UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment : Henry Angus Building Qiu, Zhengxiang 2013-11-18

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Qiu_Zhengxiang_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 3.07MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108896.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108896-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108896-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108896-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108896-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108896-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108896-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108896-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108896.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportZHENGXIANG QIULife Cycle Assessment – Henry Angus BuildingCIVL 498CNovember 18, 201310651530University 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 – Henry Angus Building ZHENGXIANG QIU CIVIL 498C November 18, 2013  2013 Henry Angus LCA 1  Executive Summary LCA aims to compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential impacts of the building system throughout its life cycle, being regarded as a scientific method to analyze the building performance in environment. Some buildings on UBC campus have been involved in the LCA analysis to improve their sustainability. The report would discuss how LCA methodology, database and software work on the object – Henry Angus Building and what the result we get could help us improve the building performance. The initial Henry Angus was built in 1965 at $2,307,309 with an addition in 1976. It was the first ³VN\VFUDSHU´RQFDPSXVDQGoriginally used by Faculty of Commerce and Social Science. Methods Based on cradle-to-gate study in the Life Cycle Assessment, firstly we import the building model LQWR ³$WKHQD (QYLURQPHQWDO ,PSDFW (VWLPDWRU´ DQG REWDLQ DQ RYHUYLew environmental performance of the building, then adopt Life Cycle Inventor (LCI) analysis to reclassify and quantify the building elements and components in terms of CIQS Level 3format in IE inputs and Impact Estimator respectively. Afterwards, Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) was used for HYDOXDWLQJHDFKHOHPHQW¶VSRWHQWLDOHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWV7KH/&,$SURILOHJHQHUDWHVIRUPWKHanalysis presents the elements potential impacts at identified quantity from the material manufacturing, transportation to construction in the light of seven impact category indicators.  Last, comparing with UBC benchmark and sensitive analysis, we figure out some material that has more contribution to the Global warming in Level 3 element and inaccuracy in geometry measurement of On- Screen Takeoff and type and property selection in IE Inputs.  2013 Henry Angus LCA 2  Result and interpretation The identified inaccuracies in geometry and variation between IE Inputs and known measure are likely to cause the distortion about building in LCA for owners, hence we come up with improvements to re-measure or check the inaccurate elements in model to identify their dimension accord to according to reality in practice after evaluating the information form the results of LCI Analysis and LCIA. The outcome would provide the crew with clear and accurate understanding for evaluating the environmental impacts for building whole life cycle as well as t GHFLVLRQPDNHUFDQUHJDUGWKHUHVXOWDVDJXLGHOLQHIRUGHVLJQDQGPDQDJHWKHEXLOGLQJ¶Venvironmental performance in product and construction stage.            2013 Henry Angus LCA 3  Contents  1. General Information on the Assessment ............................................................................................... 6 1.1 Purpose of the assessment ................................................................................................................ 6 1.1.1 Intended use of the assessment ................................................................................................. 7 1.1.2 Reason for carrying out the study ............................................................................................ 8 1.1.3 Intended audience .................................................................................................................... 10 1.1.4 Intended for comparative assertions ...................................................................................... 10 1.2 Identification of Building................................................................................................................ 11 1.3 Other Assessment Information ...................................................................................................... 18 2. General Information on the Object of Assessment ............................................................................ 19 2.1 Functional Equivalent .................................................................................................................... 19 2.2 Reference Study Period .................................................................................................................. 20 2.3 Object of Assessment Scope ........................................................................................................... 21 2.3.1 Foundations .............................................................................................................................. 22 2.3.2 Floors ......................................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.3 Columns & Beams .................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.4 Walls .......................................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.4 Roof ........................................................................................................................................... 24 3. Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment ..................................................... 26 3.1 System Boundary ............................................................................................................................ 26 3.2 Product Stage .................................................................................................................................. 26 3.3 Construction Stage .......................................................................................................................... 29 4. Environmental Data .............................................................................................................................. 30 4.1 Data Sources .................................................................................................................................... 30 4.2 Data Adjustments and Substitution .............................................................................................. 31 4.3 Data Quality .................................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.1 Database Uncertainty .............................................................................................................. 32 4.3.2 Model Uncertainty ................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.3 Temporal Uncertainty ............................................................................................................. 33 4.3.4 Spatial Uncertainty .................................................................................................................. 33 2013 Henry Angus LCA 4  4.3.5 Variability Uncertainty ............................................................................................................ 34 5. Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 35 5.1 Assessment Methods ....................................................................................................................... 35 5.2 Impact Categories ........................................................................................................................... 36 5.2.1 Global warming potential ........................................................................................................ 36 5.2.2 Fossil Fuel Consumption potential ......................................................................................... 36 5.2.3 Acidification Potential ............................................................................................................. 37 5.2.4 Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential ........................................................................ 37 5.2.5 Eutrophication Potential ......................................................................................................... 37 5.2.6 Ozone Depletion Potential ....................................................................................................... 38 5.2.7 Smog Potential .......................................................................................................................... 38 6. Model Development .............................................................................................................................. 38 6.1 Establish the level 3 model ............................................................................................................. 38 6.2 Bill of Material Process .................................................................................................................. 40 6.3 Assessment Process ......................................................................................................................... 43 6.4 Model Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 44 7. Communication of Assessment Results ............................................................................................... 55 7.1 Life Cycle Result ............................................................................................................................. 55 Annex A - Interpretation of Assessment Results .................................................................................... 57 Annex B – Recommendations for LCA ................................................................................................... 65 Annex C – Author Reflection ................................................................................................................... 67 Annex D – Impact Estimator Input and Assumption ............................................................................ 71       2013 Henry Angus LCA 5  List of Figures  Figure 1- Life Cycle Assessment framework  ʹphase of LCA (ISO, 1977a) .................................................... 6 Figure 2 - Location of Henry Angus Building ............................................................................................... 11 Figure 3 - Precast exterior wall on west ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 - Office Block Southwest ............................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5 - Façade of Classroom Block ......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6 - Back of Classroom Block ............................................................................................................. 14 Figure 7 - Building before Renovation ........................................................................................................ 16 Figure 8 - Building after second Renovation ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 9 - Interior renewal and expansion .................................................................................................. 17 Figure 10 - Summary of Assessment Information ...................................................................................... 18 Figure 11- Functional Equivalent Definition ............................................................................................... 19 Figure 12 - Deviations based on different reference study period in DGNB .............................................. 20 Figure 13 - Column and beams ................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 14 - Building element definition in CIQS .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 15 - Product Stage process environmental impacts ........................................................................ 27 Figure 16 - Construction process environmental impacts .......................................................................... 29 Figure 17  ʹBuilding Bill of Materials .......................................................................................................... 40 Figure 18 - A11 Foundations Bill of Materials ............................................................................................. 41 Figure 19 - A21 Lowest Floor Construction Bill of Materials ...................................................................... 41 Figure 20 - A22 Upper Floor Construction Bill of Materials ........................................................................ 41 Figure 22 - A31 Walls Below Grade Bill of Materials .................................................................................. 42 Figure 23 - A32 Walls Above Grade Bill of Materials .................................................................................. 42 Figure 24 - B11 Partitions Bill of Materials ................................................................................................. 42 Figure 25 - Assessment Framework ............................................................................................................ 43 Figure 26 - A11 Foundations Improvement ................................................................................................ 46 Figure 27 - A21 Lowest Floor Construction ................................................................................................. 48 Figure 28 - A22 Upper Floor Construction .................................................................................................. 49 Figure 29 - A23 Roof Construction .............................................................................................................. 50 Figure 30 - A31 Walls Below Grade ............................................................................................................. 52 Figure 31 - A32 Walls Above Grade ............................................................................................................ 54 Figure 32 - B11 Partitions ............................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 33 - Henry Angus environmental impact ......................................................................................... 57 Figure 34 - Henry Angus impact benchmark ............................................................................................... 63 Figure 35 - Henry Angus Cost scatter plot .................................................................................................. 64 Figure 36 - Henry Angus GWP scatter plot ................................................................................................. 64   2013 Henry Angus LCA 6  1. General Information on the Assessment 1.1 Purpose of the assessment   Figure 1- Life Cycle Assessment framework – phase of LCA (ISO, 1977a) In order to get an explicit understanding on the Life Cycle Assessment, we should figure out what its mechanism is and how the information delivered. The above figure explains the whole framework for Life Cycle Assessment. It is started with the goal of building assessment. The LCA is considered to be a versatile tool for qualifying the environmental impacts from raw material, production, service. The generic goal of the LCA is to select the best product, process 2013 Henry Angus LCA 7  and service with least negative effect on the human health and environment.  Specifically, the goal of LCA about exploration on Henry Angus Building aims to these statements primarily: 1.1.1 Intended use of the assessment  Support product development The outcomes of LCA are valuable for users to comprehend the environmental impacts generates from the original building in different life cycle phases, and compare with relative environmental burdens results from improving process or material. The alternative process or material contributes to the product development toward to environmental friendly orientation, reducing the resource requirement and emissions.   Strategic planning The LCA can be applied to make the strategic planning. An increasing number of participators are realizing the importance of the LCA and in pursuit of true sustainability in the built environment. Particularly, the LEED Green Building Rating System is emerged to evaluate the building green performance; When the pursuers make the LEED-oriented building as the strategy, the results of LCA can help pursuers to evaluate their building environmental performance before construction, then LCA scores can be transferred to LEED credits to assess their original design process or materials can meet the requirement of the LEED or not. Thus, they can improve the design or materials in accordance with LEED standard. Also the application of LCA can be considered to be metric to establish the baseline in the life cycle system in terms of manufacture, use and disposal. The baseline information is useful for improving analysis with specific changes in energy consumption and resource use.   Marketing  2013 Henry Angus LCA 8  Generally, more energy the products consume, the more expensive they are. LCA data helps us analyze and estimate the cost of material by figuring out the amount of energy and resource consumed in production and construction. Depending on the information from LCA material energy consumption, we can select alternative material with lower energy consumption to save cost. Furthermore, the building with LCA can utilize the eco labeling and environmental production declaration caters the customers or stakeholders.  Policy making LCA is used to provide information and direction to decision-maker. Since it contributes to product development, strategic planning, financing, owners can rely on the solid data to make trade-offs of alternative process and materials. The data provides a valid guidance for owner to create a more green building.  1.1.2 Reason for carrying out the study  Motivations With the increasing offending effect from human activities on environment, people are inclined to seek for an alternative approach to evaluate and relieve the environmental impacts. The involvement of many institutions and laws and regulations is to pursue ³*UHHQ%XLOGLQJ´DQGVXVWDLQDELOLW\2QHRIWKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRI/&$LVthe ability to comprehensively examine all the stages that a product goes through. Participants can evaluate the environmental impacts in terms of whole stage of the products used in the construction and identify potential process or environment-sensitive material for improvements from data from the LCA study. LCA has been integrated in to the built environment as tool such as European ENSLIC Building Project guidelines for buildings and implemented that provides practitioners guidance on method to implement 2013 Henry Angus LCA 9  LCI data into planning and design process. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), in line with others set the ISO 14040 series establishes a uniform framework approach and terminology for LCA. The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) or the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) require all building owners, architects, design professionals, engineers and contractors to build in a way that provides for sustainable future based on the LCA study. UBC also establishes Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEED) provides the participants with real-world sustainability experience and knowledge and requires some buildings to follow the /&$VWXG\WRPDNHWUDGHRIIWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWDQGEHQHILWZLWK8QLYHUVLW\¶VQHW-zero energy strategy. The LCA study of the Henry Angus propagates the sustainable FRQFHSWWRLWV³QHLJKERUEXLOGLQJs  ´ to help further sustainable development in building construction on UBC campus, contributing to obtain the acceptance in sustainability standards in construction with study maturity growing.  Objectives The data from LCA study can use IRUFRPSDULQJWKHGLIIHUHQWEXLOGLQJV¶SHUIRUPDQFHin different use phase scenarios energy consumption and global warming impacts and identify the significant contributors in two indicators from cradle-to-grave phase. Thus we can control the amount of energy consumption and CO2 emission in accordance with our design strategy by reducing the usage of some specific material or swap them into more green ones.    2013 Henry Angus LCA 10  1.1.3 Intended audience  Internal audience Generally internal audience is related to participants or organization that are prepare to understand or able to get an efficient application in the real practice. As to the project LCA is intended for multiple audiences including the developer, project manager, steel producer. Each of LCA reviewers requires a different level of detail and disclosure to ensure that the accuracy of data without divulging.  External audience  The external audience is primarily concerned with public. Some organization such as SEED programs in UBC, Cascadia Green Building Council in Canada and United States Green Building Council that offers the users the with generic guideline to integrate the LCA data into sustainable building analysis, establish world wide database for comparing and sharing data from diverse projects to create uniform benchmark. Another major public audience is government. They have got involved in the match by promulgating some regulations to cater the development of the LCA in the industry. 1.1.4 Intended for comparative assertions  In the model development, the study aims to the exchanging the element material or redefining the geometry based on the drawings, thus the building results include comparison of the performance of original model and improved model in environment. The comparable result is considered to be significant approach for reducing the model environmental impact.    2013 Henry Angus LCA 11  1.2 Identification of Building The Henry Angus Building is located Northwestern corner of University Boulevard and Main Mall Road as shown the current map of the building in the Fig2. The whole Henry Angus experienced two renovations, original building was built 1965, totally costing $2,307,309, designed by Thompson, Berwick & Pratt in O. SAFIR & CO. LTD. The footprint is outlined in green.              Figure 2 - Location of Henry Angus Building The preliminary design included two blocks, classroom block and office block, built in reinforced concrete frame and slab. There are two major entrances on the Main Mall Road, one entrance on the University Boulevard and three more on the Sauder Lane. The side of building 2013 Henry Angus LCA 12  faces to Sauder Lane approximately remains the original appearance that precast concrete exterior wall with single glazing window in Figure 3.   Figure 3 - Precast exterior wall on west The 9-floor office block is close to University Boulevard, includes 8-floor office area with basement and penthouse for conference room. As shown in the Figure 4, the primary material of structural section is precast concrete. Basically, the office block can be divided two areas form the No. 3 entrance (see in the Figure 2), the left pare is mainly used for the professors of various department in Commerce Faculty, while the right side is generally for administrative function. 2013 Henry Angus LCA 13   Figure 4 - Office Block Southwest The classroom block is connected with office block at the junction in No.1 and No.5 entrance. It contains 5 floors with basement and adjacent to David Lam Learning Center on the North side. Apparently, the exterior wall of the classroom is primarily consisting of curtain wall with shading panel.   Figure 5 - Façade of Classroom Block                        2013 Henry Angus LCA 14     Figure 6 - Back of Classroom Block  7KH+HQU\$QJXVZDVWKHILUVW³6N\VFUDSHU´RQFDPSXVDQGRULJLQDOO\KRXVHGWKHIDFXOW\RICommerce. It was named after Henry Forbes Angus, commerce professor and first Dean of Graduate Studies. Since found in 1965, it experienced tow renovation. The first phase worked on 55,000 square feet extension of the classroom block, designed by architect Reno C. Negrin and Associates in 1976. The addition is made up of in-situ concrete and glass on the original exterior wall that of in place concrete and precast concrete frames to the windows because of indication of weathering. Also phase one contains aesthetic improvements with new glazing window on the east side of classroom block and part of south side of office block, as well some electronic and mechanical equipment shown in Figure. 7. In 2003, the addition was renamed as the Sauder School of Business in honor of Chancellor Emereitus of UBC – William Sauder. The second phase revitalization project of $85M was carried out in 2009 to expend 50,000 square feet to the existing Henry Angus Building and renew space to accommodate the new technology and increasing enrollment students seen in Fig. 8. The lobby of the classroom block is separated into two zones for meeting different requirement in function; one is opening area that provides students with socialization, network, and business community. The other is rest 2013 Henry Angus LCA 15  area which offers occupants with amenity food service. Particularly, expanded video conferencing brings global business community into the classroom. Revitalization highlights include:  The creation of a new facility for the Robert H. Lee Graduate School  The Bruce R. Birmingham Commerce Undergraduate Centre featuring group and individual study spaces, classrooms, meeting rooms and breakout rooms for small-group work and interviews  The Middlefield Group Lecture Theatre – a large-size, state-of-the-art lecture theatre with attached conference rooms  The Jim Pattison Leadership Centre featuring two new lecture theatres, conference rooms and lounge spaces  The new Hari B. Varshney Business Career Centre – located at the main entrance – emphasizes the crucial link between students and the business community  Additional classrooms and spaces designed and equipped for distance learning and videoconferencing  The K.T. Tjia & Anna L.L. Chia Atrium that connects the old building with the new spaces  A new café and store  Creation of other open and flexible spaces for students to network, study and congregate in a comfortable environment 2013 Henry Angus LCA 16   Figure 7 - Building before Renovation              Figure 8 - Building after second Renovation The second refurbishment replaces the façade window of classroom form concrete single window to curtain wall in the figure. 9, the improvement allow more light to shine into the building that saving the energy consumption during the operation. The new four-storey building has classrooms on two levels, a library on one level, two lecture theatres on the top floor and a lecture hall in the basement. The LEED Silver equivalent building is concrete to grade and steel framing above grade with chevron braces and composite beams. In the basement there is a large 2013 Henry Angus LCA 17  OHFWXUHKDOOWKDWUHTXLUHGWKDWQRFROXPQVEORFNVWXGHQWV¶OLQHRIVLWH*ORWPDQ‡6LPSVRQWKDWZDVresponsible for the structural design utilized large post tensioned transfer beams, spanning 18.8 meters, on the ground floor to allow for no columns in the basement lecture hall space. These beams support the entire building structure above. The roof of Lecture Theater employs long span Glulam beams to accommodate curved sloping roof. The new building had to be seismically separated from the existing adjacent buildings, which were used for gravity support along the east side and parts of the north and south sides. Glotman Simpson provided horizontal slip connections at the building to building joints to allow the new building to move independently. The opening atrium used a mass of wood to take placement of concrete, and the curtain wall of the lecture theater replaces original concrete wall with glazing window as well. The extensive roof glazing introduces cascading lighting through the continuous interior and reflected by the curtain wall of theater to make the lobby get more natural light.                                                  Figure 9 - Interior renewal and expansion  2013 Henry Angus LCA 18  1.3 Other Assessment Information It has been 48 years since the original building was in construction. Now there are almost 200 staff and 2000 undergraduate students participating in building. It is necessary for us to implement the analysis about the building life span. In the research, we adopted the software Athena Impact Estimator version 4.2.0208 for building LCA analysis. The following table provide a summary of assessment information. Client for Assessment Completed as coursework in CIVL 498C technical elective course in Civil Engineering at the University of British Columbia. Name and qualification of the assessor Zhengxiang,Qiu & Man-Hin Lo in Civil Engineering Graduation Program Impact Assessment method The Athena Impact Estimator version 4.2.0208. Point Assessment 48 years. Period of validity 5 years. Date of Assessment  Completed in December 2013 Verifier Student work, student not verified. Figure 10 - Summary of Assessment Information    2013 Henry Angus LCA 19  2. General Information on the Object of Assessment 2.1 Functional Equivalent Functional unit is defined as a performance characteristic of product system being studied that will be used as a reference unit to normalize the results of the study. Being a reference, it is necessary to ensure comparability of LCA results, since comparability of LCA results is particular important for assessing different systems to make the comparisons to be evaluated under common metric, moreover, it sets up criteria for the two or more products comparison contributes to improvement, specifically, when participants compare the different products expected achieving the same function. Also functional unit can be regarded as one of guideline of LCA data divide and representation. For example, the environmental impact in LCA data report actually follows the functional unit (e.g. CO2/product). Appropriate defines the functional unit benefits the data disaggregation in LCA based on the specific strategy of the LCA study and provides on overall representation of al product systems include the building analysis scope.  Aspect of Object of Assessment Description Building Type  Institutional Building  Technical and functional requirements Classroom, office, library, lecture hall, videoconferencing room, restaurant, Pattern of use Monday-Sunday 07:00-23:00 Required service life Assumed to be 60 years. Figure 11- Functional Equivalent Definition  2013 Henry Angus LCA 20  2.2 Reference Study Period Basically, the values for reference study period are typically greatly depends on our assumption made at initiative analysis. Because of various rules applied for LCA study; deviations of the result for the same building are inevitable. In normalization, it requires a comparison in these values in terms of specific project. In Germany, they used DNGB building labelling system to sets up the benchmark and apply it for justified comparison. While HQE Performance, concerning the LCA of 74 low-energy buildings are applied for reference period study. The different functional building with dissimilar reference study period years would have completely instinct environmental impact based on combination of module A, B and C. Hence, as to the LCA of the Henry Angus building, when we implement environmental impact exercising different Modules, we have to make preliminary assumption of the reference study period. The diverse assumption can lead to the different results and deviations.                 Figure 12 - Deviations based on different reference study period in DGNB 2013 Henry Angus LCA 21  The Henry Angus Building is assumed to be 60-year service life according to UBC guide because of insufficiency of service life requirement information. The whole building LCA system boundary is categorized into product stage (module A), construction process stage (module A), use stage (module B), end of life stage (module C) and supplementary information beyond the building life cycle (module D). But we just focus on the module A, product stage and construction process stage in Henry Angus Building LCA study. Because the other three stages have too much uncertainty, it is very difficult for the practitioner to collect or estimated data for continuing analysis, inaccurate data are bond to cause further deviations. These uncertainties contains human behavior, for example, it is impossible to estimate or control energy consumption with various individual practicing in the use stage. Regenerative methods and standards could lead to uncertainty. Improving methods for maintenance cycle and renew standard for waste processing would restrict a real world scenarios in a defied LCA model.   2.3 Object of Assessment Scope The part of relative data about dimension of buildings is obtained from the drawings by TKRPSVRQ%HUZLFN	3UDWWLQ¶V. Experiencing two significant renovations, referring to PDVVLYHDFWLYLWLHVDERXWH[WHQVLRQDQGUHSODFHPHQWWKHEXLOGLQJ¶VRULJLQDOGLPHQVLRQGDWDare inconsistent with current measurement. The façade exterior concrete walls are replaced by curtain wall, as well as that of theater. Massive partition walls were placed for individual study spaces, classrooms, meeting rooms and breakout rooms for small-group work and interviews. Additional classrooms and spaces designed and equipped for distance learning and videoconferencing. Such these improved features can not be found in the plan drawings specifically. Due to discrepancy of the quantity and quality in materials and components, the deviation from this scope needs to be clearly stated. Comparing the previous report, we 2013 Henry Angus LCA 22  identified the whole building components based on CIQS Level 3 Element, established by Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors to standardize building elements that enable cost analyses control on building projects. 2.3.1 Foundations According to update CIQS, slab on grade and basement wall are excluded from foundations list. Foundation system in Henry Angus consists mainly of wall and column footings in both classroom block and office block and retaining walls. The outstanding discrepancy is that thickness of classroom block footing type A and Type B in known measures is as two times as it in EIE inputs. Most of assembly in EIE inputs obtained from Athena Estimator model and known measures form original drawings are in consistence. We got few specifications of concrete strength and fly ash proportion in concrete from drawings, these figure are explicit in the Athena Estimator. All the concrete strength for the footing was assumed 3000psi, #4 and #5 rebar are used in the foundation construction as well. 2.3.2 Floors We identified the floors as lowest floor construction that is below the grade and upper floor construction. According to the drawings, we noticed that there are two types of slabs on grade. Because the SOG of classroom block and office block are still remain the original design, so that area of SOG was counted together rather than sections. The other type of floors includes all suspended slabs upper grade. The drawings describes the suspended slab live load was 60 psi, actually the current figure are supposed to be higher than it  before because there are a lot of partition wall added into the original structure. That is the reason that we got 70 psi for the live load in the Athena Estimator model contained renewal partition walls. 2013 Henry Angus LCA 23  2.3.3 Columns & Beams Athena Estimator has clear identification for columns and beams. The column without beams named column_beam N/A, and column with beam is columns_beams, the database calculates column and beam dimensions in terms of quantity, bay size, support span, height. Because of renovation, additional columns and beams are not matched with that in drawings. The amount percentage indicates the columns in the basement and ground floor accounts for about 50% of total columns and beams. Concrete is the primary material for beams and columns, live load for them is 100 psi seen in Figure 13.                       Figure 13 - Column and beams 2.3.4 Walls The interior and exterior walls in both of classroom block and office block has altitude difference even though at the same level, on account of the discrepancy of elevation, two blocks are connected with sloping ramps. Most of partition walls can not be found in drawings, but the IE model contains all current partition walls, renovation improves the material on the interior wall, 2013 Henry Angus LCA 24  such as basement classroom block assembly components are consist of cast in place concrete with steel clad, wood clad and structural panels. The thickness of basement classroom block and office block is around 9", concrete with fly ash associate with fiber batt cladding. The value of thickness in the drawings is much less than it in IE value might be the additional cladding on the wall after renovation. For the walls above grade in classroom block, 0.5 inches gypsum board, aluminum frame are the major material cladding on the 3000 psi concrete wall. In office block, it uses the same strength concrete as it in classroom block, but in addition to gypsum board and fiberglass batt, expanded polystyrene and vinyl siding are used as well. The envelope of classroom block used cast-in-place concrete and window opening with double glazed without coating air and aluminum window frame double pane. 2.3.4 Roof There are two kinds of roof assembly components adopted in Henry Angus Building, 8626 sf 2.5" built up  precast for the classroom block with insulation polystryene extruded organic felt  1 inch thickness. The other is suspended slab for theater, office block and penthouse. In drawings, the live load indicates 27 psi, however, the values in IE reaches to 75 and 100 psi. The variation results from overstatement in the evaluation of environmental impact, more compressive strength concrete would consume more energy for production. In the LCA of Henry Angus Building, we just only address structure and envelope of the building. Because the material used in the structure is commonly concrete or concrete with various material cladding, this type of material would be the primary contributor for the building performance in environment. Also all the elements in the Athena EI model belong to category of 2013 Henry Angus LCA 25  structure and envelope components. In addition, quantitatively, considering two extensive refurbishments, the basic structure and envelope was extended and substituted markedly, the massive changes should be taken account into the LCI analysis. Qualitatively, the complicated materials in the structure and envelope can be tracked easily from raw material supply in the product stage to construction process stage, being the primary material used in the building construction; they also have critically important influence on the environmental impact of the building. The modified version of CIQS level 3 provides practitioners more accurate and explicit for the data classification. According the modified CIQS we reclassified the elements in the previous report in Figure 14.  Figure 14 - Building element definition in CIQS  CIVL 498C Level 3 Elemental Format DescriptionQuantity (Amount)UnitsA11 FoundationsTotal area of the slab-on-grade1522 ㎡A21 Lowest Floor ConstructionTotal area of the slab-on-grade1522 ㎡A22 Upper Floor ConstructionSum of the total area of all upper floors measured from the outside face of the exterior walls6473 ㎡A23 Roof ConstructionSum of the total area of the roofs measured from the outside face of the exterior walls2351 ㎡A31 Walls Below GradeSum of the total surface area of the exterior walls above grade635 ㎡A32 Walls Above GradeSum of the total surface area of the exterior walls below grade3280 ㎡B11 PartitionsSum of the total surface area of the interior walls6073 ㎡2013 Henry Angus LCA 26  3. Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment 3.1 System Boundary In the Henry Angus Building study includes the module A1-A3 Product Stage and Module A4-A5 Construction Process Stage. The upstream of the module A1-A3 approach focuses first on manufacturing process, we need to estimate how much fuel consumed from collecting raw material to producing the merchandise. Downstream of the process is that the amount of each waste for manufacturing the products discharge into the environment, sometime the by-products might have more effect on the environment. For the module A4-A5, we are supposed to consider the energy consumption got involved in transporting the product required in construction from supplier to construction site as the upstream. Downstream includes that the amount of energy consumption for the wasting material in construction or dealing with the disposal or recycling we need to estimate. 3.2 Product Stage 7KHSURGXFWVWDJHLVNQRZQDV³FUDGOHWRJDWH´LQWKH/&$DQDO\VLVLWDLPVWRWKH0RGXOH$-A3 includes three processes: raw material supply, transportation and manufacturing process. The raw material is mainly collect from the recycled and reused material gathered form previous project left. Transportation process refers to deliver the raw material to mill. Manufacturing process the process that uses the material collecting from transportation and product remanufacture or reused product for manufacturing. We can depend on the database and tool to measure environmental impact generates from these process seen in Figure15. 2013 Henry Angus LCA 27   Figure 15 - Product Stage process environmental impacts  Extraction of raw materials production, collection and transportation from the system border of the previous system to the production site. The process summarizes raw material collection phase, EI tool records the energy consumption and other impacts generates from obtaining the available material for manufacturing and co-products. Although the data from upstream and downstream process, it is counted in the product stage. )RUH[DPSOHWKHZRRGUDZPDWHULDO³FUDGOH´for wood products includes all forest operation and logging.  Manufacturing of products Athena database depends on the cooperation with the industries and manufactures to improve their database and get good cross-sectional industry average database and profile for each material. The manufacturing effects of that average formulation are then regionalized for each location by applying local electricity, energy and transportation grids. It is addressed to National Renewable Energy Laboratory of US Department of Energy. The reliability of the data the collect form real industry makes my study more accurate. Also we can try to establish the baseline for the manufacturing process for impairing its impacts based on the data in Figure 15.  Generation of the energy input, including the production of the energy itself. Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingAcidificationHuman Health Criteria – RespiratoryEutrophicationOzone Layer DepletionSmogLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ)(kg CO2eq)(moles of H+eq)(kg PM10eq)(kg Neq)(kg CFC-11eq)(kg O3eq)Manufacturing 20604829.03 1960866.6 14757.92161 5227.31595 1082.437165 0.01205488 231686.1Transport 929403.1266 57204.361 346.8375733 9.80871563 24.31805862 2.326E-06 12278.26Total 21534232.16 2018070.9 15104.75918 5237.12467 1106.755224 0.0120572 243964.3Product Stage2013 Henry Angus LCA 28  The consideration of production of the energy itself is necessary in my study, if nor considering the amount of energy consumption for the energy for manufacturing could underestimate the result that makes building to be more environmental friendly.  Production of ancillary materials or pre-products For the ancillary or process materials, such as production of chemical inputs, fuels and power, secondary data from LCI database were considered to be acceptable during the goal and scope development for the Henry Angus building.  Packaging In my study, the impact of packaging is deemed to be one phase of the transportation, the (,KDVHVWLPDWHGWKHYDOXHVE\FRPSDULQJPDQ\PDQXIDFWXUH¶VGDWDEDVH  Transportation up to the production gate and to construction site. ,WLVD³JDWH-to-JDWH´SURGXFWsystem; the Athena calculates the transportation of material based on weight the distance in which the materials are delivered from, distinguished from transportation models (e.g. diesel road, diesel rail, RFO barge, RFO ship). For example, if Henry Angus building purchases the concrete from LA, the transportation experienced RFO ship, rail way and diesel road, and each model are summed up and average to get each percentage of the region.  Collection and transport of waste to disposal or to another production site. Collect and transport of disposal of the product are not got involved into the scope of my study. This process should be the module C – End of life stage, is still in the system boundary, but exceed my study boundary just contains module A1-A5.   Waste management process during the product and construction stages. Waste manage process are beyond my study system boundary. 2013 Henry Angus LCA 29  3.3 Construction Stage In my transport and construction installation modules is related to the transport of building SURGXFWVIURPWKHPDQXIDFWXUHU¶VIDFWRU\RUIURPUHJLRQDOVWRUDJHWRWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQVLWHDQGthen install these components into the building. :HDQDO\]HWKHEXLOGLQJ¶V HQYLURQPHQWDOperformance in the product phase depends on the data obtained from EI seen in the Figure 16   Figure 16 - Construction process environmental impacts  Transportation from the manufacturing gate to the construction site Transportation is calculated by the distance from the plant to the construction on site associated with the different transport model as mention before. The data we got from EI can help us estimate the impacts caused by the transportation for making alternative model to mitigating its impact on environment.  Storage of products, including provision of heating, cooling, humidity The energy used up in the storage is considered to be indirect consumption in the construction process.  Installation of the product into the building (including ancillary materials) and on site transformation of construction products. Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingAcidificationHuman Health Criteria – RespiratoryEutrophicationOzone Layer DepletionSmogLif  Cycle Sta eProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)(moles of H+eq)(kg PM10eq)(kg Neq)(kg CFC-11eq)(kg O3eq)Construction-installation Process1222515.235 115745.5939 909.3548148 222.931855 51.57106642 0.0005337 24267.28Transport 1413781.748 107320.2118 503.0873934 15.5140787 36.25034599 4.28E-06 17789.77Total 2636296.983 223065.8057 1412.442208 238.445934 87.8214124 0.0005379 42057.05Construction Process2013 Henry Angus LCA 30  In my study, the data contains installation and transformation process, it can be used for evaluation the impact and trade off with transportation impact to reduce the total influence of the construction process on environment.  Waste management process on the construction site and waste handling until disposal This process excludes from my study boundary system, but belongs to generic boundary system. 4. Environmental Data 4.1 Data Sources  Athena LCI Database The Athena Institute maintained their material database through cooperating with the some industries and manufactures in cross-sectional region. Due to database are regionally sensitive, the manufacturing technology, electricity grid and recycle content are different in various regions. Although the data for product stage and construction is remaining updating, but deficiency of some material in demolition and end-of-life process have to be improved to the next generation of construction requirement. Anyway, the development of the Athena LCI data base has covered building material, energy use, and building life cycle includes the product stage, construction process, Usage stage, End-of-Life and benefits and loads beyond the system boundary.  US LCI Database National Renewable Energy Laboratory of US Department of Energy (NREL) and its partner creates the US Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) database to provide individual gate-to-gate, cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave for both material and energy flows. The data 2013 Henry Angus LCA 31  protocol is based on ISO 14048 and financed by various stakeholders. Athena tool is embedded into Athena and US database that are most popular application in Canada and United States. 4.2 Data Adjustments and Substitution In the LCA analysis, we compared elements in the IE inputs from previous report with its property in the Athena Estimator, identifying some discrepancy of the material type and property, the flowing are the inaccuracy description and adjustments.  XBM_1"_lino_tile_topping  The material type in the known measure is Lino, but the element can not be found in the Athena estimator. I assumed that the data was missing; add the element into the model for integrality in the product stage.  Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_OfficeBlock_8" The material envelope in the known measure is 1 inch Styrofoam and 0.5 inch plaster, but 1 inch expanded polystyrene and o.5 inch gypsum board in IE inputs, considering the accuracy of known measure; I change the envelope of material as Styrofoam and plaster for construction stage.  Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloors_Office The envelope is siding plaster in known measure, but in EI model it shows gypsum board. I substitute it into siding plaster in the model for construction stage.  Stairs_Southwest_Office_Basement_L2  2013 Henry Angus LCA 32  The thickness of stair was reported 3 inch in the drawings, it is 12 inch of thickness in EI model, and the two renovations did not change the thickness on the southwest stair, so we change it to be 3 inch thickness in model for construction stage. 4.3 Data Quality Data quality describes the characteristics of the data used in terms of its liability to satisfy stated requirements. The emergence of the uncertainty would diminish the validity of the assessment result. Uncertainty can refer to the lack of knowledge and inherent randomness in any model input, as following it identifies five common types of uncertainty between sources that can affect the accuracy out input. 4.3.1 Database Uncertainty Some available database in LCA might be missing in the studied model such as Athena Estimator model. For example, varying product or project studied in the regional or temporal difference might cause database uncertainty. With the development of LCA in developing country without solid experience and knowledge about LCA, both data collection and analysis reduce the validity of life cycle assessment. The investigation in my LCA database points out this type of uncertainty as mentioned before, the element list in the drawing was missing in the EI model. 4.3.2 Model Uncertainty As the intermediate that transfers the figure into valuable data, the model relates to the design decision and affects the quality of the assessment outputs. Simplified models with wrong function form and interactive parameter might lead to model uncertainty. Although someone 2013 Henry Angus LCA 33  came up with an approach that combined use of Economic Input / Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) techniques with process-based LCA has been proposed to mitigate this uncertainty, the approach do not address uncertainty with stochastic variables. 4.3.3 Temporal Uncertainty The data of life cycle inventory will move forward to improvement after a range of years, while the process and products changes over time.  Temporal uncertainty begins with the development of the materials inputs and outputs of a unit process. The evolution of the process and the products makes the uncertainty captured hardly. Although we can choose a shorter temporal validity of the assessment to reduce the temporal uncertainty, correspondingly, the approach limits the utility of the study as well. In Henry Angus Building study, there is no temporal uncertainty founded, because of long time lag between two renovations. This kind of uncertainty is likely to be caused by frequently change in current process and products.  4.3.4 Spatial Uncertainty Practitioners seldom take account the concentration of chemicals and human population density into the LCA study and the interventions without spatial context. That introduces the spatial uncertainty into our result; technically, the emissions of the indoor and outdoor are distinct. A way to address spatial variability is to distinguish the study region into sub regions for LCA purpose. Both inventory analysis and energy assessment have to be adjusted for appropriate spatial variability. There are some limitations resisting the spatial uncertainty solution. First, insufficiency of explicit information related to regional emission. For instance, the accumulated average environmental interventions are associated with our current study; it is tough to distinguish the specific spatial environmental performance. 2013 Henry Angus LCA 34  4.3.5 Variability Uncertainty Variability is caused by the difference outcomes obtained from same object study using various methods, the uncertainty between sources in both inventory and energy assessment would impair the LCA outcomes. The weighting of environmental problems may introduce the variability between human preferences. Inappropriate analysis of object characteristics leads to variability such as body weight and sensitive material. The influence of variability on LCA outcomes between sources can be made operational by probabilistic simulation. When the outcome distribution of the environmental profile is reviewed and compared with the other database or documents to make all data used in analysis is precise and valid. In my study, the investigation reveals a great many of variability uncertainty. Due to the renovation some exposed material is cladding with new layer, the model investigator can not distinguish the exact composition of the element. Some different data collection methods caused the discrepancy in the model and known measured profile.  Generally, the investigation exposed some uncertainty impairs the quality of the LCI database used in my study and assessment outcome, concentrating on database uncertainty and variability. For Henry Angus Building, twice expensive renovation on structure extension and envelop VXEVWLWXWLRQLQFUHDVHWKHGDWDFROOHFWLRQDQGLGHQWLILFDWLRQ7KHIX]]\GUDZLQJVLQ¶DUHanother challenge for us to eliminating the uncertainties. A way to deal with the issue is that we can integrate all drawings into one with explicit and accurate element information.     2013 Henry Angus LCA 35  5.0 Impact Assessment 5.1 Assessment Methods The primary impact assessment utilized in the Henry Angus LCA study was the Athena Impact Estimator developed by the Athena Sustainable Material Institute; it provides a cradle-to-grave OLIHF\FOHLQYHQWRU\SURILOHIRUWKHZKROHEXLOGLQJ7KHVHFRQGWRROLV2Q&HQWHU¶V2Q6FUHHQTakeOff. Due to the previous contributions, the study directly started with the reclassified the whole building elements followed by the CIQS Level 3 rules, and then categorizes the existing building model in the EI software based on the rules. The EI focuses on establishing the community between quantities and quality of the materials and their contribution to the environment for the complete building life cycle, this study just concentrates on the product stage includes raw material supply, transportation (from suppliers to the manufacturing factory), and manufacturing and construction process stage involves transportation (from plant to construction site), and construction installation process. The other modules use stage and end-of-life stage excludes the current LCA study system boundary. The tool achieves the strategy by importing the bill of materials that indicates all material used in the building based on quantity and quality. In the end, IE filters the outcomes by a set of characteristic methodology in terms of the mid-point impact assessment established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), a tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) version 2.2; available TRACI impact assessment generates the environmental impact indicator profiles a below:  2013 Henry Angus LCA 36   Global warming potential  Fossil Fuel Consumption  Acidification Potential  Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential  Eutrophication Potential  Ozone Depletion Potential  Smog Potential 5.2 Impact Categories 5.2.1 Global warming potential Global warming potential describes the rising temperature worldwide because of greenhouse effect caused by human activity such as burning of fossil fuels and deforestation and ancillary product CO2. The measurement of global warming potential is the weight of the CO2 equivalence which is the primary factor of the greenhouse effect. The GWP value depends on how the gas concentration decays over time in the atmosphere. This is often not precisely known and hence the values should not be considered exact.  Its endpoints include agricultural influence and tropical storms.      5.2.2 Fossil Fuel Consumption potential Fossil fuel consumption (coal and natural gas) describes the total energy amount generates from the activities related to material manufacturing, transportation and construction in the study. They account for approximately 80% of global energy and lead to severe impacts includes emission of ecologically damaging to human health and air pollution. The category indicates is mega joules (MJ) that released form resources. 2013 Henry Angus LCA 37  5.2.3 Acidification Potential Acidification potential describes that acid gas released into the air or resulting from reaction of non-acid components of the emission reacts with water and transformer to the air pollution. It leads to a decrease in the pH value of rainwater and fog from 5.6-4. This damage ecosystem, whereby forest dies back is most serious impact. Acidification has direct and indirect impacts for example nutrient being wash out of soil or increase solubility of metal in soil, even corrode the building materials. 5.2.4 Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential The criteria requires that the weight of air particle substance VKRXOGEHOHVVWKDQȝPNJ30eq) respiratory health can be effected by the emission matter from industry or climate change. In this study, it is more likely to evaluate the emission release from the production and construction of the materials used in the building. 5.2.5 Eutrophication Potential Eutrophication potential describes an increase in the rate of supply of organic matter in ecosystem by calculating the phosphate equivalents. Due to the increased generation of biomass and the consequently heavier sedimentation of dead organic material, the oxygen dissolved in deep water is consumed faster, through aerobic decomposition. This can lead to serious damage in the biological populations inhabiting the sediment. In addition to this, direct toxic effects on higher organisms, including humans must be taken into account when certain species of algae appear in mass. The overuse of this type of material will effect generates toxicity to human and aquatic mammals. 2013 Henry Angus LCA 38  5.2.6 Ozone Depletion Potential The ozone depletion potential of a chemical compound is the realse amount of degradation to the ozone layer it can cause. ODP is often applied in measurement combination of global warming potential. The ozone depletion potential increased with the heavier halogens since the C-X bond strength is lower. The most importance of Ozone depletion formation is the lower atmosphere is photo dissociation of NO2.  5.2.7 Smog Potential The Smog Potential is a phenomenon that the emission release from industries and transportation aggregate at the ground level due to specific air condition. It brings out some human health issue such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma; it is measured by the amount of O3 equivalent.   6. Model Development 6.1 Establish the level 3 model The Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (CIQS) established a set of standards to category the whole building components for cost analysis and control purpose, it defines four different levels of aggregation to present the building as follows: Level 1 elements are referred to as ³0DMRU*URXS(OHPHQWV´ Level 2 elementVDUHUHIHUUHGWRDV³*URXS(OHPHQWV´ /HYHOHOHPHQWVDUHUHIHUUHGWRDV³(OHPHQWV´ /HYHOHOHPHQWVDUHUHIHUUHGWRDV³6XE-(OHPHQWV´ 2013 Henry Angus LCA 39  The elements data can be found in both original drawings and EI model. Drawings contain most specification on elements in classroom block and office block. But it just presents the preliminary design components and specification, expansions and improving elements excludes from the drawings. The other access to get these explicit elements includes type, property and geometry measurement is from model in the Athena Impact Estimator. All elements are re-categorized into element level 3 as following. A11.Foundations. It includes standard foundation with the wall and column footings, pile caps crawl space walls etc. the basement wall excludes from A11 A21.Lowest Floor Construction includes slabs on grade. There are two type of slabs on found in database. A31.Upper Floor Construction contains upper construction with structural frame, suspended floor, expansion and joints etc., Column & Beams that was defined as one isolated category before, and stair construction. A23. Roof Construction involves roof structural component and columns & beams supporting roofs. A31.Walls Below Grade, includes wall below grade and structural wall below grade. Applied finishes (paint) to interior face of exterior walls is excluded. A32. Walls Above Grade, contains all exterior walls above grade and curtain walls. B11. Partitions include all interior wall (movable and structural) and doors.  2013 Henry Angus LCA 40  6.2 Bill of Material Process After finishing CIQS Level 3 Element category in the IE inputs document and Impact Estimator model, I saved all level 3 elements isolated EI files for creating separate bill of materials that can show clearly each material contained in the element in quantity and quality. A reference flow is a quantified amount of the product(s), including product parts, necessary for a specific product system to deliver the performance described by the functional unit. The purpose of the reference flows is to translate the abstract functional unit into specific product flows for each of the compared systems  Figure 17 – Building Bill of Materials Quantity Unit9812.161 m21815.9831 m228.6062 Tonnes130500.0203 kg406.7295 m25825.0437 m3927.5742 m3381.2866 Blocks568.3393 m21464.1974 kg622.2303 m2 (25mm)1856.7407 m2 (25mm)5821.2865 m2 (25mm)2.7778 Tonnes0.7098 Tonnes1.8124 Tonnes7.2662 m31.8905 Tonnes0.0208 Tonnes0.1757 Tonnes301.1364 m3470.3985 Tonnes15340.6144 kg7.068 m31.4739 L8154.8197 m2138.0056 L5.2542 TonnesWelded Wire Mesh / Ladder WireReb r, Rod, Light SectionsRoofing AsphaltSmall Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-driedSolvent Based Alkyd PaintVinyl SidingWater Based Latex PaintJoint CompoundMortarN ilPap r TapePolyet yle e Filter FabricP ecast ConcretEPDM membrane (black, 60 mil)Expanded PolystyreneExtruded PolystyreneFG Batt R11-15Galvanized SheetGlazing PanelBallast (aggregate stone)Commercial(26 ga.) Steel CladdingConcrete 20 MPa (flyash av)Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av)Concrete BlocksDouble Glazed No Coating AirMaterial#15 Organic Felt1/2"  Regular Gypsum BoardAluminum2013 Henry Angus LCA 41   Figure 18 - A11 Foundations Bill of Materials   Figure 19 - A21 Lowest Floor Construction Bill of Materials  Figure 20 - A22 Upper Floor Construction Bill of Materials  Figure 21 - A22 A23 Roof Construction Bill of Materials Quantity Unit20.8474 m2251.867 339.1319 m2 (25mm)0.0208 Tonnes0.0014 Tonnes0.0002 Tonnes4.766 TonnesJoint CompoundNailsPaper TapeRebar, Rod, Light SectionsMaterial1/2"  Regular Gypsum BoardConcrete 20 MPa (flyash av)FG Batt R11-15Quantity Unit319.5007 m31.3749 TonnesMaterialConc ete 20 MPa (flyash av)Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder WireQuantity Unit1336.1209 m3899.5553252.0628 m33 7.4 76 Tonnes.1933 sRebar, Rod, Light SectionsWelded Wire Mesh / Ladder WireMaterialConcrete 20 MPa (flyash av)cr t  3   (fly s  v)Precast ConcreteQuantity Unit28338.0757 m24 2105.3272 kg229.0936 m328.0189 m3381 2866 Blocks19 9127 2 (25mm)1856.7407 m2 (25mm)2.4682 Tonnes1.211 m30.4218 Tonnes49.0736 m316.3113 Tonnes23010.9216 kg0.6859 TonnesPolyethylene Filter FabricPrecast ConcreteRebar, Rod, Light SectionsRoofing AsphaltWelded Wire Mesh / Ladder WireConcrete 30 MPa (flyash av)BlocksExp n ed PolystyreneExtruded PolystyreneGalvanized SheetMortarMaterial#15 Organic FeltBallast (aggregate stone)Concr te 20 MPa (flyash av)2013 Henry Angus LCA 42   Figure 22 - A31 Walls Below Grade Bill of Materials   Figure 23 - A32 Walls Above Grade Bill of Materials  Figure 24 - B11 Partitions Bill of Materials  Quantity Unit195.1266 m3031.4504 2 (25mm)0.0309 Tonnes3.4091Rebar, Rod, Light SectionsMaterialConcrete 20 MPa (flyash av)FG Batt R11-15NailsQuantity Unit366.1358 m2327.0517 m2110.4891 Tonnes1077.8176 m32154.4797 m25686.9029 kg1 .22 82094.4579 m2 (25mm)0.1238 Tonnes0.2028 Tonnes0.3264 Tonnes4.9263 Tonnes0.0037 Tonnes19.5721 Tonnes0.5896 L353.2773 m2Vinyl SidingGlazing PanelJoint CompoundNailsPaper TapeRebar, Rod, Light SectionsSolvent Based Alkyd PaintConcrete 20 MPa (flyash av)Double Glazed No Coating AirEPDM membrane (black, 60 mil)Expanded PolystyreneFG Batt R11-15Galvanized SheetMaterial#15 Organic Felt1/2"  Regular Gypsum BoardAluminumQuantity Unit1468.084 m23.1006 Tonnes2415.5173 m3118.8775 m2169.8867 kg202.3469 m2 (25mm)2656.2462 m2 (25mm)0.4953 Tonnes1.2168 Tonnes1.4652 Tonnes1.0811 Tonnes0.0168 Tonnes44.203 Tonnes14.136 m32.3582 L276.0112 LWater Based Latex PaintJoint CompoundNailsPaper TapeRebar, Rod, Light SectionsSmall Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-driedSolvent Based Alkyd PaintDouble Glazed No Coating AirEPDM membrane (black, 60 mil)Expanded PolystyreneFG Batt R11-15Galvanized SheetGlazing PanelMate ial1/2" Regul r Gypsum BoardAluminumConcrete 20 MPa (flyash av)2013 Henry Angus LCA 43  6.3 Assessment Process The assessment outcome depends on the combination of Construction drawings, Inputs and Assumption, OnScreen Takeoff tool, and Impact Estimator model. The framework of the mechanism for these tools used in impact assessment is shown below:  Figure 25 - Assessment Framework The process started with practitioners extract the elements of the building from Impact Estimator and compared it with the construction drawings for accuracy and data completeness purpose. The summarized data will re-categorized based on CIQS level 3 elements seen in the Annex D. there are two types of inputs representation of each elements, IE inputs and know measured obtained from the Athena Impact Estimator and drawings respectively. Variations and discrepancy on property and geometry measurement reveals that our model exists uncertainties that could impair the outcome validity. Thus, investigation was implemented to review these uncertainties through comparing these type and property inaccuracies and geometry measurement inaccuracies among Athena EI model, original drawings, and OnScreen Takeoff tool. As the Fig. 17 shows that the 2013 Henry Angus LCA 44  whole the first assess step is improving the data accuracy and validity as far as possible.  After identifying the specific elements, I made some improvements strategies for them including change the type and geometry based on comparison of all available tools and documents, then put them back to the new model with improvements. Hence, the improvements strategy conducts two outcomes, original model and improved model. Due to the global warming potential is the most indicators in assessing building environmental performance,  the study filtered some relative sensitive sub elements that have more contribution on the GWP in the EI model for each Level 3 Element, the higher percentage value presents, the more effect on GWP they have in the each level. Considering their sensitivity on the GWP, it is necessary for us to figure out some improvements to diminish their impact on GWP, so the study achieve our goal by improving the property of elements. For example, we assume that some concrete component with 100MPa psi compressive strength to be 60MPa, the decreasing strength will cut down energy consumption and lower emission form production stage to construction stage. The practitioner can compare these outcomes to understand how their building works in the aspect of environment and energy consumption. 6.4 Model Improvements As mentioned above the assessment process is more likely an iterative comparison, investigation, and improvement process, the input data experiences the revise and updates in each scenario, then the study derives some inaccuracy and discrepancy data used for improving the final model. The following are some data discovered in the assessment process needs to be improve for the model validity and preciseness. The methodology used in the investigation these inaccurate data is considering the Global Warming Potential as the reference criteria. Since most practitioners regards the building GWP performance to be the main objective for improvement, the study 2013 Henry Angus LCA 45  scales the percentage of GWP in the Impact Estimator based on CIQS level 3 elements and pick up VRPH³*:3-RULHQWHG&RQWULEXWRU´HOHPHQWWKHQFRPSDUHGZLWKWKHLUSURSHUW\DQGW\SHLQWKH³.nown Measure input  ´document, the improvements are finalized by swapping the property of these element in the Estimator model in line with its value in known measure or GWP reduction assumption. The following figure indicates the improvement for each level.  A11 foundations. Footing_3'6"_S6_Office takes up the 31.59% GWP impact in A11 element. The concrete specification is just described in the IE inputs, so the study assumed the concrete in practice contains 35% flyash, the substitution reduced the its GWP to 27.92% preference to environment.  2013 Henry Angus LCA 46   Figure 26 - A11 Foundations Improvement Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle Stage Process Module (MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 459631.8062 53513.80513Transport 28199.115 2050.2923Total 487830.9212 55564.09743CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process19124.73794 2490.64087Transport 44502.684 3417.548Total 63627.42194 5908.18887A11 Footing_3'6"_S6_OfficeFly ash 35%GWP in A11 Percentage27.92%  ImproveFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle Stage Process Module (MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 478922.1093 56377.37257Transport 27265.64968 1970.89274Total 506187.759 58348.26531CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process 20089.25309 2633.241458Transport 44456.0137 3413.578269Total 64545.2668 6046.819728A11 Footing_3'6"_S6_OfficeFly ash AverageGWP in A11 Percentage31.59% OriginalFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle Stage Process Module (MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Total 18356.8378 2784.16788CONSTRUCTION PROCESSTotal 917.84486 138.630858A11 Footing_3'6"_S6VariationGWP in A11 Percentage3.67%2013 Henry Angus LCA 47   A21 Lowest Floor Construction. The SOG_ClassroomBlock_5" accounts for 74.03% with 200mm of thickness in EI model; it is described 100mm in drawings. The improvement changed it to be 100, causing causing 14.9% reduction in GWP    Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle Stage Process Module (MJ) (kg CO2eq)PR DUCT Manufacturing 515020.4588 67713.008Transport 33511.05338 2420.22673Total 548531.5122 70133.2347CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process24781.88573 3318.19114Transport 53846.05379 4134.26302Total 78627.93952 7452.45417A21 SOG_ClassroomBlock_5"Tickness 200mmGWP in A21 Percentage74.03% OriginalFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle Stage Process Module (MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 336333.6342 43480.0791Transport 21230.499 1533.5464Total 357564.1332 45013.6255CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process15847.5445 2106.5447Transport 34089.489 2617.3863Total 49937.0335 4723.931A21 SOG_ClassroomBlock_5"Tickness 100mmGWP in A21 Percentage59.44%  Improve2013 Henry Angus LCA 48   Figure 27 - A21 Lowest Floor Construction  A22 Upper Floor Construction. In this element, Floor_SuspendedSlab_8" contributes in the GWP is 14.95% in the model, considering no description in the known measure input and friendly environmental material, the improvements adjusted it from average to 35% flyash, leading to 3.07% decrease.   Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle Stage Process Module (MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Total 190967.379 25119.6092CONSTRUCTION PROCESSTotal 28690.90602 2728.52317GWP in A21 Percentage14.59%A21 SOG_ClassroomBlock_5"VariationFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ)(kg CO2eq)PRODUCTManufacturing12899328.91 1117447.7Transport 386109.2442 27622.115Total 13285438.15 1145069.8CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process858353.521 73055.406Transport 589443.3014 45261.674Total 1447796.822 118317.08A22 Floor_SuspendedSlab_8"Fly ash AverageGWP in A22 Percentage32.94% Original2013 Henry Angus LCA 49    Figure 28 - A22 Upper Floor Construction  A23 Roof Construction. The assessment study found Roof_Precast_ClassroomBlock_2.5" had most impact on GWP 31.10% in the level, the discrepancy was found in the measure input, grid insulation. But this material can not be in the material list in the model, thus, improvements assumed it to be Fibreglass Batt R20 (25.4mm), a slight 5.93% deduction in GWP. Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ)(kg CO2eq)PRODUCTManufacturing12714860.68 1090064.1Transport 395035.77 28381.395Total 13109896.45 1118445.5CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process849130.1094 71686.228Transport 589889.63 45299.638Total 1439019.739 116985.87A22 Floor_SuspendedSlab_8"Fly ash 35%GWP in A22 Percentage29.87%  ImproveFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ)(kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Total 175541.7 26624.285CONSTRUCTION PROCESSTotal 8777.0826 1331.2146A22 Floor_SuspendedSlab_8"VariationGWP in A22 Percentage3.07%2013 Henry Angus LCA 50     Figure 29 - A23 Roof Construction Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle Stage Process Module (MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 2324818.249 130138.221Transport 41605.93926 2970.49957Total 2366424.188 133108.72CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process129558.0307 7594.24951Transport 77477.97664 5952.24737Total 207036.0074 13546.4969A23 Roof_Precast_ClassroomBlock_2.5"Extruded Polystyrene,Organic Felt (25.4mm)GWP in A23 Percentage31.10%Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle Stage Pr cess Module (MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 1976952.965 122616.887Transport 40183.094 2866.9072Total 2017136.059 125483.795CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process119024.4322 7292.95162Transport 73007.508 5608.4582Total 192031.9402 12901.4098A23 Roof_Precast_ClassroomBlock_2.5"Fibreglass Batt R20(25.4mm)GWP in A23 Percentage25.17% OriginalFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle Stage Process Module (MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Total 349288.129 7624.9258CONSTRUCTION PROCESSTotal 15004.0672 645.087059A23 Roof_Precast_ClassroomBlock_2.5"VariationGWP in A23 Percentage5.93%2013 Henry Angus LCA 51   A31 Walls Below Grade. Basically, Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_ClassroomBlock_9"_2 hold the major GWP impact in this level 80.9%, the thickness in measure input is 200mm, the original model values it 300mm, thus the study changes the model as the measure value.  With a view to the thicker might not support the addition structure and envelope after renovation, the concrete fly ash average was changed to be with 35% flyash.   Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 373964.1394 44022.24578Transport 21090.22049 1524.042094Total 395054.3599 45546.28787CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process15898.67101 2065.740309Transport 34284.91177 2632.543027Total 50183.58278 4698.283337A31 Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_ClassroomBlock_9"_2Thickness 300 Flyash AverageGWP in A31 Percentage80.9% Original2013 Henry Angus LCA 52    Figure 30 - A31 Walls Below Grade  A32 Walls Above Grade. The length and thickness variation of Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_7"_2 resulted in underestimating its impact 3.47%, the improvement adjusted it to real value in the EI model.  Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 263995.9823 28714.59986Transport 17130.38 1257.2467Total 281126.3623 29971.84656CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process10400.26315 1300.358013Transport 25597.205 1966.1306Total 35997.46815 3266.488613A31 Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_ClassroomBlock_9"_2Thickness 200 Flyash35%GWP in A31 Percentage71.39%  ImproveFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Total 113927.9976 15574.44131CONSTRUCTION PROCESSTotal 14186.11463 1431.794724A31 Roof_ recast_ClassroomBlock_2.5"VariationGWP in A31 Percentage9.51%2013 Henry Angus LCA 53    Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 4298624.78 413815.3559Transport 123998.1299 8709.990709Total 4422622.91 422525.3467CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process97063.41183 11735.01808Transport 207378.87 15925.81256Total 304442.2818 27660.83064A32 Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_7"_2Length 127m Thickness 300mmGWP in A32 Percentage17.61% OriginalFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 4616748 448889.9111Transport 140559.93 9907.9125Total 4757307.93 458797.8236CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process109274.2663 13310.33045Transport 234495.46 18008.068Total 343769.7263 31318.39845A32 Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_7"_2Length 435m Thickness 200mmGWP in A32 Percentage21.08% Improve2013 Henry Angus LCA 54   Figure 31 - A32 Walls Above Grade  B11 Partitions. Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'3" has difference length in both IE and measure inputs, comparing with drawings, the real length should be 308m, the study also assumed it with 35% flyash concrete. The GWP percentage reduced by 6.41%   Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Total -334685.02 -36272.4769CONSTRUCTION PROCESSTotal -39327.4445 -3657.56781A32 Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_7"_2VariationGWP in A32 Percentage-3.47%Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 4750983.2 553651.417Transport 263659.2217 19053.5093Total 5014642.422 572704.927CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process199191.0224 25685.1716Transport 434575.6699 33370.0829Total 633766.6923 59055.2545 B11 Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'3"Flyash Average Length 385mGWP in B11 Percentage17.61% Original2013 Henry Angus LCA 55    Figure 32 - B11 Partitions 7.0 Communication of Assessment Results 7.1 Life Cycle Result The assessment of Henry Angus Building experiences data collection and sort, comparison, improvement and building declaration in the end. One of building results contains Henry Angus Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Manufacturing 4495959.374 520584.716Transport 258766.67 18757.208Total 4754726.044 539341.924CONSTRUCTION PROCESSConstruction-installation Process187680.0467 24091.7154Transport 419554.91 32218.573Total 607234.9567 56310.2884 B11 Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'3"Flyash 35% Length 308mGWP in B11 Percentage11.20% ImproveFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)PRODUCT Total 259916.378 33363.0027CONSTRUCTION PROCESSTotal 26531.7356 2744.96619 B11 Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'3"VaritionGWP in B11 Percentage6.41%2013 Henry Angus LCA 56  environmental impact result that will be showed in the Annex A, associated with UBC buildings EHQFKPDUNIRUXQGHUVWDQGLQJ+HQU\$QJXVSHUIRUPDQFHDPRQJWKH³QHLJKERXUV´ on campus based on each environmental category indicator. The building result indicates that the values of each impact category indicator decrease progressively as manufacturing process, construction-installation process and transport process see in the Fig.33 It means that we can control the building performance as long as the decrease the impact in product stage. The other important is building model improvement as showed above. The process re-evaluates the building performance by identifying the GWP contributor and swapping its material and adjusting dimension, the result after improvement is encouraging, with GWP impact decrease more or less, except A32 improvement, the actual dimension increases its GWP proportion. Some favourable results owed to the assumption, for example IE inputs indicate some concrete with average flyash, the study changed it to be higher flyash compound 35%, as we known, the flyash does not only reduces energy consumption during product stage but also increase the concrete strength. The improvement of seven hotspots elements optimizes our building environmental impact as well. I think the model improvement is not a part of the EN 15978 requirements; it is more likely breaking down the model based on CIQS rules and identifies the GWP sensitivity element and evaluate its validity and accuracy compared with measure inputs, however, it provides participants with more accurate building model, alternative approach and further interpretation  for LCA assessment.   2013 Henry Angus LCA 57    Figure 33 - Henry Angus environmental impact Annex A - Interpretation of Assessment Results Benchmark Development The benchmark is described to be a tool being developed to provide organizations a methodology for collecting and analysing building environmental impacts data, with the purpose of evaluating and comparison impacts with other entities in LCA. The benchmark allows the clients or stakeholders to make comparable sense of the building environmental impact performance and utilized LCA-based information to figure out WKHGLIIHUHQFHZLWKRWKHU³QHLJKERXUV´IRUIXUWKHULCA study or improvement. Considering the benchmark of Henry Angus Buildings in other Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingAcidificationHuman Health Criteria – RespiratoryEutrophicationOzone Layer DepletionSmogLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ)(kg CO2eq)(moles of H+eq)(kg PM10eq)(kg Neq)(kg CFC-11eq)(kg O3eq)Manufacturing 20604829.03 1960866.6 14757.92161 5227.31595 1082.437165 0.01205488 231686.1Transport 929403.1266 57204.361 346.8375733 9.80871563 24.31805862 2.326E-06 12278.26Total 21534232.16 2018070.9 15104.75918 5237.12467 1106.755224 0.0120572 243964.3Product StageFossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal WarmingAcidificationHuman Health Criteria – RespiratoryEutrophicationOzone Layer DepletionSmogLife Cycle StageProcess Module(MJ) (kg CO2eq)(moles of H+eq)(kg PM10eq)(kg Neq)(kg CFC-11eq)(kg O3eq)Construction-installation Process1222515.235 115745.5939 909.3548148 222.931855 51.57106642 0.0005337 24267.28Transport 1413781.748 107320.2118 503.0873934 15.5140787 36.25034599 4.28E-06 17789.77Total 2636296.983 223065.8057 1412.442208 238.445934 87.8214124 0.0005379 42057.05Construction Process2013 Henry Angus LCA 58  buildings on campus, it is noticed that the building perform more environmental friendly than most of others. That is the reason that it got the reward of LLED Silver. The common goal conducts strategy and development of LCA assessment, the scope regulates the application boundary and process. The model development is the outcome of iterative assessment process, identifying the invalidity and inaccuracy in the model before proceeding declaration, also providing clients with alternative approach to reassess the project.     The functional equivalent is a representation of the required technical characteristics and functionalities of the building. It explains which the characteristics of the building are rationalised into description object of assessment. The functional equivalence of the benchmark provides the decision maker with clear LCA-based results of the building that indicates whether it is in harmony with the current policy or standards related to green buildings or sustainability, or to build new, or refurbish an existing building, the evaluation of the design options, locations, etc.   UBC Academic Benchmark Development The study compared result of Henry Angus Building with other buildings completed the life cycle assessment on campus in terms of quantity and all impact indicators as below. The red column is representation of Henry Angus Building performance. From the whole life cycle stage perspective, it is just approximately equals to one third of the benchmark, but has three times quantity than benchmark. For A11, the benchmark diagram indicates that the impact of the building is much less than UBC benchmark, except for the performance in Ozone layer depletion, it is dramatically higher than benchmark. Considering the outstanding difference, the clients need to check the LCA assessment file and the materials used in building to figure out what leads to 2013 Henry Angus LCA 59  the increase of this potential. Each of A21 comparison shows almost half of the benchmark. A22 and B11 has the similar performance as same as UBC benchmark. As we see that, the roof system of the building has a exciting performance especially in global warming 20% of the UBC benchmark.  The most remarkable of the building performance is supposed to be A31 walls below grade, almost 9% of the UBC benchmark, it might result in the concrete with flyash and other sustainable material cladding instead of solid concrete. A32 wall above grade performs worst in all CIQS element, twice as much as that in UBC benchmark although its quantity is slight less than the benchmark. It is necessary for practitioners to review the material used in the exterior wall of the building that might be the trigger.  2013 Henry Angus LCA 60      2013 Henry Angus LCA 61      2013 Henry Angus LCA 62     2013 Henry Angus LCA 63   Figure 34 - Henry Angus impact benchmark Comparing the scatter of total cost of all studies in Fig 35, it is noticed that the cost of the Henry Angus Building is second highest in all study buildings, in fact the primary of the expenditure is form the second renovation, investing almost $85M. As for the summary of the Global Warming Potential for all studies in Fig 35, it demonstrates Henry Angus Building maintained at an average level. 2013 Henry Angus LCA 64   Figure 35 - Henry Angus Cost scatter plot   Figure 36 - Henry Angus GWP scatter plot  2013 Henry Angus LCA 65  Annex B – Recommendations for LCA For WKH H[LVWLQJ EXLOGLQJ WKH PRGXOHV FDQ FRQGXFW WKH SUDFWLWLRQHUV¶ /&$-based information to forward further sustainability study. Specifically, the module approximately contains all elementV¶ type and property of the building which might be invisible in the real practice, associated with the Athena solid database obtained from actual industry and manufactures, the modeled building can demonstrate its impacts on the environment in product and construction stage by swapping different material and redefining tKHJHRPHWU\$OVRZHFDQHVWLPDWHWKHEXLOGLQJ¶VVHUYLFHOLIHDFFRUGLQJWRoutcome of the modules. For the project to be built, life cycle modules work as a ³SURSKHW´ZKHQHVWLPDWHGPDWHULDODUHLQSXWWKHPRGXOHZHFDQUXQWKHSURJUDPWRestimate performance of the building with required material in environment, contributing to establish a guideline or criteria before procurement and construction.    In design phase, LCA is the only way to evaluate the building performance in environment, we can establish a building LCA modules and import the elements with demand material as the process did in this study, the module will generate a profile includes the building performance in terms of each category indicator, then designer can investigate whether the estimated building performance meet their goal and scope, if not , the module provide sufficient database for users exchanging the similar functional element with less effect on environment freely. In addition, the designer is encouraging to make the benchmark form regional LCA database to compare with other buildings.  In the end, designers can manage the building performance by outcome of the LCA module and improvements. 2013 Henry Angus LCA 66  The availability and quality of data and benchmark depends on the building solid specification profiles and accuracy of the Athena database. Any insufficiency or inaccuracy will impair their availability and quality. As to Henry Angus Building, the GUDZLQJV DQG VSHFLILFDWLRQ DUH IURP ¶V IX]]\ GUDZLQJV FDXVH VRPH JHRPHWU\misstatement. Furthermore, twice extensive revamp introduced more uncertainties. So the up-to-date information is the key to maintain it to be validity. As for the Athena database, it is more creditable for product stage due to combination with real industry and manufacture database, but for the product stage, it seems to be not a solid enough database to support them that might affect its inaccuracy.  It is well known that the environmental impact result of the building generates from LCA study demonstrates seven indicators, so which one should the participants need to consider firstly is the issue in the practice. As far as I am concerned, the priority of impact categories should be Global Warming, Fossil Fuel Consumption, Smog, Human Health Criteria – Respiratory, Acidification, Eutrophication and Ozone Layer Depletion. 7KHPRVWHIIHFWWULJJHUHGE\JOREDOZDUPLQJVKRXOGEHWKH³*UHHQKRXVH(IIHFW´WKHincreasing concentration of CO2 has threatened our ecosystem significantly, causing massive iceberg disappeared It has been proved that continuously increasing sea level would give rise to many coastal cities like Vancouver submerged. Fossil fuel consumption is related to the resources consumption, the limit resources are wasted with unwise methodology application is directly concerned with next generation. The reason out smog to the third one is due to offending haze in Beijing, it has seriously affected the 2013 Henry Angus LCA 67  FLWL]HQV¶GDLO\OLIHVXFKDVKHDOWKLVVXHDQGWUDIILFVDIHW\7KHTXDQWLW\RIWKHRWKHUVindicators is more inappreciable.    Outlines steps you would take to operationalize LCA data and their use in practice at UBC. o Establish the goal and scope of the LCA study based on the project requirement and regional policy and standard. o Data collection from UBC database or regional database. o Create the modules in terms of the data from relative model information, available database and data in project documents (drawings and specifications)   o Iterative revise module process refers to all solid documents for data accuracy and validity. o Run the module and evaluate the outcome of LCA meets goal and requirement, if not o Module improvement by swapping material and redefining geometry that might be inaccurate in the building. o Manage the project from product stage to construction stage (assumed to apply module A) with LCA study as guideline. Annex C – Author Reflection ,H[SHULHQFHGP\ILUVW/&$VWXG\LQWKHFRXUVH³$GYDQFHG%,0´RQHRIP\WRSLFVLVUHODWHGWRembodied energy. I employed the Athena EcoCalculator for exploring the embodied energy for WKH SURMHFW ³(QJLQHHULQJ 6WXGHQW &HQWHU´ WR EH EXLOW ,Q WKH HQG , FDPH XS ZLWK VRPH2013 Henry Angus LCA 68  suggestions for diminishing the building effect in environmental by exchanging the materials of the component in the EcoCalcualtor based on assumption and specifications. What I learned from the course is a complete set of LCA methodology, and how to apply it into the real practice; especially the improved model development and benchmark comparison are profound for the further study. I have some suggestions for the LCA study. For the Henry Angus Building analysis, some of the PDWHULDORUHOHPHQWOLVWLQWKH(,PRGHOFDQEHWUDFHG¶VEXWWhe model assumed them to be produced in present, in fact, the production of these elements would result in much more serious HIIHFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQWGXHWREDFNZDUGWHFKQRORJ\LQ¶VWKHLVVXHLVWKDWKRZFDQZHdevelop an ancillary methodology assesses this kind of inaccuracy to support current LCA methodology.   Graduate AttributeName DescriptionComments on which of the CEAB graduate attributes you believe you had to demonstrate during your final project experience.1 Knowledge BaseDemonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program.ID = introduced & developed I leaned the explicit methodology and the process how it works in the real practice2 Problem AnalysisAn ability to use appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions.IA = introduced & applied I leaned how to analyze the EL model and make improvements by exchaning som specific. The resuts turns out that avaliable imprvments can reduce the building environmental performance.Select the content code most appropriate for each attribute from the dropdown menue2013 Henry Angus LCA 69     3 InvestigationAn ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information in order to reach valid conclusions.ID = introduced & developedIn the CIQS sort, I compare the material descrided in IE inouts and Known measure inputs, and investigate the inaacurancy of some materials.4 DesignAn 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.D = developed Foe this part, I got involve few design process.5 Use fo Engineering ToolsAn 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.DA = developed & appliedEI model is quite well tool for engineer to estimate the building impact. I learn how to use LCA tool and database for evaluating the building performance6 Individual and Team WorkAn ability to work effectively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi-disciplinary setting.IA = introduced & applied I participated effectively in the team discussion and come up with some good ideas.7 CommunicationAn ability t  communicate complex e gineering 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.ID = introduced & developedI read a lot of excellent papers related to the LCA and get deeper understand about LCA 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.D = developed  the professional can help the fresh  evaluate their data accuracy or not.9 Impact of Engineering on Society and the EnvironmentAn ability to analyze social and environmental aspects of engineering activities.  Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, social, health, safety, legal, and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship.A = applied  the LCA study contributes to the huamn health and make the building more environmental friendlly.2013 Henry Angus LCA 70   Reference 1. EeBGuide Project – Operational Guidance for Life Cycle Assessment Studies of the Energy Efficient Buildings Initiative, posted October 18,2012 2. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products. Mary Ann Curran. ³7UHDWPHQWRI8QFHUWDLQWLHVLQ/LIH&\FOH$VVHVVPHQW´-DFN:%DNHU0LFKDHO'/HSHFKStanford University, Stanford, USA 4. Hybrid Framework for Managing Uncertainty in Life Cycle Inventories, Eric D. Williams, Christopher L. Weber, and Troy R. Hawkins 5. Canadian Standards Association. (2006). CSA Standard CAN/CSA-ISO 14040:06. International 6. Organization for Standardization (ISO). Ethics and EquityAn ability to apply professional ethics, accountability, and equity.ID = introduced & developedthe practitioners should review and compare the inaccuracy beteeen database and known measure input Economics and Project ManagementAn ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including project, risk, and change management into the practice of engineering and to understand their limitations.ID = introduced & developedthe practioners can controlelemtnt and material of the building energy consumption in product sand construction stage by manage the LCA result in model Life-long LearningAn ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world in ways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancement of knowledge.ID = introduced & developed The LCA methodology and associated tools have a profound effect in the further sustainable building research.2013 Henry Angus LCA 71  7$WKHQD6XVWDLQDEOH0DWHULDOV,QVWLWXWH³/LIH&\FOHLQYHQWRU\RI,&,URRILQJV\VWHPV2QVLWHconstruction HIIHFWV´2WWDZD Annex D – Impact Estimator Input and Assumption  Assembly GroupAssembly Number Assembly Name Input FieldsKnown Measures EIE Inputs1.2.1 Length (ft) 5.83 11.66Width (ft) 5.17 5.17Thickness (in) 24 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 6 61.2.2 Length (ft) 5.5 11Width (ft) 4.83 4.83Thickness (in) 24 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 6 61.2.3 Length (ft) 3.5 3.5Width (ft) 3.5 3.5Thickness (in) 18 18Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Assembly TypeFooting_TypeA_ClassroomBlockFooting_TypeB_ClassroomBlockFooting_TypeC_ClassroomBlock1.2  Footings in Classroom BlockA11  Foundations 1522 ㎡2013 Henry Angus LCA 72    1.2.4 Length (ft) 229 229Width (ft) 3 3Thickness (in) 18 18Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.2.5 Length (ft) 80 80Width (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 15 15Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.2.6 Length (ft) 3 3Width (ft) 10.33 10.33Thickness (in) 15 15Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.2.7 Length (ft) 11 18.33Width (ft) 3.75 3.75Thickness (in) 20 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Footing_3'0"_S2&S4_S11&S13_ClassroomBlockFooting_TypeE_ClassroomBlockFooting_TypeD_ClassroomBlockFooting_2'6"_S1_ClassroomBlock1.2.8 L ngth (ft) 20 33.33Width (ft) 4 4Thickness (in) 0 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000cr t  Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.2.9 L ngth (ft) 12 12Width (ft)Thickness (in) 15 15Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000cr t  Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.2.10 L ngth (ft) 125 125Width (ft) 2 2Thickness (in) 18 18Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000cr t  Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.2.11 L ngth (ft) 212 212Width (ft) 2 2Thickness (in) 15 15Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Footing_2'0"_S6-10_ClassroomBlockFooting_2'0"_S3&S5_ClassroomBlockFooting_TypeG_ClassroomBlockFooting_TypeF_ClassroomBlock2013 Henry Angus LCA 73   1.2.12 Length (ft) 33 33Width (ft) 1.5 1.5Thickness (in) 12 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 41.2.13 Length (ft) 2.5 2.5Width (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 12 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 41.2.14 Length (ft) 27.5 27.5Width (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 41.2.15 Length (ft) 27.33 27.33Width (ft) 4 4Thickness (in) 10 10Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.2.16 Length (ft) 28.17 28.17Width (ft) 2.17 2.17Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 4Footing_TypeH_ClassroomBlockFooting_1'6"_S12_ClassroomBlockFooting_RetainingWall_8"_S15_ClassroomBlock_1Footing_RetainingWall_10"_S16_ClassroomBlock_1Footing_RetainingWall_8"_S17_ClassroomBlock_12013 Henry Angus LCA 74    1.3.1 Length (ft) 41 41Width (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 15 15Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.3.2 Length (ft) 102 153Width (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 18 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.3.3 Length (ft) 74 222Width (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 36 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 41.3.4 Length (ft) 41 123Width (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 36 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Footing_2'6"_S1_S7-10_OfficeFooting_2'6"_S2_OfficeFooting_2'6"_S4_OfficeFooting_2'6"_S5_Office1.3  Footings in Office Block. .5  (f ) 211 63i t  (ft) 3. 3.T ick ess (i ) 36 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.3.6 Length (ft) 79 79Width (ft) 4 4Thickness (in) 10 10Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 41.3.7 Length (ft) 20 30Width (ft) 2 2Thickness (in) 18 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.3.8 L ngth (ft) 179 179Width (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Footing_4'0"_S14_OfficeFooting_2'_S2_OfficeFooting_2'6"_Curb_Officei 3' 6ffi2013 Henry Angus LCA 75    1.4.1 Length (ft) 27.5 27.5Height (ft) 6.17 6.17Components Cast in place Cast in placeThickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 51.4.2 Length (ft) 27.33 27.33Height (ft) 8.83 8.83Components Cast in place Cast in placeThickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 51.4.3 Length (ft) 28.17 28.17Height (ft) 12.75 12.75Components Cast in place Cast in placeThickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 51.4.4 Length (ft) 114 114Height (ft) 11.33 11.33Components Cast in place Cast in placeThickness (inches) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Footing_RetainingWall_8"_S15_ClassroomBlock_2Footing_RetainingWall_10"_S16_ClassroomBlock_2Footing_RetainingWall_8"_S17_ClassroomBlock_2RetainingWall_8"_OfficeBlock1.4 Retaining Walls1.1.1 Length (ft) 139.28 87.05Width (ft) 139.28 139.28Thickness (in) 5 8Conc ete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - Average1.1.2 Length (ft) 82.49 51.56Width (ft) 82.49 82.49Thickness (in) 5 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageSOG_OfficeBlock_5"SOG_ClassroomBlock_5"A21 Lowest Floor Construction 1522 ㎡1.1  Concrete Slab-on-Grade2013 Henry Angus LCA 76    2.1.1 Width (ft) 55.80322571 155.7Span (ft) 55.80322571 20Live Load (psf) 60 & 100 75Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - Average2.1.2 Width (ft) 87.7667363 385.15Span (ft) 87.7667363 20Live Load (psf) 60 & 100 75Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - Average2.1.3 Width (ft) 129.0465032 832.65Span (ft) 129.05 20Live Load (psf) 60 & 100 75Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - Average2.1.4 Width (ft) 47.02127178 110.55Span (ft) 47.02127178 20Live Load (psf) 60 & 100 75Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageFloor_SuspendedSlab_6"Floor_SuspendedSlab_7"Floor_SuspendedSlab_4.5"Floor_SuspendedSlab_4"A22 Upper Floor Construction 6437 ㎡2.1  Suspended Slab2.1.5 Width (ft) 184.2498304 1697.4Span (ft) 184.2498304 20Live Load (psf) 60 & 100 75Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000cr t  Fly s  - v r6 i  21.3541565 2 821.3541 65r t  tr t  ( si) -Concrete Flyash - Average2.1.7 idth (ft) 72.11102551 260Span (ft) 72.11102551 20Live Load (psf) 60 & 100 75Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - Average2.2  Precast2.2.1 Number of Bays 276 276Bay size (ft) 3.33 3.33Span (ft) 29.1 29.1Live Load (psf) 60 & 100 75Concrete Topping (in) 2.5 WithFloor_SuspendedSlab_8"llab_7"_Floors3to8Floor_SuspendedSlab_5"Floor_Precast_Detail A2013 Henry Angus LCA 77   2.3 XBM 2.3.2 XBM Lino Vinyl CladdingArea (sf) 76341 763415.1.1 Number of Columns 50 50Number of Beams 24 24Floor to Floor Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Bay Sizes (ft) 47.5 35Supported Span (ft) 13.33 18.1Live Load (psf) - 100Supported Area (sf) 15188 -Column Type Concrete ConcreteBeam Type Concrete Concrete5.1.2 Number of Columns 58 58Number of Beams 40 40Floor to Floor Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Bay Sizes (ft) 13.75, 27.5 & 12 23.8Supported Span (ft) 13.17 & 56 21.2Live Load (psf) - 100Supported Area (sf) 15188 -Column Type Concrete ConcreteBeam Type Concrete Concrete5.1.3 Number of Columns 44 44Number of Beams 19 19Floor to Floor Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Bay Sizes (ft) 16.75 & 19.5 17.67Supported Span (ft) 20 & 10 15.83Live Load (psf) - 100Supported Area (sf) 5316 -Column Type Concrete ConcreteBeam Type Concrete ConcreteColumns_Concrete_Beams_Concrete_Basement_ClassroomBlockColumns_Concrete_Beams_Concrete_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlockColumns_Concrete_Beams_Concrete_Basement_OfficeBlockXBM_1"_lino_tile_topping5.1 Columns with Beams2013 Henry Angus LCA 78   5.2.1 Number of Columns 150 150Number of Beams 0 0Floor to Floor Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Bay Sizes (ft) 29.08 29.08Supported Span (ft) 13.33 13.33Live Load (psf) - 100Column Type Concrete ConcreteBeam Type Concrete Concrete5.2.2 Number of Columns 20 20Number of Beams 0 0Floor to Floor Height (ft) 10.58 10.58Bay Sizes (ft) 12.33 12.33Supported Span (ft) 13.33 13.33Live Load (psf) - 100Column Type Concrete ConcreteBeam Type Concrete Concrete5.2.3 Number of Columns 44 44Number of Beams 0 0Floor to Floor Height (ft) 12.5 12.5Bay Sizes (ft) 17.67 17.67Supported Span (ft) 10 10Live Load (psf) - 100Column Type Concrete ConcreteBeam Type Concrete Concrete5.2.4 Number of Columns 44 44Number of Beams 0 0Floor to Floor Height (ft) 8.75 8.75Bay Sizes (ft) 16.75 & 19.5 17.67Supported Span (ft) 10 10Live Load (psf) - 100Column Type Concrete ConcreteBeam Type Concrete Concrete5.2.5 Number of Columns 264 264Number of Beams 0 0Floor to Floor Height (ft) 8.75 8.75Bay Sizes (ft) 16.75 & 19.5 17.67Supported Span (ft) 10 10Live Load (psf) - 100Column Type Concrete ConcreteBeam Type Concrete ConcreteColumns_Concrete_Beams_N/A_SecondtoFourthFloor_ClassroomBlockColumns_Concrete_Beams_N/A_Penthouse_ClassroomBlockColumns_Concrete_Beams_N/A_GroundFloor_OfficeBlockColumns_Concrete_Beams_N/A_SecondFloor_OfficeBlockColumns_Concrete_Beams_N/A_Floors3to8_OfficeBlock5.2 Columns without Beams2013 Henry Angus LCA 79   6.1 Stairs 6.1.1 Length (ft) 25.71 15Width (ft) 9 9Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.2 Length (ft) 6.86 3.9Width (ft) 13 13Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.3 Length (ft) 12 7Width (ft) 9 9Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.4 Length (ft) 9 3Width (ft) 9 9Thickness (in) 4 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.5 Length (ft) 48 12Width (ft) 9 9Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 4Stairs_Southeast_Basement_L1_1Stairs_Southeast_L1_L2_2Stairs_Southeast_L1_L2_1Stairs_Southeast_L1_L2_3Stairs_Southeast_L1_L2_42013 Henry Angus LCA 80   6.1.6 Length (ft) 12 4Width (ft) 9 9Thickness (in) 4 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.7 Length (ft) 60 20Width (ft) 9 9Thickness (in) 4 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.8 Length (ft) 42 21Width (ft) 5 5Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.9 Length (ft) 99 33Width (ft) 5 5Thickness (in) 4 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.10 Length (ft) 136 34Width (ft) 3.67 3.67Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 4Stairs_Southeast_L6_ConferenceRooStairs_Southwest_Office_Basement_Stairs_Southeast_L2_L3_1Stairs_Southeast_L2_L4Stairs_Southeast_L4_L62013 Henry Angus LCA 81   6.1.11 Length (ft) 224 56Width (ft) 3.67 3.67Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.12 Length (ft) 16 4Width (ft) 3.67 3.67Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.13 Length (ft) 96 9Width (ft) 9 9Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.14 Length (ft) 16 4Width (ft) 17.42 17.42Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.15 Length (ft) 112 28Width (ft) 9 9Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 46.1.16 Length (ft) 36 9Width (ft) 9 9Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 56.1.17 Length (ft) 16 4Width (ft) 4 4Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Stairs_Southwest_Office_L3_RoofStairs_Southwest_Office_PenthouseStairs_North_Class_Basement_L2_width=9'Stairs_North_Class_L1_width=17'5"Stairs_North_Class_L2_L4_width=9'Stairs_North_Class_L4_Roof_width=9'Stairs_North_Class_L4_Roof_width=4'2013 Henry Angus LCA 82   4.1  Precast 4.1.1 Number of Bays 96 96Bay Size (ft) 3.33 3.33Span (ft) - 17.97Area = 8626 sf Live Load (psf) 27 45Concrete Topping - YesType Built-up Built-upEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterialRigid InsulationPolystyrene Extruded, Orgainic FeltThickness (in) 1 14.2.1 Roof Width (ft) 245.84 245.84Span (ft) 13.33 13.33Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageArea = 3277 sf Live Load (psf) 27 45Type Built-up Built-up invertedEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Rigid Insulation Polystyrene Thickness (in) 1 14.2.2 Roof_SuspendedSlab_Theatre_3.5"Roof Width (ft) 598.70 598.7Area = 5987 sf Span (ft) 10 10Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageLive Load (psf) 27 45Type Built-up Built-up invertedEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterialRigid InsulationPolystyrene Extruded, Orgainic FeltThickness (in) 1 1Roof_Precast_ClassroomBlock_2.5"Roof_SuspendedSlab_Penthouse_ClassroomBlock_4"A23 Roof Construction 2351 ㎡4.2  Suspended Slab2013 Henry Angus LCA 83   4.2.3 Roof Width (ft) 588.70 588.7Span (ft) 10 10Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageArea = 5887 sf Live Load (psf) 27 45Type Built-up Built-up invertedEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterialRigid InsulationPolystyrene Extruded, Orgainic FeltThickness (in) 1 14.2.4 Roof Width (ft) 140.10 140.1Span (ft) 10 10Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageArea = 1401 sf Live Load (psf) 27 45Type Built-up Built-up invertedEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterialRigid InsulationPolystyrene Extruded, Orgainic FeltThickness (in) 1 14.2.5 Length (ft) 516 129Height (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 3 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageArea = 129 sf Rebar # 3, 4 & 5 5Type Concrete Block Concrete BlockRoof_SuspendedSlab_OfficeBlock_7"Roof_SuspendedSlab_Penthouse_OfficeBlock_3.5"Roof_SuspendedSlab_Penthouse_OfficeBlock_2'6"2013 Henry Angus LCA 84   3.1.1 Length (ft) 24 24Height (ft) 8.5 8.5Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness (in) 0.5 0.53.1.6 Length (ft) 662 496.5Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 9 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 23.2.2 Length (ft) 136 102Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 9 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior Exterior3.2.3 Length (ft) 17 14.17Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 10 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorWalls_Cast-in-place_Basement_OfficeBlock_10"Wall_Concrete_Footing_8"_S14_ClassroomBlockWalls_Cast-in-place_Basement_ClassroomBlock_9"_Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_OfficeBlock_9"_2A31 Walls Below Grade 635 ㎡3.1  Classroom Block2013 Henry Angus LCA 85   3.1.8 Length (ft) 92 84.33Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 11 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Number of Windows 2 2Total Window Area (ft2) 43 43Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard Standard3.1.9 Length (ft) 32 29.33Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 11 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Number of Windows 2 2Total Window Area (ft2) 60 60Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard StandardWindow Opening3.1  Classroom BlockWalls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_11"Window OpeningWalls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_9"A32 Walls Above Grade 3280 ㎡2013 Henry Angus LCA 86   3.1.10 Length (ft) 1 1Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness (in) 0.5 0.53.1.11 Length (ft) 11 11Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 12 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness (in) 0.5 0.53.1.13 Length (ft) 11 22Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 24 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Number of Windows 2 2Total Window Area (ft2) 63 63Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard StandardDoor Opening Number of Doors 2 2Door TypeGlazingAluminum Ext. Door 80% GlazingWalls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_8"Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_12"Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_2'Window Opening2013 Henry Angus LCA 87   3.1.14 Length (ft) 69 74.75Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 13 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Number of Windows 19 19Total Window Area (ft2) 492 492Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard Standard3.1.16 Length (ft) 95.6 55.77Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness (in) 0.5 0.53.1.18 Length (ft) 35 64.17Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 22 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Number of Windows 4 4Total Window Area (ft2) 121 121Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard StandardWalls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'10"Window OpeningWalls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'1"Window OpeningWalls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_7"_22013 Henry Angus LCA 88   3.1.19 Length (ft) 84 140Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 20 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Number of Windows 10 10Total Window Area (ft2) 300 300Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard Standard3.1.20 Length (ft) 50 50Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 12 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 23.1.21 Length (ft) 67 33.5Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Number of Windows 4 4Total Window Area (ft2) 86 86Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard StandardWalls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'8"Window OpeningWalls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_6"Window Opening2013 Henry Angus LCA 89   3.1.22 Length (ft) 143 107.25Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 9 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness (in) 0.5 0.53.1.23 Length (ft) 2 1.83Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 11 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fibreglass Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness (in) 0.5 0.53.1.26 Length (ft) 503 251.5Height (ft) 1.83 1.83Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 3 5Wall Type Exterior Exterior3.1.29 Length (ft) 60.89 55.82Height (ft) 60.89 60.89Thickness (in) 11 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Exterior Exterior3.1.30 Length (ft) 61.86 30.93Height (ft) 61.86 61.86Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorWalls_Suspended_Cast-in-place_ClassroomBlock_11"Suspended_Cast-in-place_ClassroomBlock_6"_rebar#4Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_9"Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_11"Walls_Cast-in-place_Ledge_ClassroomBlock_Roof_6"2013 Henry Angus LCA 90   3.1.31 Length (ft) 10.39 5.2Height (ft) 10.39 10.39Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Exterior Exterior3.1.32 Length (ft) 12.49 16.65Height (ft) 12.49 12.49Thickness (in) 16 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Exterior Exterior3.2.12 Length (ft) 136 62.33Height (ft) 12.5 12.5Thickness (in) 5.5 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Styrofoam Expanded Polystrene Thickness (in) 1 1Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness (in) 0.5 0.53.2.13 Length (ft) 207 62.33Height (ft) 0.75 0.75Thickness (in) 7.75 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior Exterior3.2.14 Length (ft) 32 13.33Height (ft) 0.75 0.75Thickness (in) 5 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior Exterior3.2.18 Length (ft) 56 25.67Height (ft) 8.75 8.75Thickness (in) 5.5 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Styrofoam Expanded Polystrene Thickness (in) 1 1Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness (in) 0.5 0.5Suspended_Cast-in-place_ClassroomBlock_6"_rebar#5Suspended_Cast-in-place_ClassroomBlock_1'4"Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_OfficeBlock_5.5"Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_OfficeBlock_7.75"Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_OfficeBlock_5"Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_5.5"3.2 Office Block2013 Henry Angus LCA 91   3.2.23 Length (ft) 159 79.5Height (ft) 12.083 12.083Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior Exterior3.2.24 Length (ft) 50 37.5Height (ft) 11.083 11.083Thickness (in) 9 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior Exterior3.2.25 Length (ft) 333 333Height (ft) 11 11Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorWalls_Cast-in-place_Ledge_OfficeBlock_Penthouse_6"Walls_Cast-in-place_Ledge_OfficeBlock_Penthouse_9"Walls_Cast-in-place_Curb_OfficeBlock_8'2013 Henry Angus LCA 92   3.3 Theatre3.3.1 Length (ft) 82 75.17Height (ft) 21.583 21.583Thickness (in) 11 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Insulation Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Envelope Category Cladding InsulationMaterial Plywood Sheet Vinyl Vinyl SidingThickness (in) 0.5 -3.3.2 Length (ft) 85 85Height (ft) 21.583 21.583Thickness (in) 12 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Insulation Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Envelope Category Cladding InsulationMaterial Plywood Sheet Vinyl Vinyl SidingThickness (in) 0.5 -3.3.3 Length (ft) 10 5.83Height (ft) 21.583 21.583Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Insulation Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Walls_Cast-in-place_Theatre_12"Walls_Cast-in-place_Theatre_7"Walls_Cast-in-place_Theatre_11"2013 Henry Angus LCA 93   3.4.1 Length (ft) 525 153.125Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Window Opening Wall Type Exterior ExteriorNumber of Windows 156 156Total Window Area (ft2) 1404 1404Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Window Opening Glazing Type Standard StandardNumber of Windows 156 156Total Window Area (ft2) 1248 1248Fixed/Operable Operable OperableFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard Standard3.4.2 Length (ft) 429 429Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 24 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorWindow Opening Number of Windows 117 117Total Window Area (ft2) 1053 1053Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard StandardWindow Opening Number of Windows 117 117Total Window Area (ft2) 819 819Fixed/Operable Operable OperableFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard Standard*Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TyWalls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_7"Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_2'*Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_7"_2*Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_2'_1*Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_2'_23.4 Mullions & XBM2013 Henry Angus LCA 94   3.4.3 Length (ft) 1428 416.5Height (ft) 8.75 8.75Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorWindow Opening Number of Windows 210 210Total Window Area (ft2) 630 630Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard StandardWindow Opening Number of Windows 210 210Total Window Area (ft2) 1260 1260Fixed/Operable Operable OperableFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard Standard3.4.4 Length (ft) 131.85 65.93Height (ft) 10.58 10.58Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Exterior ExteriorArea (sf) 1360 3980Category Cladding CladdingEnvelope Material Steel Cladding Steel CladdingThickness (in) 0.0635 0.0217Type 16 Ga Galvinized Steel26 Ga Galvinized SteelDoor Opening Number of Doors 1 1Door Type Steel Steel Exterior Door*Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_7"_1*Walls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_7"_2Walls_XBM_Steel_Lourve_Wall_Cast-in-place_Penthouse_* Extra Cladding MaterialXBM for steel claddingWalls_Mullions_PrecastConcrete_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_7"2013 Henry Angus LCA 95   3.1.12 Length (ft) 38 31.67Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 10 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.1.15 Length (ft) 242.4 141.4Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.1.17 Length (ft) 365 121.67Height (ft) 13.5 13.5Thickness (in) 4 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.1.2 Length (ft) 338 507Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 18 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior InteriorDoor Opening Number of Doors - 4Door Type - Steel InteriorB11 Partitions 6073 ㎡3.1  Classroom BlockWalls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_10"Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_7"_1Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_4"Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_ClassroomBlock_1'6"2013 Henry Angus LCA 96   3.1.24 Length (ft) 141 141Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.1.25 Length (ft) 58 33.83Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.1.27 Length (ft) 61 50.81Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 10 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.1.28 Length (ft) 1011 1263.75Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 15 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior InteriorDoor Opening Number of Doors 57 57Door Type Wooded Solid Wood Doors3.1.3 Length (ft) 46 38.33Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 10 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorWalls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_8"Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_7"Walls_Cast-in-place_Staircase_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_10"Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'3"Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_ClassroomBlock_10"2013 Henry Angus LCA 97   3.1.4 Length (ft) 450 262.5Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorDoor Opening Number of Doors - 0Door Type - 03.1.5 Length (ft) 286 214.5Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 9 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorDoor Opening Number of Doors - 0Door Type - 03.1.7 Length (ft) 127 190.5Height (ft) 12.5 12.5Thickness (in) 18 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 & 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorDoor Opening Number of Doors 12 12Door TypeGlazingAluminum Ext. Door 80% GlazingWindow Opening Number of Windows 18 18Total Window Area (ft2) 348 348Fixed/Operable Fixed FixedFrame Type Metal Aluminum Glazing Type Standard StandardThickness (in) 0.5 -Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_ClassroomBlock_7"Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_ClassroomBlock_9"_1Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_ClassroomBlock_1'6"2013 Henry Angus LCA 98   3.2 Office Block 3.2.1 Length (ft) 150 112.5Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 9 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.15 Length (ft) 89 44.5Height (ft) 6 6Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.16 Length (ft) 27 13.5Height (ft) 3 3Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.17 Length (ft) 1267 950.25Height (ft) 8.75 8.75Thickness (in) 9 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior InteriorDoor Opening Number of Doors 126 126Door TypeWoodenHollow Core Wooden3.2.19 Length (ft) 448 448Height (ft) 8.75 8.75Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior InteriorDoor Opening Number of Doors 14 14Door TypeWoodenHollow Core WoodenWalls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_8"Walls_Stairs_PrecastConcrete_GroundFloor_OfficeBlock_6"Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_OfficeBlock_6"_Height=3'Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloor_OfficeBlock_9"Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_OfficeBlock_9"_12013 Henry Angus LCA 99   3.2.20 Length (ft) 11.17 4.66Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 5 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.21 Length (ft) 34.13 14.22Height (ft) 8 8Thickness (in) 5 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.22 Length (ft) 2.25 0.9375Height (ft) 8 8Thickness (in) 5 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.4 Length (ft) 286 286Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.5 Length (ft) 42 21Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior InteriorWalls_Cast-in-place_Basement_OfficeBlock_6"Walls_Cast-in-place_Concrete_Southwest_Stairs_Basement_L2Walls_Cast-in-place_Concrete_Southwest_Stairs_L3_PenthouseWalls_Cast-in-place_Concrete_Southwest_Stairs_PenthouseWalls_Cast-in-place_Basement_OfficeBlock_8"2013 Henry Angus LCA 100   3.2.6 Length (ft) 46 55.58Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 14.5 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.7 Length (ft) 74 30.83Height (ft) 10.83 10.83Thickness (in) 5 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.8 Length (ft) 184 184Height (ft) 6 6Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.2.9 Length (ft) 168 168Height (ft) 12.5 12.5Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior InteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Styrofoam Expanded Polystrene Thickness (in) 1 1Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness (in) 0.5 0.53.2.10 Length (ft) 45 45Height (ft) 3 3Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior InteriorWalls_Cast-in-place_Curb_Ground_OfficeBlock_8"_3'Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_OfficeBlock_1'2.5"Walls_Cast-in-place_Basement_OfficeBlock_5"Walls_Cast-in-place_Curb_Ground_OfficeBlock_8"_6'Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_OfficeBlock_8"2013 Henry Angus LCA 101   3.2.11 Length (ft) 99 49.5Height (ft) 12.5 12.5Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 4 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.5.1 Length (ft) 774 580.5Height (ft) 11.75 11.75Thickness (in) 9 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Interior Interior3.5.2 Length (ft) 1869 1401.75Height (ft) 8.75 8.75Thickness (in) 4 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorEnvelope Category Siding Gypsum BoardMaterial Plaster Gypsum Regular 1/2"Walls_Cast-in-place_GroundFloor_OfficeBlock_6"Walls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloors_ClassroomBlockWalls_Cast-in-place_TypicalFloors_Office2013 Henry Angus LCA 102   3.6.1 Length (ft) 33.11 44.15Height (ft) 33.11 33.11Thickness (in) 16 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Insulation Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 23.6.2 Length (ft) 27.46 13.73Height (ft) 27.46 27.46Thickness (in) 6 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Insulation Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 23.6.3 Length (ft) 96.91 72.86Height (ft) 96.91 96.91Thickness (in) 9 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Insulation Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 2Walls_ConcreteBlock_1'4"Walls_ConcreteBlock_6"Walls_ConcreteBlock_9"3.6 Concrete Blocks2013 Henry Angus LCA 103       3.6.4 Length (ft) 30.20 37.75Height (ft) 30.2 30.2Thickness (in) 15 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Insulation Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 23.6.5 Length (ft) 48.71 44.65Height (ft) 48.71 48.71Thickness (in) 11 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Insulation Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 23.6.6 Length (ft) 68.94 40.22Height (ft) 68.94 68.94Thickness (in) 7 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorEnvelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Insulation Batt Fibreglass BattThickness (in) 2 23.6.7 Length (ft) 7.62 6.35Height (ft) 7.62 7.62Thickness (in) 10 12Concrete Strength (psi) - 3000Concrete Flyash % - AverageRebar # 5 5Wall Type Interior InteriorWalls_ConcreteBlock_1'3"Walls_ConcreteBlock_11"Walls_Cast-in-place_Stairs_North_10"Walls_ConcreteBlock_7"2013 Henry Angus LCA 104  Annex D – Impact Estimator Input Assumption   2013 Henry Angus LCA 105    2013 Henry Angus LCA 106    2013 Henry Angus LCA 107   2013 Henry Angus LCA 108    2013 Henry Angus LCA 109   2013 Henry Angus LCA 110    2013 Henry Angus LCA 111    2013 Henry Angus LCA 112   2013 Henry Angus LCA 113     2013 Henry Angus LCA 114    2013 Henry Angus LCA 115    2013 Henry Angus LCA 116    2013 Henry Angus LCA 117    2013 Henry Angus LCA 118    2013 Henry Angus LCA 119    2013 Henry Angus LCA 120    2013 Henry Angus LCA 121    2013 Henry Angus LCA 122   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108896/manifest

Comment

Related Items