Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment improvements of Frederic Lasserre building at University of British Columbia Russell, Andrew Nov 18, 2013

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Russell_Andrew _SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 1.96MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108897.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108897-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108897-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108897-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108897-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108897-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108897-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108897-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108897.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportAndrew RussellLife Cycle Assessment Improvements of Frederic Lasserre Building at University of British ColumbiaCIVL 498CNovember 18, 201310651546University 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  1           Life Cycle Assessment Improvements of Frederic Lasserre Building at University of British Columbia  Andrew Russell University of British Columbia CIVL 498C November 18, 2013          2   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Previous cradle to gate life cycle assessment work  on the Frederic Lasserre building of UBC was restructured and improved.  This study took the previous Lasserre Impact Estimator model, reorganized the buildings construction to CIQS format, thoroughly inspected the previous model for material, property type, and geometric flaws, carried out improvement strategies regnerated the IE model with results, and finally developed a campus wide benchmark for comparative assertion.   From life cycle stage results it was clearly demonstrated that the product stage weighs heavily on impact for a cradle to gate analysis.  From a CIQS elemental standpoint A22 - Upper Floor Construction, A32 - Walls above Grade and B11 - Partitions are noted as hotspots in  the Lasserre building contributing the majority of the seven impact categories assessed. The Lasserre building in comparison to the developed benchmark performed below average as a whole and had particularly weak performance in elements B11 - Interior Partitions  and A32 - Walls above Grade .   Global warming potential was determi ned to be the most salient impact from class aversion survey results.  This led to a GWP versus  construction cost (2013 $) .  In this comparison it was found that older UBC buildings tended to perform better than newer ones.   The results and recommendations from the study and all others in the collective project aid towards the operation of LCA methods in practice at UBC.  Useful for the Universities sustainability ambitions and targets, the study has also provided students with the applicable hands on expe rience at tackling the expanse nature of a building LCA.          3   Table of Contents 1.0 General  Information on the Assessment  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϱ  1.1 Purpose of the Assessment  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙. ϱ  1.2 Identification of Building  ͙͙ ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.ϴ  1.3 Other Assessment Information  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.ϭϭ 2.0 General Information on the Object of Assessment  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϭϮ  2.1 Functional Equivalent  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙..ϭϮ  2.2 Ref erence Study Period  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙..ϭϯ  2.3 Object of Assessment Scope  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ϭϰ 3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.ϭϲ  3.1 System Boundary  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.ϭϲ  3.2 Product Stage ͙͙͙͙͙.͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.ϭϳ  3.3 Construction Stage  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.ϭϴ 4.0 Environmental Data  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ϭϵ  4.1 Data Sources  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ..ϭϵ  4.2 Data Adjustments and Substitutions  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.ϮϬ  4.3 Data Quality  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.Ϯϯ 5.0 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.Ϯϱ 6.0 Model Development  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ϯϬ 7.0 Communication of Assessment Results  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.35  Appendix A -  Interpretation of Assessment Results  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙..40  Appendix B -  Recommendations for LCA Use  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.43  Appendix C -  Author Reflection  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙.4 8  Appendix D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions  ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ϱ3  4   List of Figures  Figure 1. Sustainable Endow ments Institute University Report Card Comparison  ...................................... 7  Figure 2. Design Sketch of Lasserre Building circa 1960  .............................................................................. 9  Figure 3. Lasserre Ground Work  .................................................................................................................. 9  Figure 4. Lasserre Foundation Construction  ............................................................................................... 10  Figure 5. Lasserre Frame and Floor Construction  ....................................................................................... 10  Figure 6. Lasserre Finished Construction  .................................................................................................... 11  Figure 7. Defined System Boundary  ............................................................................................................ 16  Figure 8. Hollow - Core Concrete Flooring .................................................................................................... 22  Figure 9. IMPACT World+ LCIA Methodology  ............................................................................................. 25  Figure 10. Cause - Effect Model for Impact Categories  ................................................................................ 26  Figure 11. Lasserre LCIA Results by Level 3 CIQS Element  .......................................................................... 36  Figure 12. Lasserre Whole Building LCIA Results by Life Cycle Stage  ......................................................... 38  Figure 13. Global Warming Potential versus Construction Cost of UBC Bu ildings ..................................... 42  Figure 14. LCC over Lifetime of Building  ..................................................................................................... 44  Figure 15. Integrated Design  ....................................................................................................................... 44  Figure 16.  Operation and embodied energy policy framework for multi - family residential buidlings in Vancouver, Canada  ..................................................................................................................................... 45   List of Tables  Table 1. L CA Assessment Information  ........................................................................................................ 11  Table 2. Functional Equivalent Definition  ................................................................................................... 12  Table 3. General Building Construction Characterization by CIQS Level 3 Element  ................................... 14  Table 4. Building CIQS Level 3 Definition  .................................................................................................... 15  Table 5. Modules A1 - A5 Description  .......................................................................................................... 17  Table 6. Product Stage Process Information Summary  .............................................................................. 17  Table 7 Construction Stage Process Information Summary  ....................................................................... 18  Table 8. Material type and Property Improvements  .................................................................................. 21  Table 9. Uncertainties within LCA  ............................................................................................................... 23  Table 10. Impact  Categories ....................................................................................................................... 26  Table 11. Model Improvements  .................................................................................................................. 31  Table 12. Lasserre Whole Building BOM  ..................................................................................................... 32  Table 13. A11 Foundations BOM  ................................................................................................................ 32  Table 14. A21 Lowest Floor Construction BOM  .......................................................................................... 32  Table 15. A22 Upper Floor Con struction BOM  ........................................................................................... 33  Table 16. A23 Roof Construction BOM  ....................................................................................................... 33  Table 17. A31 Wall Below Grade BOM  ....................................................................................................... 33  Table 18. A32 Walls Above Grade BOM  ...................................................................................................... 34  Table 19. B11 Partitions and Doors BOM  ................................................................................................... 34  5    1.0  General Information on the Assessment  Beginning with defining a clear purpose, intended use, motivation and audience for this assessment is valuable to prioritize the objectives and focus.  These aforementioned parameters shape the preliminary framework to which the assessment is built around.  A brief over view of the Lasserre building is  also provided along with other assessment information such as assessment method, authors and date for any future reference or clarification. 1.1.  Purpose of Assessment  As with any LCA study the primary purpose is rooted at quant ifying the environmental impact of the object of assessment with respect to a referencing measure (functional unit).  The intended use of this assessment is within a regional context.  The study is one part of a whole LCA database being formulated for UBC buildings.  As s uch, this study is used in establishing a benchmark for UBC buildings.  dhis benchmarŬ is very valuable for strategic planning and education within the campus͛ array of historic, new and future building construction.  The study helps define and begins to answer important policy maker questions such as:  ͚that have we been doing͍͛ and ͚there do we go͍͛  Each building study can also be used at an individual level by providing insight into the most cost-effective measures to address environmental and economic potential (i.e.  Energy & GWP savings).  Both internal and external pressures for  UBC define reasons for carrying out this LCA study.  /nternally, UBC set forth a comprehensive Climate ction Wlan in ϮϬϭϬ to maintain its image ͚͛as an established leader in energy and climate management.” 1  The plan has set forth aggressive GHG                                                           1 UBC Sustainability. (2010). Climate Action Plan.   Retrieved from http://sustain.ubc.ca/campus - initiatives/climate-energy/climate- action- plan 6   emission reduction targets that exceed provincial measures.  In comparison to 2007 levels the plan mandates a CO2 equivalent reduction timeline as such:                       Strategies to meet these targets have been divided into six categories  with two of these categories falling into the building life cycle realm: C͚ampus Development and Infrastructure ,͛ and E͚nergy Supply and Management. 2   Two years on from the CAP i nception has seen specific projects like Ecotrek and Building Tune - Up have positive impacts and now the focus shifts to searching for new and innovative projects to succeed these.  These internal pressures of maintaining the UBC sustainability image, one that prides itself on meeting Kyoto targets in 2007 , contributes greater reason for a study of this nature.   Externally there is pressure for comparative assertions with other competing sustainable Universities.  A report from the Sustainable Endowment  Institute ranked North American Universities across nine categories of sustainability, of which ͚Climate Change and Energy͛ and ͚'reen Building͛ were both present factors.  Figure 1 shows  UBC is ranked closely amongst neighbouring schools such as UofC, UofT and UofW.  A resourceful, informative LCA building database can aid UBC sustainable decision making  to gain an edge in this friendly rivalry.   The final motivator for this study is cost.  Financial payback of investment is attractive to the campus.  Pr oviding insight into how and what construction to choose for the most cost- effective, energy efficient building is a valuable asset.                                                           2 UBC Sustainability. (2010). Climate Act ion Plan.   Retrieved from http://sustain.ubc.ca/campus - initiatives/climate-energy/climate- action- plan 2015 2020 2050 -33% -67% -100% 7    Figure 1. Sustainable Endowments Institute University Report Card Comparison3  Comparative assertions exist wi thin the purpose of this study both internally as benchmarking a nd externally as a way to display a strong sustainable persona to other schools and institutions.  Stakeholders involved in campus policy- making, building development and infrastructure form the primary audience for this study.  These parties include but are not reserved to UBC Sustainability, Building Operations and UBC Board of Governors.  Secondary audiences include campus faculty and staff, involved architects, engineers, and contractors, federal and provincial government, sustainable E'K͛s, neighbouring Universities, and any LCA enthusiast.   1.2.  Identification of Building  Opening its doors in 1962 the Frederic >asserre building, commonly referred to as ͚>asserre͛, is located at 6 333 Memorial Road.  Situated on the corner  of Memorial road and Main Mall , the building was designed by Thompson, Berwick & Pratt of Vancouver with flair for the  international                                                           3 Sustainable Endowments Institute. (2011). The College Sustainability Report Card.  Retrieved from http://www.greenreportcard.org/compare  8   style of the fifties.4   Standing 17.88m tall with a gross floor ar ea of 5,276 m 2  the building is utilized by several parties including Community Planning, School of Architecture  and General University Facilities.5   As its main intended use was for Architecture the building is  aptly named after Dr. Frederic Lasserre who w as the programs first director.   The building is of concrete structure and slab and has three entrances located at the East, West and North facades.  In terms of use of space the ground floor houses classroom and tiered lecture halls, the fourth floor contains administration offices while the second, third and basement levels offer studio and design work spaces.   Throughout the project timeline of 1960 - 62 the doc umented cost was $1 million , in present value equivalency this would amount to $34.7 million  using a discount rate of 7.2% .4  This discount rate was based off BC education norms.  Sources of funding included A.W. Trueman contributing 50% while the other half was met by Canadian Council grants, UBC Development Fund, and the Koerner Foundation.  Figures 2 - 6  illustrate a timeline of archived photographs from the UBC Library.                                                            4 UBC Building Archives.  (2013, July 30). Frederic Lasserre Building.  Retrieved from http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/bldgs/fredericlasserre.htm   5 Thompson, Berwick, Pratt & Partners Fonds. (1960).  Frederic Lasserre Architectural Building Drawings.  9    Figure 2. Design Sketch of Lasserre Building circa 1960 6    Figure 3. Lasserre Ground Work 7                                                            6 UBC Library D igital Photograph Collection. (1960). Sketch of Lasserre Building.  Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.library.ubc.ca/cdm/singleitem/collection/arphotos/id/872/rec/4  7 UBC Library Digital Photograph Collection. (1961). Construction of Lasserre Buildl ing.  Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.library.ubc.ca/cdm/singleitem/collection/arphotos/id/13904/rec/70  1 0    Figure 4. Lasserre Foundation Construction8  Figure 5. Lasserre Frame and Floor Construction9                                                           8UBC Library Digital Photograph Collection. (1961). Construction of Lasserre Buildling.  Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.library.ubc.c a/cdm/singleitem/collection/arphotos/id/13902/rec/68  1 1    Figure 6. Lasserre Finished Construction10  1.3.  Other Assessment Information  Table 1  outlines further assessment information that may be useful for clarification of details in future work.  Table 1. LCA Assessment Information Client for Assessment  Completed as coursework in Civil Engineering 498C, a technical elective course at the University of British Columbia. Name and qualification of the assessor  Andrew Russell  ʹClean Energy Engineering (2013) Sahar Ranjbar  ʹCivil Engineering (2010)  Impact Assessment method  Mid - point impact method using US EPA TRACI         (2012, version  2.1 ). Point of Assessment  A s of 2013 the Frederic Lasserre building is 51 years into its lifetime Period of Validity  5 years.  Date of Assessment  Completed in December 2013.  Verifier  Student work, study not verified.                                                                                                                                                                                              9 UBC Library Digital Photograph Collection. (June 19, 1961). Construction of Lasserre Buildling.  Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.library.ubc.ca/cdm/singleitem/collection/arphotos/id/32954/rec/ 44  10 UBC Library Digital Photograph Collection. (Jan 6, 19 62). Construction of Lasserre Buildling.  Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.library. ubc.ca/cdm/singleitem/collection/arphotos/id/32959/rec/49  1 2   2.0  General Information on the Object of Assessment  Within this section the functional unit and equivalent are defined.  A description of the reference study period with discussion on its deviation also follows.  The final component to the section is defining the scope of the object of assessment by CIQS level 3 elemental construction format.  2.1.  Functional Equivalent  Explicitly stating the functional unit is important to establish the scope of the study that will seek to consider its environmental impacts.  The functional unit defines what precisely is being investigated and quantifies the performance delivered by the product syste m.  It provides a unit of reference or scale to which all flows within the system boundary can be related.  It  also enables results to be comparatively asserted with competing products or services. The declared functional unit, subject to analysis, in this LCA is defined as follows:   Cradle to gate construction of 1 m 2  of conditioned floor area.  Table 2. Functional Equivalent Definition Aspect of Object of Assessment  Description Building Type Institutional/Education .  Classroom, office, and studio design spaces.          Technical and functional requirements  From a regulatory perspective the construction is required to  meet each of British Columbia͛s Building, &ire and Wlumbing Codes.  Additionally the construction must meet municipal building by -laws of the City of Vancouver.   The client, UBC, requires all design, construction and renovation of University- owned institutional building͛s meet UBC Technical Guidelines.   LEED Gold  certification or equivalent is required for new construction or major renovations on institutional buildings, including 11 points from Energy & Atmosphere which states energy performance criteria be 32% and 28% below ASHRAE 90.1 -200 7 for new construction and major renovation respectively. 11  1 3   UBC in- house REAP Gold certification is required for new residential construction. 11   Finally, an absolute energy density target [kWh eq/m2/yr] shall be met during the design phase. 11  Pattern of use  Design Occupancy=5 276m 2 /1.85m 2  per person = 2852 people .12  Space Use Pattern :  Ground Floor Classroom and Lecture Halls, Basement and Second Floor Design/Studios, Fourth floor Office space, Third Floor restricted access. Required service life  With reference to LCA practione r Stefan Storey and LCA building literature a reasonable baseline scenario service life for Lasserre is 60  years 12, 13 .  ,owever, considering this is a ͚Cradle to 'ate͛ study a required service life of 1 year is used.   No documented occupancy was avail able for Lasserre  from UBC Records or Campus and Community Wlanning.  dherefore, an estimate was made from the City of sancouver͛s Building &ire bylaw, sentence 2.7.1.3 on determining occupant loads.  The bylaw recommends assigning 1.85 m 2  of floor space per occupant for classrooms, reading and writing rooms, and lounges. 12   2.2 Reference Study Period  s this >C study only accounts for impacts of ͚Cradle to 'ate͛ the reference study period deviates from the service life of the building to zero years.  Zero  years implies the reference study period closes once construction is complete.  However, due to modeling constraints within the Impact Estimator (requires a non- zero value) a service life of 1 year is used and all impacts downs tream of construction are negated.  Modules B, C, and D of EN 15978 respectively include use, end of life and supplementary information stages.  These stages are all downstream of the construction stage where the reference study period has been previously stated as closing.  Module D  is often situated outside the system boundary however modules B and C are often considered in LCA studies.  It was decided that this study would not include modules B and C due to reasons such as:                                                            11 UBC Sustainability. (2012). Green Buildings.  Retrieved from http://sustain.ubc.ca/campus - initiatives/green-buildings 12 City of Vancouver. (2004). Fire & Rescue Services  ʹCalculation package occ upant load calculations for assembly occupancies and licensed beverage establishments.  Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/occupancy - load-calculation- package.pdf  1 4    Varying occupancy   Unpredictable occupant behaviour  Different building types (lab versus lecture hall) having adverse effects on use impacts  Varying services lives   Construction Materials focus  An interesting side note for future studies would be the occupant behavioural work being investigated by PhD candidate Stefan Storey .  Stefan is looking at wireless phone  data being a method of accounting for occupancy and occupant behaviour within UBC buildings13   By accounting for only the product and construction stages (Module A) the study is consistent across all campus building types and a reasonable benchmark can be developed.  2.3 Object of Assessment Scope  The Lasserre building is a concrete structure and slab building.  Table 3,  adapted from previous student work on the building depicts the general building construction organized by relevant CIQS level 3 elements for this report14 . Table 3. General Building Construction Characterization by CIQS Level 3 Element CIQS Level 3 Element Characteristic A11 Foundations  Concrete cast in place strip and pad footings with 6mm polyethylene vapour barrier A21 Lowest Floor Construction  Concrete Slab on 'rade ϲ͛͛ on well consolidated gravel fill. Checkerboard Pattern  A22 Upper Floor Construction  Concrete precast double T floor, Concrete column and beam A23 Roof Construct ion Flat asphalt built up roof, slab varies ϰ͛͛ and ϴ͛͛ thick  A31 Walls Below Grade  ϭϬ͛͛ concrete blocŬA32 Walls Above Grade  ϭϬ͛͛ concrete blocŬ with ϰ͛͛ glanjed bricŬ on edžterior surface B11 Partitions  ϭϬ͛͛ concrete blocŬ with Ъ͛͛ 'tB either side                                                            13 Storey, Stefan. Personal communication, November 6, 201 3.  14 Ranjbar, S. (2010) Lif e Cycle Assessment of Frederic Lasserre Building at University of British Columbia. CIVL 498C, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.  1 5   The CIQS elemental construction format was adopted for this study to be congruent with Canadian quantity surveyors and building metrics.  A modified version of Level 3 CIQS was adopted to help simplify the analysis.  In general all finishes were left out of t he analysis.  For example, within B11 - Partitions all interior floor, ceiling and wall finishes (B21 - 23) were considered outside scope.  Likewise fittings and equipment B31 and B32 were also excluded.  It was felt that the majority of the building impact would be addressed by focusing on the seven elements described in Table 4 with reference to the Lasserre building . Table 4. Building CIQS Level 3 Definitions CIVL 498C Level 3 CIQS ELEMENT Description Unit of Measure Quantity  Units A11 Foundations  All wall and column strip footings.  Average (9%) Fly ash, reinforced.  Area of SOG   1055  m 2  A21 Lowest Floor Construction ϲ͛͛ Slab on grade at basement. dhicŬened to ϵ͛͛ below interior bearing walls  Area of SOG   1055  m 2   A22 Upper Floor  Construction All columns and beams above SOG but not supporting roof.  Suspended floors excluding roof. Stair structure.     Area of all upper floors  4221  m 2    A23 Roof Construction  Columns and Beams supporting roof.  Suspended roof, including membrane system, insulation, moisture and vapour barriers  Area of Roof surface   1055  m 2   A31 Walls Below Grade  Exterior wall construction below grade and above SOG.  Interior GWB and exterior insulation and vapour barrier. Surface area of exterior walls below grade  798  m 2   A32 Walls Above Grade  Exterior wall construction above grade.  GWB and exterior assembly materials. Exterior glazing and doors.  Surface area of exterior walls above grade  2020  m 2  B11 Partitions  Fixed partitions. Interior doors and glazing  Surface area of interior walls     3013  m 2    1 6   3.0  Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment  This section sets the system boundary for the study and describes the process information for the two stages within the established boundary, product and construction process. 3.1.  System Boundary In this study Figure 7 illustrate that modules A1 - A5 are included with in the system boundary.  Each module includes supporting upstream and downstream processes.  A general description processes involved in each module is provided in Table 5.   Figure 7. Defined System Boundary15                                                            15 Coldstream Consulting. (2011). EN 15978 Standard. Retrieved from http://www.coldstreamconsulting.com/services/li fe- cycle- analysis/whole- building- lca/en- 1597 8 - standard 1 7   Table 5. Modules A1-A5 Description Module Upstream Processes Downstream Processes A1 -  Raw Material Supply  Transport to site, fuels to ex tract. Waste material disposal, slag, water treatment, storage. A2  ʹTransport (Material)  Transport fuel extraction , processing, transmission. Maintenance and replacement parts for transport trucks, trains etc. A3 -  Manufacturing  Plant energy extraction,  processing, transmission. Energy to dispose, treat or store waste, water treatment. Packaging materials embodied energy   A4  ʹTransport (Construction) Transport fuel extraction, processing, transmission Maintenance and replacement parts for transport trucks, trains etc. A5  ʹConstruction Installation Process  Installation and construction fuel extraction, processing, transmission.  Energy to remove all site equipment and waste materials.  3.2.  Product Stage  IE accounts for all energy, direct and indirect, us ed to transform or transport raw materials into products, and buildings, including inherent energy contained in raw or feedstock materials that  are also used as common energy sources (natural gas). 15  In  addition the IE captures the indirect energy use associated with processing, transporting, converting and delivering fuel and energy plus the operating energy.16   Table 6  summarizes  the process information considered in the production modules.  Table 6. Product Stage Process Information Summary Product Stage Flows How does IE Handle It?  Extraction of raw materials  All Energy, fuel and additional materials (water) for extraction.   Manufacturing of products  Process energy impact and its upstream demands, waste management impact. Recycled content. Does not include fixed capital equipment impact.                                                            16 Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings. (2013). Help topics  ʹTotal Primary Energy Consumption.  1 8       Generation of energy input  Region specific grid of energy use mix. Hydro, thermal coal, gas fired plant, biomass, wind, etc.  Inherent energy in raw or feedstock materials commonly used as energy sources also accounted for. Production of ancillary materials  Included.  Similar to raw material.  Packaging  Included.  Raw materials and energy requirement for packaging.  Transport up to production gate & to  construction site Region specific transportation grid assigned.  I.e.  Varying % of light/heavy truck, train, barge etc.  Does not include employee transport. Collection and transport of waste to disposal From WF a mass is assigned per material to be collected and transported.  Waste management during product and construction stages Product and construction waste factor (WF) for each material calculated as a % of the amount.  Net amount is added to BOM.        N et Amount = Amount + (Amount x WF)17   3.3.  Construction Stage Table 7 summarizes  the process information considered in the construction modules. Table 7 Construction Stage Process Information Summary Construction Stage Flows How does IE Handle It? Transport from manufacturing gate to construction site Region specific transportation grid assigned.  Does not include transportation of employees to site Storage of products Energy required maintaining product integrity.  Does not include land use. Installation of the product into the building  Construction Effects: Assumes that a crane is used to move all material through distance of half the building height. Waste management processes on site and disposal Construction waste factor gives mass of waste.  Process impacts resultant of mass to manage and dispose. Decomposition of materials in landfill is not accounted for.18                                                             17 Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings. (2013). Help topics  ʹExtra Materials.  18 Athena Sustainable Mat erials Institute. (2013). IE for Buildings. Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/our -software- data/impact- estimator/ 1 9    4.0  Environmental Data Data is always sourced and collected with uncertainty.  Awareness of the quality and what types of uncertainties exist is useful when drawing appropriate recommendations.  Sources of data for this study are sited, adjustments to data within the previous student͛s findings are described and the quality of data is assessed.   4.1.  Data Sources The Athena Institute LCI database was formed to help move the construction sector and product suppliers towards LCA.  /ts͛ vision is clear:  create a verifiably sustainable built environment. 19  It  compiles averaged industry data, actual and modeled, for production of building materials, energy use, transportation and on- site construction.  The databases are regionally sensitive, considering technology, transportation, recycled content, seismic effects and electricity grid variances by region.  Industry questionnaires are a common method in sourcing data from industry by Athena.  The aim is to account for 99% of the mass o f a product, 99% of the energy used in its production and any environmentally sensitive flows.20   Data inaccuracies can arise in Athena from the techno - sphere.  Questionnaire subjects often do not have access to data relevant to input/output flows from thei r production processing.  In this case secondary sources are used from LCA - practioner tools such as national databases or data sets like Natural Resources Canada.  Athena is managed by a team of LCA experts while financial support is met from members and sponsors of the institute which include construction sector practitioners, product manufactures and                                                           19 Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013). About ASMI  ʹVision.  Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/about - asmi/vision/ 20 Trusty, W. (2010). An Overview of Life Cycle Assessments: Part One of Three.  Building Safety Journal. Volume VII, No. 8.  2 0   policy makers.   A list of sponsors can be found on the institute͛s website as well which includes Natural Resources Canada and Green Building Initiative.    The US LCI database is a publicly available database created by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 2001 for LCA practitioners.  The goals of the database project are centered towards data quality and transparency while expanding LCA acceptance.  T he database is sourced and managed by the EZE>͛s high- performance buildings research group collaborating with government stakeholders, and industry partners.  The Athena Institute is listed as a principal supporter along  with the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Navy amongst many others.   4.2.  Data Adjustments and Substitutions  Some of the material type and property selection inaccuracies found in the previous Lasserre building IE model are listed by relevant CIQS element in table 8.   2 1   Table 8. Material type and Property Improvements  The previous students work in general seems to be excessive and lacking in design .  Beginning with A11 - Foundations, the previous model did not account for 8 pad footings placed under primary columns.  These eight footings were noticed in the On - Screen take off file yet were missing from the IE model.  A second inaccuracy in foundations was noted in rebar designation to strip footings.  Comparing building drawings to IE inputs did not correspond well on  several occasions.  The predominant type of rebar (#4 , 5  or 6) specified in the drawings was taken and model inputs were adjusted accordingly.  For A22 - Lowest Floor C onstruction a major inaccuracy to the construction and product stages was that no slab on grade was modeled.  This was corrected with appropriate materials from the building drawings.    In A22 - Upper Floor Construction, each floor of the building had been modeled as a ϰ͛͛ concrete slab, double T roof and double T floor.  In the new model the 2 2   slab and roof components to each floor have been removed leaving just the double T flooring.  This representation for each floor is seen as a more realistic model based off the Lasserre building drawings.  The drawings do not specify or lend well to determining the actual concrete form used.  From conversation with UBC Architecture and Building Science professor Greg Johnson it i s suggested that the flooring is concrete hollow- core as shown in figure 8.   As the same live load is assigned to the input double T flooring it is assumed that the amount of concrete issued for the double T flooring is representative of the believed hollow- core panel.   Figure 8. Hollow-Core Concrete Flooring21    A23 - Roof Construction was found to be the greatest source of inaccuracy.  Originally the roof was modeled as concrete double d when drawings specify it as a slab with varying ϰ͛͛ and ϴ͛͛ sections.  Another construction stage inaccuracy was the inclusion of roof columns.  In reality the fourth floor columns and beams support the roof slab so the reason for additional roof columns was unknown.  These columns were removed from the model.  Two product inaccuracies also existed in the A23.                                                            21 Greg Johnson. (Novemeber 12, 2013) Verbal Discussion with reference to building drawings.  2 3   No roofing insulatio n was modeled previously.  Rigid 38mm foam ins ulation (EPS) was added to the entire roof to accommodate building drawings.  The second product flaw was the build- up of the roof.  Originally the materials included were fibreglass, glass felt + gypsum (101.6mm total).  With closer reference to the building drawings the roof assembly was changed to a modified bitumen-EPS - gypsum build up with aggregate stone ballast.  Finally, within B11 - Partitions, many below grade interior walls had been modeled with excessive envelope material.  Any insulation, vapour b arrier, and cladding present were removed creating the new IE building model.  It is felt that these adjustments and substitutions will help give a more realistic model into the LCA of Lasserre.   4.3.  Data Quality  Uncertainty within a LCA model may arise from t he following five sources of uncertainty: data, model, temporal, spatial, and variability between sources.  Table 9  describes each type and provides an example within  the LCI databases called upon in this study.   Table 9. Uncertainties within LCA Type of Uncertainty Sources of Uncertainty  Example within LCI Databases    Data Collection, allocation procedures (mass or economic), inaccurate or missing data, lifetimes of substances,  travel potential in impacts (eutrophication , acidification Travel potential exists as TRACI acidification category developed on U.S. empirical models with specific location.22  Vancouver weather and geography different, resulting in uncertainty with travel potential  Model  Linear vs. non - linear model        (increasing, constant or decreasing returns?)   Characterization factors inaccurate or not known  As Athena and US LCI databases are young (10 - 15 years), the models are still improving as years of data strengthen them  Temporal Differences in seasonal factory emissions, e.g. Sawmill lumber >asserre built with vintage ϭϵϲϬ͛s materials, transport, energy, processing,                                                           22 United States Environmental Protection Agen cy. (2013). Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Environmental Impacts (TRACI). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/traci/traci.html  2 4     diameter changing from winter to summer.  Data vintage.  Climate effect on impact severity (temperature).  and construction techniques but At hena and US LCI use current.      Spatial Regional differences (factories, energy mix, preferred transport) , regional environment sensitivity, distribution of emissions (plane vs. factory) Athena uses North American industry averages for construction materials.  Some Lasserre materials may be international (China, Japan, Europe) .   TRACI assumes North American context for characterization factors while some impacts may be felt elsewhere in production chain like bauxite extraction in Australia.   Variability  between Sources Differences between factory practices and standards.  Human exposure patterns (sawmill workers vs. residents nearby, elderly vs. youth) Athena assumes similar Human exposure to process when worker would have much higher exposure to paint t han occupant once dry.   Many of the data inaccuracies in Athena arise from the techno - sphere.  Questionnaire subjects often do not have access to data relevant to input/output flows from their production processing.  In this case secondary sources are us ed from LCA - practioner tools such as national databases or data sets like Natural Resources Canada.         2 5   5.0  List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results  As this study utilizes  the Athena Impact Estimator for its life cycle inventory asse ssment (LCIA), the methodology is consistent with US EPA TRACI  which uses midpoint assessment.  Figure 8, sourced from IMPACT World+, is a useful representation of LCAI practice.  Some midpoint categories are listed  in the figure.  IMPACT World+ accounts f or spatial uncertainty with global representation in its framework.  This state of the art software offers midpoint impacts to be broken down to subcategories for greater detail:  for example, ecotoxicity can be sub divided into freshwater, marine and terr estrial ecotoxicity 23 .   End points are not assessed in this study, but as shown in figure 8 they are the summation of all midpoint damages.    Figure 9. IMPACT World+ LCIA Methodology24                                                           23 IMPACT World+. (2013). Presentation Tab.  Retrieved from http://www.impactworldplus.org/en/prese ntation.php 24IMPACT World+. (2013) Methodology Tab.  Retrieved from http://www.impactworldplus.org/en/methodology.php  2 6    The midpoint impact categories used in this study are summarized  with their resultant endpoint impacts in table 10.  Table 10. Impact Categories Midpoint Category  Category Indicator  Endpoint Impacts  Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ  Human Health, Ecosystem quality, Resources and ecosystem services Global Warming  kg CO 2  eq  Human Health (malaria), Ecosystem quality  (Forests, agriculture, coastline) Acidification  moles of H+ eq  Ecosystem quality  Human Health Criteria (Respiratory) kg PM10 eq  Human Health  (Respiratory illness) Eutrophication kg N eq  Ecosystem quality  (Agriculture, fishing, drinking, reduced biodiversity) Ozone Layer Depletion kg CFC - 11 eq  Human Health  (skin cancer, immune sys suppression), Ecosystem quality  (Agriculture, marine life) Smog Formation kg O 3  eq  Human He alth (Asthma, restricted activity, mortality)  Each impact category has a distinct cause- effect chain that is generalized from the following model:         Cause  Effect  Effect  Effect  Effect  Effect  Effect  Effect Figure 10. Cause-Effect Model for Impact Categories 2 7   The following cause- effect chain diagrams were adapted from Rob Sianchuk CIVL 498C Week 6_Impact assessment lecture slides.25  Global Warming:            Ozone Depletion:                                                                    25 Sianchuk, Robert. (October, 2013). Week6_Impact Assessment [PowerPoint slides].  Retrieved from http://civl498c.wikispaces.com/Class+Pre sentations+and+Handouts  Air Emission  Solar and Earth Infrared radiation absorbed Climate Change Temperature increase Natural Disasters  Human Health   Forest Effects  Sea levels rise Air Emission  Ozone Layer Reduction Increased UVB Penetration  Human Health  Ecosystem and species damage  Agriculture Effects  UV material degradation 2 8    Eutrophication:        Acidification:     Smog Formation Potential:        Nitrogen Enriched Water Emission  Algae and weed growth Bloom raises aquatic toxicity  Aquatic Oxygen Shortage Fish and shellfish mortality  Toxicity climbs food chain Air Emission Chemical Transformation NO2      HNO 3  Deposition Leaching of acid, metals nutrients Plant and animal mortality Ecosystem Changes Air Emission   Troposphere ozone concentration Increase  Sunlight reduced Human Inhalation  Human health and mortality Plant mortality 2 9    Human Health Criteria (Respiratory):      Fossil Fuel Consumption:              Air Emission Inhaled   PM deposition in alveoli  Physiological reaction Human health and mortality FF Demand  Ext raction and Combustion Resource Depletion Water, land, air emissions Human Health  Ecosystem Damage 3 0   6.0  Model Develo pment Each CIQS Level 3 element within this study was modeled in the same manner.  Following a consistent format was important to ensure all grounds were covered within each element while revamping the IE model.  As a first course of action the Lasserre bu ilding drawings were reviewed and a site visit was taken to gain an understanding of the general construction.  As the drawings have been digitized from their original 1960 format many details in the drawings were not visible, making it difficult to determ ine exact construction.  Following this step, a review of the previous student͛s, Sahar Zanjbar, LCA report was undertaken .  Understanding the previous methodology and assumptions made in the design helped direct focus to areas (hotspots) that were most sensitive to uncertainty and areas where improvement seemed most plausible.   After this preliminary analysis was complete, a more hands on, direct, approach took stage.  The previous students IE inputs and assumptions excel worksheet was  used in conjunction with CIQS level 3 elemental construction format to categorize  the inputs under the seven levels listed in Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions.  Reorganizing the inputs to CIQS format gave recognizable structure  and breakdown  to the building orientated audience.  It also helped in the analysis of the model as greater construction detail was determined.  After reorganizing, the previous model was combed over with comparison to building drawings and On Screen Takeoff,  version 3.9.0.6.  Here the model was critiqued and assessed for uncertainty and error.  Within stage 3 of this report a table of all geometric, type and property selection inaccuracies were described, inputs affected were noted, and improvement strategies were developed.  This work is dis played in table 11 .  As the Lasserre  building drawings are unclear and vague, specific materials could not easily be taken off.  Many assumptions in the materials were carried over from the previous students work.  This in adequacy  made pursuing material changes in the Impact Estimator , from an Environmental Pro duct Declaration (EPD) , less productive.  Newe r 3 1   buildings such as CIRS which use s a large amount of modern materials such as mineral wool insulation and glue lam beams would be more receptive to this type of analysis. Table 11. Model Improvements  These inaccuracies were then addressed through altering the effected inputs to create a new list of IE inputs as documented in Annex D .  With these improvements complete, the IE model was  rerun to project an updated BOM and impact assessment results  for the building and for each CIQS Level 3 element. Reference flows are outputs from a process, such as construction, that are required to fulfill the function expressed by the functional unit.  I n the case of this study the building and its CIQS elements are the reference flows or required output s to address and quantify the environmental impacts per m 2  of conditioned building area.  An intermediate flow within the study is the BOM.  The current BOM for the Lasserre building and each of th e Level 3 elements are now provided.  3 2   Table 12. Lasserre Whole Building BOM Material Quantity Unit #15 Organic Felt 1962.6 m2 1/2"  Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 7801.7 m2 1/2"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 946.8 m2 3 mil Polyethylene 699.5 m2 5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board 544.7 m2 6 mil Polyethylene 3884.0 m2 Aluminum 8.5 Tonnes Ballast (aggregate stone) 54227.6 kg Cold Rolled Sheet 0.4 Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 929.8 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 1035.2 m3 Concrete Blocks 52240.2 Blocks Concrete Brick 1798.7 m2 Double Glazed No Coating Air 245.8 m2 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 339.5 kg Expanded Polystyrene 2827.9 m2 (25mm) FG Batt R11-15 2175.5 m2 (25mm) Galvanized Sheet 0.3 Tonnes Glazing Panel 0.2 Tonnes Joint Compound 8.3 Tonnes Metric Modular (Modular) Brick 101.5 m2 Modified Bitumen membrane 7606.8 kg Mortar 1034.6 m3 Nails 1.1 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.1 Tonnes Precast Concrete 448.8 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 532.3 Tonnes Roofing Asphalt 6370.0 kg Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 6.8 m3 Water Based Latex Paint 60.9 L Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 9.0647 Tonnes  Table 13. A11 Foundations BOM Material Quantity Unit Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 128.6 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 1.6 Tonnes  Table 14. A21 Lowest Floor Construction BOM Material Quantity Unit 6 mil Polyethylene 1679.3 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 166.2 m3 3 3   Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 1.4 Tonnes  Table 15. A22 Upper Floor Construction BOM Material Quantity Unit 1/2"  Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 1160.9 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 26.7 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 821.0 m3 Joint Compound 1.2 Tonnes Nails 0.0 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.0 Tonnes Precast Concrete 448.8 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 241.5 Tonnes Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 5.4 Tonnes  Table 16. A23 Roof Construction BOM Material Quantity Unit #15 Organic Felt 1962.6 m2 1/2"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 946.8 m2 Ballast (aggregate stone) 54227.6 kg Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 112.9 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 214.2 m3 Expanded Polystyrene 2314.6 m2 (25mm) Galvanized Sheet 0.3 Tonnes Modified Bitumen membrane 7606.8 kg Nails 0.4 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 67.8 Tonnes Roofing Asphalt 6370.0 kg Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 0.8 Tonnes  Table 17. A31 Wall below Grade BOM Material Quantity Unit 5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board 544.7 m2 6 mil Polyethylene 525.3 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 104.0 m3 Expanded Polystyrene 513.2 m2 (25mm) Joint Compound 0.5 Tonnes Nails 0.0 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.0 Tonnes 3 4   Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 3.7 Tonnes  Table 18. A32 Walls above Grade BOM Material Quantity Unit 1/2"  Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 725.4 m2 3 mil Polyethylene 699.5 m2 Aluminum 8.5 Tonnes Cold Rolled Sheet 0.3 Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 62.3 m3 Concrete Blocks 18022.3 Blocks Concrete Brick 1798.7 m2 Double Glazed No Coating Air 245.7 m2 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 339.5 kg FG Batt R11-15 2175.5 m2 (25mm) Glazing Panel 0.2 Tonnes Joint Compound 0.7 Tonnes Mortar 378.3 m3 Nails 0.4 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.0 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 54.4 Tonnes  Table 19. B11 Partitions and Doors BOM Material Quantity Unit 1/2"  Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 5915.4 m2 Cold Rolled Sheet 0.0 Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 34.2 m3 Concrete Blocks 34217.9 Blocks Double Glazed No Coating Air 0.1 m2 Joint Compound 5.9 Tonnes Metric Modular (Modular) Brick 101.5 m2 Mortar 656.3 m3 Nails 0.2 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.1 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 161.8 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 6.8 m3 Water Based Latex Paint 60.9 L   3 5   7.0  Life Cycle Assessment Results  The life cycle inventory assessment results generated in the Impact Estimator were output as summary of measure tables.  It is interesting to compare the results by Level 3 element and by lif e cycle stage.  In doing so, product system hotspots or areas of concentrated impact are revealed.  Figures 10 and 11 display the results, first by element per unit of measurement (UOM) and then by life cycle stage per m 2 of total conditioned floor area.  The comparison of elements by UOM may not be a fair representation.  For instance the UOM for A21 Lowest Floor Construction is the area of the slab on grade which directly represents the components to this element. However, e lement A22 - Upper Floor Construction has a UOM (area of all floors above lowest) that does not represent all the components to the element.  For example, c olumns and beams are somewhat independent of the UOM yet contribute directly to the impacts.  The results though are still informative and provide a level of indication as to where hotspots are within the building structure.  A22, A32  and B11 are consistently the most impactful elements to study.  All three of these elements have a common component of walls in their characterizati on.  Walls in Lasserre are not only concrete, but also require insulation, vapour barrier and sheathing in most cases.  These added contributions per m 2  make for an impactful component. 3 6    Figure 11. Lasserre LCIA Results by Level 3 CIQS Element  Viewing the LCIA results by life cycle stages (Product and Construction) it is very clear that the product stage makes up the majority of the impact in all categories.  Within the product stage it is the manufacturing step that is most impactful.  Transportation in both stages plays a minor role in total impact.  This may be a bit misrepresentative if in reality products are being transported much greater distances than that assigned by the Impact Estimator.  Regardless, manufacturing is the k ey area to 3 7   improving the LCA of construction materials.  For this reason LCA certification in construction materials is being sought after by many organizations . The US Green Building Council recently announced embedding LEED v.4 with two LCA based credits  in Materials and Resources (MRc1 & MRc2). 26   This initiative is perhaps the beginning of LCA becoming an integral fixture for manufactures to gain transparent sustainability credit.                                                           26  Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2013). Green design codes and standards now have LCA paths  ʹfinally, a performance basis is coming to sustainable design. Retrieved from http://www.athenasmi.org/resources/about -lca/lca- in- construction- practice/   3 8    Figure 12. Lasserre Whole Building LCIA Results by Life Cycle Stage  Further interpretation of results is provided in the included annexes.  Annex A  ʹ I͚nterpretation of Assessment Results  ͛outlines the concept and value of benchmark development in LCA;  it then introduces the UBC academic building benchmark and its results from the collaboration of CIVL 498C project findings.  Annex B  ʹ R͚ecommendation for LCA Use  ͛explores qualitative approaches for recommendations to operationalize LCA in building design.  Annex C  ʹ A͚uthor Reflection  ͛comments on the experienc es had in this study and the CIVL 498C course.  Finally, Annex D  ʹ I͚mpact Estimator Inputs 3 9   and Assumptions  ͛documents all inputs and assumptions made while compiling the Lasserre IE building  model.  This annex will be especially useful in any future work on Lasserre , just as the previous inputs and assumption document was for this study.                                 4 0   Annex A  ʹInterpretation of Assessment Results  Within the industrial sectors and indeed, individual products, there is always a need to optimize efficiency.  However, it is impossible to make changes and demonstrate that the changes have been effective if there is no standard against which to measure the altered system.  This is the basis of benchmarking.  By making any proposed ch anges and re- calculating with comparison to the benchmark it is possible to understand whether or not the changes have produced the desired effect.  In this manner a route of optimization unfolds where ideas and philosophies are trialed with their resultant effects noted.  The end result is a product, process or industry that improves, optimizes and becomes more efficient with materials, water, and energy.  Even if environmental considerations are not the driving force, economic factors such as savings potential can evoke interest.   The use of common goal & scope in model development is essential to developing a robust and fair benchmark.  Having the same intentions, purpose and system boundaries ensure that the studies a re similar and a fair comparison can be made within the benchmark.  Benchmarking is a valuable tool for making sense of LCA - based information as it equates the functional unit and provides a measure of performance amongst the collective group or individual iterations. A final  results benchmark was taken on November 14 th at 8pm from the Google drive.  A few buildings had to be excluded, Pharmacy and AERL, from developing the benchmark due  to lack of or erroneous  results at the time.  The following two figures visually summarize  how Lasserre compares to the benchmark.  The building as a whole performs inferior to the benchmark and in almost all impact categories from 5 - 50% greater impact, with the one exception being Human Health.  On a n elemental basis Lasserre  performs poorly compared to the benchmark in elements A22, A32 and B11, especially B11.  This is likely due to the partitions being constructed as concrete block.  This large variance from the benchmark in B11 also likely contributes significantly to whole building performance  mentioned 4 1   previously.  For all other elements Lasserre performs reasonable well, the brightest spot being foundations at у ϱϬй improvement.    4 2   The GWP versus con struction cost scatter plot had to omit some buildings because they did not have a cost listed at time of publication.  A number of buildings, Math, CEME, Chemistry South, were listed in original dollars.  They were converted to 2013 $ for this plot using the same discount rate used for Lasserre at 7.2%.  Lasserre performs relatively average to the others in this plot.  A  general consensus drawn is that older buildings tend to perform well, bottom left corner of plot.  This is likely due construction costs being relatively cheaper back then and the use of more natural materials such as wood and stone.  One important aspect to consider here is that all construction was assigned present date intensity factors.  This limitation makes the plot a somewhat unfair representation.    Figure 13. Global Warming Potential versus Construction Cost of UBC Buildings  4 3    Annex B  ʹRecommendations for LCA Use  As the scope of this study  is narrowed to a ͚cradle to gate͛ approach, EN 1579 8 modules B and C, use and end of life, are not considered.  Zepresentation of modules B and C in a ͚cradle to grave͛ analysis is recommended.  Over the lifetime of the building use impact increases, becoming the most impactful stage as the building ages.  The use impact continues to develop within the buildings lifetime, the only stage to do so.  Investigating rate of change in use imp act over time would be interesting for UBC buildings.  The growth is often observed as exponential as repair, replacement and maintenance modules accumulate more so towards the latter half of the lifetime.   A building LCA case study analysis by Ramesh et al. revealed the use stage accounted for, on average, 80 - 9 0% of the total life cycle energy.  The end of life stage in traditional LCA analysis has not been  given great consideration.  Its impact on the total life cycle is less than the other modules but offers opportunity to minimize  product stage impact in future buildings through salvaging and recycling materials.  As the product stage impact is easily the greatest in ͚cradle to gate͛ analysis the end of life stage gains more emphasis in establishing this mutual relationship for future construction.  Decision making at the early stages of design is important for establishing a sustainable building.  Once the building in constructed it is increasingly difficult (logarithmic relationship) to reap benefits from retrofitting design flaws.  By establishing sustainable decision making at the design stage  all the materials, construction techniques and en ergy efficiency measures are embedded to reduce impacts along the entire life cycle.      4 4    Figure 14. LCC over Lifetime of Building27  For these aforementioned early design strategies to succeed it is paramount to establish an integrated design approach.  That is a design where all contributing parties act cohesively and collectively.  Figure 15. Integrated Design28                                                           27 Storey, Stefan.  (November 4th, 2013) Fundamentals of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Application. CIVL 498C Lecture Slides.  28 Automated Buildings. (January 2007). Coordinating the Design of Integrated Building Technology Systems. Retrieved from http://www.automatedbuildings.com/news/jan07/articles/sinopoli/061 2 281201 58sinopoli.htm     4 5   As the build ing industry moves towards greater sustainable design and as LEED certification gathers backing LCA will be increasingly important  in building design.  Heather Goodland of Brantwood Consulting gave a lecture which commented on how the shift towards more energy efficient building policies within Vancouver will decrease the operating carbon yet a slight increase in embodied carbon results from technology advancements and greater demand of materials (thicker insulation, triple glazing, etc.).  This shift in energy will be best accounted for through the city adopting a LCA approach to building design, otherwise embodied effects could get out of hand.  The accompanying figure to her presentation depicts this shift in line with the City of sancouver ͚greenest city͛ ϮϬϮϬ and ϮϬϱϬ targets.  Figure 16.  Operation and embodied energy policy framework for multi-family residential buildings in Vancouver, Canada29                                                            29 Brantwood Consulting.  (October, 2013).  UBC  LCA Class Lecture  ʹGreen Building Trends and Projects. Retrieved from http://civl498c.wikispaces.com/Class+Presentations+and+Handouts  4 6   The availability of quality data for buildings is limited.  Many material databases such as Athena are restricted.  Their embedment in LCA tools is the extent to the user, a black box so to s peak.  As a result, LCA certified materials such as environmental product declarations (EPD) are very limited and many existing products claim to be sustainable on little to no grounds.  Developing a transparent, informative and vast building product database is needed to make LCA more accessible to the masses.  As LCA is still a relatively new tool in sustainable design there are not a lot of peer reviewed studies to draw robust benchmarks from.  This is the purpose and intent of this study;  provide UBC with a benchmark building to plan future sustainable design from.   Impact categories assessed in LCIA are oft en prioritized by regional values.  What is important in Los Angeles (Smog Potential) may not be as important in Vancouver (GWP).  How do you get people to agree on what should take priority in the LCA study.  There may  also be trade- offs between two priority competing categories that breeds indecision.  Sometimes political and economical values force priority on an impact category that may not be the most impactful.  Take for example the mandate that all institutions must be carbon- neutral in British Columbia.  There may be an instance where human health is impacted greater than GWP yet GWP wins out in favour of policy and less carbon off - sets to purchase.  How do you decide?   The general method is to form a consensus through a survey of professionals and LCA experts.  This  discrepancy in how to best prioritize impacts brings a level of unprofessionalism into LCA and may hinder its industry wide acceptance.   C/s> ϰϵϴC has begun a frameworŬ in developing >C operation for buildings at UBC.  Establishing ͚cradle to gate͛ studies on all major campus buildings has then led further to benchmark development.  The next step in this framework would logically be to continue the progression by including EN 15978 modules B and C, use and end of life.  To investigate these modules some specific data would be required.  Establishing a baseline energy consumption and peak demand profile for each building would 4 7   be a first step.  Data mining for UBC buildings has been present for a number of years so the data is available.  Pulse Energy has e nergy monitoring systems providing real time and archived data to this regard for UBC.  Gathering data on building occupancy and occupant behaviour would also be beneficial for the use stage as it is a main driver.  As mentioned in section 2.2, occupant st udies have already begun within UBC buildings.   The end of life stage is easily modeled by the Impact Estimator however the degree of uncertainty within it could be minimized with UBC specific data.  Investigating demolition practices such as materials salvaged, % recycled content and transportation distances to processing facilities are needed to develop module C.  Involvement of the life cycle costing (LCC) aspect would also contribute to the development of LCA at UBC.  Costing would provide another perspective to the analysis by allowing cost benefit relationships to emerge, presenting methods at achieving high environmental performance at minimal cost.  Bringing economic and sociology students on board to pursue LCC and social life cycle assessment in conjunction with the existing work by CIVL 498C is recommended as a way to grow the UBC network.  Policy framework incorporating LCA into UBC technical specifications and sustainability initiatives such as the climate action plan is needed to bring LCA into common practice.  A requirement that new building design have an LCA study performed with it along with environmental criteria is one example.   Including a continuous optimization plan to monitor the actual construction a nd use to the design would be another valuable initiative.  This would create a closed loop system with feedback to the model and others going forward to increase prediction performance.      4 8   Annex C  ʹAuthor Reflection   After completing this study a point of reflection can be  taken to discuss and address the experience, interests, concerns and gained attributes.  Prior to enrolling in this course I had been exposed to the concept of LCA and its framework in a graduate level course within the Clean Ener gy Engineering Daster͛s program.  This exposure in  CEEN 523 -  Energy and the Environment was similar in material but different in application.  CEEN 523 had a term project as well but it was on any professor approved topic.  I worked with two other students on d eveloping a carbon footprint study comparing the proposed UBC microbrewery and Molson Canadian on the functional unit of one standard beer keg.   I noticed a lot of similarities in the two courses material and method of presenting which I found effective in both cases.  Beginning by establishing why LCA is important and where it can be used grabbed my attention as to how useful and powerful a tool LCA can be.  The core of this course looked at each step within an LCA.  Beginning with the topics of goal and scope, and then proceeding in order to inventory analysis, impact assessment, uncertainty analysis, and economic evaluation was an effective means at delivering the material.  The team work assignments I found to be quite effective at instilling the concepts both in a practical and written manner.  The specific case of carrying out a short LCA of paper planes and spheres was a project that I found quite informative with a lot of take - away points.  In particular to the term project, I found the incorporation of the software , Impact Estimator and On Screen Take - off, two valuable acquired skills.  I feel confident in using this software and the value it holds in performing a professional LCA study.  In many courses, you are introduced to software but never have a chance to apply it;  this was not the case in this course.   Comments regarding CEAB graduate attributes are list ed below.  The study was good at requiring many of these attributes to not only be introduced but also developed and applied throughout.     4 9               Graduate Attribute         Name  Description Select the content code most appropriate for each attribute from the dropdown menu Comments on which of the CEAB graduate attributes you believe you had to demonstrate during your final project experience.            1  Knowledge Base  Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. N/A = not applicable              2  Problem Analysis  An ability t o use appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions. A = applied  The LCA study was quite a vast amount of information that needed to be processed.  Altho ugh difficult by parts, the collective process was challenging           3  Investigation  An ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information in order to reach valid conclusions. IDA = introduced, developed & applied  The methodology of LCA was introduced in lectures. It was then developed and applied to the specific case of building the UBC- LCA building database.            5 0   4  Design An a bility to design solutions for complex, open - ended engineering problems and to design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate attention to health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmental, cultural and societal considerations. N/A = not applicable  For the most part the study used established solutions in emerging LCA software tools to solve the engineering problems.           5  Use of Engineering Tools An ability to create, select, apply, adapt, and extend appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities, from simple to complex, with an understanding of the associated limitations. D = developed  Knowledge of On Screen Takeoff was gained and appl ied to aid in validating model inputs and finding inaccuracies that could be improved.  Impact Estimator was applied to revamp the building model in CIQS sorted format.  Both software tools were valuable learning tools           6  Individual and Team Work  An ability to work effectively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi- disciplinary setting. A = applied  Individual  work was predominantly on project.  Group work was done in class that supported learning principles.  Often in the group work the team had a significant amount of work to deliver on time.  This required effective use of time and a cohesive method to be successful.  I felt this team work was useful in applying leadership and membership skills            5 1   7  Communication An abil ity to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and with society at large. Such ability includes reading, writing, speaking and listening, and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, and to give and effectively respond to clear instructions. DA = developed & applied Following definite project instructions required clear and effective communication.  Taking previous documentation of the project to develop a renewed report was applied.  APA formatt ing was applied throughout the written report.           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. IA = introduced & applied Making sure that all assumptions and assertions in the report were professional and responsible was applied to ensure the report was not misleading.             9  Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment An ability to ana lyze social and environmental aspects of engineering activities.  Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, social, health, safety, legal, and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship. IDA = introduced, developed & applied  This LCA course and study involved a triple bottom line analysis.  As LCA pertains to a holistic approach the aspects of the environment, health, economic were addressed.  Although cultural and social aspects were not applied they were introduced in lectures as social life cycle costing.  Uncertainty analysis although not directly applied to the report was introduced in lectures and developed in the report with discussion.   5 2             10  Ethics and Equity  An ability to apply professional ethics, accountability, and equity.  A = applied  Professional engineering ethics and accountability were applied to the report.  Results are to be published.           11  Economics and Project Management  An ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including project, risk, and change management into the practice of engineering and to understand their limitations. I = introduced  Introduced in lectures as Life cycle costing but not developed or applied in report.           12  Life - long Learning  An ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world in ways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancement of knowledge.  DA = developed & applied I took this course to expand my knowledge base in an emerging engineering discipline.  I hope to find work where I involve LCA in dai ly activities and this course has helped gain confidence in comprehending the LCA language and application.                     5 3   Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions   IE Inputs Document - Lasserre Lasserre Building - GFA 5276m2                 CIQS Type III Element Quantity Units Assembly Type Assembly Name Input Fields Known/Measured Information IE Inputs (Imperial) A11 Foundations 1055 m2              Footings Footing_ Strip_Basement_F A_A              Length (ft) 59 59        Width (ft) 1.60 1.60        Thickness (in) 10 10        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar #4 #4        Footing_Strip_Basement_F C_C              Length (ft) 345 345        Width (ft) 2.20 2.20        Thickness (in) 12 12        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar #5 #5       Footing_Strip_Basement_F E_E              Length (ft) 88 88        Width (ft) 2 2        Thickness (in) 12 12        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar #4 #4      Footing_Strip_Basement_F H_H              Length (ft) 27 27        Width (ft) 2.6 2.6        Thickness (in) 19 19        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar #4 #4       Footing_Strip_Basement_F       5 4   M_M        Length (ft) 64 64        Width (ft) 2.2 2.78        Thickness (in) 19 19        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar #6 #6       Footing_Strip_Basement_F P_P              Length (ft) 123 123        Width (ft) 2.00 2.00        Thickness (in) 12 12        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar #4 #4        Footing_Strip_Basement_F  R_R              Length (ft) 66 66        Width (ft) 2 2        Thickness (in) 12 12        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar #4 #4       Footing_Strip_Basement_F S_S              Length (ft) 47 47        Width (ft) 1.60 1.60        Thickness (in) 8 8        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar #4 #4      Footing_Pad_Basement_F_A_1 Length (ft) 16 16       Width (ft) 6.75 12.8       Thickness (in) 36 19       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #6 #6      Footing_Pad_Basement_F_A_2 Length (ft) 16 16       Width (ft) 6.75 12.8       Thickness (in) 36 19       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #6 #6 5 5        Footing_Pad_Basement_F_A_3 Length (ft) 16 16       Width (ft) 6.75 12.8       Thickness (in) 36 19       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #6 #6        Footing_Pad_Basement_F_A_4 Length (ft) 16 16       Width (ft) 6.75 12.8       Thickness (in) 36 19       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #6 #6        Footing_Pad_Basement_F_A_5 Length (ft) 16 16       Width (ft) 6.75 12.8       Thickness (in) 36 19       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #6 #6       Footing_Pad_Basement_F_A1_1 Length (ft) 16 16       Width (ft) 6.75 12.8       Thickness (in) 36 19       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #6 #6       Footing_Pad_Basement_F_A1_2 Length (ft) 16 16       Width (ft) 6.75 12.8       Thickness (in) 36 19       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #6 #6       Footing_Pad_Basement_F_B Length (ft) 15 15       Width (ft) 5.5 9.57       Thickness (in) 33 19       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #6 #6      Footing_Pad_Basement_F_ Length (ft) 2.75 2.75 5 6   C       Width (ft) 2.75 2.75       Thickness (in) 12 12       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #4 #4      Footing_Pad_Basement_F_D_1 Length (ft) 2.5 2.5       Width (ft) 2.5 2.5       Thickness (in) 12 12       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #5 #5      Footing_Pad_Basement_F_D_2 Length (ft) 2.5 2.5       Width (ft) 2.5 2.5       Thickness (in) 12 12       Concrete (psi) ? 3000       Concrete flyash % ? average       Rebar #5 #5 A21 Lowest Floor Construction 1055 m2              Slab on Grade  SOG_ Basement_Plan Area Length (ft) 160 160.00        Width (ft) 71 106.50        Thickness (in) 6 4        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average A22 Upper Floor Construction 4220 m2              Floor              Floor_Concrete Precast Double T_Main floor Number of Bays 16 16        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        With or W/out Concrete Topping W W        Live Load ? 75      Floor_Concrete Precast Double T_Second floor              Number of Bays 16 16        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        With or W/out Concrete Topping W W        Live Load ? 75 5 7        Floor_Concrete Precast Double T _Third floor              Number of Bays 16 16        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        With or W/out Concrete Topping W W        Live Load ? 75      Floor_Concrete_PrecastDouble T_Fourth Floor              Number of Bays 16 16        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        With or W/out Concrete Topping W W        Live Load ? 75    Roof Main Floor_Roof_ Concrete Precast Double T              Number of Bays 16 16        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        With or W/out Concrete Topping ? W/O        Live Load ? 75        Envelope Category ? Gypsum Board        Envelope Material ? 1/2'' Gypsum fiberglass Board        Thickness ? 0      Roof_Second Floor_Roof_ Concrete Precast Double T              Number of Bays 16 16        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        With or W/out Concrete Topping ? W/O        Live Load ? 75        Envelope Category ? Gypsum Board        Envelope Material ? 1/2'' Gypsum fiberglass Board        Thickness ? 0      Roof_ Third Floor _Roof_ Concrete Precast Double T             Number of Bays 16 16       Bay Size 20 20       Span Size 35.5 35.5       With or W/out Concrete Topping ? W/O 5 8         Live Load ? 75       Envelope Category ? Gypsum Board       Envelope Material ? 1/2'' Gypsum fiberglass Board       Thickness ? 0      Roof_Fourth floor_Roof_ Concrete Precast Double T              Number of Bays 16 16        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        With or W/out Concrete Topping ? W/O        Live Load ? 75        Envelope Category ? Gypsum Board        Envelope Material ? 1/2'' Gypsum fiberglass Board        Thickness ? 0    Column/Beam Column_Concrete_Basemnet_9             Number of Beam 35 35       Number of Columns 64 64       Floor to Floor Height 7 7       Bay Size 10 10       Span Size 20 20       Live Load ? 75       Column_Concrete_Main Floor_6              Number of Beam 10 10        Number of Columns 60 60        Floor to Floor Height 13 13        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        Live Load ? 75      Column_Concrete_Second Floor              Number of Beam 10 10        Number of Columns 60 60        Floor to Floor Height 12 12        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        Live Load ? 75      Column_Concrete_Third Floor              Number of Beam 10 10 5 9          Number of Columns 60 60        Floor to Floor Height 12.2 12.2        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        Live Load ? 75    Stairs  Footing_Stairs_ Main Floor              Length (ft) 187 187        Width (ft) 5.60 5.60        Thickness (in) 10.5 10.5        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar #4 #4 A23 Roof Construction 1055 m2              Column/Beam              Column_Concrete_Fourth Floor              Number of Beam 10 10        Number of Columns 60 60        Floor to Floor Height 8.6 8.6        Bay Size 20 20        Span Size 35.5 35.5        Live Load ? 75      Column_Concrete_Fourth Floor small bay size              Number of Beam 92 92        Number of Columns 70 70        Floor to Floor Height 8.6 8.6        Bay Size 10 10        Span Size 9.1 9.1        Live Load ? 75    Roof               SOG_ Roof_Plan Area 4''              Length (ft) 157.00 157.00        Width (ft) ? 44.30        Thickness (in) 4 4        Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average       SOG_ Roof_Plan Area 8''             Length (ft) 120 120        Width (ft) 19.25 19.25        Thickness (in) 8 8 6 0          Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average A31 Wall Below Grade 798 m2               Basement Walls  Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_ A_A              Length (ft) 62 62.00        Height (ft) 13.6 13.6        Thickness (in) 8 8        Concrete (psi) ? 3000         Concrete flyash % ? average         Rebar           Envelope Category   Sheathing       Material   Gypsum       Thickness   5/8''       Envelope Category   Insulation       Material   Polystyrene Extruded       Thickness   1''       Envelope Category ? Vapour Barrier       Material ? Poly       Thickness ? 6       Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_ C_C              Length (ft) 362 452.5        Height (ft) 13.6 13.6        Thickness (in) 10 8        Concrete (psi) ? 3000         Concrete flyash % ? average         Rebar   #5       Envelope Category   Sheathing       Material   Gypsum       Thickness   5/8''       Envelope Category   Insulation       Material   Polystyrene Extruded       Thickness   1''       Envelope Category ? Vapour Barrier       Material ? Poly       Thickness ? 6       Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_ M_M              Length (ft) 44 55.00        Height (ft) 17 17        Thickness (in) 10 8        Concrete (psi) ? 3000         Concrete flyash ? average 6 1   %         Rebar           Envelope Category   Sheathing       Material   Gypsum       Thickness   5/8''       Envelope Category   Insulation       Material   Polystyrene Extruded       Thickness   1''       Envelope Category ? Vapour Barrier       Material ? Poly       Thickness ? 6      Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_  P_P             Length (ft) 94 117.5       Height (ft) 15 15       Thickness (in) 10 8       Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar          Envelope Category   Sheathing      Material   Gypsum      Thickness   5/8''      Envelope Category   Insulation      Material   Polystyrene Extruded      Thickness   1"      Envelope Category ? Vapour Barrier      Material ? Poly      Thickness ? 6      Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_ R_R             Length (ft) 64 64.00       Height (ft) 7 7       Thickness (in) 8 8       Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar          Envelope Category   Sheathing      Material   Gypsum      Thickness   5/8''      Envelope Category ? Vapour Barrier      Material ? Poly      Thickness ? 6      Envelope Category   Insulation 6 2        Material   Polystyrene Extruded      Thickness   1.5''      Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_ S_S             Length (ft) 45 73       Height (ft) 7 7       Thickness (in) 8 8       Concrete (psi) ? 3000        Concrete flyash % ? average        Rebar          Envelope Category   Insulation      Material   Polystyrene Extruded      Thickness   1.5''      Envelope Category ? Vapour Barrier      Material ? Poly      Thickness ? 6      Envelope Category   Sheathing      Material   Gypsum      Thickness   5/8''          A32 Walls Above Grade 2020 m2                Wall_Concrete Block_Main Floor_Exterior             Length (ft) 546 546       Height (ft) 13 13        Rebar 0 0      Envelope Envelope Category Insulation Gypsum Board      Material 1/2 "Gypsum Fiberglass board 1/2'' Gypsum fiberglass Board      Thickness 0 0      Envelope Category Cladding Cladding      Material Brick_Concrete Brick_Concrete      Thickness 0 0      Envelope Category Insulation Insulation      Material Fiberglass Batt  Fiberglass Batt       Thickness 2" 2"      Door Number of Doors 0 0      Window Number of Windows 40 40                   Wall_Concrete Block_Second Floor_Exterior             Length (ft) 463 463       Height (ft) 12 12 6 3          Rebar 0 0      Envelope Envelope Category Insulation Gypsum Board      Material 1/2 "Gypsum Fiberglass board 1/2'' Gypsum fiberglass Board      Thickness 0 0      Envelope Category Insulation Insulation      Material Fiberglass Batt  Fiberglass Batt       Thickness 2" 2"      Envelope Category Cladding Cladding      Material Brick_Concrete Brick_Concrete      Thickness 0 0      Door Number of Doors 0 0      Window Number of Windows 40 40                     Wall_Concrete Block_Third Floor_Exterior              Length (ft) 463 463        Height (ft) 12.2 12.2         Rebar 0 0      Envelope Envelope Category Insulation Gypsum Board      Material 1/2 "Gypsum Fiberglass board 1/2'' Gypsum fiberglass Board      Thickness 0 0       Envelope Category Insulation Insulation       Material Fiberglass Batt  Fiberglass Batt        Thickness 2" 2"       Envelope Category Cladding Cladding       Material Brick_Concrete Brick_Concrete       Thickness 0 0       Door Number of Doors 0 0       Window Number of Windows 46 46                     Wall _Concrete Block_Fourth Floor_Exterior              Length (ft) 400 400        Height (ft) 8.6 8.6         Rebar 0 0      Envelope Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board      Material 1/2 "Gypsum Fiberglass board 1/2'' Gypsum fiberglass Board      Thickness 0 0 6 4         Envelope Category Insulation Insulation       Material Fiberglass Batt  Fiberglass Batt        Thickness 2" 2"       Envelope Category Cladding Cladding       Material Brick_Concrete Brick_Concrete       Thickness 0 0       Door Number of Doors 0 0       Window Number of Windows 85 85 B1 Partitions and Doors 3013 m2                 2.2.2  Wall_Concrete Block_Main Floor_Interior              Length (ft) 467 467        Height (ft) 13 13         Rebar 0 0       Door Number of Doors 12 12       Window Number of Windows 0 0                     2.2.2  Wall_Concrete Block_Second Floor_Interior              Length (ft) 665 665        Height (ft) 12 12         Rebar 0 0       Door Number of Doors 22 22       Window Number of Windows 0 0                     2.2.2  Wall_Concrete Block_Third Floor_Interior              Length (ft) 665 665        Height (ft) 12.2 12.2         Rebar 0 0       Door Number of Doors 22 22       Window Number of Windows 0 0                     Wall_Concrete Block_ Fourth Floor_Interior              Length (ft) 977 977        Height (ft) 8.6 8.6         Rebar 0 0       Door Number of Doors 31 31       Window Number of Windows 0 0                     2.1.3  Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_       6 5   Basement_E_E        Length (ft) 80 80        Height (ft) 13 13        Thickness (in) 8 8        Concrete (psi) ? 3000         Concrete flyash % ? average         Rebar #5         Envelope Category   Cladding       Material   Brick - Modular (metric)       Thickness   -       2.1.4  Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_ G              Length (ft) 27 33.75        Height (ft) 6.90 6.90        Thickness (in) 10 8        Concrete (psi) ? 3000         Concrete flyash % ? average         Rebar #5 #5       2.1.5  Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_ H_H              Length (ft) 23 23        Height (ft) 3.5 3.5        Thickness (in) 8 8        Concrete (psi) ? 3000         Concrete flyash % ? average         Rebar           2.1.7 Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_  P_P              Length (ft) 27 33.75        Height (ft) 15 15        Thickness (in) 10 8        Concrete (psi) ? 3000         Concrete flyash % ? average           Rebar          6 6   IE Assumptions Document - Lasserre             Level 3 CIQS Element Assembly Type Assembly Name Specific Assumptions A11 Foundations     1.1  Concrete Footing          Footing _Strip_Basement_F H_H In The Impact Estimator there is a limitation range of [7.5", 19.7"] for acceptable thickness. In order to find the width corresponding to the corrected thickness the Volume of original footing is calculated and equated to the volume of the corrected footing, to calculate the width related to the corrected volume:  ϭΎϮ.ϲΎϮϯ;ftͿс;ϭϵ;inͿͿШϭϮΎϮϯ;ft)*Corrected Width  Corrected Width=1.6 (ft)       Footing_Strip_Basement_F M_M In The Impact Estimator there is a limitation range of [7.5", 19.7"] for acceptable thickness. In order to find the width corresponding to the corrected thickness the Volume of original footing is calculated and equated to the volume of the corrected footing, to calculate the width related to the corrected volume:  ϮΎϮ.ϮΎϰϰ;ftͿс;ϭϵ;inͿͿШϭϮΎϰϰ;ft)*Corrected Width  Corrected Width=2.78 (ft)  6 7        Footing_Strip_Basement_F K_K Since the dimensions and material for Footing_Strip_Basement_ F K_K is the same as Footing_Strip_Basement_ F P_P .I have accounted K_K the same as P_P.       Footing_Stairs_Concrete_TotalLength/Thickness The thickness of the stairs was estimateded to be 10.5" based on the cross-section structural drawings     Footing_Pad_Basement_F_A_1-5 & Footing_Pad_Basement_A1_1-2 Impact Estimator thickness limitation [7.5'' to 19.7''] resulted in assuming 19'' thickness ,as per strip footings, and adjusting width from 6.75' to 12.8' in order to maintain equal volume.     Footing_Pad_Basement_F_B Impact Estimator thickness limitation [7.5'' to 19.7''] resulted in assuming 19'' thickness ,as per strip footings, and adjusting width from 5.5' to 9.57' in order to maintain equal volume. A21 Lowest Floor Construction         SOG SOG Basement Plan Area       The thickness of the slab is 6''.  Input adjusted to 4'' for IE limitations resulted in the width being adjusted from 71' to 106.5'. A22 Upper Floor Construction         Floors / Roofs     6 8     Each level was modeled as 2x Concrete Double T (1 floor , 1 roof) to best represent the actual concrete hollow-core panels that are not a modeling option in IE.  The Impact Estimator calculated the thickness of the material based on floor width, span, concrete strength, concrete fly ash content and live load.  The assumptions that had to be made in this assembly group were:  1. Live Load  Live load for the main, second, third and fourth floors were assumed to be 75 psi. This assumption was based on the below reasoning  In the drawing the live loads are specified as;  Classroom: 60 psi Corridor: 100 psi Offices: 50 psi   Since there is no option in the Impact Estimator to separate these live loads, The average of the specified live loads was taken which is62.5 psi and 75 psi which is the closet option to it has chosen from the Impact Estimator 45, 75 and 100 psi options.  2. Concrete Strength  Concrete strength was assumed to be 3,000 psi. In the drawings there is no specified concrete strength; however they mention that light weight concrete has been used. Light weight concrete generally has strength around 3000 psi which is the reason behind my assumption regarding concrete`s strength.  3. Fly Ash Percentage  Fly Ash percentage was assumed to be average, as discussed in the lectures.     Floor_Concrete Precast Double T_Main Floor For simplicity the elevation of main floor is assumed to be constant in all classrooms. 6 9     Columns and Beams   The method used to measure column sizing was completely depended upon the metrics built into the Impact Estimator.  That is, the Impact Estimator calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the following inputs;   • Number of beams,  • Number of columns, • Floor to floor height,  • Bay size,  • Supported span  • Live load    Since the live loading was not located within the Lasserre building information, a live load of 75psf on all four floors and the basement level were assumed. A23 Roof Construction        General       • Live Load  Live load for the roof of the building was assumed to be 45 psi since it is the closet to the specified live load in the drawings which is 40 psi.  • Concrete Strength  Concrete strength was assumed to be 3,000 psi. In the drawings there is no specified concrete strength; however they mention that light weight concrete has been used. Light weight concrete generally has strength around 3000 psi which is the reason behind my assumption regarding concrete`s strength.  • Fly Ash Percentage  Fly Ash percentage was assumed to be average, as discussed in the lectures.    Columns and Beams     7 0       Column _Concrete_Fourth Floor Small Bay Size For the fourth floor since there are two different span and bay sized. Two conditions for the beam and column section have been created in order to address this size difference. The first set which is the same as other floors and the other set of column and beam which is modeled in the IE as the Column_Concrete_fourth Floor small bay size has different number of columns and beams with different bay and span size.  Because of the variability of bay and span sizes in the fourth floor, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(7101 SF) / (70)]  = 10.1 ft   Slab        SOG Roof Plan Area 4'' & 8'' 8'' slab lies within the 4'' perimeter.  8'' area was subtracted from 4''+8'' area and then 4'' Length and adjusted area were used to determine an effective 4'' width of 44.3' A31 Walls Below Grade       7 1     Walls       The length of the concrete cast-in-place walls needed adjusting to accommodate the wall thickness limitation in the Impact Estimator. It was assumed that interior steel stud walls were light gauge (25Ga) and exterior steel stud walls were heavy gauge (20Ga).     Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_M_M • This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 8” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator for Cast in Place walls.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/8”]  = (44’) * [(10”)/8”]  = 55 (ft)  • 6 mm vapour barrier were assumed for all of the Footing_ Strip_ Basement foundations.     Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_ G  • This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 8” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator for Cast in Place walls.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/8”]  = (27’) * [(10”)/8”]  = 33.75 (ft) 7 2     • 6 mm vapour barrier were assumed for all of the Footing_ Strip_ Basement foundations.       Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_ C_C • This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 8” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator for Cast in Place walls.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/8”]  = (362’) * [(10”)/8”]  = 452.5 (ft)   • 6 mm vapour barrier were assumed for all of the Footing_ Strip_ Basement foundations.      Wall_Cast in Place _Strip Footing_ Basement_  P_P • This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 8” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator for Cast in Place walls.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/8”]  = (121’) * [(10”)/8”]  = 151.25 (ft)  • Since the dimensions and material for Footing_Strip_Basement_ F K_K is the same as Footing_Strip_Basement_ F P_P .I have accounted K_K the same as P_P. 7 3     • 6 mm vapour barrier were assumed for all of the Footing_ Strip_ Basement foundations.     All Walls Below Grade  3/4'' Gypsum, on 1'' EPS insulation and 6 mm vapour barrier were assumed for all below grade walls. A32 Walls Above Grade           Wall _Concrete Block_MainFloor_Exterior The entrance doors for the main floor exterior walls were assumed as windows because they are doors made out of glass.     All  Assembly assumed as 2'' Fibreglass batt with 1/2'' gypsum board and brick cladding B11 Partitions       7 4      Wall_ConcreteBlock_Main Floor_Interior • The interior walls were assumed to be concrete block the same as the exterior walls.  • The ½” gypsum board were assumed on both sides of the interior walls.  • The main floor plan was very vague and unreadable. Therefore the interior walls length is what I picked up by walking through the building.    Wall_ConcreteBlock_Second Floor_Interior • The interior walls were assumed to be concrete block the same as the exterior walls.  • The ½” gypsum board were assumed on both sides of the interior walls.     Wall_ConcreteBlock_Third Floor_Interior • The interior walls were assumed to be concrete block the same as the exterior walls.  • The ½” gypsum board were assumed on both sides of the interior walls.     Wall_ConcreteBlock_Fourth Floor_Interior • The interior walls were assumed to be concrete block the same as the exterior walls.  • The ½” gypsum board were assumed on both sides of the interior walls.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108897/manifest

Comment

Related Items