UBC Undergraduate Research

LCA of new UBC Pharmacy building Preston, Kevin 2013-11-18

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Preston_Kevin_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 2.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108898.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108898-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108898-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108898-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108898-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108898-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108898-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108898-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108898.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportKevin PrestonLCA of New UBC Pharmacy BuildingLife Cycle Assessment and Critical Review for a New Building atUBC in Vancouver, BCCIVL 498CNovember 18, 201310651549University 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      University of British Columbia  LCA of New UBC Pharmacy Building Life Cycle Assessment and Critical Review for a New Building at UBC in Vancouver, BC Prepared for Rob Sianchuk and CIVL 498C By Kevin Preston on 18 November 2013    Page 1     Page 2   E xecutive Summary   The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the environmental impacts of the new building and to critically review the previous study done by Amiri and Hashemi.  It also  contributes to a benchmark  study, against which new building projects can be compared.  This report is intended for an all those who wish to know more about LCA at UBC, and in part icular of the Wharmacy Building͖ nedžt years͛ students; and for evaluation as the term project in CIVL 498C .   This project is undertaken at a high level of detail; the  results are sorted into major element groups, which are entire classes of elements grouped together.  The high level element groups are A11 Foundations, A21 Lowest Floor Construction , A22 Upper Fl oor Construction, A23 Roof Construction , A31 Walls Below Grade , A32 Walls Above Grade , and B11 Partitions .  This is congruent with the CIQS MasterFormat . Another element of scope is the limitation of the system boundary.  For this project, the system boundary only considers the life cycle from cradle to gate; i.e. the process chain including extraction of raw materials, transportation, refining, transportation of refined materials, production into products, transportation to the construction site, and then construction.  The use and the end- of- life stages are not considered.  This limitation in scope reflects the time budget that the students are expected to put into the project. One of the first tasks of this project was to sort the provided files into the  major element groups.  After being sorted, the model needed to be critically reviewed.  It was found that almost no changes needed to be made, few changes could be made with the current level of acceptable accuracy, and those changes that could be made could not be made with the available resources.  After the critical review, the results were interpreted and compared against the benchmarks set by the class.  The figure to the right shows the results of this assessment, normalized against the benchmarks, per unit of gross floor area.  The New Pharmacy Building benefitted from economies of scale, modern technology, and leading environmental design standards to out- perform the average building of its class at UBC.  To further explain, any green bar in that figure that exceeds 1.00 means that the corresponding impact category is that many times greater than the average academic building at UBC, per square meter of gross floor area.   This figure shows that te building performed much better than its peers. Page 3     Page 4   Ta bl e of Cont ent s  Executive Summary  ....................................................................................................................................... 2  List of Tables  ................................................................................................................................................. 5  List of Figures  ................................................................................................................................................ 5  List of Abbreviati ons ..................................................................................................................................... 6  1.0 General Information on the Assessment  ................................................................................................ 7  Purpose of the assessment  ....................................................................................................................... 7  Identification of building  ........................................................................................................................... 7  Other Assessment Information  ................................................................................................................. 8  2.0 General Information on the Object of Assessment  ................................................................................ 8  Functional Equivalent  ............................................................................................................................... 8  Reference Study Period  ............................................................................................................................ 9  Object of Assessment Scope  ................................................................................................................... 10  3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment  ....................................................... 11  System Boundary .................................................................................................................................... 11  Product Stage  ...................................................................................................................................... 12  Construction Stage .............................................................................................................................. 13  4.0 Environmen tal Data .............................................................................................................................. 13  Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 13  Data Adjustments and Substitutions  ...................................................................................................... 13  Data Quality  ............................................................................................................................................ 14  5.0 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results  ....................................................... 15  Global Warming Potential  ....................................................................................................................... 16  Ozone Layer Depletion Potential  ............................................................................................................ 16  Eutrophication Potential  ......................................................................................................................... 16  Acidification Potential  ............................................................................................................................. 17  Smog Pot ential ........................................................................................................................................ 17  Human Health Criteria  ʹRespiratory Effects .......................................................................................... 17  Fossil Fuel Consumption ......................................................................................................................... 18  6.0 Model Development  ............................................................................................................................. 18  Differences in Gross Floor Areas Between Authors  ................................................................................ 18  7.0 Communication of Assessment Results  ................................................................................................ 21  Page 5   Life Cycle Results  ..................................................................................................................................... 21  Annex A -  Interpretation of Assessment Results  ........................................................................................ 25  Benchmark Development  ....................................................................................................................... 25  UBC Academ ic Building Benchmark  ........................................................................................................ 25  Annex B -  Recommendations for LCA Use  .................................................................................................. 28  Scope Limitation  ..................................................................................................................................... 28  Applications in Design  ............................................................................................................................. 28  Data Issues  .............................................................................................................................................. 28  Issues in Applicat ion................................................................................................................................ 28  Using LCA at UBC ..................................................................................................................................... 29  Annex C -  Author Reflection  ........................................................................................................................ 32   Lis t of Tables  Table 1. Additional Information for LCA Report  ........................................................................................... 8  Table 2. Functional Equivalent Definition Template.  .................................................................................... 9  Table 3. Building Definition Template......................................................................................................... 11  Table 4. The five types of data uncertainty.  ............................................................................................... 15  Table 5. Differences in Measurement of Gross Floor Area  ......................................................................... 19  Table 8.  Bill of Materials  ............................................................................................................................. 21  Table 6. Total Building Contribution to Impact Categories  ......................................................................... 21  Table 7. Building Contributions to Impact Categories Broken Down by Major Element Group  ................ 23  Lis t of Figures  Figure 1.  Display of modular information for the different stages of the building assessment  ................ 10  Figure 2. Pie charts showing the proportions of contributions to the impact categories for the Pharmacy Building. ...................................................................................................................................................... 24  Figure A - 1.  Impact Category Comparison for Total Building, Showing Raw Numbers  .............................. 26  Figure A - 2.  Impact Category Comparison, Normalized to Benchmark  ...................................................... 26  Figure A - 3.  Building Cost vs. Global Warming Potential  ............................................................................ 27  Figure B- 1.  Comparison of Environmental  Performances, Normalized, and per Square Meter GFA  ........ 30  Page 6   Lis t of Abbreviations  Several abbreviations were used in this report.  For quick reference, please see them below:  CIQS: Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors  ISO: International Organization for Standardization  EPD: Environmental Product Declaration  GFA: Gross Floor Area, usually in square meters.  LCA: Life Cycle Assessment  LCI: Life Cycle Inventory  LCIA : Life Cycle Impact Assessment  LEED: Leaders in Energy and Environmental Design  PCR: Product Category Rule  UBC: University of British Columbia    Page 7   1.0 G enera l Info rma tio n on the Ass essment  Environmental performance of the Eew Wharmacy Building at UBC͛s sancouver campus was re- analyzed and critically reviewed from September to November, 2013  by Kevin Preston, under the guidance of Rob Sianchuk, and using the LCA study completed by Helia Amiri a nd Mahshid Hashemi in April 2012 .  The work done for this report was intended to give the correct parts of study more authority, make corrections to the work , and provide additional interpretation to the LCA results . P ur p os e of the ass e s s men t  The purposes of this study and the original study by Amiri and Hashemi are to evaluate the environmental impacts of the new building.i  They also exist  in the context of being part of a larger study at UBC, of which the intention is to create a baseline for the environmental performance of the academic buildings on campus.  UBC plans to make their future buildings perform to better and better environmental performance standards, so this project gives UBC a tool to make planning better.  This is a life cycle assessment with an added critical review.  The purpose of the critical review is to   Review the study by Amiri and Hashemi.   Confirm the correct information and adjust the incorrect information to increase the legitimacy of the study.  Separate the data into MasterFormat categories to help standardize the project data for use in the larger project. This LCA study is intended be a part of a much larger study , called the UBC LCA Database Project, which aims to collect LCA data about the buildings on campus to create a baseline for which future project can be compared.   This report is intended for an audience that includes all those who wish to know more about LCA at UBC, and in particular of the Wharmacy Building.  /t͛s also being prepared for nedžt years͛ students as well, who will take the next step in this project.  This report is also being prepared for the completion of course work for the CIVL 498C course . This report is intended to be used next year by future LCA students.  Because of this, accuracy is paramount and assumptions are clearly stated and explained.   In spite of the nee d for accuracy, this project is still high level.  The take - offs were done at a lower component element group level and grouped into major component groupings.  &or edžample, “&oundations” is one of the major element groups, and it contains all of the foundations.  Those foundations can be broken down further into individual elements, and then further into material and work elements.   I den tif ic ati on of bu i l ding  The New Pharmacy Building is six storeys above ground and two below, with a total  floor area of 2 46, 182  square feet , or 22 ,871  square meters .  I t is rectangular on the outside, with a flat roof and various overhangs, while the interior is full of angled walls and diagonal stairways.  Inside the building, there are offices, classrooms, laboratories, lecture halls, a café, a museum, a pharmacy, and a data Page 8   centre.  The underground portion of the building extends beyond the main entrance, where it is covered by a plaza.   The building is in the health sciences region of the campus, located south of the hospital and the new Health Sciences Building.   The address is 2405 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3.   The project manager was Nick Maile, the architects were Saucier and Perrotte Archite cts & Hughes Condon Marler Architecs, and the construction was completed by Ledcor Construction.  The building is LEED Gold Certified, and has won the 2012 Canadian Architect Award of Excellence.  Part of what makes it sustainable are its use of a high- efficiency irrigation system, its technical measures to reduce potable water use inside the building, the use of materials high in recycled content, and the diversion of 75% of waste from the landfill during construction.  It was opened on 18 September  2012  and had a budget at completion of $155 230 000 ii.  Ot her Ass es s men t I nfor mati o n  Additional assessment information can be found in the table below.  Table 1. Additional Information for LCA Report  Client for Assessment  Completed as coursework in the c ivil engineering technical elective course CIVL 498C at the University of British Columbia. Name and qualification of the assessor Kevin Preston, Helia Amiri, Mahshid Hashemi, of the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Applied Sciences  Impact Assessment method Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, Verion 4.2.0208 (Public Release) Point of Assessment  This building was completed in 2012 and assessed in 2012.  Period of Validity  5 years.  Date of Assessment  Completed in April 2012  Verifier  Student work, s tudy not verified. 2.0 Genera l Info rma tio n on the Object of Ass essment  F uncti ona l Eq uiva le nt  According to the original report  by Amiri and Hashemi , the functional units are as follows:   “Wer generic post- secondary academic building square meter constructed.  Per specific post - secondary academic building square meter constructed.   Per generic post - secondary academic building cubic meter constructed.  Wer dollar spent on the investment.” This variety of units allows us to compare the studied buildings on campus with different purposes in mind.  For example, when comparing the appli cation for the design of a new lecture theatre as part of a new building, the theatre can be separated out and compared separately with other theatres.  This Page 9   allows designers to focus on aspects of the building during the detailed design to determine what is within acceptable parameters and what needs to be made greener. Area measurements  are important because area is the most useful parameter of buildings; floor space is used for everything done in a building.  Cubic meters are useful because they indicate air space heating requirements and  three- dimensional size . The per- dollar spent measurement can be used in conjunction with the gross floor area unit to determine how much the university is willing to spend to reduce impacts.  It allows the campus to quantify its environmental impact by dollar spent, which gives the decision- makers another tool to use to make sus tainable decisions on campus; m ost importantly, the evaluation of new building proposals. Table 2 . Functional Equivalent Definition Template.  Aspect of Object of Assessment Description Building Type Pharmaceutical Sciences Building  ʹInstitutional, academic, with service amenities. Technical and functional requirements  Buildings at UBC must meet the requirements of the BC Building Code, the Eational Building Code of Canada, and UBC͛s dechnical 'uidelines.  To highlight a few requirements from these: Buildings must be designed for a 100 year service life, and  meet at least LEED Gold Certification.  Pattern of use  The building is designed to accommodate researchers, students, faculty, and staff, who are regular users of the basement and second to sixth floors.  The main floor is used by students for studying, lecture space, and a café.  Lectures tend to last for one to three hours, after which there is a flux in the use: students enter and leave all at once.  The building is not likely used at night, except perhaps by researchers with ongoing experiments, or vet erinary staff taking care of animals.  Required service life  The service life for all new buildings at UBC is set at 100 years.  Re fer ence Stu dy Per iod  The reference study period in EN 1597 8 specifies that we define the LCA study in terms of life cycle stages A through C and include Module D as well.  This study focuses only on Module A, which includes   A1 Raw Materials Supply   A2 Transport (of raw materials)   A3 Manufacturing   A4 Transport (of manufactured products)   A5 Construction Installation Process.  The study excludes Module B, the Use Stage; Module C, the End of Life Stage; and Module D, Supplementary Information beyond the Building Life Cycle.   The exclusion is by choice; The scope is Page 10   being limited in order to allow the authors to focus on getting the material quantities correct, rather than worry about all of the aspects.   Figure 1.  Display of modular information for the different stages of the building assessment  The required service life of all buildings at UBC is 100 years.  This is written into the technical guidelines for architects and engineers.iii Obj ec t of Ass es s m en t Sco p e  The building is six storey s high with two levels of basement.  The construction site includes the frontage improvements, the creation of a berm across from the main entrance, and various landscaping improvements, but they are not part of the scope of the assessment.  This assessment only includes everything within the building envelope.  Excavations for footings and basements are not included because excavation  is a highly variable process and can͛t be determined from the drawings.  The plaza is included because it forms the roof of the interstitial basement. The table below shows the space allocated to the seven major element groups.  This data was developed by Amiri and Hash emi     Page 11   Table 3 . Building Definition Template. CIVL 498C Level 3 Elements Description Quantity (Amount) Units A11  Foundations Wall and column footings, pile caps, column pedestals, perimeter insulation, and crawl space walls.  Also includes special foundations like piling, caissons, and rafts. 568  m2 A21  Lowest Floor Construction Slabs on grade, waterproofing, vapour barrier, insulation, and slab thickening below interior bearing walls. 1911  m2 A22  Upper Floor Construction Structural frame, suspended floors and decks, inclined and stepped floors, expansion joints, ramps and stairs, fireproofing, all columns and beams supporting the floor. 3548  m2 A23  Roof Construction Structural frame, suspended roof decks, firestopping, skylights, waterproofing, insulation, and all columns and beams supporting the roof. 6795  m2 A31  Walls Below Grade  Exterior wall construction below grade and above lowest floor slab on grade, interior furring, wallboard, insulation and vapour barrier, windows and doors, structural components of walls below grade. 1351  m2 A32  Walls Above Grade  Exterior wall construction, exterior finishing, framing, wallboard, insulation, vapour barriers, blockings, windows and doors, structural components of those walls, and curtain walls. 2616  m2 B11  Partitions  Interior fixed partitions, wallboard, balustrades and railings, interior balconies, interior windows and glazing, movable partitions, structural partitions, all interior doors and finishings. 4524  m2 3.0 Sta tement of Boundaries and Scena rios Used in the Assessment  Sys t em Bou ndar y  For this project, the system boundary surrounds only Module A of EN 15798.  Module A contains the Product and Construction Processes stages, shown in  Figure 1 .  EN 1579 8 requires that we use A, B, C, and D, and that we describe any deviations from it.   Page 12   For Module A 1 - 3, the Product stage, the process inputs are raw materials and energy from their source locations.  Outputs are the products, stored at the location where they are produced.   In Module A 4 - 6, the Construction Processes stage, the process inputs are those products produced in A 1 - 3, including transportation to site, and the outputs are waste and the building itself.   Product Stage  The product stage is that stage from raw material supply to manufacturing, including transportation of raw materials to manufacturing plants.  The inputs at this stage are raw materials and energy, and the useful outputs are manufactured products.  For exa mple, a product such as a steel partition stud would have basic inputs of iron ore, coal, and energy.  In addition, there are many ancillary inputs, such as diesel fuel for trucks delivering the massive material, the entire operation of the mines, the enti re operation of the rail and trucking business es, and the entire operation of the smelter.  Outputs include the useful steel, but also wastes such as slag, emissions to air, water, and land, noise pollution, and heat.  All of this information is included i n the LCA via the Athena LCI database.  Extraction of raw materials, production, and transportation are accounted for by the Athena model by selecting “sancouver” as the location.  dhe choice of location calibrates the model to locally- collected data sets.  The same is true for the collection and transport of wastes. The manufacturing of products has different economics, standards, and trends in different parts of the country and the continent, and changes with time.  Athena keeps up to date with these and u ses the most recent data set. The location setting also helps the model calibrate to differences.   Energy produced across the continent is produced by different means depending on where it is; for example, BC and Quebec are well known for hydroelectric en ergy, while Ontario is better known for nuclear energy and lberta for energy from fossil fuels.  Canada͛s utility crown corporations buy and sell energy to each other and to the companies in the USA as the price fluctuates with demand, so energy has an environmental consequence for those who produce it as well as those who buy it.  Athena takes care of this with the location factor.  This study does not consider the use phase, so energy plays a very small role. Ancillary materials, packaging, and pre - products are considered in the same way as trends are considered by the model: by keeping up to date with such things and allowing users to download the latest models. Waste disposal sites are located all over the continent, and not ever landfill site is the same: some are made with older technology, while others are simply governed by different standards, and still others experience higher amounts of one type of refuse compared to another.  Each landfill site therefore has a different allocation to each environmental impact category.   This is accounted for by choosing a location for the project. Page 13   C on struct ion Stage  The construction stage starts with the transportation of products from their manufacturers to the construction site, and ends after those products have been installed on site. The construction process involves a lot of ancillary materials, such as formwork, packaging, and fuel, which get used in the placement of the products.  For example, to make a concrete wall on the third floor, a crane might be needed to lift formwork to that floor, and then a concrete truck and a pump truck are used to pump the concrete into the forms.  These large trucks use up a lot of energy and require water to wash them down.  There are significant emissions to air, water, and land in the construction stage. LCI data were collected by Athena for trucking fleets and railroad systems across the continent.  These data are used in the Impact Estimator when the location is selected.   During the construction phase, different levels of effort tend to be taken by different contractors to divert wastes from the landfills, reduce the impacts of operations, and be more sustainable in general.  The Athena Impact Estimator takes an average construction industry approach, which is a conserv ative assumption.  Part of the reason for this is because Athena is a planning tool, made for use in the conceptual design when the contractor is not yet known.  Because the Pharmacy Building is a LEED Gold project, the contractor had to use sustainable practices during the construction operation, which are not accounted for in the LCA.  4.0 Environmenta l Data  Data Sourc es  This project uses two databases for the impact estimate calculation.  No additional data sources were sought, such as EPA documentation for alternative materials.  The two databases are the Athena LCI Database and the US L CI  Database. The Athena LCI Database is managed by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, and has been developed since the ͚ϵϬs, as it began to grow out of research done by Forintek Canada Corporation in collaboration with two universities and representatives from building materials industries.  ASMI was established in 1996 to separate itself from the lumber industry and gain total objectivity.  The US LCI Database is a project initiated in 2001  by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.   The database is maintained and developed by NREL, which is a US - based organization funded by a large number of stakeholder organizations.  Data Adj us tm en ts and Subs tit u tio ns  Overall, the material types and properties were very accurate.  The only way that they can be improved is by perusing the construction specifications and the LEED submission records, which are not available to me at this time.  Some assumptions made for lack of dat a include  &ly ash percentage in concrete was assumed to be “average”, because it͛s not specified on the drawings. Page 14    “Zigid insulation” was selected for walls and floors, but with no indication of type and thicŬness.  There is one type of door in the model, and it is used to represent all doors.  Doors can be wood, aluminum, or steel, so assuming one door is inaccurate, but inconsequential in the scale of the project.  &or steel stud walls, everything was assumed, from the spacing to the thicŬness, to what͛s included and the type of steel studs.  Construction specifications would help to make this more accurate.   waterproof membrane is assumed to be the thena input “polystyrene edžtruded”.  dhese are very different products: waterproof membrane is a dense, rub ber material, while extruded polystyrene is insulating foam, aka Styrofoam.   Galvanized Z - bars for the roof are included as extra materials.  This exclu des the construction operations and associated materials that go with it. Another way that the data was adjusted was in the dimensions of the inputs.  This was done because Athena requires specific inputs, such as length and width, and specific depths.  If the object is not a rectangle, or has a depth different from the available input choices, then adjustments have to be made.  One way to do this is to enter specific rectangular dimensions to keep the area, perimeter, and volume identical to the actual situation.  Consider the two equations:                             Solving those expressions for width and length yields expressions for the inputs  to Athena  in terms of area A and perimeter P:                                                Area and perimeter can be measured from the drawings, and then input into these formulas to get the appropriate Athena inputs.  If volume needs to remain the same, then simply add the volume formula         and the new variable  , depth.  After solving the equations above for width and length, solve the volume equation for depth.  Data Quali ty  Data quality is  defined by ISO 1404 4 as data of a good enough quality to enable the goal and scope to be met.  Quality is often thought of as a pass or fail criterion in this context.  For this project, the data quality can be evaluated by the following checklist, as gui ded by ISO 14044 :   The data are the most recent, available data and have been collected over a statistically significant period of time.  The data come from the geographical regions relevant to the project. Page 15    The data cover the same technology as what was used in reality.  The data have low variance, and thus sufficient precision to yield accurate results.  The measured data constitute a representative sample.  The study methodologies for collecting data were applied consistently among studies.  The data is reproducible.  The data sources are available and reputable.  Uncertainty is low enough, and specified. Where there are gaps in data, those gaps have to be explained.  Gaps in data are explained in the previous section and in the Inputs and Assumptions spreadsheet.  There are five types of uncertainty in data, summarized by the following table:  Table 4. The five types of data uncertainty. Type Description Example Data Uncertainty Uncertainty aroused by the discrepancies between collection methodologies, allocation methods, or assumptions made by the collector. Mass allocation vs. economic allocation.   Outputs can be made to look more environmentally friendly by adjusting the allocation.  Having two justifiable ways of allocation is a way of “fidžing” the results. Model Uncertainty Uncertainty introduced by making assumptions during modelling Linear vs. non - linear modeling, or extrapolating data when a relationship beyond the scope of data points is unclear. Temporal Uncertainty Uncertainty in the effects of a process over time, due to different methods and technologies put into place, or seasonal variations. Sampling during the winter compared to the fall could give different results.  Changes in equipment used at a plant would give different results, even if data has been collected for a sufficiently long time.  Spatial Uncertainty Regional differences between factories, distribution of emissions, environmental sensitivity, or the like.  For example, a prevailing wind could cause air emissions on the North side of a city to be much worse than on the South side. Variability Uncertainty Uncertainty brought about by differences between factories and technologies that produce the same product. Two steel producers could make the same beam, but the materials could come from different ends of the world. 5.0 Lis t of Ind icators Used for Ass es sment and Express io n of Resu lts  The Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings was used to prepare this as sessment.  There are seven impact categories to report on:   Global Warming Potential   Ozone Layer Depletion    Eutrophication  Acidification   Smog  Page 16    Human Health  ʹRespiratory  Fossil Fuel Consumption Globa l Warmin g Pot ent ial  Global warming potential is widely held by the CIVL 498C class as the most important.  The category indicator for this is CO 2 e, or carbon dioxide equivalent , as chosen by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Carbon dioxide has the ability to absorb radiation reflected from the Ea rth͛s surface, preventing it from escaping into space.  This gradually increases the temperature of the planet, leading to climate change and other effects.   Some of the major effects are the increased rate of melting of glaciers, increased precipitation, decreased precipitation, depletion of fresh water resources, increased populations of parasites such as the mountain pine beetle and killer bees.  The depletion of alpine glaciers leads to the loss of fresh water, while the depletion of continental glaciers (i.e. ice caps) leads to rising sea levels and a disruption in the thermohaline circulation.  Climate change has such a wide range of effects, but they are all rooted in the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Ozon e La yer Depl eti on Pote ntia l  Ozone layer depletion was a big problem in the 1980s, after decades of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) disposal had accumulated in the upper atmosphere.  CFC is a catalyst in the reaction of ultraviolet radiation with ozone.  The reaction breaks apart t he ozone molecule into oxygen gas, while leaving the CFC as- is.  The CFC molecule will eventually break down in the upper atmosphere.  The ozone layer was depleting until the emergency banning of CFC products in 1987 by the Montreal Protocol.  Since then, m ore products have been phasing out, but not all nations are complying.  In 2006, the ozone hole grew rapidly due to an unusually warm year, and set a record for the biggest ozone hole ever.  Such holes in the ozone lead to increased ultraviolet radiation passing through the ozone layer, which leads to very dangerous human health effects, such as skin cancer, melanoma, cataracts, severe sunburns to humans and animals, damage to cyanobacteria, and damage to plants. The indicator for ozone depletion potential is 10 - 11  kilograms of CFC equivalent.  This characterization is chosen by the World Meteorological Organization.  Eu tr op hic ati on Pot e ntial  Eutrophication is the change that a water body experiences as it increases in algae population.  The change is often unnatural, and caused by an influx of nutrients such as carbon, nitrogen, and especially phosphorous.   The process of eutrophication begins with an influx of nutrients, which causes an algae bloom.  Then, the algae die and rot, which depletes the oxygen in  the water.  The solid mass prevents spring and fall turnover, so oxygen - rich water can͛t reach the bottom of the water body.  Eow the bottom is permanently anoxic, and the process of stratification begins.  Stratification is when this dying algae matter sinks to the anoxic layer year after year, slowly filling up the water body.   Page 17   Anoxic conditions are highly acidic, as anaerobic bacteria produce hydrogen sulphide and iron reduces from the 3+ state to the 2+ state.  This water is toxic to all life.  If it is a source of drinking water, then it can͛t be used. Eutrophication potential͛s category indicator is Ŭilograms of nitrogen eƋuivalent, as measured by the US Environmental Protection Agency.  Ac idi fica ti on Pote nti al  Acidification is the decrease in pH of a  region due to acid rain.  Acid rain is caused by acid - forming gases in the atmosphere mixing with water vapour and rain water.  The gases get into the rain, and the rain soaks into the land, causing acidification.  Acidification can also be caused by the leaching of acids and metals into water bodies from industrial waste.   Acidification destroys ecosystems from the bottom of the food chain to the top.  It is measured in kilograms of SO 2  equivalent, as characterized by the US EPA.  Sm og Pote ntia l  Smog potential is an air emission͛s influence on the amount of smog produced in a populated area.  One of the main contributors is ozone , formed photochemically in the troposphere.  Smog is formed when nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds are released into  the air.  High temperature and sunlight increases the rate of evaporation, which leads to increased smog during the summer and on hot, clear days.   Smog can also build up during atmospheric inversions, which is when a layer of fog forms and the air is prevented from mixing and moving around by convection.  Smog builds up during an inversion because it is constantly being emitted.  It persists despite the low temperature and high humidity, finally dissipating when the fog dissipates. Smog is measured in ki lograms of ozone equivalent, as characterized by the US EPA.  It contributes to emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma, which are not only significant diseases, but can be epidemic in smoggy cities. Huma n Hea lth Crit e ria – Res pira t ory Eff ec ts  When we breathe in particulate matter, it gets stuck in our lungs.  The smaller the particle, the deeper it can go, and the deeper it goes, the harder it is to get out.  This criterion is categorized by kilograms of particulate matter equivalent to 2.5 microns in size, as d esignated by the US EPA.   Particulate matter can be toxic, sharp, or strand - shaped.  When it gets stuck in the alveoli and builds up, it blocks the movement of mucus, which reduces lung capacity and ultimately leads to breathing problems and death.  It ca n cause or worsen asthma, heart disease, bronchitis, emphysema, and pneumonia.  Page 18   F os s il Fuel C onsum p tio n  Fossil fuels are non- renewable.  By using them, we are depleting a resource that future generations could otherwise use.  Their use also contributes to global warming and air emissions that cause respiratory damage, smog, and acidification.  Fossil fuel consumption is at the root of many of these indicators.  /t͛s measured in mega Joules  (MJ), as categorized by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute.  This category indicator includes all energy derived from fossil fuels, whether it is for transportation, electricity, or the production of goods. 6.0 Model Development  This project is focussed on taking the work done by the previous authors and converting it into the level 3 elements:   A11 Foundations   A21 Lowest Floor Construction   A22 Upper Floor Construction   A23 Roof Construction   A31 Walls Below Grade   A32 Walls Above Grade   B11 Partitions  First, the take - off items had to be sorted into Level 3 Elements.  The  files sorted were the Inputs and Assumptions Spreadsheet, the On - Screen Takeoff file, and the Athena Impact Estimator file.  After being sorted, the relevant areas and life cycle results were able to be reported.  Before that could happen, though, the model needed to be critically reviewed.  It was found that   Almost no changes needed to be made   Few changes could be made with the current level of acceptable accuracy  Those changes that could be made could not be made with the available resources. Diff erenc es in Gros s Floor Areas Betw ee n Aut hors  Some of the challenges with model development were from matters of interpretation.  The previous authors and I disagree on the all ocation of gross floor area to categories.  We had to find the gross floor area used in the building, and classify it into 11 categories, as shown in the table below.    Page 19   Table 5 . Differences in Measurement of Gross Floor Area   It was challenging to classify certain rooms in one category or another.  For example, how do you categorize a museum, a café, a data centre, or an air locked  corridor with these classifications?  The challenges with these classifications are discussed below. I accounted le ss area for classrooms, offices, study rooms, and libraries, but more to testing labs, corridors, and mechanical rooms.   There is no library; Amiri and Hashemi may be counting that space as the data centre in the basement or the museum on the second floor. I accounted for much more storage.  My storage number includes chemical storage and secure file storage, which may have been included by the other authors as office space or lab space.  The washroom numbers are almost exactly the same .   This is because washrooms are clearly labeled on a drawing and there is nothing else like them.   Perhaps laundry spaces are like washrooms, but we must have made the same assumptions.  I accounted for almost half the lecture hall space, which is possibly because lecture halls span multiple floors, and I only counted them once.  I had twice as much mechanical room space, in spite of excluding all exterior space on the roof.  This is because every floor has several mechanical rooms.  Plus, the data centre was counted as a mec hanical room, and the basement had many mechanical things.  Electrical rooms were counted as mechanical rooms, but they could have been counted as something else. I accounted for vastly more hallway space.  It is possible that a lot of the office and class room space counted by the other authors included some of the hallway space that I counted towards this category.  Functional Area Typeby Kevin Prestonby Amiri and HashemiDifference divided by averageClassrooms 1498 2,460.59 48.63%Offices/Office Spaces 4099 5,493.90 29.08%Testing labs 7185 2,030.38 -111.87%Library 0 287.18 200.00%Study/Research/Prep/Computer lab rooms 0 6,170.61 200.00%Storage rooms 524 38.15 -172.85%Stairwells/Halls/ Atriums 8341 2,913.69 -96.45%Washrooms/ Locker rooms 498 498.5 0.10%Mechanical rooms 5086 2,225.00 -78.27%Auditorium/ Lecture Halls 456 753 49.13%Building Total 27687 22871 -19.05%Gross Floor Area (m2)Page 20   /t͛s also interesting to note that the building floor area is different by about ϮϬй.  / made sure not to count void spaces, nor count exterior  spaces, nor double- count spaces.  that was counted here that͛s not counted in the previous report, or what is missing there?  Re fer ence Fl ows  A reference flow is a process that is normally thought of as an object.  In this project, the reference flow is the New Pharmacy Building itself, which is a static, seemingly - unchanging monolith.  However, it is the result of an enormous array of processes that continue to flow despite the unchanging nature of the building.  Reference flows can be compared against each other.  In the UBC LCA Project, all of the buildings are reference flows.  When proposing a new building project, the bill of materials can be compared against the environmental impacts and the schedule of elemental spaces to get an idea of the parameters that the new building should fall between.  Please see the bill of materials for the New Pharmacy Building below:    Page 21   Table 8. Bill of Materials   7.0 Communica tion of Assessment Resu lts  Lif e Cycl e  Res u lts  The results of the life cycle assessment are displayed in the tables and figures below.  It was found that the upper floor construction contributed the most to all of the categories, and this is simply because it contains massively more material than the other sections.  The building has one lowest floor, and then seven upper floors, and then the roof.  Table 6 . Total Building Contribution to Impact Categories  Item Quantity Unit5/8"  Fire-Rated Type X Gypsum Board 51738.9 m25/8"  Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 495.8 m25/8"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 3477.9 m26 mil Polyethylene 4173.2 m2Air Barrier 3536.1 m2Aluminum 109.1 TonnesCedar Wood Bevel Siding 1356.2 m2Cold Rolled Sheet 1.7 TonnesCommercial(26 ga.) Steel Cladding 3879.6 m2Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 327.6 m3Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 16025.7 m3Concrete Blocks 22850.0 BlocksEPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 5390.7 kgExtruded Polystyrene 12563.0 m2 (25mm)FG Batt R11-15 86385.9 m2 (25mm)Galvanized Sheet 28.4 TonnesGalvanized Studs 148.1 TonnesGlazing Panel 545.6 TonnesHot Rolled Sheet 1.3 TonnesJoint Compound 55.6 TonnesModified Bitumen membrane 90695.4 kgMortar 436.1 m3Nails 4.7 TonnesPaper Tape 0.6 TonnesPolyiso Foam Board (unfaced) 16600.4 m2 (25mm)Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 1428.5 TonnesScrews Nuts & Bolts 20.0 TonnesSmall Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 10.0 m3Softwood Plywood 2259.9 m2 (9mm)Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 50.3 LWater Based Latex Paint 4638.0 LWelded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 6.2 TonnesWide Flange Sections 217.1 TonnesPage 22    The total building results are tabulated above.  The table shows the seven impact categories, with the building results from Athena Impact Estimator, in the category units specified by the professional organizations that determine them.  A break - down of the same results into major element groups is below.   Fossil Fuel 170,604,833.58 (MJ)Global Warming 15,895,786.97 (kg CO2eq)Acidification 115,862.93 (moles of H+eq)HH– Respiratory 55,660.65 (kg PM10eq)Eutrophication 9,499.08 (kg Neq)Ozone Layer 7.11E-02 (kg CFC-11eq)Smog 1,999,890.93 (kg O3eq)Total BuildingPage 23   Table 7 . Building Contributions to Impact Categories Broken Down by Major Element Group   This data is also in pie form, shown below with percentages.  It can be seen that the upper floor construction contributes the most to each category, with one exception: the Human Health  ʹRespiratory category, in which the highest contribution is in A31 Exterior Below Grade.  This is mainly because of a difference of materials used, because of the construction process, and because of comparable masses.    Fossil Fuel ConsumptionGlobal Warming AcidificationHH– Respiratory EutrophicationOzone Layer Depletion Smog(MJ) (kg CO2eq) (moles of H+eq) (kg PM10eq) (kg Neq) (kg CFC-11eq) (kg O3eq)A11 Foundations 5,521,593.99 808,385.96 5,207.14 1,950.51 232.67 4.46E-03 115,093.13A21 Lowest Floor 1,968,694.78 278,225.99 1,815.19 643.26 81.20 1.48E-03 40,968.09A22 Upper Floors 106,945,369.86 9,140,461.95 60,866.98 16,861.98 6,971.48 3.66E-02 1,177,332.87A23 Roof 7,074,637.75 576,394.17 3,645.81 1,132.68 240.40 3.92E-03 72,663.08A31 Exterior Below Grade 31,409,884.85 3,332,384.23 27,173.72 19,163.22 1,290.87 1.63E-02 404,188.62A32 Exterior Above Grade 7,449,104.43 903,534.34 10,707.97 12,240.56 264.69 3.32E-03 115,304.77B11 Partitions 10,235,547.91 856,400.33 6,446.12 3,668.43 417.77 5.03E-03 74,340.37Page 24     Figure 2 .  Pie charts showing the proportions of contributions to the impact categories for the Pharmacy Building.  These pie charts show the seven impact categories, starting at the top with A11 Foundations, and moving clockwise in the pie and in the reading direction in the legend, to A21 Lowest Floor and then A22 Upper Floors, which is the biggest slice in most cases. For further information about the study, please consult the annexes:   Annex A  ʹInterpretation of Assessment Results: Describes how the  concept of benchmarking in LCA adds to the interpretation of the results.   Annex B  ʹRecommendations for LCA Use : Things to consider when using LCA in building design.   Annex C  ʹuthor Zeflection: dhis author͛s personal reflection on >C and the C/s> ϰϵϴC course.  (Not related to this section, but still very important.)   Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions: Tables showing the actual inputs and assumptions used in the model.  Page 25   Ann ex A -  Interp reta tion of Assessment Resu lts  First, the benchmark de velopment concept will be discussed, and then its application to UBC academic buildings. Benc hmark Deve lop men t  A benchmark is a standard point of reference, against which things can be compared.  In LCA, this means performing many LCA studies for similar buildings and compiling the results.  This involves further categorization along various axes; for academic buil dings at UBC, this could include:   Building faculty: Arts, Science, Engineering, Business, etc.  This is relevant because each faculty has different requirements for room sizes, types of facilities, and architectural styles.   LEED Certification: LEED Certif ied, LEED Silver, LEED Gold, LEED Platinum, and Living Building Challenge.   It is important to be able to compare buildings at the same standard.   Amenities: Gyms, cafés, shops, club space, etc.  If a building contains amenities, it will change the function of the building, so amenities are important to note.  Building size  ʹnumber of floors, gross floor area, and length- width- height aspect ratio.  This is important because economies of scale drastically affect the building performance.  Aspect ratio affects the energy use requirements.  Benchmarking is not only useful when comparing similar things, but it can also be useful for extrapolation.  For example, a new building at the Simon Fraser University might be built with high LEED standards, and comparable to UBC buildings of the same size and function.   lthough it͛s at a different university, it can still be compared because it͛s in the same geographical region, albeit at a higher altitude and for a different client.  In order for benchmarks to be usable, t hey must be made to the same standard.  In the UBC LCA Project, that standard is ISO 14044, which outlines the standards by which an LCA report should be written.   /t͛s very important to have the same goal and scope among all of the projects because that͛s what makes it fundamentally comparable.  For example, this project excludes the use and end of life stages.  If a project for a similar building used those stages, then it would looŬ a lot worse.  dhey wouldn͛t be comparable. Another important difference between buildings is their function.  For example, the Pharmacy Building is full of testing labs, chemical storage, air locks, and offices.  Although it has two lecture theatres, those theatres take up less than 10% of the building.  Compare this to anothe r academic building: the Buchanan Building.  Buchanan͛s main purpose is for lectures and classes.  /t has classrooms and offices, but no testing facilities.  It serves a very different function than the New Pharmacy Building.  To compare them as similar buildings is possible, as long as one keeps in mind those inherent differences.  UBC Aca de mic Buil d ing Benc hmark  Benchmarks were developed using the academic buildings, including the Pharmacy Building.  The benchmark is shown in the figure below in grey and t he Pharmacy Building is shown in Green.  Note that the units are different, by orders of magnitude, from the standard.  This was done for visualization only.  Page 26    Figure A - 1.  Impact Category Comparison for Total Building, Showing Raw Numbers  As shown above, the Pharmacy Building has a much higher impact than the average building on campus.  dhat͛s because the building is much larger than the average building.  Specifically, it is 22,871 square meters compared to the average of 8,544 square meters .  For comparisons, it͛s better to show the impacts by square meter.  In the figure below, each impact category is converted to per - square meter, and then divided by the benchmarŬ͛s per- square meter result.    Figure A - 2.  Impact Category Comparison, Normalized to Ben chmark  Page 27   As shown in the figure above, the Pharmacy Building performs better than the average academic building at UBC.  The ozone layer depletion category is zero, because zero was obtained.  In the figure below, the building cost is compared with a single i mpact category: global warming potential. Note that this uses the totals rather than the per - square meter numbers.   Figure A - 3.  Building Cost vs. Global Warming Potential  As shown in the chart above, the New Pharmacy Building is vastly more expensive tha n other buildings and has a much higher global warming potential.  The linear regression extended out to the pharmacy building vaguely shows where the building should plot; however, the R 2  is only 0.29, which is far from statistically significant.   Page 28   Ann ex B -  Reco mmenda tio ns for  LCA U se  This LCA should be used for comparisons of academic buildings at the UBC campus.  This section discusses the considerations for using this LCA in any other purpose.  Sc o pe Limi tat io n  The first limitation for using this LCA is  that it was developed using only Module A of EN 1597 8.  Because Modules B, C, and D are excluded, any comparison should also exclude those modules.  The more modules an LCA includes, the higher the environmental impact.  In the future, this LCA will be ex panded to include those modules, because they are important for accuracy and completeness. Ap plica ti ons in Des ign  In the conceptual design stage, many different ideas are tested against each other.  Some ideas are touted as “green” or “greener than Option y”.  >C is a way of proving and Ƌuantifying those claims. Data Is s ues  Technology is changing all of the time; new materials are being produced, new products are getting environmental performance data, and their preceding processes are changing.  Companies start up and die out all of the time, so producers are always changing.  Transportation changes modes, types, and distances as global economics change.  All of this data has to be kept up to date, or else the model becomes outdated.  In addition, from the  time the conceptual design is formalized to the time it gets built, this change is still going on.  As such, LCA reports are estimates at best.  When new materials are being proposed at the conceptual design stage, they might not be in Athena yet.  If that͛s the case, then the performance has to be measured outside of thena.  To do this:  1.  Model a similar element in Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, and then export to Excel all impact categories in a report.  Call this Table 1.  2.  Export the bill of materi als for that element, and then model the same element in the Extra Materials section.  This excludes construction work, so you will need to play with the numbers to get the two elements to match.  Export this Extra Materials data to Excel and pasted it underneath Table 1.  Call this Table 2.  3.  Find an EPD (Environmental Product Declaration) for the product that you are trying to model.  Copy the format of dable Ϯ and clear the data, then enter the EWD͛s data in each impact category.  Make sure that the data y ou input is unitary.  Call this Table 3.  4.  Copy Table 1 underneath Table 3 and call it Table 4.  The values for this table are equal to Table ϭ͛s values, plus the unitary values of dable ϯ multiplied by the Ƌuantities that maŬe up dable Ϯ. After data has bee n exported from Athena for the result for the full building, apply the changes made here to that data. Is s ues in App lica ti o n  Each client has a different understanding, or valuation, or prioritization, of the impact categories.  For example, one client migh t be morally concerned with global warming, and unconcerned about the Page 29   others; another client might have a financial interest in reducing their smog- causing air emissions due to environmental monitoring and fines.   Additionally, the Impact Estimator gives out numbers, or quantities of chemical equivalents, which are somewhat intangible.  This reinforces the need to have a benchmark.  Clients are more interested in being greener than their competitors, rather than choosing an option that has an array of intangible numbers that are lower than some other set of intangible numbers. Us ing LC A at UBC  /t͛s very easy to use >C at UBC.  Zight now, we have a very good approdžimate benchmarŬ for buildings at UBC, similar to the scatter plot in Figure A - 3 .  That figure has only one impact category out of seven showing, and by million dollars rather than gross floor area.  For a full comparison, see the two figures at the end of this section.  dhe figures show all of the “adžes”, or environmental impact categories, in bar chart form.  dhe comparison has to be made between buildings͖ this “forest of bars” against another, and then by specifics.  There is a relationship between size and cost; generally, the larger the building, the more expensive it is.  It tends to follow ro ughly a fractional exponential  curve as economies of scale kick in.  For example, doubling the size of a small building could quadruple the cost, while doubling the size of a large building could only double the cost.  The relationship between impact categories, cost, and size, is much more linear.  Construction operations can benefit from economies of scale, which in turn reduces the impact at larger scales.  In general, it can be expected that the impact categories are somewhat linear with size and a fractional exponential with cost.  Page 30    Figure B- 1.  Comparison of Environmental Performances, Normalized, and per Square Meter GFA  Page 31    Figure B- 2.  Comparison of Environmental Performances, Normalized , and per Million Dollars Spent    Page 32   Ann ex C -  Autho r Reflectio n  This annex is my own personal reflection.  As such, I allow myself to write informally and more candidly.  First, the banal details, and then my personal background, and then my review of the course:  This course ran from September to November, 2013, and is ca lled CIVL 498C  ʹLife Cycle Assessment.   It was taken at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver as a three credit elective for my final year in the Bachelor of Applied Science in Civil Engineering Degree program.  / am a “fourth- year” student in the civil engineering degree at UBC.  /͛m also a transfer student.  / started this journey at BCIT by taking the Diploma of Technology in Civil Engineering.  After that two - year diploma, I worked for two years as a Civil Design Technologist, designing transp ortation infrastructure and performing traffic studies under the direction of an engineer.  After that, I took a Certificate in Advanced Project Management from Langara College because I had noticed that everyone in the engineering office was some sort of project manager; the competency is important.  Immediately following the certificate, I moved to Saanich and attended Camosun College for the Advanced Diploma in Civil Engineering Bridge, which is a bridging program that, when paired with my diploma from BCIT, allowed me to go directly into third year at UBC.  dhus, although this is my “fourth year”, it is not my fourth year on this path of education. My previous exposure to sustainability and LCA has been exclusively through courses taken at my schools.  I  have other experience, though:  I have been involved with Scouts Canada for more than half of my life, during which I learned a lot about camping and nature.  I can identify and use many of our native plants.  /͛m very fascinated with the natural world.  It is what keeps me interested in LCA.  /͛ve been especially interested in the >C of currency͖ in particular, when / spend a dollar, what is the environmental impact?  How does it relate to my lifestyle?  When I receive income from the government or from an employer, how much of their impacts do I inherit?  Also, because currency flows in  loops through the economy, where do you set the system boundary?  In order to avoid an extensive discussion of the CEAB Graduate Attributes, I will pick the top two that I  demonstrated, and use examples in the dialogue.  The first CEAB Graduate Attribu te to discuss is Investigation.  “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.” I have brought a lot of investigative experience with me into this course and have used it at various times.  For example, when investigating the service life, I had to figur e out where I could find that data.  Since UBC is not part of the City of Vancouver, it must be governed by some other body.  That body is the university itself, so their design criteria must be available through them.  I found the criteria online at www.technicalguidelines.ubc.ca, and a search of those guidelines yielded several documents that discuss service life.  There are four that require a service life of 100 years: metals, wood, concrete, and Page 33   masonry.  These are also the four main structural building materials.  It follows, then, that the service life of buildings at UBC is 100 years.   Another example of investigative skills demonstrated is in the use of the ISO 14044.  Codes can be extraordinarily  long, technical, and confusing, but with the right mindset, they can be mastered.  I skimmed through it with a highlighter, keeping a few questions in mind, and marked relevant sections.  After skimming through the document, I went back to those sections and used them in conjunction to figure out what my answer would be.  By skimming that code that one time, I was able to go back to it another time to find an answer, and do it faster.  This is a skill I learned in a law class at BCIT, and developed it further in this course. The second of the top two CEAB skills to demonstrate is communication.  “Communication: An ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and with society at large. Such ability includes reading, writing, speaking and listening, and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, and to give and effectively respond to clear instructions.” This entire report is an example of my communication skills.  From tables and figures sandwic hed by explanation to the discussion of impact categories, I have demonstrated the appropriate skill and tact that an engineer should have.  I developed this skill while working at the design firm after graduating from BCIT.  Transportation engineering is all about governance, or the balancing of needs; the client wants a cheap system, the users want an efficient system, and engineering ethics maintains that it has to be a safe system.  These are all competing priorities, and when the report is written, the engineer has to be aware that what is written can be interpreted differently by those different stakeholder groups.                                                              References for This Report i Life Cycle Assessment of UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences Building: CIVL 498E Final Report.  Helia Amiri & Mahshid Hashemi.  UBC 2012.  ii UBC Public Affairs (18 September 201 2). UBC Opens New $133M Pharmaceutical Sciences Building.  Retrieved from http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/09/18/ubc - opens- new- 133m - pharmaceutical- sciences- building/ iii UBC (2013).  UBC Technical Guidelines. www.technicalguidelines.ubc.ca   ‡š–’ƒ…–•–‹ƒ–‘”’—–•ƒ†••—’–‹‘•InputsKnown/Measured IE InputsA11 Foundations 1.2  Concrete Footing1.2.1  Footing_F5Length (ft) 54.9 54.9Width (ft) 6.1 6.97Thickness (in) 21.7 19Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #6 #61.2.2  Footing_F8Length (ft) 14.4 14.4Width (ft) 7.2 9.70Thickness (in) 25.6 19Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #6 #61.2.3.  Footing_F3Length (ft) 19.2 19.2Width (ft) 4.8 4.8Thickness (in) 17.7 17.7Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 & 6 #61.2.4  Footing_F4Length (ft) 59.4 59.4Width (ft) 4.1 4.1Thickness (in) 13.8 13.8Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.5  Footing_F1Length (ft) 18.8 18.8Width (ft) 9.4 15.58Thickness (in) 31.5 19Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #7 #61.2.6  Footing_F2Length (ft) 34 34Width (ft) 8.5 12.35Thickness (in) 27.6 19Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #7 #61.2.7  Footing_F7Length (ft) 14.8 14.8Width (ft) 5.4 5.4Thickness (in) 17.7 17.7Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 & 6 #61.2.8  Footing_F6Length (ft) 13.1 13.1Width (ft) 6.6 8.20Thickness (in) 23.6 19Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #6 #61.2.9  Footing_F10Length (ft) 12.8 12.8Width (ft) 6.4 7.31Thickness (in) 21.7 19Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.10  Footing_F9Length (ft) 5.4 5.4Width (ft) 4.1 4.1Thickness (in) 17.7 17.7Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.11  Footing_SF1Length (ft) 315.23 315.23Width (ft) 2 2Thickness (in) 9.8 9.8Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.12  Footing_SF2Length (ft) 31.38 31.38Level 3 GroupingAssembly GroupAssembly TypeAssembly NameInput FieldsInput ValuesKnown/Measured IE InputsLevel 3 GroupingAssembly GroupAssembly TypeAssembly NameInput FieldsInput ValuesWidth (ft) 2.6 2.6Thickness (in) 9.8 9.8Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.13  Footing_1400mm_LeftBasementLength (ft) 52.73 52.73Width (ft) 52.73 152.97Thickness (in) 55.12 19Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #7 #61.2.14  Footing_700mm_SmallLeftBasementLength (ft) 18.41 18.41Width (ft) 18.41 26.71Thickness (in) 27.56 19Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #7 #61.2.15  Stairs_Concrete_TotalLengthLength (ft) 207.03 207.03Width (ft) 3.67 3.67Thickness (in) 14 14Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #5A21 Lowest Floor Construction 1  Foundation1.1  Concrete Slab-on-Grade1.1.1 SOG_125mmLength (ft) 116.08 116.08Width (ft) 116.08 116.08Thickness (in) 4.9 4Concrete (psi) 3000 3000Concrete flyash % - average1.1.2 SOG_200mmLength (ft) 56.86 56.86Width (ft) 56.86 56.86Thickness (in) 9.8 8Concrete (psi) 3000 3000Concrete flyash % - average1.1.3  SOG_150mmLength (ft) 61.90 61.90Width (ft) 61.90 61.90Thickness (in) 4.9 4Concrete (psi) 3000 3000Concrete flyash % - averageA22 Upper Foor Construction 3  Columns and Beams3.1  Concrete Column3.1.1  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_BasementNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 6 6Floor to floor height (ft) 12 12Bay sizes (ft) 16.17 16.17Supported span (ft) 16.17 16.17Live load (psf) - 753.1.2  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_GroundLevelNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 38 38Floor to floor height (ft) 12 12Bay sizes (ft) 17.35 17.35Supported span (ft) 17.35 17.35Live load (psf) - 753.1.3  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Level2Number of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 41 41Floor to floor height (ft) 12 12Bay sizes (ft) 17.92 17.92Supported span (ft) 17.92 17.92Live load (psf) - 753.1.4  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Level3Number of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 45 45Floor to floor height (ft) 12 12Bay sizes (ft) 17.1 17.1Supported span (ft) 17.1 17.1Live load (psf) - 754  Floors4.1  Concrete Suspended Slab 4.1.1  Floor_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mmFloor Width (ft) 1271.28 1271.28Span (ft) 30 30Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageKnown/Measured IE InputsLevel 3 GroupingAssembly GroupAssembly TypeAssembly NameInput FieldsInput ValuesLife load (psf) - 756 Extra Basic Materials6.1 Steel6.1.1  XBM_Columns_HSS_(Total Sum)Hollow Structural Steel (Tons) - 13.02A23 Roof Construction 5  Roof5.1  Concrete Suspended Slab 5.1.1  Roof_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mmRoof Width (ft) 379.37 379.37Span (ft) 30 30Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageLife load (psf) - 75Envelope Category Roof Envelopes Roof EnvelopesMaterial Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 ply Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 plyThickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Polyisocyanurate Foam Polyisocyanurate FoamThickness 3.93 3.93Category Vapour Barrier Vapour BarrierMaterial - Polyethylene 6 milThickness - -5.2  Steel Joist Roof 5.2.1  Roof_SteelJoist_PenthouseRoof Width (ft) 3554.22 3554.22Roof Length (ft) 17.35 17.35Decking Type Dens Deck Roof Board -Decking Thickness 5/8 5/8Steel Gauge - 18Joist Type - 1 5/8 x 6Joist Spacing - 16Envelope Category Roof Envelopes Roof EnvelopesMaterial Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 ply Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 plyThickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Dens-GlassGoldSheathing Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Polyisocyanurate Foam Polyisocyanurate FoamThickness 3.93 3.93Category Vapour Barrier Vapour BarrierMaterial - Polyethylene 6 milThickness - -3.1.5  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Level4Number of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 45 45Floor to floor height (ft) 12 12Bay sizes (ft) 17.1 17.1Supported span (ft) 17.1 17.1Live load (psf) - 75A31 Walls Below Grade2.1  Cast In Place2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-Place_150mmLength (ft) 27.3 20.48Height (ft) 12 12Thickness (in) 6 8Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #52.1.2  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W1_200mmLength (ft) 331.87 331.87Height (ft) 12 12Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #5Envelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Rigid Insulation  Polystyrene ExtrudedThickness 1.5" 1.5"2.1.3  Wall_Cast-In-Place_W3_200mmLength (ft) 394.48 394.48Height (ft) 12 12Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #5Envelope Category Cladding CladdingMaterial Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene ExtrudedThickness 2.64" 2.64"Category Vapour Barrier Vapour BarrierMaterial - Polyethylene 6 milKnown/Measured IE InputsLevel 3 GroupingAssembly GroupAssembly TypeAssembly NameInput FieldsInput ValuesThickness - -2.1.4  Wall_Cast-in-Place_Elevator_200mmLength (ft) 30.87 30.87Height (ft) 63.33 63.33Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #52.1.5  Wall_Cast-in-Place_NoEnv_200mmLength (ft) 24.5 24.5Height (ft) 12 12Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #52.1.6  Wall_Cast-in-Place_250mmLength (ft) 38.83 32.36Height (ft) 12 12Thickness (in) 10 12Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #52.1.7  Wall_Cast-in-Place_300mmLength (ft) 12.24 10.2Height (ft) 12 12Thickness (in) 12 12Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #52.1.8  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W1_400mmLength (ft) 218.49 291.32Height (ft) 12 12Thickness (in) 16 12Concrete (psi) 3500 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #5Envelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Polystyrene Extruded Polystyrene ExtrudedThickness 1.5" 1.5"A32 Walls Above Grade 2  Walls2.3  Curtain Wall2.3.1  Wall_CurtainWall_AllGlazingLength (ft) 818.59 818.59Height (ft) 12 12Percent Viewable Glazing 100 100Percent Spandrel Panel 0 0Thickness of Insulation (in) 2.64" 2.64"Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass) Metal MetalDoor Opening Number of Doors 16 16Door Type - Aluminum Exterior Door, 80% glazing2.3.2  Wall_CurtainWall_MetalSpandrelLength (ft) 737 737Height (ft) 12 12Percent Viewable Glazing 75 75Percent Spandrel Panel 25 25Thickness of Insulation (in) 2.64" 2.64"Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass) Metal MetalDoor Opening Number of Doors 1 1Door Type - Aluminum Exterior Door, 80% glazing2.3.3  Wall_CurtainWall_TypeSF1Length (ft) 788.29 788.29Height (ft) 12 12Percent Viewable Glazing - 99Percent Spandrel Panel - 1Thickness of Insulation (in) - 0.1Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass) Metal MetalDoor Opening Number of Doors 16 16Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing B11 Partitions 2.2.3  Wall_ConcreteBlock_P2_PartitionLength (ft) 68.4 68.4Height (ft) 12 12Rebar #4 #4Door Opening Number of Doors 3 3Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing 2.4  Steel Stud2.4.1  Wall_SteelStud_Type29Length (ft) 310.49 310.49Height (ft) 3.42 3.42Sheathing Type - NoneStud Spacing - 24ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Stud Thickness - 1 5/8 x 3 5/8Envelope Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial - Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Known/Measured IE InputsLevel 3 GroupingAssembly GroupAssembly TypeAssembly NameInput FieldsInput ValuesCategory - Gypsum BoardMaterial - Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.2  Wall_SteelStud_W2Length (ft) 17.25 17.25Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type None NoneStud Spacing - 16ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 6 1 5/8 x 6Envelope Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass BattThickness 6" 6"Category Vapour Barrier Vapour BarrierMaterial Polyethylene 6 mil Polyethylene 6 milThickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.3  Wall_SteelStud_W5Length (ft) 710.42 710.42Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type Dens-GlassGoldSheathing NoneStud Spacing - 16ocStud Weight - Heavy (20Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 6 1 5/8 x 6Window Opening Number of Windows 128 128Total Window Area (ft2) 2151.68 2151.68Frame Type Fixed, Aluminum Frame Fixed, Aluminum FrameGlazing Type - Low E Tin GlazingEnvelope Category Cladding CladdingMaterial Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial CavityMateUltra Polystyrene ExtrudedThickness 2.64" 2.64"Category Vapour Barrier Vapour BarrierMaterial Polyethylene 6 milThickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Dens-GlassGoldSheathing Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.4  Wall_SteelStud_W5_SteelCladding-Add-in_LengthLength (ft) 175.58 175.58Height (ft) 3.83 3.83Sheathing Type Dens-GlassGoldSheathing NoneStud Spacing - 16ocStud Weight - Heavy (20Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 6 1 5/8 x 6Envelope Category Cladding CladdingMaterial Steel Cladding - Commercial (26 ga.) Steel Cladding - Commercial (26 ga.)Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial CavityMateUltra Polystyrene ExtrudedThickness 2.64" 2.64"Category Vapour Barrier Vapour BarrierMaterial Polyethylene 6 milThickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Dens-GlassGoldSheathing Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.5  Wall_SteelStud_P3_PartitionLength (ft) 498.24 249.12Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type None NoneStud Spacing 16 oc 16ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 1 13/16 1 5/8 x 3 5/8Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category - Gypsum BoardMaterial - Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.6  Wall_SteelStud_P4_PartitionLength (ft) 615.47 615.47Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type None NoneStud Spacing 16 oc 16ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Known/Measured IE InputsLevel 3 GroupingAssembly GroupAssembly TypeAssembly NameInput FieldsInput ValuesStud Thickness 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8Door Opening Number of Doors 60 60Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass BattThickness 3.62 3.62Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.7  Wall_SteelStud_P5_PartitionLength (ft) 306.63 306.63Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type None NoneStud Spacing 16 oc 16ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 6 1 5/8 x 6Door Opening Number of Doors 16 16Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass BattThickness 3.62 3.62Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.8  Wall_SteelStud_P6_PartitionLength (ft) 1039.14 1039.14Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type None NoneStud Spacing 16 oc 16ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8Door Opening Number of Doors 23 23Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass BattThickness 3.62 3.62Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.9  Wall_SteelStud_P7_PartitionLength (ft) 233.73 233.73Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type None NoneStud Spacing 16 oc 16ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8Door Opening Number of Doors 13 13Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8" Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"Thickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass BattThickness 3.62 3.62Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8" Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.10  Wall_SteelStud_P8_PartitionLength (ft) 179.49 179.49Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type None NoneStud Spacing 16 oc 16ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 6 1 5/8 x 6Door Opening Number of Doors 7 7Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8" Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass BattKnown/Measured IE InputsLevel 3 GroupingAssembly GroupAssembly TypeAssembly NameInput FieldsInput ValuesThickness 3.62 3.62Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8" Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.11  Wall_SteelStud_P9_PartitionLength (ft) 157.67 157.67Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type None NoneStud Spacing 16 oc 16ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 6 1 5/8 x 6Door Opening Number of Doors 3 3Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass BattThickness 3.62 3.62Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8" Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"Thickness - -2.4.12  Wall_SteelStud_P10_PartitionLength (ft) 13.67 41.01Height (ft) 12 12Sheathing Type None NoneStud Spacing 16 oc 16ocStud Weight - Light (25Ga)Stud Thickness 1 5/8 x 3 5/8 1 5/8 x 3 5/8Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass BattThickness 3.62 1.36Category Gypsum Board Gypsum BoardMaterial Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 1/2"Thickness - -2.2  Concrete Block Wall2.2.1  Wall_ConcreteBlock_W4_200mmLength (ft) 12.92 12.92Height (ft) 12 12Rebar #4 #4Envelope Category Cladding CladdingMaterial Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Polystyrene Extruded Polystyrene ExtrudedThickness 2.64" 2.64"Category Vapour Barrier Vapour BarrierMaterial Polyethylene 6 milThickness - -2.2.2  Wall_ConcreteBlock_W4_200mm_ShortBrickAddIn_LengthLength (ft) 186.01 186.01Height (ft) 3.58 3.58Rebar #4 #4Envelope Category Cladding CladdingMaterial Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)Thickness - -Category Insulation InsulationMaterial Polystyrene Extruded Polystyrene ExtrudedThickness 2.64" 2.64"Category Vapour Barrier Vapour BarrierMaterial Polyethylene 6 milThickness - -Assumptions1  Foundation1.1  Concrete Slab-on-Grade1.1.1 SOG_125mm As the SOG is not a simple rectangle, the area is messured rather than length and width. However, the area of this slab had to be adjusted so that the thickness fit into the 200mm thickness specified in the Impact Estimator.  The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in mm) inputs for this slab;  = sqrt[((Measured Slab Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness))/(200) ]  = sqrt[ (5520x 150)/(200) ]  = 58736.7mm1.2  Concrete Footing1.2.1  Footing_F1The number of this type of footing is counted and will be modeled in IE as one imput. The width of this Foundation was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 500mm.  The measured width was maintained, thicknesses were set at 500mm and the length were increased using the following calculations;Length (m)= (Counted number of foundations)*Volume (m3)/(Width(m)*500/1000)Total length(mm)=Number*Length (mm)1.2.2  Footing_F2The number of this type of footing is counted and will be modeled in IE as one imput. The width of this Foundation was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 500mm.  The measured width was maintained, thicknesses were set at 500mm and the length were increased using the following calculations;Length (m)= (Counted number of foundations)*Volume (m3)/(Width(m)*500/1000)Total length(mm)=Number*Length (mm)1.2.5  Footing_F3The number of this type of footing is counted and will be modeled in IE as one imput. The width of this Foundation was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 500mm.  The measured width was maintained, thicknesses were set at 500mm and the length were increased using the following calculations;Length (m)= (Counted number of foundations)*Volume (m3)/(Width(m)*500/1000)Total length(mm)=Number*Length (mm)1.2.6  Footing_F4The number of this type of footing is counted and will be modeled in IE as one imput. The width of this Foundation was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 500mm.  The measured width was maintained, thicknesses were set at 500mm and the length were increased using the following calculations;Length (m)= (Counted number of foundations)*Volume (m3)/(Width(m)*500/1000)Total length(mm)=Number*Length (mm)1.2.8  Footing_F5The number of this type of footing is counted and will be modeled in IE as one imput. The width of this Foundation was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 500mm.  The measured width was maintained, thicknesses were set at 500mm and the length were increased using the following calculations;Length (m)= (Counted number of foundations)*Volume (m3)/(Width(m)*500/1000)Total length(mm)=Number*Length (mm)1.2.8  Footing_F6The number of this type of footing is counted and will be modeled in IE as one imput. The width of this Foundation was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 500mm.  The measured width was maintained, thicknesses were set at 500mm and the length were increased using the following calculations;Length (m)= (Counted number of foundations)*Volume (m3)/(Width(m)*500/1000)Total length(mm)=Number*Length (mm)1.2.8  Footing_F7The number of this type of footing is counted and will be modeled in IE as one imput. The width of this Foundation was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 500mm.  The measured width was maintained, thicknesses were set at 500mm and the length were increased using the following calculations;Length (m)= (Counted number of foundations)*Volume (m3)/(Width(m)*500/1000)Total length(mm)=Number*Length (mm)1.2.8  Footing_F8The number of this type of footing is counted and will be modeled in IE as one imput. The width of this Foundation was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 500mm.  The measured width was maintained, thicknesses were set at 500mm and the length were increased using the following calculations;Length (m)= (Counted number of foundations)*Volume (m3)/(Width(m)*500/1000)Total length(mm)=Number*Length (mm)1.2.10  Footing_F10The number of this type of footing is counted and will be modeled in IE as one imput. The width of this Foundation was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 500mm.  The measured width was maintained, thicknesses were set at 500mm and the length were increased using the following calculations;Length (m)= (Counted number of foundations)*Volume (m3)/(Width(m)*500/1000)Total length(mm)=Number*Length (mm)Since the rebar is not specified, it has been assumed to be #20.1.2.13  Foundation Slab_GS 300 There are three foundations of this type. Each one has different width and length. In order to have it as one imput into IE, the width was assumed to be 3m.Considering the constant Area, the length is calculated. Length (m)= Total Area (m2)/(3)Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Specific Assumptions The Impact Estimator, SOG inputs are limited to being either a 100mm or 200mm thickness.  Since the actual SOG thicknesses for the Pharmacy building were not exactly 100mm or 200mm thick, the areas measured in OnScreen required calculations to adjust the areas to accommodate this limitation. The Impact Estimator limits the thickness of footings to be between 190mm and 500mm thick.  As there are a number of cases where footing thicknesses exceed 500mm, their widths were increased accordingly to maintain the same volume of footing while accommodating this limitation.  Lastly, the concrete stairs were modelled as footings.  All stairs had the same thickness and width, so the total area of stair was measured and were combined into a single input.Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Specific Assumptions1.2.16  Foundation Slab_GS 1350 There are five foundations of this type. Each one has different width and length. In order to have it as one imput into IE, the width was assumed to be 16m and the thickness to be 500mm.Considering the constant Volume, the length is calculated. Length (m)= Total Area (m2)*(1350/1000)/(16*500/1000)1.2.17  Foundation Slab_GS 1600 There are five foundations of this type. Each one has different width and length. In order to have it as one imput into IE, the width was assumed to be 14.5m and the thickness to be 500mm.Considering the constant Volume, the length is calculated. Length (m)= Total Area (m2)*(1600/1000)/(14.5*500/1000)1.2.22  Foundation_Retaining Wall_250 Looking at Structural Drawings, S604, there are two types of this foundation type. Based on the measurements, Type 2 is selected.1.2.23  Stepped Footing The Cross Section of the footings are measured in On Screen take-off. Having the width=450mm, the volume is calculated. Assuming the constant volume, width=0.450m and depth to be equal to 500mm, length is calculated.Length (m)= Total Area (m2)*(450/1000)/((500/1000)*0.450)1.2.24  Concrete stairs Concrete stairs are modeled in IE as footings. The volume of concrete is extracted from On Screen take off and assuming the width to be 250mm and length to be 3.5m, the length is calculated.2 Walls2.1  Cast In Place2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W1 This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 200mm and 300mm thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall and keeping the thickness and volume constant. From Architectural drawings, W1 was divided into 11 different walls (Wall 01 to Wall 11) in Structural drawings with varying thickness. Thickness, reinforcement and rebar were found from the Structural drawings. 2.1.2   2.1.2  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W4This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 300mm thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;= (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/300]2.1.3  Wall_Cast-In-Place_W10This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 200mm thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;= (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/200]2.1.4  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W11 This wall has a layer of waterproof membrane insulation. The only waterproof insulation option available in Imapct Estimator is  Polystyrene Extruded. Thus, it was assumed to be  Polystyrene Extruded.2.1.5  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W12This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 300mm thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;= (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/300]This wall has a layer of waterproof membrane insulation. The only waterproof insulation option available in Imapct Estimator is  Polystyrene Extruded. Thus, it was assumed to be  Polystyrene Extruded.2.1.6  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W13This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 200mm thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;= (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/200]2.2 Metal Clad Wall2.2.1  Metal Clad Wall_W40 Research shows that Dens Glass Gold Sheathing is essentially a fiberglass covered gypsum board that is also reinforced with glass fibers.  This combination provides a product that is dimensionally stable, resistant to moisture and mold as well as fire.  This material is not an option in the Impact Estimator, so a surrogate of 5/8" Moisture Resistant Gypsum was used in it's place.  Since Galvanized Steel Z Bar is not an option under Wall Assembly, it has been categorized under Extra Basic Material as Galvanized Sheet.This wall is sitting on concrete walls; therefore, there is nothing as steel stud or Metall cladding defined in the characteristics of the wall. As there should be a wall type defined in IE, steel stud is defined for this wall.2.2.2  Zinc Clad Wall_W41 Research shows that Dens Glass Gold Sheathing is essentially a fiberglass covered gypsum board that is also reinforced with glass fibers.  This combination provides a product that is dimensionally stable, resistant to moisture and mold as well as fire.  This material is not an option in the Impact Estimator, so a surrogate of 5/8" Moisture Resistant Gypsum was used in it's place.  Since Galvanized Steel Z Bar is not an option under Wall Assembly, it has been categorized under Extra Basic Material as Galvanized Sheet.This wall is sitting on concrete walls; therefore, there is nothing as steel stud or Metall cladding defined in the characteristics of the wall. As there should be a wall type defined in IE, steel stud is defined for this wall.Based on the conversation with contractor: there were two types of Zinc used  for this project which their finishing method were different. and Type B is a way to distinguish them and it is modeled as Extra Basic Material.2.3 MASONRY PARTITION WALL2.3.1  MASONRY PARTITION WALL_P1 According to wall types on page 3 of architectural map, P1 has an unknown rebar. Thus, it has been assumed to have the minimum rebar of #10.2.3.2  MASONRY PARTITION WALL_P2 According to wall types on page 3 of architectural map, P1 has an unknown rebar. Thus, it has been assumed to have the minimum rebar of #10.2.3.3 MASONRY PARTITION WALL_P3 According to wall types on page 3 of architectural map, P1 has an unknown rebar. Thus, it has been assumed to have the minimum rebar of #10.2.4  Steel Stud 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).  Based on the Doors used on interior walls, all the door type has been assumed to be Hollow core wood interior door which is the closest surrogate to the doors used in this building.Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Specific Assumptions2.4.1  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP10 Mineral fiber insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.2  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP15 For this type of wall the stud sapcing is 610mm OC. Since there are only two available options in the Impact Estimator, 400 OC and 600 OC, it was assumed to be 600 OC as it is closer to its actual stud spacing.For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X92 as 100 C-HStud is not an option in the Impact Estimator.2.4.3  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP16 For this type of wall the stud sapcing is 610mm OC. Since there are only two available options in the Impact Estimator, 400 OC and 600 OC, it was assumed to be 600 OC as it is closer to its actual stud spacing.For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X92 as 64 C-HStud is not an option in the Impact Estimator.Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.******This wall is included in the wall types; however no walls of this type were found in the drawings.2.4.4  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP17 For this type of wall the stud sapcing is 610mm OC. Since there are only two available options in the Impact Estimator, 400 OC and 600 OC, it was assumed to be 600 OC as it is closer to its actual stud spacing.For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X92 as 100 C-HStud is not an option in the Impact Estimator.Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.5  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP18 For this type of wall the stud sapcing is 610mm OC. Since there are only two available options in the Impact Estimator, 400 OC and 600 OC, it was assumed to be 600 OC as it is closer to its actual stud spacing.For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X92 as 64 C-HStud is not an option in the Impact Estimator.2.4.6  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP20 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X92 as 92 C-HStud is not an option in the Impact Estimator.Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.7  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP21 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X152 as 152mm 25 GAU Stud  is not an option in the Impact Estimator.Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.8  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP22Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.9  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP23 Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.10  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP24 Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.11  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP25 Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.12  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP26 Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.13  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP27 Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.14  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP28 Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.15  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP29 Accoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.Gypsum mould resistance 5/8" wan not available in the Impact Estimator. Therefore, Gypsum moister resistance 5/8" was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.21  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP40 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X152 as 22mm Steel Hat Channel is not an option in the Impact Estimator.2.4.22  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP41 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X152 as 38mm Steel Hat Channel is not an option in the Impact Estimator.2.4.25  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP44 Accoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.26  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP45 Accoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.27  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP46 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X152 as 50mm Z Girt is not an option in the Impact Estimator.2.4.28  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP47 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X92 as 64mm stud is not an option in the Impact Estimator.2.4.29  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP48 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X152 as 50mm Z Girt is not an option in the Impact Estimator.2.4.30  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP50 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X152 as 38mm Steel Hat Channel is not an option in the Impact Estimator.The Wood Cladding was not an option in the Impact Estimator so Wood Bevel Siding-Cedar was selected as the closest surrogate.Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Specific Assumptions2.4.31  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP51 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X152 as 50mm Z Girt is not an option in the Impact Estimator.The Wood Cladding was not an option in the Impact Estimator so Wood Bevel Siding-Cedar was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.32  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP52 The Wood Cladding was not an option in the Impact Estimator so Wood Bevel Siding-Cedar was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.33  Wall_Steel_TypeP55 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X92 as 22mm Steel Hat Channel is not an option in the Impact Estimator.Steel sheet is modeled as Extra Basic Material.2.4.34  Wall_Steel_TypeP56 Steel sheet is modeled as Extra Basic Material.2.4.35  Wall_Steel_TypeP57 For stud thickness, we have choices of 39X92, 39X152 and 39X203, and it was assumed to be 39X92 as 22mm Steel Hat Channel is not an option in the Impact Estimator.Alucaband is a composite panel consisting of two aluminium cover sheets and a plastic core. Based om its functionaloty, the closest surrogate is the Steel Cladding-Commercial(26ga) in the Impact estimator.2.4.37  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP59 Steel sheet is modeled as Extra Basic Material.2.4.38  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP60 Accoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.Gypsum mould resistance 5/8" wan not available in the Impact Estimator. Therefore, Gypsum moister resistance 5/8" was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.39  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP61 Accoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.40  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP62 Accoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.4.41  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP63 Accoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.2.5  Curtain Wall2.5.1  Wall_CurtainWall_InteriorAluminum Door with 50% glazing was the closest estimtation to the observed doors in this wall.2.5.2  Wall_CurtainWall_BlackGlassAluminum Door with 50% glazing was the closest estimtation to the observed doors in this wall.2.5.3  Wall_CurtainWall_Exterior Aluminum Door with 80% glazing was the closest estimtation to the observed doors in this wall.3  Columns and Beams3.1  Concrete Column3.1.1  Column_Concrete_Beam_Level 1 ins Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;Bay size= Total Length of beam/ Number of BeamsSupported Span=  sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / ( Number of Columns)]Supported Area= Floor Area/Number of columnsIn IE the supported area must be greater than or equal to Bay sizeX Supported span; therefore the supported area was assumed to be equal to Bay sizeX Supported span3.1.2  Column_Concrete_Beam_Level 1 Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;Bay size= Total Length of beam/ Number of BeamsSupported Span=  sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / ( Number of Columns)]Supported Area= Floor Area/Number of columns3.1.3  Column_Concrete_Beam_Level 2 Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;Bay size= Total Length of beam/ Number of BeamsSupported Span=  sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / ( Number of Columns)]Supported Area= Floor Area/Number of columnsIn IE the supported area must be greater than or equal to Bay sizeX Supported span; therefore the supported area was assumed to be equal to Bay sizeX Supported span3.1.4  Column_Concrete_Beam_Level 3 Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;Bay size= Total Length of beam/ Number of BeamsSupported Span=  sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / ( Number of Columns)]3.1.5  Column_Concrete_Beam_Level 4 Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;Bay size= Total Length of beam/ Number of BeamsSupported Span=  sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / ( Number of Columns)]Supported Area= Floor Area/Number of columns3.1.6  Column_Concrete_Beam_Level 5 Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;Bay size= Total Length of beam/ Number of BeamsSupported Span=  sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / ( Number of Columns)]3.1.7  Column_Concrete_Beam_Level 6 Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;Bay size= Total Length of beam/ Number of BeamsSupported Span=  sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / ( Number of Columns)]Supported Area= Floor Area/Number of columnsThe Impact Estimator calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, supported span and live load. The available range for bay size in the Impact Estimator is between 3.05m and 12.2m, in cases that the actual value of bay size is greater than this range, it has been assumed to be 12.2m.Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Specific Assumptions3.1.8  Column_Concrete_Beam_Roof Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;Bay size= Total Length of beam/ Number of BeamsSupported Span=  sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / ( Number of Columns)]Supported Area= Floor Area/Number of columnsThe minimum acceptable live load in the Impact Estimator is 2.4 kPa. Thus, the live load has been assumed to be 2.4 kPa instead of the actual value of 1.8 kPa.4  Floors4.1. Concrete Suspended Slab4.1.1  Floor_Level 01_4.8 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is the maximum acceptable value in the Impact Estimator (9.75m), the floor width is calculated. 4.1.2  Floor_Level 01_12 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is the maximum acceptable value in the Impact Estimator (9.75m), the floor width is calculated.The max load that is accepted by IE is 4.8kpa; however, the live load in this are is 12kpa. The live load is assumed to be 4.8kpa.4.1.3  Floor_Level 02_4.8 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is the maximum acceptable value in the Impact Estimator (9.75m), the floor width is calculated.4.1.4  Floor_Level 03_4.8 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is the maximum acceptable value in the Impact Estimator (9.75m), the floor width is calculated.4.1.5  Floor_Level 04_4.8 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is 97m the floor width is calculated. 4.1.6  Floor_Level 04_10.8 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span and the floor width are equal,the following formula is used to calculate them.Span(m)=floor width(m)=sqrt(area(m2)) The max load that is accepted by IE is 4.8kpa; however, the live load in this are is 10.8kpa. The live load is assumed to be 4.8kpa.4.1.7  Floor_Level 04_11.6 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span and the floor width are equal,the following formula is used to calculate them.Span(m)=floor width(m)=sqrt(area(m2)) The max load that is accepted by IE is 4.8kpa; however, the live load in this are is 11.6kpa. The live load is assumed to be 4.8kpa.4.1.8  Floor_Level 05_4.8 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is 97m the floor width is calculated. 4.1.9  Floor_Level 05_11.6 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is the maximum acceptable value in the Impact Estimator (9.75m), the floor width is calculated.The max load that is accepted by IE is 4.8kpa; however, the live load in this are is 11.6kpa. The live load is assumed to be 4.8kpa.4.1.10  Floor_Level 06_4.8 kpa TThe shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is the maximum acceptable value in the Impact Estimator (9.75m), the floor width is calculated. 4.1.11 Floor_Level 06_11.6 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span and the floor width are equal,the following formula is used to calculate them.Span(m)=floor width(m)=sqrt(area(m2)) The max load that is accepted by IE is 4.8kpa; however, the live load in this are is 11.6kpa. The live load is assumed to be 4.8kpa.4.2 Steel Joist4.2.1  Floor_Level 01 interstitial_4.8 kpa The shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is the maximum acceptable value in the Impact Estimator (5.5m), the floor width is calculated.7Ke steeO Moist GoesQ¶t KaYe FoQFrete iQ its assePEOy tKereIore tKe FoQFrete toppiQJ is PoGeOeG as Extra Basic Material.5  Roof5.1  Concrete Suspended Slab 5.1.1  Roof_R10_Built up RoofThe shape of the plan is not a simple rectangle, having the area from On screen takeoff and assuming the span is 40m the length is calculate.Research showed that SBS Self-Adhering Base/Ply Sheet is a durable, modified bitumen membrane designed and manufactured to meet industry and code requirements, therefore, on IE the material is set to Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 ply which is assumed to be the most closest one and the thickness had to be adjusted with the minimum aceptable for IE.In addition, Protection Board is an extruded polystyrene foam insulation therefore, Polystyrene Extruded was slected on IE.research also shows that Polyisocyanurate insulation boardsare typically produced as a foam and used as rigid thermal insulation. The min load that is accepted by IE is 2.4kpa; however, the live load in this are is 1.8kpa. The live load is assumed to be 4.8kpa.6 Extra Basic material6.1. Steel Joist6.1.1 Floor_Level 01 interstitial_XBM The concrete topping in the steel joist roof is modeled in Extra basic material. 30MPa with average flyash is chosen for this purpose. Having the area and 40mm thickness, the volume is calculated.6.2 Metal Clad Wall6.2.1.  Metal Clad Wall_W40_XBM Galvanized Steel Z Bar (16ga) is modeled as galvanized sheet. 16 gauge is equal to 1.5mm. Having the volume of the sheet and considering the density equal to 7850 kg/m3, the weight is calculated 6.2.2.  Metal Clad Wall_W41_XBM Galvanized Steel Z Bar (16ga) is modeled as galvanized sheet. 16 gauge is equal to 1.5mm. Having the volume of the sheet and considering the density equal to 7850 kg/m3, the weight is calculated 6.2.3.  Metal Clad Wall_W41_XBM As Zinc is not included in the IE, the zinc sheet is modeled as hot rolled sheet with the density of zinc (7140kg/m3). Having the volume and density the wegth is calculated6.3 Wall_Steel Stud6.3.1. Wall_Steel_TypeP55 level 02_XBM Based on the research cold rolled sheet is lighter with more strength and for fabricating thin sheets cold rolled sheet is used.Therefore, Sheet steel is modeled as Cold rolled sheet. Having the volume of the sheet and considering the density equal to 7850 kg/m3, the weight is calculated 6.3.2. Wall_Steel_TypeP56 level -01 ins_XBM Based on the research cold rolled sheet is lighter with more strength and for fabricating thin sheets cold rolled sheet is used.Therefore, Sheet steel is modeled as Cold rolled sheet. Having the volume of the sheet and considering the density equal to 7850 kg/m3, the weight is calculated 6.3.3.  Wall_Steel_TypeP56 level 04_XBM Based on the research cold rolled sheet is lighter with more strength and for fabricating thin sheets cold rolled sheet is used.Therefore, Sheet steel is modeled as Cold rolled sheet. Having the volume of the sheet and considering the density equal to 7850 kg/m3, the weight is calculated 6.3.4.  Wall_SteelStud_TypeP59 level 01_XBM Based on the research cold rolled sheet is lighter with more strength and for fabricating thin sheets cold rolled sheet is used.Therefore, Sheet steel is modeled as Cold rolled sheet. Having the volume of the sheet and considering the density equal to 7850 kg/m3, the weight is calculated 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108898/manifest

Comment

Related Items