonnes Page 18  Nails 1.28 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.05 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 65.35 Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts 0.53 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 5.68 m3 Water Based Latex Paint 120.14 L B11 1/2"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 1142.36 m2 1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 29218.10 m2 Aluminum 1.81 Tonnes Concrete Blocks 6459.76 Blocks Double Glazed No Coating Air 125.60 m2 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 123.56 kg FG Batt R11-15 1392.63 m2 (25mm) Galvanized Sheet 26.28 Tonnes Galvanized Studs 41.77 Tonnes Joint Compound 30.30 Tonnes Mortar 123.43 m3 Nails 1.38 Tonnes Ontario (Standard) Brick 556.78 m2 Paper Tape 0.35 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 21.02 Tonnes Screws Nuts & Bolts 1.80 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 37.01 m3 Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 4.72 L Water Based Latex Paint 333.46 L  7.0 Communica tion of Assessment Resu lts  Lif e Cycl e  Res u lts   The impact results for the entire building and individual elements are outputted in table format. The results are summarized in the figures 1 through 7. Knce again there isn͛t any walls below grade, so all impacts for the element “talls Below 'rade” are njero. Since concrete is the main material in the Douglas Kenny Building, the majority of the impacts are from the manufacturing and transport of the concrete. Global warming potential was chosen to be to be the main focus of the environmental impacts for the UBC 2013 benchmarking. Further analyses of global warming potential for building and building elements are discussed further in Annex A.  Page 19   Figure 1 Fossil Fuel Consumption It should be noted that if you sum up all the elemental impacts, the result will be greater than the actual impacts from the entire building. This is because additional impacts are factored in due to the construction of a building element. For example, the transportation impacts of transporting concrete may be lower if a large quantity of concrete was transported rather than many small quantities. The main impacts for fossil fuel consumption comes from the manufacturing process. Fossil fuel is also used for transportation to the site and for the transportation of materials around the site. The Douglas Kenny building is also 17.6m tall so raising materials up to the roof has also been factored in.   Figure 2 Global Warming Potential 0.0 500.0 1,000.0 1,500.0 2,000.0 2,500.0 3,000.0 3,500.0 4,000.0 (MJ)/m2  Fossil Fuel Consumption 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 (kg of CO2/m2) Global Warming Potential Page 20  The global warming potential is also highly connected to the manufacturing of concrete. All foundations, floors, and the majority of the roof are constructed using concrete. This is the main reason why the upper floor construction and roof construction have particularly high global warming potential.  Figure 3 Acidification Potential The acidification potential as seen in figure 3 above, is relatively low. This is partly due to the fact that here in British Columbia, our electricity comes from hydro power. It would be expected that if the building was constructed in a location that solely depends on coal fired power, the acidification impacts would be much greater. The same reasoning can be applied to the human health criteria where the poor air quality is associated with burning coal and other fossil fuels. The main impacts for human health are from the manufacturing stage. Very little of the impacts are associated from the transport and construction.  0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 (kg of SO2 eq / m2) Acidification Potential Page 21   Figure 4 Human Health Midpoint Impact  Figure 5 Eutrophication Potential It is expected that the eutrophication potential for buildings would be fairly low. Eutrophication is a big concern in farming and chemical manufacturing industry. Most building supplies require minimal chemical fertilizers and other products that contribute to eutrophication. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 (kg PM10eq / m2) Human Health Criteria  ʹRespiratory 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 (kg N / m2) Eutrophication Potential Page 22   Figure 6 Ozone Layer Depletion Potential The Douglas Kenny has minimal impacts to the depletion of the ozone layer. As seen in figure 5 the total ozone layer depletion potential is in the order of 1*10-6 kg of CFC-11/m2. C&C͛s are mostly associated with aerosols and refrigeration units.   Figure 7 Smog Potential The smog potential is also associated with the vast quantity of concrete. As mentioned previously, the concrete that makes up the upper floor construction and roof construction contribute to the high environmental impacts.  The partitions used in the Douglas Kenny building have minimal overall impacts. This is very interesting because the building as over a kilometer of interior walls on the first floor alone. The steel stud interior 0.00E+00 2.00E-07 4.00E-07 6.00E-07 8.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.20E-06 1.40E-06 1.60E-06 (kg CFC-11eq / m2 ) Ozone Layer Depletion Potential 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 (kg O3eq / m2) Smog Potential Page 23  walls have a low environmental impact. In order to see what design of building elements have the least environmental impacts similar studies were done in order to create a data base in that an average benchmark was calculated. The UBC 2013 benchmark is discussed in Annex A. The recommendations from the benchmark and from this LCA study can be found in Annex B.                       Page 24  Wo rks Cit ed  Author, U. (2010). Douglas Kenny Building, A Life Cycle Assessment. Vancouver: UBC. CIQS. (2011). Standards and Guidelines.  Institute, Athena Sustainable Materials. (2013, November 08). Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Retrieved from Athena Institute Impact Estimator: http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/lca-databases/ Library, U. (2013, November 11). UBC Library Archives. Retrieved from UBC Library: http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/hist_ubc.html National Standard Of Canada. (2006). Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines.  Sainchuck, R. (2014). CIVL 498C: Life Cycle Assessment for Buidling. University of British Columbia/Gold Stream Consulting.               Page 25  Ann ex A -  Interp reta tion of Assessment Resu lts  Benc hmark Deve lop men t   The concept of benchmarking in LCA is to get a better idea of the impacts of the object in assessment by comparing them to the average impacts of similar product or product systems. In doing so, the person doing the assessment can verify which processes are least environmentally friendly and which processes  should be adopted so that current processes can be made better.  In our case the product was a particular building in which an LCA was completed. The Douglas Kenny LCA study was completed in the same time frame as 16 other LCA studies that were done on other institutional buildings at UBC. These studies were completed by UBC students from varying backgrounds during the CIVL 498C class in the fall semester of 2013.  Each study had the exact same common goal, scope, and model development as this LCA study. By having the exact same goal and scope, similar models were created such that the results could be compared during comparative assertion. In order for a comparative assertion, a functional unit was chosen so that institutional buildings that have different uses could be compared. This was done by taking the impact results from the AIE and dividing it by the total area of the building or total area of the element. dhe BenchmarŬ shows on average how UBCs͛ buildings have impacted the environment. As UBC continues to become more sustainable, decision makers can look at future designs for buildings and compare it to the benchmark. By using the benchmark and LCA data base for various building designs UBC can request specific designs and make decisions that are backed by both scientific data and cost estimating.         Page 26  UBC Aca de mic Buil d ing Benc hmark   The environmental impact results from 16 other building >C͛s were averaged for each element as well as the entire building. These average were then labelled as the “UBC ϮϬϭϯ BenchmarŬ”. /n order to compare the Douglas Kenny Building to the benchmark the percent difference was calculated between the Douglas Kenny building and the benchmark. The results for the percent difference are shown below in figure 8.   Figure 8 The difference in percent between the building and element from the UBC 2013 benchmark It can be seen that the Douglas Kenny building is well below the benchmark for all environmental impact categories except for ozone depletion in the Foundation Element and the Lowest Floor Construction Element. There is a one hundred percent difference for the walls below grade. This is because the building doesn͛t have any walls below grade. dhis contributes immensely for the overall building effects since large excavations were not necessary, thus decreasing the construction process impacts. The majority of the roof system is constructed from concrete so that is partially the reason for the increased impact levels for human health. As mentioned in section 7.0 the ozone layer depletion results are minimal for buildings. The actual ozone depletion impact for the entire building is only 0.01kg of CFF-11 equivalent, so because of this percent difference could be potentially ignored. -100.0 -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 Entire Building A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions PERCENT DIFFERENCE FOR ENTIRE BUILDING AND LEVEL 3 ELEMENTAL IMPACTS  Fossil Fuel Consumption Global Warming Acidification Human Health Criteria  ʹRespiratory Eutrophication Ozone Layer Depletion Smog Page 27  To get a better sense of how the Douglas Kenny building compares to other UBC buildings the cost of the building was graphed against the global warming potential as seen in figure 9. Global warming potential was designated by the class to be studied in more detail because the class was most concerned about climate change. The global warming potential equivalent in the figure is in total kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. It can be seen that buildings with a higher construction cost typically have a much higher global warming potential impact. This may be due to the size of the building and thus the amount of materials in the building rather than the actual design of the building components.  The Douglas Kenny Building had a construction cost of $2.56M (2013 $CAD) so it is in the lower left hand corner of the figure. Compared to other UBC buildings, the building has low global warming potential. The Douglas Kenny building construction cost would have been directly related to the price of concrete. There is a possibility that concrete at the time of construction was fairly inexpensive, and thus might be the reason why the design was chosen; which is liŬely due to UBC͛s tight budget at that time.    Looking at individual elements we can see that the Douglas Kenny building is in line with other building that were constructed with the same budget. Figure 10 shows the lower left hand corner of figure 9 in greater detail.   0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000 18,000,000  $-     $50,000,000   $100,000,000   $150,000,000   $200,000,000  Global Warming Potential (kg SO2 eq) Building Cost $ Building Cost (2013 CAD$) vs Global Warming Potential Entire building A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions Figure 9 Building cost for each building looked at in the 2013 UBC study verses the Global Warming Potential for each building and building element. Page 28   Figure 10 Inexpensive Buildings vs. Global Warming Potential The Douglas Kenny Building has a slightly higher GWP for the entire building. This may be due to the fact that the building has many interior walls. The main functions of the Douglas Kenny Building is for faculty offices and research laboratories, both of which require small rooms. This is shown further when looking at the Partition elemental impact.  Overall the Douglas Kenny building is significantly better than the benchmark that was calculated. The majority of the buildings looked at within this benchmarking study are buildings that were constructed over the past 100 years. The Douglas Kenny building in retrospect is a fairly new building and may be a reason for lower impacts. On a “per meter” squared basis, the building out performs the benchmark in every single way. The fact that the ozone layer depletion is higher than the benchmark may be due to uncertainties. Ann ex B -  Reco mmenda tio ns for  LCA U se   Life cycle assessments have a wide range of uses. They have been used to increase product system efficiencies on a wide variety of products. They have been able to pin point parts of processes that have large environmental impacts. By knowing the major cause of these impacts, companies, owners, governments and so on can make their processes more environmentally friendly.  0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000  $-     $2,000,000   $4,000,000   $6,000,000   $8,000,000   $10,000,000   $12,000,000   $14,000,000  Global Warming Potential (kg SO2 eq) Building Cost $ Building Cost (2013 CAD$) vs Global Warming Potential Entire building A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions Page 29  Until recently >C͛s have mostly been associated with products orientated towards consumers. /t wasn͛t until this past decade that >C͛s began to be incorporated into building design. UBC is at the for front of this new paradigm. UBC has shown great interest in setting an example towards students and other universities of what a sustainable university really is. This is evident with the construction of the new biomass plant and new internal heating as well as the award winning CIRS building. UBC is however, very distant from actually setting up design policies for new buildings to be constructed.  >C͛s have yet to be analysed in the design stage of new building considerations at UBC. /n order for >C to be operationalized a few things need to occur. It is recommended that an alternative tool be developed that is more geared towards building elements. The tool used during this study is geared towards whole building LCA.   The AIE was acceptable in this study since all of the other buildings studies were using the same tool and methods as well. The AIE was not ideal since each model had an input for building height and building area. For each model the floor area was set to 1m2 and the building height to 17.6m. Some tests were done that showed that the difference between 1m2 and 100m2 had little change. Nonetheless it still adds some uncertainty to the model.  'oing forward for using >C͛s at UBC, the ͚Building Use͛ and ͚End of >ife͛,should be taken into account for the complete life cycle of the building. ͚Building Use  ͛would include the yearly energy consumption, water consumption as well as maintenance. Some of the older buildings at UBC may also undergo heavy renovations to modernize the buildings. A detailed goal and scope would have to be developed in order to take into account many of these details. The end of life of the buildings may be difficult since the building life may not yet be decided. Once a good understanding of LCA by decision makers has been reached, it can then be brought into the planning of new buildings, specifically at the design stage of the building.  It would be best to compare both environmental impacts and costing for particular designs during the design phase. A new version of Onscreen Takeoff that includes a modified AIE would be most ideal. Surveying companies that specialize in cost estimating could also include LCA to bring LCA into the design stage. These companies are experts at estimating quantities and categorizing buildings into building elements and thus they would be good at LCA too if given proper training in LCA. If they were able to provide LCA results as well as cost estimates to a client, UBC in this case, it would easy to operationalize.  UBC could facilitate this by creating policies that request LCA results be submitted along with costing for given designs. A designer could either get the surveying company to provide the LCA results or another third party. UBC now also has a LCA database from previous designs. This database could be used for setting examples for where they want to go with new designs. For example, UBC can say that they want a building that has less environmental impacts than the building with the least amount of impacts or some percentage better than the benchmark.  Like in any LCA study, data quality and model quality are exceptionally important. The LCA in this study as well as all the other >C͛s done in order to reach the UBC ϮϬϭϯ benchmarŬ, should be edžternally Page 30  reviewed. Like any university course, some students may not put in as much of an effort so some models will be very good and some will be poor. Poor models that rely on weak assumptions should be discarded and eventually redone. Data quality will improve with improving technologies and will become more available. This LCA only considered the impact categories that the AIE provided. Other impact categories such as ocean acidification, depletion of resources and so on should be evaluated for society s͛ concerns and feasibility. It is unlikely to take into account every single impact category due to time and cost constraints and thus only the most concerning impacts should be looked at.  Ann ex C -  Autho r Reflectio n   I am 4th year environmental engineering student who had little building construction knowledge prior to CIVL 498C. I have completed a couple courses that touched on LCA and sustainability. The courses I took at UBC were Sustainable Development and Green Engineering. Both of these courses briefly looked at LCA. I was introduced to LCA but still lacked the thorough knowledge it takes to complete a well-rounded LCA. Through this course I learned in depth on how to set a detailed goal and scope, the different uncertainties with data, model, and so on. I was interested in learning the various software used in this course and in doing a term project on an actual UBC building.  I understand that my name will be added to a list as well as all those who contributed to the benchmark and UBC͛s >C data base. I have not had anyone review my work before submitting it, so it may contain human errors such as calculation errors and inappropriate methods, etc. I expect that these errors be within acceptable limits. I spent a considerable amount of time on this report, on my model, and on learning the LCA concepts. Unfortunately this was also one of my busiest semesters so I was unable to allocate the amount of time I would like to have allocated. I feel that gained a lot of good experience, and have become more motivated to bring sustainability to everything I do.              Graduate Attribute         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 you had to demonstrate during your final project experience. Page 31            1 Knowledge Base Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. A = applied Volume calculations, extending length of footings, walls, etc. Critical review of calculations and assumptions.            2 Problem Analysis An ability to use appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions. A = applied Find solutions to errors from previous model, solve problems that Rob gave us,            3 Investigation An ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information in order to reach valid conclusions. A = applied Interpretation of LCA data, where are the most sensitive areas and how do they effect the overall effect           Page 32  4 Design An ability to design solutions for complex, open-ended engineering problems and to design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate attention to health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmental, cultural and societal considerations. I = introduced Introduced to the design of LCA data base project at UBC. Incorporation of LCA into UBC's sustainability policies.            5 Use of Engineering Tools An ability to create, select, apply, adapt, and extend appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities, from simple to complex, with an understanding of the associated limitations. IDA = introduced, developed & applied Use of Athena Impact Estimator, Onscreen Takeoff, Excel, Word. Learned how to operate two engineering related programs in depth.            6 Individual and Team Work An ability to work effectively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi-disciplinary setting. DA = developed & applied Many in class group activities where we were asked to solve complex problems.            Page 33  7 Communication An ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and with society at large. Such ability includes reading, writing, speaking and listening, and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, and to give and effectively respond to clear instructions. A = applied Class discussions, group discussions, report writing, etc.           8 Professionalism  An understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer in society, especially the primary role of protection of the public and the public interest. A = applied Learned more in depth about environmental impacts of buildings and how to use scientific data to assess them.           9 Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment An ability to analyze social and environmental aspects of engineering activities.  Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, social, health, safety, legal, and cultural DA = developed & applied Learned how various engineering designs have different impacts to air, land and water.  Page 34  aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship.           10 Ethics and Equity An ability to apply professional ethics, accountability, and equity. A = applied Term Report that will be actually be used, had to use appropriate methods.            11 Economics and Project Management An ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including project, risk, and change management into the practice of engineering and to understand their limitations. A = applied Brought past construction values into current dollars using escalation rates.           12 Life-long Learning An ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world in ways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. D = developed Learned from a passionate instructor who taught new, still in development concepts that will be very important for today's society and future engineering projects.  Page 35             Ann ex D – Impact Estimator Inp uts and Ass umptions   The following table contains all the inputs that were entered into the Athena Impact Estimator. The Athena Input in some cases, had to be modified from the OST Outputs. The calculations can be found in the excel document.    Quantity Units Assembly Type Assembly Name Input Fields OST Outputs Athena Input A11  Foundation 486 m2                 1.1  Concrete Footing                 1.1.1 Footing_Column_Type1               Length (m) 1.75 21.09   3.0625       Width (m) 1.75 1.92           Thickness (mm) 600.00 500.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 20M 20M         1.1.2 Footing_Column_Type2               Length (m) 2.30 26.18   5.29       Width (m) 2.30 2.91           Thickness (mm) 800.00 500.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 20M 20M         1.1.3  Footing_Column_Type3               Length (m) 2.00 7.10           Width (m) 2.00 2.37   4       Thickness (mm) 700.00 500.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 20.00 20.00         1.1.4  Footing_Column_Type4               Length (m) 2.80 17.71           Width (m) 2.80 3.54   7.84       Thickness (mm) 800.00 500.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 25.00 20.00 Page 36          1.1.5  Footing_Column_Type5               Length (m) 3.00 7.10           Width (m) 3.00 3.55           Thickness (mm) 700.00 500.00   9       Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 25.00 20.00         1.1.6  Footing_Column_Type9               Length (m) 6.00 13.89           Width (m) 4.50 5.44           Thickness (mm) 700.00 500.00   27       Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 20M 20M         1.1.7  Footing_Column_Type10               Length (m) 11.00 16.50           Width (m) 7.50 13.00   82.5       Thickness (mm) 1300.00 500.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 20M 20M         1.1.8  Footing_Column_Type11               Length (m) 8.50 13.17   72.25       Width (m) 8.50 13.17           Thickness (mm) 1200.00 500.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 20M 20M         1.1.9  Footing_Column_Type13               Length (m) 1.20 1.63   4.8       Width (m) 4.00 4.43           Thickness (mm) 750.00 500.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 20M 20M         1.1.10  Footing_Column_Type14               Length (m) 10.00 12.10           Width (m) 6.50 8.60   65       Thickness (mm) 800.00 500.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 20M 20M         1.1.11  Footing_Strip_Type6               Length (m) 30.00 30.00 Page 37            Width (m) 0.85 0.85   25.5       Thickness (mm) 350.00 350.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 15M 15M         1.1.12  Footing_Strip_Type7               Length (m) 189.00 189.00   122.85       Width (m) 0.65 0.65           Thickness (mm) 250.00 250.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 15.00 15.00         1.1.13 Footing_Strip_Type8               Length (m) 56.00 56.00   36.4       Width (m) 0.65 0.65           Thickness (mm) 250.00 250.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 15M 15M         1.1.14 Footing_Strip_Type12               Length (m) 7.00 7.00   5.25       Width (m) 0.75 0.75           Thickness (mm) 250.00 250.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 15M 15M         1.1.15 Footing_Strip_Type15               Length (m) 11.00 11.00           Width (m) 1.40 1.40   15.4       Thickness (mm) 250.00 250.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 15M 15M A21-Lowest Flow Construction 2653 m2                 1.2  Concrete Slab-on-Grade                 1.2.1  SOG_100mm                 Length (m) 51.51 58.73           Width (m) 51.51 58.73           Thickness (mm) 130.00 100.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00 Page 38            Concrete flyash % - average         Envelope Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier           Material Polyethylene 6 mil Polyethylene 6 mil           Thickness 6mm 6mm         3.1.1 - Column_Concrete_Beam_GroundFloor               Number of Columns 35.00 35.00           Number of Beams -             Floor to Floor Height (m) 0.40 0.40           Bay Sizes (m) 10000.00 10000.00           Supported Span 10000.00 10000.00           Live Load (kPa) 3.60 3.60 A 22 Upper Floor Construction 6317                   1.1.16 Footing_Stairs                 Length (m) - 15.85           Width (m) - 15.85           Thickness (mm) - 200.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 10M 10M         1.1.17 Footing_StaiwellFloors               Length (m) 15.23 15.23           Width (m) 15.23 15.23           Thickness (mm) 200.00 200.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar 10M 10M   3 Colums                   3.1  Concrete Column                 3.1.2 -  Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor2               Number of Columns 35.00 35.00           Number of Beams 56.00 56.00           Floor to Floor Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Bay Sizes (m) 10.00 10.00 Page 39            Supported Span 10.00 10.00           Live Load (kPa) 3.60 3.60         3.1.3 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor3                 Number of Columns 34.00 34.00           Number of Beams 52.00 52.00           Floor to Floor Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Bay Sizes (m) 10000.00 10000.00           Supported Span 10000.00 10000.00           Live Load (kPa) 3.60 3.60         3.1.4 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor4                 Number of Columns 31.00 31.00           Number of Beams 42.00 42.00           Floor to Floor Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Bay Sizes (m) 10000.00 10000.00           Supported Span 10000.00 10000.00           Live Load (kPa) 3.60 3.60         3.1.5 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Penthouse                 Number of Columns 20.00 20.00           Number of Beams 33.00 33.00           Floor to Floor Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Bay Sizes (m) 10000.00 10000.00           Supported Span 10000.00 10000.00           Live Load (kPa) 3.60 3.60   4 Floors                   4.1 Concrete Pre Cast Double T                 4.1.1 - Floor_PrecastDoubleT               Number of Bays 57.09 57.00           Bay Sizes (m) 10.00 10.00           Span (m) 10.00 10.00           Live Load (kPa) 3.60 3.60 A 23 Roof Construction 2183 m2             5 Roof                   5.1  Concrete Precast Double T                 5.1.1 -     Page 40  Roof_ConcretePrecastDoubleT_Main           Number of Bays 16.58 17.00           Bay Sizes (m) 10.00 10.00           Span (m) 10.00 10.00           With or without concrete topping Topping Included Topping Included           Live Load (kPa) 3.60 3.60         Envelope Category Roof Envelopes Roof Envelopes           Material Roof Membrane Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 Ply           Thickness (mm) - -           Category Insulation Insulation           Material Rigid Insulation Polystyrene Extruded           Thickness (mm) 75.00 75.00           Category Roof Envelopes Roof Envelopes           Material Gravel Ballast Ballast (aggeragate Stones)           Thickness (mm) 50.00 -       5.2 Open Web Steel Joist                 5.2.1 - Roof_OpenWebSteelJoists_Penthouse               Roof Width (m) 39.78 39.78           Span (m) 10.00 10.00           Live load (kPa) 3.60 3.60           Steel Joists Open Web Open Web           Decking Type Steel Steel         Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board           Material Exterior Drywall  Gypsum Moisture Resistant           Thickness (mm) 15.90 5/8"           Category Roof Envelopes Roof Envelopes           Material Roof Membrane Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 Ply           Thickness (mm) - -           Category Insulation Insulation           Material Rigid Insulation Polystyrene Extruded           Thickness (mm) 75.00 75.00           Category Roof Envelopes Roof Envelopes Page 41            Material Gravel Ballast Ballast (aggeragate Stones)           Thickness (mm) 50.00 -   6 Extra Basic Material                   6.1 Concrete                 6.1.1 ExtraBasicMaterial_Concrete               30 MPa Average Flyash (m^3) 88.62 88.62       6.2.1 Steel                 6.2.1 ExtraBasicMaterial_Steel               Tonnes 110.75 110.75       2.4 Curtian Wall                 2.4.1 Wall_Curtain_AllFloors               Length (m) 3.22 3.22   475.56       Height (m) 147.69 147.69           Percent Viewable Glazing 86.88 86.88          Percent Spandrel Panel 13.12 13.12           Thickness of Insulation none 0.00           Type Metal Spandrel Panel Metal Spandrel Panel           With or without concrete topping Topping Included Topping Included A 32 Walls above Grade 17913 m2             2  Walls                   2.1  Cast In Placen Concrete                 2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-Place_AllFloors               Length (m) 675.28 675.28           Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Thickness (mm) 200.00 200.00           Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % average average   2903.704       Rebar 20M 20M         Window Opening Number of Windows 58.00 58.00           Total Window Area (m2) 61.55 61.55           Fixed/Operable Fixed Fixed           Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum           Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing Page 42          Door Opening Number of Doors 47.00 47.00         2.1.2 Wall_Cast-in-Place_SteelStud_AllFloors               Length (m) 907.62 907.62           Height (m) 4.24 4.24           Wall Type Exterior Exterior         Concrete Thickness 200.00 200.00           Reinforcement 20M 20M   3848.3088       Concrete (MPa) 25.00 30.00           Concrete flyash % - average         Steel Stud Sheathing Type none none           Stud Spacing 400.00 400.00           Stud Weight Light Weight Light Weight           Stud thickness 39 x 92 39 x 92         Window Opening Number of Windows 497.00 497.00           Total Window Area (m2) 557.39 557.39          Fixed/Operable Fixed Fixed           Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum           Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing         Door Opening Number of Doors 18.00 18.00           Door Type Solid Wood Door Solid Wood Door         Envelope Category Insulation Insulation           Material Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt           Thickness (mm) 68.50 68,5           Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier           Material Polyethylene 6 mil Polyethylene 6 mil           Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"         2.2.7 Wall_SteelStud_Penthouse_Exterior               Length (m) 88.84 88.84           Height (m) 6.72 6.72         Steel Stud Wall Type Exterior Exterior   597.00       Sheathing Type none none           Stud Spacing 400.00 400.00           Stud Weight Light Weight Light Weight           Stud thickness 39 x 152 39 x 152         Window Opening Number of Windows none none         Door Opening Number of Doors 8.00 8.00           Door Type Solid Wood Solid Wood Page 43  Door         Envelope Category Cladding Cladding           Material Metal Cladding Steel Cladding- Comercial (26 ga.)           Thickness - -           Category Insulation Insulation           Material Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt           Thickness 150.00 150.00           Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier           Material Polyethylene 6 mil Polyethylene 6 mil           Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material 15.9 Exterior Drywall Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"           Thickness   -           Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material 15.9 Exterior Drywall Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"           Thickness   - B11 Partition 10564                       Thickness - -       2.2 Steel Stud                 2.2.1 Wall_SteelStud_Ground Floor                 Length (m) 1029.81 1029.81           Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Sheathing Type none none           Stud Spacing 400.00 400.00          Stud Weight Light Weight Light Weight           Stud thickness 39 x 92 39 x 92         Window Opening Number of Windows 35.00 35.00           Total Window Area (m2) 55.71 55.71           Fixed/Operable Fixed Fixed           Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum           Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing         Door Opening Number of Doors 133.00 133.00           Door Type Solid Wood Solid Wood Door         Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - - Page 44          Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -         2.2.2 Wall_SteelStud_Floor2                 Length (m) 565.89 565.89           Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Wall Type interior interior   2433.327       Sheathing Type none none           Stud Spacing 400.00 400.00           Stud Weight Light Weight Light Weight           Stud thickness 39 x 92 39 x 92         Window Opening Number of Windows 6.00 6.00           Total Window Area (m2) 8.85 8.85           Fixed/Operable Fixed Fixed           Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum           Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing         Door Opening Number of Doors 85.00 85.00           Door Type Solid Wood Solid Wood Door         Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -           Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -         2.2.3 Wall_SteelStud_Floor3                 Length (m) 814.01 814.01           Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Wall Type interior interior           Sheathing Type none none   3500.243       Stud Spacing 400.00 400.00           Stud Weight Light Weight Light Weight           Stud thickness 39 x 92 39 x 92         Window Opening Number of Windows 14.00 14.00           Total Window Area (m2) 17.80 17.80           Fixed/Operable Fixed Fixed           Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum           Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Page 45  Glazing         Door Opening Number of Doors 115.00 115.00           Door Type Solid Wood Solid Wood Door         Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -           Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -         2.2.4 Wall_SteelStud_Floor4                 Length (m) 691.41 691.41           Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Wall Type interior interior           Sheathing Type none none   2973.063       Stud Spacing 400.00 400.00           Stud Weight Light Weight Light Weight           Stud thickness 39 x 92 39 x 92         Window Opening Number of Windows 3.00 3.00           Total Window Area (m2) 2.90 2.90           Fixed/Operable Fixed Fixed           Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum           Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing         Door Opening Number of Doors 117.00 117.00           Door Type Solid Wood Solid Wood Door         Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -           Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -         2.2.5 Wall_SteelStud_Penthouse                 Length (m) 10.77 10.77           Height (m) 3.60 3.60   38.772       Wall Type interior interior           Sheathing Type none none           Stud Spacing 400.00 400.00 Page 46            Stud Weight Light Weight Light Weight           Stud thickness 39 x 92 39 x 92         Window Opening Number of Windows none none         Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -           Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -         2.2.6 Wall_SteelStud_Washrooms                 Length (m) 252.00 252.00           Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Wall Type interior interior           Sheathing Type none none           Stud Spacing 400.00 400.00   1083.6       Stud Weight Light Weight Light Weight           Stud thickness 39 x 92 39 x 92         Door Opening Number of Doors 26.00 26.00           Door Type Solid Wood Solid Wood Door        Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material 15.9 Exterior Drywall Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"           Thickness   -           Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness - -       2.3 Concrete Block Wall                 2.3.1 Wall_ConcreteBlock_SteelStud_AllFloors             Length (m) 124.50 124.50           Height (m) 4.30 4.30           Rebar - 10M         Steel Stud Wall Type interior interior   535.35       Sheathing Type none none           Stud Spacing 400.00 400.00           Stud Weight Light Weight Light Weight           Stud thickness 39 x 92 39 x 92         Door Opening Number of Doors 16.00 16.00 Page 47            Door Type Steel Interior Door Steel Interior Door         Envelope Category Gypsum board Gypsum board           Material Gysum Regular 1/2" Gysum Regular 1/2"           Thickness   -   6 Extra Basic Material               6.2 Extra Cladding Material                 6.3.1 ExtraBasicMaterial_ExtraCladdingMaterial             Ontario (Standard) Brick (m^2) 530.27 530.27       6.3 Extra Envelope Material                 6.4.1 ExtraBasicMaterial_ExtraEnvelopeMaterial             Standard Glazing (m^2) 95.86 47.93  The following table is all the assumptions made for each calculation and input.  Element Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Specific Assumptions A11- Foundation               1  Foundation     Concrete Strength of 25 Mpa was used, In Athena 30 Mpa was the closest input. No Fly ash concentration was specified, so average was used. Athena limits thickness to 500mm, to account for this limitation extra length and width is added to keep the footing volume the same, by the equation:  (Extra length/ width) = [-(lenght+width )+sqrt((length+width)^2 + 4*(length*width*(thickness-500)/500))]/2  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  Extra Length = (old length + Extra Length/Width)* Number of Footings  The footings from 1.1.12 and below are strip footings     1.1  Concrete Footing       1.1.1 Footing_Column_Type1 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.                               Page 48         (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(1.75+1.75) + SQRT((1.75+1.75)^2 + (4*1.75*1.75*(600-500)/500)))/2  = 0.167 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (1.75 + 0.167) * (11 columns) = 21.09 m       1.1.2 Footing_Column_Type2 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.  (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(2.30+2.30) + SQRT((2.30+2.30)^2 + (4*2.30*2.30*(800-500)/500)))/2  = 0.609 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (2.30 + 0.609) * (9 columns) = 26.18 m                                           1.1.3  Footing_Column_Type3 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.                               Page 49         (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(2.00+2.00) + SQRT((2.00+2.00)^2 + (4*2.00*2.00*(700-500)/500)))/2  = 0.366 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (2.30 + 0.366) * (3 columns) = 7.1 m       1.1.4  Footing_Column_Type4 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.  (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(2.80+2.80) + SQRT((2.80+2.80)^2 + (4*2.80*2.80*(800-500)/500)))/2  = 0.742 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (2.30 + 0.742) * (5 columns) = 17.71 m                                           1.1.5  Footing_Column_Type5 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.                               Page 50         (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(3.0+3.0) + SQRT((3.00+3.00)^2 + (4*3.00*3.00*(700-500)/500)))/2  = 0.550 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (3.00 + 0.550) * (2 columns) = 17.71 m       1.1.6  Footing_Column_Type9 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.  (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(6.0+4.5) + SQRT((6.00+4.50)^2 + (4*6.00*4.50*(700-500)/500)))/2  = 0.944 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (6.00 + 0.944) * (2 columns) = 13.89 m                                           1.1.7  Footing_Column_Type10 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.                               Page 51         (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(11.0+16.5) + SQRT((11.00+16.50)^2 + (4*11.00*16.50*(1300-500)/500)))/2  = 5.50 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (11.00 + 5.50) * (1 columns) = 16.50 m       1.1.8  Footing_Column_Type11 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.  (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(8.50+8.50) + SQRT((8.50+ 8.50)^2 + (4*8.5*8.5*(1200-500)/500)))/2  = 4.67 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (8.5 + 4.67) * (1 columns) = 13.17 m                                           1.1.9  Footing_Column_Type13 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.                               Page 52         (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(1.20+4.00) + SQRT((1.20+ 4.00)^2 + (4*1.20*4.00*(1200-500)/500)))/2  = 0.427 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (1.20 + 0.427) * (1 columns) = 1.63 m       1.1.10  Footing_Column_Type14 The slab thickness is limited to 500mm in the impact estimator. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed.  (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(10.0+6.50) + SQRT((10.0+ 6.50)^2 + (4*10.0*6.50*(800-500)/500)))/2  = 2.097 m  In addition there is a number of each footing, as a result the number of footings was multiplied by the length to yield the correct volume.  New Length = (12.10 + 2.10) * (1 columns) = 12.10 m                                           1.1.11  Footing_Strip_Type6               1.1.12  Footing_Strip_Type7               1.1.13  Footing_Strip_Type8               1.1.14  Footing_Strip_Type12               1.1.15  Footing_Strip_Type15   A21- Lowest Floor Construction                1.2  Concrete Slab-on-Grade       1.2.1  SOG_100mm The slab on grade Page 53        thickness is only available in 100mm and 200mm slabs in the impact estimators. The following calculation was done in order to determine the extra length and width needed to account for proper slab thickness. Because the actual slab is 130mm the 100 mm slab was used with the extra length and width added on to keep the volumes the same.  (Extra length/ Width) =  = (-(51.51+51.51) + SQRT((51.51+51.51)^2 + (4*51.51*51.51*(130-100)/100)))/2  = 7,22 m                                                              3.1.1 - Column_Concrete_Beam _GroundFloor There are no beams on the first floor a 130mm SOG was used. The first floor of concrete columns and beams come directly up from the footings as a result they are shorter than the other floors. To find the height from the footing to the first floor a weighted average was used. There are no beams on the first floor a 130mm SOG was used. The calculations is shown below:  First Floor Height = є΀(First Floor Height* # of columns for this height)/(# of columns)]  First Floor Height = 450*11/31 + 450*9/31 + 300*3/31 + 300*5/31 + 300*2/31 + 300*1/31  First Floor Height = 396.77 mm = 0.397 m                                     A22-Upper Floor Construction                   1.1.16 Footing_Stairs The stairs were modeled as footing because of the ability to specify the rebar used. All the stairwells are measured to find the volume and this       Page 54        volume is converted to an equivalent area for a 200mm thickness. The first volume calculation that was performed was to account for the lower stairwell in the atrium it was done by taking the top area and multiplying it by the height:  Lower Atrium Stairs Volume = (Above projected Area)*Height = 10.85*0.487 = 5.28 m^3  The next portion of the atrium stairway volume is calculated by taking the side area and multiplying it by the width:  Middle Atrium Stair Volume = (Side projected area)*Width = 6.04*2.17 = 13.12 m^3  Upper Atrium Stair Volume = (Side projected area)*Width = 2.07*2.85 = 5.90 m^3  The remainder of the stairwells in the building are located at the corners of the building. The individual stairwell volumes are calculated by using the equation below:        Volume = (x*y/2 - x'*y'/2 - b*h*n/2)*Width = (2.825*2.296/2 - 1.7*1.354/2 - 2.35*1.42*12/2) *1.07  Volume = 0.693 m^3   Each of the individual stairwells are the same volume so a single volume was calculated then the number of stairwells counted and multiplied by the single stairwell volume. This volume is then added to the volume from the                                     Page 55  stairs in the atrium and the total volume is calculated.   Total Stairwell Volume = 28 stairwells*0.693 + 5.28 + 13.12 + 5.90 = 50.26 m^3  The slab on grade dimensions are calculated by the equation below:  SOG dimensions = sqrt (50.26 / (200mm/1000)) =  15.85 m       1.1.17 Footing_StaiwellFloors This floor is primarily located on surrounding the stairwells and the cast in place walls at the corners of the building. Also these floors extend in a few walkways over top of the atrium. They were modeled as a footing because they are not supported by the column and beam system, and they have no consistent span. Modeling as a footing allows the volume of concrete and rebar will likely be more accurate than by using a existing flooring system.   3 Columns and Beams     Concrete Strength of 25 Mpa was used, In Athena 30 Mpa was the closest input. No Fly ash concentration was specified, so average was used. The larger concrete beams are running in both directions between the columns, there are smaller concrete beams built into the floor slab spanning the larger beams. The beams were counted on each floor spanning the columns, the columns are spaced at 10m on center in both directions so each of the span and bay are measured at 10m. Note That all the columns are used for one floor below for accuracy, for this reason the first floor height is the height from the footing to the SOG and there are no columns needed for the penthouse walls. The live load was taken to be the standard for this type of building as 3.6 KPa, it was not specified in the building drawings.     3.1  Concrete Column and Beam       3.1.2 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor2 The larger concrete beams are running in both directions between the columns, there are smaller concrete beams built into the floor slab spanning the larger beams. The beams were counted on each floor spanning the columns, the columns are spaced at 10m on center in both directions so each of the span and bay are measured at 10m.                                     Page 56        3.1.3 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor3 The larger concrete beams are running in both directions between the columns, there are smaller concrete beams built into the floor slab spanning the larger beams. The beams were counted on each floor spanning the columns, the columns are spaced at 10m on center in both directions so each of the span and bay are measured at 10m.                                     3.1.4 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor4 The larger concrete beams are running in both directions between the columns, there are smaller concrete beams built into the floor slab spanning the larger beams. The beams were counted on each floor spanning the columns, the columns are spaced at 10m on center in both directions so each of the span and bay are measured at 10m.                                     3.1.5 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Penthouse The larger concrete beams are running in both directions between the columns, there are smaller concrete beams built into the floor slab spanning the larger beams. The beams were counted on each floor spanning the columns, the columns are spaced at 10m on center in both directions so each of the span and bay are measured at 10m.                                 4 Floors     4.1 Concrete Precast Double T       4.1.1 - Floor_PrecastDoubleT The actual floor is constructed using larger beams running in both directions along the columns and smaller intermediate girders running between the beams. All of these beams are built into the floor slab. For this reason the Precast Double T floor slab was chosen to model the smaller beams between the larger beams running                         Page 57  in both directions.  A 23- Roof Construction             5 Roof               5.1  Concrete Precast Double T               5.1.1 - Roof_ConcretePrecastDoubleT_Main The roof is built using the same construction as the floors, however, it has different overlay materials and rigid insulation. The actual roof is constructed using larger beams running in both directions along the columns and smaller intermediate girders running between the beams. All of these beams are built into the floor slab. For this reason the Precast Double T floor slab was chosen to model the smaller beams between the larger beams running in both directions.                                                                                          5.2 Open Web Steel Joist               5.2.1 - Roof_OpenWebSteelJoists_Penthouse The roof was constructed using an open web steel joist which is the exact type of roofing structure that is used in the impact estimator.                      6 Extra Basic Material     6.1 Concrete       6.1.1 ExtraBasicMaterial_Concrete This concrete is a result of the roof parapet that surrounds all of the roofs of the buildings other than the penthouse. The volume calculation is shown below:  Volume (m^3) = Length*Height*Thickness = 369.24 * 1.2 * 0.2 = 88.6176 m^3           6.2 Steel       6.2.1 ExtraBasicMaterial_Steel The Steel is a result of Page 58        HSS Steel Sections which are seen in the atrium of the building holding up the skylight and also around the curtain wall for decoration. The diameter of the steel sections were measured by hand on a site visit, and found to be 250mm (10inch), while the wall thickness was assumed to be 12mm (1/2 inch) after researching standard thicknesses for a non structural HSS of the appropriate diameter. The weight calculation is below:  Weight = Length*(X-section Area)*Density =  277.31 m * 0.00494 m^2 * 7.85 Tonnes/m^3  Weight = 110.75 tonnes     2.4 Curtain Wall       2.4.1 Wall_Curtain_AllFloors There is a curtain wall that is present in the atrium and extends up to the ceiling and connects into the skylight. The Skylight above the atrium was also modeled as a curtain wall, it is on an angle. The area of the curtain wall was measured from above, therefore the angle needed to be taken into account and the proper skylight area calculated as shown below.   Skylight Area = sqrt((Projected Area)^2 + (Height)^2)                                                   = sqrt (299.64^2+4.117^2) = 299.67 m^2  The height and length are calculated by using the actual width of the curtain wall as the width, and the height is calculated accordingly as shown below.  Width = 3.22 m  Height = (Total                                     Page 59  Area)/(width) = (299.67 + 175.89)/(3.22) = 147.69 A 32 - Walls Above Grade               2  Walls     Concrete Strength of 25 Mpa was used, In Athena 30 Mpa was the closest input. No Fly ash concentration was specified, so average was used. The Stud Spacing is 400 mm on center, the stud thickness is 67.5 mm however the minimum specified thickness available in the impact estimator is 92 mm. The stud weight is also not specified, however, the light weight stud was used in order to maintain as much accuracy as possible to try and a reduce the error of the larger stud weight that is used. The type of window in the building was not specified in the drawings, so standard glazing was used. The takeoffs of the exterior windows were done from the outside elevations of the building, with a count and area measurement. While the limited number of interior windows were measured using plan view in linear meters and the height of the windows measured during a site visit to determine the proper window area, a count was also completed in the plan view.     2.1  Cast In Place Concrete       2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-Place_AllFloors The majority of these walls are present inside the stairwell towers and in the atrium, they are 200mm concrete walls with no insulation or steel studs on either side of the walls.                          2.1.2 Wall_Cast-in-Place_SteelStud_AllFloors These walls are exclusively exterior walls. There is a 200mm thick cast in place concrete wall on the exterior followed by 89mm steel studs filled with batt insulation a sheet of poly and 15.9mm drywall. This wall type from all floors have been combined into this one category.  The top floor is 3.4m and the other floors are 4.3m, to account for this with using a single input into the Impact Estimator, a weighted average to determine the floor height that should be used for the input. The Calculation is shown below:  Total Height = [(linear meters of 3.4m                   Page 60  wall)*3.4m + (linear meters of 4.3m wall)*4.3]/ (total linear meters)  Total Height = (61.42*3.4 + 846.2*4.3) / (907.62) = 4.24 m        2.2.6 Wall_SteelStud_Penthouse_Exterior This steel stud wall has vertical metal cladding on horizontal grits. In addition there is two layers of exterior drywall with batt insulation in between. The height of this was taken as the floor to floor height plus the parapet in order to account for the additional wall above the roof.                 B11 - Partitions                 2.2 Steel Stud       2.2.1 Wall_SteelStud_Ground Floor The Steel Stud wall is an interior wall with 89mm studs and drywall on each side. No insulation was used. The window area was calculated by measuring the length from the plan view and multiplying by a hand measured window height during a site visit, the calculation is below:  Window Area = Total Length * Measured Height = 52.22m * 1.07m = 55.71 m2             2.2.2 Wall_SteelStud_Floor2 The Steel Stud wall is an interior wall with 89mm studs and drywall on each side. No insulation was used. The window area was calculated by measuring the length from the plan view and multiplying by a hand measured window height during a site visit, the calculation is below:  Window Area = Total Length * Measured Height = 8.30m * 1.07m = 8.85 m2                         2.2.3 Wall_SteelStud_Floor3 The Steel Stud wall is Page 61        an interior wall with 89mm studs and drywall on each side. No insulation was used. The window area was calculated by measuring the length from the plan view and multiplying by a hand measured window height during a site visit, the calculation is below:  Window Area = Total Length * Measured Height = 16.69m * 1.07m = 17.80 m2                   2.2.4 Wall_SteelStud_Floor4 The Steel Stud wall is an interior wall with 89mm studs and drywall on each side. No insulation was used. The window area was calculated by measuring the length from the plan view and multiplying by a hand measured window height during a site visit, the calculation is below:  Window Area = Total Length * Measured Height = 2.72m * 1.07m = 2.90 m2                         2.2.5 Wall_SteelStud_Penthouse The Steel Stud wall is an interior wall with 89mm studs and drywall on each side. No insulation was used.                        2.3 Concrete Block Wall       2.3.1 Wall_ConcBlock_SteelStud_ AllFloors The Lock Block wall is located on the second floor at the east end of the building. No rebar was specified so 10M will be used for input into the impact estimator.            6.3 Extra Cladding Material       6.3.1 ExtraBasicMaterial_ ExtraCladdingMaterial The brick in the building is located primarily on the outside of the building however there is some located inside the building in the atrium. It is unclear if the brick is veneer, however there is no input for veneer brick in the impact estimator so normal "standard" brick is used.            6.4 Extra Envelope Material Page 62        6.4.1 ExtraBasicMaterial_ExtraEnvelopeMaterial The extra glass used is due to large single pane windows in the atrium. Because not all the sections were available to do takeoffs some additional amount of window area needed to be added. In addition only double pane windows are available, as a result the amount of window area for this calculation is divided by two to get a more accurate window area. The calculation is shown below:  Total EBM window = Takeoff Area + Measured Area = 88.5m^2 + 7.36m^2 = 95.86 m^2  Total Standard Glazing used = 95.86 / 2 = 47.93 m^2          Ann ex E – Net Present Value Cost      Year Cost    Year Escalation Rate  1989  $        1,250,000     1989 1.07  2013  $  2,255,362.64  =$1250000*1.80429  1990 0.96       1991 1  Product of Escalation Rate (1989-2012)    1992 1.02  1.80429      1993 1.03       1994 1.04       1995 1.01       1996 1.03       1997 1.02       1998 1.01       1999 1.01       2000 1       2001 1.01      Page 63   2002 1.01       2003 1.05       2004 1.08       2005 1.08       2006 1.13       2007 1.09       2008 0.93       2009 0.95       2010 1.04       2011 1.04       2012 1.01       

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.18861.1-0108889/manifest

Comment

Related Items