UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment of Chemistry building South wing Zhang, Wendi Nov 18, 2013

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Zhang_Wendi_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 1.36MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108899.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108899-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108899-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108899-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108899-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108899-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108899-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108899-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108899.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportWendi ZhangLife Cycle Assessment ofChemistry Building SouthwingCIVL 498CNovember 18, 201310651534University 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 Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building South wing CIVL 498C  Wendi Zhang 2013/11/18      This report is the Life Cycle Assessment associated focus RQ WKH EXLOGLQJ¶V PDWHULDOV LQ production stage and construction stage for Chemistry building South wing in The University of British Columbia. UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  1 / 54  Executive Summary  This report is the Life Cycle Assessment DVVRFLDWHG IRFXV RQ WKH EXLOGLQJ¶V PDWHULDOVin production stage and construction stage for Chemistry building South wing in The University of British Columbia. The Chemistry building South wing located in 2036 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, designed and built in 1958 to 63, cost around $1,659,665. All of the data collected was taken from structural and architectural drawings. Data adjustments and development are done by using programs called On-Screen Takeoff Pro and Athena Impact Estimator 4.2. Athena LCA database and US LCI database used as the Data Source. TRACI by US EPA used to calculate the midpoint impact to endpoint impact. Estimating Models were sorted following CIQS format into level 3 elements.  The outcome of study shows among all environmental impacts, Fossil Fuel Consumption is the hotspot in production stage and construction stage. A22 Upper Floor Construction and A32 Roof construction elements are consume the most fossil fuel.  Compared with the benchmark of UBC building, the emissions in production stage and construction stage of Chemistry building South wing are also higher than the average, which means there could be more environmental friendly material could be used as alternative option.  List of Figures Figure 1. Modular information for the different stages of the building assessment Figure 2. Cause/effect chain for Global Warming Potential Figure 3. Cause/effect chain for Ozone Depletion Potential Figure 4. Cause/effect chain for Eutrophication Potential  Figure 5. Cause/effect chain for Human health respiratory effects Potential  Figure 6. Cause/effect chain for Photochemical smog Potential  Figure 7. Environmental Impacts Comparison in product and construction stage Figure 8. Fossil Fuel Consumption Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements Figure 9. Percentage of Fossil Fuel Consumption for level 3 elements Figure 10. Percentage of Global Warming Potential for level 3 elements UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  2 / 54  Figure 11. Percentage of Acidification Potential for level 3 elements Figure 12. Percentage of Human health respiratory effects Potential for level 3 elements Figure 13. Percentage of Eutrophication Potential  for level 3 elements Figure 14. Percentage Ozone Depletion Potential for level 3 elements Figure 15. Percentage Photochemical smog Potential for level 3 elements Figure 16. Environmental Impacts of A22 Upper Floor Construction Figure 17. Environmental Impacts of A23 Roof Construction Figure 18. Environmental Impacts of A32 Wall above Grade. Figure 19. Fossil Fuel Consumption Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing  Figure 20. Global Warming Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing  Figure 21. Acidification Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing Figure 22. Human health respiratory effects Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing Figure 23. Eutrophication Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing Figure 24. Photochemical smog Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing Figure 25. Comparison of building cost between UBC buildings and Chemistry building South wing Figure 26. Comparison of GWP between UBC buildings and Chemistry building South wing Figure 27. Comparison of building cost and GWP between UBC buildings and Chemistry building South wing List of Tables  Table 1. Assessment Information of Chemistry building South wing Table 2. Functional Equivalent Definition Summary Table 3. Level 2 Element sorting content Table 4 Bill of Material of A11 Foundation Table 5 Bill of Material of A21 Lowest Floor Construction Table 6 Bill of Material of A23 Roof Construction Table 7 Bill of Material of A31 Walls below Grade Table 8 Bill of Material of A32 Walls above Grade  UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  3 / 54  Table 9 Bill of Material of B11 Partitions Table 10. Summary of environmental impact of each level 3 element Table of Content Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 0 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 1 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Content ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 General Information on the Assessment ............................................................................................ 4 Purpose of the assessment ...................................................................................................................... 4 Identification of building ........................................................................................................................ 4 Other Assessment Information .............................................................................................................. 5 2.0 General Information on the Object of Assessment ................................................................................. 5 Functional Equivalent ............................................................................................................................ 5 Reference Study Period .......................................................................................................................... 6 Object of Assessment Scope ................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment ........................................................... 7 System Boundary .................................................................................................................................... 7 Product Stage ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Construction Stage ................................................................................................................................ 9 4.0 Environmental Data ................................................................................................................................ 9 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Data Adjustments and Substitutions ................................................................................................... 10 Data Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 11 5.0 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results ...................................................... 12 6.0 Model Development .............................................................................................................................. 15 7.0 Communication of Assessment Results ................................................................................................ 20 Life Cycle Results .................................................................................................................................. 20 Annex A - Interpretation of Assessment Results ........................................................................................ 28 Benchmark Development ..................................................................................................................... 28 UBC Academic Building Benchmark .................................................................................................. 28 UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  4 / 54  Annex B - Recommendations for LCA Use ............................................................................................... 33 Annex C - Author Reflection ...................................................................................................................... 34 Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions ............................................................................... 40  1.0 General Information on the Assessment  Purpose of the assessment This (Life cycle assessment) LCA study will be used to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Chemistry building South wing at the University of British Columbia. This LCA of the Chemistry building South wing is also part of a series of twenty-nine others being carried out simultaneously on respective buildings at UBC with the same goal and scope. The main outcomes of this LCA study are the establishment of a materials inventory and environmental impact references for the Chemistry building South wing base on the former report. However, because the missing of last LCA report about this building, this report is trying to recover the information as well as create a better draft of Chemistry building South wing¶VPRGHOLQJSURFHVVDQGVRUWLQJWKHFRPSRQHQWV¶FDWHJRU\EDVHRQ&,46IRUPDWThe report itself is an educational asset to help disseminate education on LCA and help further the development of this scientific method into sustainability in building construction practices at UBC. The intended audience of this LCA study are those involved in building development related policy making at UBC. Other potential audiences include developers, architects, engineers and building owners involved in design planning, as well as external organizations such as governments, private industry and other universities whom may want to learn more or become engaged in performing similar LCA studies within their organizations. Identification of building The Chemistry center building is located in the intersection of Main Mall and University Boulevard, the heart of the campus, as a major heritage landmark. The style of the building could refer back to England in the late 15th century, Collegiate Gothic style. The project was start at 1914 and completed in 1923. Construction ceased in 1915 because of The Great War. The building has a reinforced concrete skeleton with exterior cladding of BC Granite (with a small UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  5 / 54  quantity of field stone). At first, the chemistry building was served as the Science Building, housing Chemistry, Physics, Bacteriology and Public Health. After 1949 it became the Chemistry Building. By now the building was Chemistry alone. The chemistry building south wing is the additional building added to chemistry center building. The project was built in 1958 to 1963 and referring as B-Block. The total cost for this project is $1,659,665.1The main function for this building are using as labs, chemical reagent storage rooms and teaching classrooms for undergraduate  Other Assessment Information Client for Assessment Completed as coursework in Civil Engineering technical elective course at the University of British Columbia. Name and qualification of the assessor Wendi Zhang (MEng Student, 2013); Rob Greczk (2010) Impact Assessment method Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, Version 4.2.0208;On-Screen Takeoff Pro  Point of Assessment 55 years Period of Validity 5 years. Date of Assessment Completed in December 2013. Verifier Student work, study not verified. Table 1. Assessment Information of Chemistry building South wing 2.0 General Information on the Object of Assessment  Functional Equivalent  Analysis based on a predefined quantity of product or service called the functional unit.  As most LCAs are comparative in nature, the functional unit provides a logical basis for comparing the environmental performance of alternatives.  For this study, we use Per square meter area constructed as the functional units                                                           1 Thompson, Berwick, Pratt & Partners, UBC Reports April 2008 UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  6 / 54  Aspect of Object of Assessment Description Building Type Institutional - Post Secondary  Technical and functional requirements Office, research, and lecture space for the Department of Chemistry Pattern of use Current Building Hours: Monday-Friday 07:00-19:00, Saturday/Sunday/Holidays – Closed Classrooms, Labs, large lecture halls. Required service life Assumed to be 100 years Table 2. Functional Equivalent Definition Summary Reference Study Period According to EN 15798, it defines the Life Cycle of products into 4 Stages: Product (A), Construction Process (A), USE (B) and End of life (C).Module D, benefit and load beyond the boundary, is supplement information beyond life cycle. As this study is a cradle-to-gate assessment, the expected service life of the Chemistry building South wing is set to 1 year, which results in the maintenance, operating energy and end-of-life VWDJHVRIWKHEXLOGLQJ¶VOLIHF\FOHEHLQJOHIWRXWVLGHWKHVFRSHRIDVVHVVPHQW Also, this study is mainly focus on the first stage of building. What are the environmental impacts of the construction activates of Chemistry building South wing7KDW¶VZK\ZHGRQRWFRQVLGHUthe Modules B C and D. Object of Assessment Scope The basement of Chemistry building South wing is mainly use as lecture hall and chemical reagent storage rooms, floor 1 to 3 are mainly use as labs. 7KHIDFDGH¶VPDWHULDOLVconcrete with brick cladding. Because we only include module A, the majority actives in this stage is related to construction process and activates, we only addressing the structure and envelope of Chemistry building South wing.  CIVL 498C Level 3 Elements Description Quantity (Amount) Units A11 Foundations Strip and Pad Footings 1216.8435 m2 UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  7 / 54  A21 Lowest Floor Construction Slab on grade on lowest floor 1216.8435 m2 A22 Upper Floor Construction Columns, beams, suspended slab floors, stairs 2634.6362  m2 A23 Roof Construction Supporting Columns and beams, roof slab 1201.7932 m2 A31 Walls Below Grade Exterior below grade walls 736.81369 m2 A32 Walls Above Grade Exterior above grade walls 2047.0247 m2 B11 Partitions All interior walls 1160.9159 m2 Table 3. Building Definition Summary 3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment System Boundary  The selection of the system boundary shall be consistent with the goal of the study. For this study for Chemistry building South wing, we are only modeling processes until construction product. Any processes beyond and after our system boundary, like site preparation, is not part of this study.  EN 15798 suggests four modules in building life cycle: Product (A), Construction Process (A), USE (B), End of life (C) and benefit and load beyond the boundary (D), which is supplement information beyond life cycle. Figure 1.  )RUEXLOGLQJOLIHF\FOHDQGLWV¶VXEVWDJHV they both have their own upstream and downstream. Upstream is towards energy and resource extraction and downstream is towards use and waste handling. For building life cycle, module A is upstream and modules B, C are downstream. Each module also has its upstream and downstream, like for production stage, the upstream is: raw material supply, and downstream is manufacturing. For Construction Process stage, the upstream is transport and the downstream are construction insulation process. UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  8 / 54  - Figure 1. Modular information for the different stages of the building assessment Product Stage The product stage contains three sub processes: raw material supply, transport and manufacturing modules.  The energy use in raw material supply include all the actives in order to extract the raw resources, like timber, iron ore, coal, limestone, aggregates and gypsum. The development of life cycle inventory data starts here, by tracking energy use and emissions to air, water and land per unit of resource. In addition to the actual harvesting, mining or quarrying of a resource, data from the extraction phase includes activities such as reforestation and beneficiation (a mining technique that involves separating ore into valuable product and waste). 2 The transportation of raw resources to the mill or plant defines the boundary between extraction and manufacturing. It is important to understand that LCA does not attempt to address all land-impact measures, many of which are tracked in other environmental metrics or regulatory programs.  Manufacturing is the stage that typically accounts for the largest proportion of embodied energy and emissions associated with the life cycle of a building product. In Athena inventory studies; this stage starts with the delivery of raw resources and other materials to the mill or plant gate and ends with the finished product ready for shipment. The Impact Estimator software combines                                                           2 http://www.athenasmi.org/resources/about-lca/technical-details/ UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  9 / 54  resource extraction and manufacturing into a single activity stage for results reporting purposes. The Athena Institute follows international guidelines for product LCAs addressing secondary components and assemblies, data sources and verification, system boundaries, the level of detail expected in inventory studies and a variety of other standard conventions and assumptions, to ensure that all building materials are treated impartially, in a comparable fashion. Athena product LCAs are performed in conjunction with experts in the relevant industries. Construction Stage The construction stage is like an additional manufacturing step where individual products, components and sub-assemblies come together in the manufacture of the building. The transportation in construction stage is considering the transport distance from material/component manufacture place to construction site. The location will determine the electricity and transportation grids that are used in the LCA calcs. For some materials, the WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ GRHVQ¶W YDU\ WKDW PXFK IURP ORFDWLRQ WR ORFation, concrete for example, (everywhere has concrete production nearby). But something like large dimension lumber, the only place that produces it is the Pacific Northwest US and British Columbia, so the WUDQVSRUWDWLRQFDQPDNHDGLIIHUHQFHLI\RX¶UHLQVancouver or Atlanta.3  The construction installation module also takes account of the energy used to construct the structural elements of the building and the emissions to air, water and land associated with the on-site construction activity, like storage of products, Installation of the product into the building and Waste management processes on the construction site and waste handling until final disposal. 4.0 Environmental Data  Data Sources This study used of the Athena LCI Database for material process data, and the US LCI Database for energy combustion and pre-combustion processes for electricity generation and transportation.  The Athena LCI Database developed by The Athena Institute. For the most part of the data, Athena Institute developed our own data in cooperation with industry associations, and that data                                                           3 http://calculatelca.com/faqs/ UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  10 / 54  is proprietary to them. Athena Institute develops our data in-house, under contract to trade associations, with the cooperation of several manufacturers and plants across the continent. This way, they arrive at a good cross-sectional industry average formulation and environmental profile for each material. The manufacturing effects of that average formulation are then regionalized for each location by applying local electricity, energy and transportation grids. The Athena Institute is an organization offer building life cycle assessment and they developed Athena Impact Estimator. These tools are industry recognized and respected systems based on a set of comprehensive, comparable databases on a wide variety of building materials, calculating energy use and related emissions to air, water and land over the life cycle of the building. U.S LCI Database is managed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)  The U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database will be the recognized source of U.S.-based, quality, transparent life cycle inventory data. The U.S. LCI Database (www.nrel.gov/lci) was initiated in 2003 to fulfill the need for publicly available LCI data. Recent meetings of interested parties have called for an increased effort to advance the database. This meeting was hold A on February 18, 2009, in Washington, D.C. Data Adjustments and Substitutions Inconsistence between the IE inputs and the Athena IE exist. Limitations are set in the Athena tool because of building codes or specifications. For certain parameters, only the number fit in the set range is acceptable, like WKHWKLFNQHVVRIIRRWLQJVKDVWREHEHWZHHQ´WR´:ith UHDOWKLFNQHVVEXLOWLV´. Therefore the total volume of footings is set while changing the input value of length and width.   7\SRV¶ errors are also found in the IE input excel. Such as the YDOXHLQ,(LQSXWH[FHOGRHVQ¶Wmatch the value inputted in Athena IE. All the elements have been went through and checked with Athena tool to correct any errors. For the Athena limitation, there are also probabilities that we have to replace some material which is not available in Athena. During the production stage, there will be waste in the process, the percentage of the waste/total material is called waste factor. In Athena, it automatically adds this factor into the input value, say, 100 tone of concrete 20 MPa (flyash av). When we go to Bill of material reports, it shows 105 tone of concrete 20 MPa (flyash av). This difference is due to UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  11 / 54  the waste factor. When old data need to be replaced, it is necessary to know the value from Bill of material is a little bit larger than the value of new data input. Data Quality Describe the following 5 types of uncertainty, data, model, temporal, spatial and variability between sources.   The data used in this LCA study include the data form material takeoff, life cycle inventory (LCI) flows and the characterization of LCI flows. The study will first undertake the initial stage of a materials quantity takeoff, which involves performing linear, area and count measurements of the bXLOGLQJ¶VVWUXFWXUHDQGHQYHORSH. The measurements generated are formatted into the inputs required for the IE building LCA software to complete the takeoff process. Because Chemistry building South wing ZDVEXLOWLQ¶WKHKDQGVKRSGUDZLQJFRXOGQ¶WEHrecognized very clearly. Therefore the inaccurate of material takeoff might exist.  The data used in Athena IE is The Athena LCI Database. The detailed data information is hidden in Athena IE. AssumptionVFDQEHDFFHVVHGWKURXJKWKH$WKHQD,QVWLWXWHZHESDJH¶V6RIWZDUHdatabase overview.4  However, the data in LCI database also has some limitations, like the construction product, manufacturing and fuel refining/production LCI data is based on North American averages; the transportation distances estimation and modes for construction product transportation as well as construction and demolition wastes is specific to Vancouver, British Columbia; also, the LCI data and modeling parameters in the Impact Estimator were developed by the Athena Institute to reflect current circumstances and technologies. Characterization factors – Documentation of the US EPA TRACI impact assessment method can be found on the US EPA website3, and documentation for the development of the weighted resource use impact category can be found on the Athena Institute webpage4. Generally speaking, this method characterized LCI flows to reflect their potential to cause damage on average in North America. Qualitative discussion of the uncertainties present in the impact assessment results are contained in this report in the Impact Assessment sub-section of Results and Interpretation                                                           4 http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/lca-databases/ UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  12 / 54  5.0 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results The impact assessment method of the Chemistry building South wing LCA study used two software and two databases. The Athena Impact Estimator developed by the Athena Institute with input and database information/characterization factors from the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI), developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).5The Athena IE inputs data coming from On-Screen Take off Pro which calculate the material takeoff value.  The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) study has two common methods, one is problem-oriented methods (mid points) and the other one is damage-oriented methods (end points)6 The difference of those two method is the mid points method, flows are classified into environmental themes (impact categories) to which they contribute, while the end points method, it further get into what potential impact it will have. The impact categories selected and the units used to express them (i.e. category indicators) are listed below.  Global warming potential – kg CO2 equivalents  Acidification potential – H+ mol equivalents  Eutrophication potential – kg N equivalents  Ozone depletion potential – kg CFC-11 equivalents  Photochemical smog potential – kg NOx equivalents  Human health respiratory effects potential – kg PM2.5 equivalents  Fossil fuel consumption – MJ The general cause/effect chain modeled of impact categories can be described as: emission changes- concentration changes- radiative forcing-climate impacts- societal and ecosystem impacts – HFRQRPLF³GDPDJH´6HHFigure 2 to 6 for each impact categories.                                                           5 Attieh, et.al. Life Cycle Assessment of the New SUB Project, 2012 6 http://www.scienceinthebox.com/en_UK/sustainability/lcia_en.html UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  13 / 54   Figure 2. Cause/effect chain for Global Warming Potential  Figure 3. Cause/effect chain for Ozone Depletion Potential  Figure 4. Cause/effect chain for Eutrophication Potential  UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  14 / 54   Figure 5. Cause/effect chain for Acidification Potential   Figure 5. Cause/effect chain for Human health respiratory effects Potential   Figure 6. Cause/effect chain for Photochemical smog Potential  UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  15 / 54  6.0 Model Development In the model development section, two models were developed: On Screen Takeoff Pro model and Athena IE model. In the On Screen Takeoff Pre model, the structural and architectural drawings (scanned and converted to pdf files) were used to identify the building components by using three different types of conditions: ‡/LQHDU0HDVXUHVWKHOHQJth of a specific component. Example: Wall lengths. ‡$UHD&DOFXODWHVWKHDUHDRIDFRPSRQHQW([DPSOH)ORRUVRUVXVSHQGHGVODEV ‡&RXQW&RXQWVWKHQXPEHURIFRPSRQHQWV([DPSOH:LQGRZVGRRUV  The measurements generated from On Screen Takeoff Pro are formatted into the inputs required for the IE building LCA software to complete the takeoff process. These formatted inputs as well as their associated assumptions can be viewed in Annexe D respectively. The former IE inputs value and Athena IE model was sorted into a new format, CIQS format, which is Established by Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (CIQS) to standardize a list of elements that enable cost analyses and control on building projects., In this format, the elements ordered hierarchically into four levels to allow different levels of aggregation and summarization as follows:   /HYHOHOHPHQWVDUHUHIHUUHGWRDVµ0DMRU*URXS(OHPHQWV¶  /HYHOHOHPHQWVDUHUHIHUUHGWRDVµ*URXS(OHPHQWV¶  /HYHOHOHPHQWVDUHUHIHUUHGWRDVµ(OHPHQWV¶  /HYHOHOHPHQWVDUHUHIHUUHGWRDVµ6XE-(OHPHQWV¶ For this Athena IE model, the components were sorted into level 3.  Please see table 3 to see the detail of level 3 classifying building elements: CIVL 498C Level 3 Elements Description A11 Foundations Wall and column footings A21 Lowest Floor Construction Slab on grade on lowest floor A22 Upper Floor Construction Columns, beams, suspended slab floors, stairs A23 Roof Construction Supporting Columns and beams, roof slab UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  16 / 54  A31 Walls Below Grade Exterior below grade walls A32 Walls Above Grade Exterior above grade walls B11 Partitions All interior walls Table 3. Level 2 Element sorting content In the analysis of these assemblies, some of the drawings lack sufficient material details, which necessitate the usage of assumptions to complete the modeling of the building in the IE software. Furthermore, there are inherent assumptions made by the IE software in order to generate the bill of materials and limitations to what it can model, which necessitated further assumptions to be made. Development of each level 3 element will be discussed here: A11 Foundation The foundation component consists of all wall and column footings. From the last year report, assumptions made for the concrete was 4000 psi with average fly ash. 4000 psi is the equivalent to approximately 30MPa of concrete strength, and this concrete strength value is typical for most concrete structural projects. The basement drawing in On-Screen-Takeoff pro is out of scale, but the former author counted how many footing it has. Therefor the inaccuracy of scale does not affect the result. One typo mistake of footing- typy12 was modified (width changes from 25 ft. to 3.5 ft.) Project : A11 Foundation      Material Quantity Unit  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 111.7687 m3  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 1.2021 Tonnes  Table 4 Bill of Material of A11 Foundation A21 Lowest Floor Construction The Impact Estimator has constraints with the length components and thicknesses, the total volume of concrete used in the SOG was calculated to compensate for the selected SOG thickness as the Impact Estimator only allows the user to use a specific thickness of concrete; Once the concrete thickness was determined, it was assumed that the area of the SOG was square as the square root was taken of the floor area to accommodate the Impact Estimator.  UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  17 / 54  Because the basement drawing in On-Screen-Takeoff pro is out of scale, it affects the outcome of SOG area value. The inaccuracy is solved in this model. And due to the software updates, the missing value of element also filled.  Project : A21 Lowest Floor Construction      Material Quantity Unit  6 mil Polyethylene 1145.4646 m2  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 226.7605 m3  Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 0.9758 Tonnes  Table 5 Bill of Material of A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction The floors of the building were cast-in-place suspended slabs. Each floor and each area varied in thickness based on the area of the building. Each area was taken off with the thickness of each IORRULGHQWLILHGZLWKWKHµ$UHD&RQGLWLRQ¶WDNHRII7KHWKLFNQess was input based on selecting a specific slab thickness after calculating the total volume of concrete per floor. The total volume of concrete was divided by this selected thickness, and the remaining area was made square because of convenience and/or by the constraints placed in the IE The walls of stairs in basement floor were not measured in On-screen takeoff. Input data were fixed in Athena. Also, might due to the software update, the value of suspend area for beam element was missing. The area value was used as the total area of suspend area of beams.  Project : A22 Upper Floor Construction      Material Quantity Unit  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 1728.173 m3  Concrete Blocks 5012.8845 Blocks  Mortar 95.5313 m3  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 288.4612 Tonnes  Table 6 Bill of Material of A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction 7KHURRIZDVD´VXVSHQGHGFRQFUHWHVODEZLWK´H[SDQGHGSRO\VW\UHQHLQVXODWLRQ7KHUHVWof the specifications were not given in the drawings provided. Therefore, it was assumed that the roof consisted of a 4-ply asphalt system with glass felt, and polyethylene (6mm). Also, the suspend area for beam element was missing. Values were fixed in this model. The area UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  18 / 54  value was used as the total area of suspend area of beams. Project : A23 Roof Construction      Material Quantity Unit  #15 Organic Felt 2740.1795 m2  6 mil Polyethylene 1274.8628 m2  Ballast (aggregate stone) 25237.6682 kg  Blown Cellulose 5051.3698 m2 (25mm)  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 562.0946 m3  Expanded Polystyrene 2492.9133 m2 (25mm)  Galvanized Sheet 1.432 Tonnes  Nails 0.6932 Tonnes  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 60.3665 Tonnes  Roofing Asphalt 16170.5291 kg  Type III Glass Felt 5480.3589 m2  Table 6 Bill of Material of A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls below Grade From the last year report, tKHZDOOVZHUHGHWHUPLQHGXVLQJWKHµ/LQHDU&RQGLWLRQ¶IXQFWLRQZLWKaverage fly ash and 4000 psi concrete strength, where applicable. The basement walls on the north and south of the building were cast-in-place concrete. The building envelope consisted of a ´[´VWXGZDOOZLWK´EDWt insulation, polyethylene (3mm DVVXPHGDQGFRYHUHGZLWKô´plaster walls. 7KHHDVWDQGZHVWEDVHPHQWZDOOVZHUHFRQVWUXFWHGZLWKFRQFUHWHEULFNV´[´ZRRG strapping ZLWK´EDWWLQVXODWLRQSRO\HWK\OHQHPPDVVXPHGDQGFRYHUHGZLWKô´ plaster walls. The VWXGVSDFLQJZDVLQFUHDVHGWR´DVD´[´VWXGZDVQRWDYDLODEOH7KH´[´ stud was used as a greater spacing would require less material, therefore compensating for not having the proper wood strapping size. Because the basement plan is out of scale, the value of wall is updated and fixed in Athena. Project : A31 Walls Below Grade      Material Quantity Unit  1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 1761.5748 m2  3 mil Polyethylene 849.3993 m2  Aluminum 0.2061 Tonnes  Cold Rolled Sheet 0.0335 Tonnes  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 133.3256 m3  Concrete Brick 174.1235 m2  UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  19 / 54  Double Glazed No Coating Air -0.1681 m2  EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 14.096 kg  Expanded Polystyrene 7.98 m2 (25mm)  FG Batt R11-15 1653.2924 m2 (25mm)  Galvanized Sheet 0.1879 Tonnes  Glazing Panel 0.096 Tonnes  Joint Compound 1.7581 Tonnes  Mortar 3.2331 m3  Nails 0.2153 Tonnes  Paper Tape 0.0202 Tonnes  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 4.717 Tonnes  Screws Nuts & Bolts 0.2462 Tonnes  Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 10.4672 m3  Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 66.7777 L  Table 7 Bill of Material of A31 Walls below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade The north wall from Floor 1 to Floor 3 was modeled per floor as a curtain wall. The curtain wall was located in the lab testing area, and it is unknown the type of windows were used. It is assumed that the glass is inoperable, single pane unit and translucent. Each floor was modeled individually, and all of the glass was transparent. The area below the window was assumed to FRQWDLQ´[´ZRRGVWUDSSLQJZLWK´EDWWLnsulation and polyethylene (3mm assumed). The HQYHORSHZDVWKHQILQLVKHGZLWKô´SODVWHU Since some of these components were not available LQWKH,PSDFW(VWLPDWRU´[´VWUDSSLQJNLOQGULHGVSDFHG´ on centre RFZDVXVHGZLWK´of regular gypsum wall covering with alkyd paint. The south, east and west walls from Floor 1 to Floor 3 were modeled using concrete brick on WKHLQWHULRUDQGH[WHULRUVDQGZLFKLQJD´[´ZRRGVWXGZDOOZLWK´ batt insulation. The south wall consisted of coloured, translucent windows, inoperable with aluminum frames. No improvement in this part. Project : A32 Walls Above Grade      Material Quantity Unit  1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 1707.6508 m2  3 mil Polyethylene 1055.1586 m2  Aluminum 10.2279 Tonnes  Cold Rolled Sheet 0.4019 Tonnes  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 79.1018 m3  Concrete Blocks 5012.8845 Blocks  Concrete Brick 2088.8322 m2  UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  20 / 54  Double Glazed No Coating Air 4.2176 m2  EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 179.7789 kg  Expanded Polystyrene 622.3364 m2 (25mm)  FG Batt R11-15 1601.2937 m2 (25mm)  Galvanized Sheet 0.2656 Tonnes  Glazing Panel 27.6421 Tonnes  Joint Compound 1.7043 Tonnes  Mortar 134.3161 m3  Nails 0.2185 Tonnes  Paper Tape 0.0196 Tonnes  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 63.0134 Tonnes  Screws Nuts & Bolts 0.5491 Tonnes  Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 7.1606 m3  Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 0.3622 L  Table 8 Bill of Material of A32 Walls above Grade B11 Partitions All the partitions within the building were modeled solely as concrete block walls with no additional components. The IE also modeled these walls with rebar. The drawings did not specify a rebar size, and unfortunately, had to be modeled with a rebar type. In addition, the current/existing partitions were not shown in the drawings provided. These partitions were modeled based on the information collected from the drawings. This includes the walls in the stairwells also. For the out of scale of basement, the partition volume is changed, but not much. Inputs were update in Athena IE. Project : B11 Partitions      Material Quantity Unit  Concrete Blocks 10144.3916 Blocks  Galvanized Sheet 0.6191 Tonnes  Mortar 193.5817 m3  Nails 0.0196 Tonnes  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 29.8644 Tonnes  Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 2.9478 L  Table 9 Bill of Material of B11 Partitions 7.0 Communication of Assessment Results Life Cycle Results UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  21 / 54  The developed models from last section were used in this section. By generated the bill of material and summary measure table of each level 3 element, we can further compare their performance. The outcome of total building and each level 3 Elements are list in Table 4 below:  Fossil Fuel Consumption Global Warming Acidification Human Health Criteria – Respiratory Eutrophication Ozone Layer Depletion Smog  (MJ) (kg CO2eq) (moles of H+eq) (kg PM10eq) (kg Neq) (kg CFC-11eq) (kg O3eq) Chemistry South Total 21286190.41  1911906.97  13244.68  5011.45  1224.29  8.26E-03 246539.49  A11 Foundations 236022.41  34201.70  220.72  82.53  10.63  1.91E-04 4789.53  A21  Lowest Floor Construction 476685.01  69428.69  450.99  167.87  19.48  3.87E-04 9695.93  A22  Upper Floor Construction 8590278.61  753267.64  5051.84  1435.72  566.04  3.15E-03 98674.05  A23  Roof Construction 3416545.58  233549.66  1534.84  505.04  139.21  9.66E-04 30189.78  A31  Walls Below Grade 505987.83  55595.60  372.68  125.93  22.89  3.00E-04 6864.37  A32  Walls Above Grade 2905939.70  265323.81  2244.26  1678.17  146.71  1.00E-03 28635.60  B11  Partitions 1017795.27  94900.48  631.16  188.98  61.36  4.16E-04 11199.77  Table 10. Summary of environmental impact of each level 3 element For the hotspots in life cycle stages, product stage and construction stage were compared, see Figure 7. The Fossil Fuel emission in product stage is the hotspot. Further, in Figure 8, level 3 elements are compared to see with components contribute to greatest part FFC. A22 Upper Floor Construction is significant higher than others. UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  22 / 54   Figure 7. Environmental Impacts Comparison in product and construction stage  Figure 8. Fossil Fuel Consumption Comparison in product and construction stage for level 3 elements 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS PRODUCT 0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 Fossil Fuel Consumption CONSTRUCTION PROCESS Fossil Fuel Consumption UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  23 / 54   From the Figure9 to 15, A22 Upper Floor Construction is the hotspots for most impact categories, except in ³+XPDQ+HDOWK&ULWHULD– 5HVSLUDWRU\´ZKLFKWKH$:DOODERYH*UDGHLVKRWVSRWChemistry building South wing was built in 1958, the main material is concrete which contribute to majority of Global Warming Potential (GWP), Fossil Fuel Consumption (FFC) and other environmental impact, For all suspended slabs (floor 1, 2, 3) are sorting under A22 Upper Floor Construction, the volume of total concrete in A22 is higher than others. From the pie chart, we can also see the A32 Roof construction and A32 Wall above Grade also has a large impact on environment.  Figure 9. Percentage of Fossil Fuel Consumption for level 3 elements  1% 3% 50% 20% 3% 17% 6% Fossil Fuel Consumption A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  24 / 54   Figure 10. Percentage of Global Warming Potential for level 3 elements   Figure 11. Percentage of Acidification Potential for level 3 elements  2% 5% 50% 15% 4% 18% 6% Global Warming A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions 2% 4% 48% 15% 4% 21% 6% Acidification A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  25 / 54   Figure 12. Percentage of Human health respiratory effects Potential for level 3 elements   Figure 13. Percentage of Eutrophication Potential  for level 3 elements  2% 4% 34% 12% 3% 40% 5% Human Health Criteria – Respiratory A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions 1% 2% 59% 15% 2% 15% 6% Eutrophication A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  26 / 54   Figure 14. Percentage Ozone Depletion Potential for level 3 elements  Figure 15. Percentage Photochemical smog Potential for level 3 elements Further, we compared impact categories in the three weighted elements, to see which one is most sensitive. From last discussion, A32 Wall above Grade contribute most to ³+XPDQ+HDOWKCriteria – 5HVSLUDWRU\´KRZHYHULQWKLVSDUWZHFDQVHHFFC is still the main emission for building components. See Figure 16 to 18 3% 6% 49% 15% 5% 16% 6% Ozone Layer Depletion A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions 2% 5% 52% 16% 4% 15% 6% Smog A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  27 / 54   Figure 16. Environmental Impacts of A22 Upper Floor Construction    Figure 17. Environmental Impacts of A23 Roof Construction  8590278.61 , 91% 753267.64 , 8% A22 Upper Floor Construction Fossil Fuel Consumption Global Warming Acidification Human Health Criteria  ʹRespiratory Eutrophication Ozone Layer Depletion 3416545.58 , 93% 233549.66 , 6% A23 Roof Construction Fossil Fuel Consumption Global Warming Acidification Human Health Criteria  ʹRespiratory Eutrophication Ozone Layer Depletion UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  28 / 54   Figure 18. Environmental Impacts of A32 Wall above Grade.  Annex A - Interpretation of Assessment Results Benchmark Development The concept of LCA Benchmarking is trying to measure building impact category using a specific indicator. This indicator here is the emission value per sq. m2. Only by address this common goal & scope, different building could be compared.   UBC Academic Building Benchmark From the Figure 19, we can see the Chemistry building South wing has a little higher amount of energy consumption comparing with the UBC academic building benchmark. It means compared with other building in UBC, Chemistry building South wing has more potential to improve its environmental performance. The probably reason might be due to the majority material used in building structure, Concrete, has a larger environmental impacts than other materials. Also, the material used in roof construction might have big environmental impacts.  2905939.70 , 91% 265323.81 , 8% A32 Walls Above Grade Fossil Fuel Consumption Global Warming Acidification Human Health Criteria  ʹRespiratory Eutrophication Ozone Layer Depletion UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  29 / 54   Figure 19. Fossil Fuel Consumption Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing  Figure 20. Global Warming Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing   0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 Building total average A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions Fossil Fuel Consumption UBC Builiding Benchmark Chemistry South 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 Building total average A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions Global Warming UBC Builiding Benchmark Chemistry South UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  30 / 54   Figure 21. Acidification Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing   Figure 22. Human health respiratory effects Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Building total average A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions Acidification UBC Builiding Benchmark Chemistry South 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Building total average A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions Human Health Criteria – Respiratory UBC Builiding Benchmark Chemistry South UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  31 / 54   Figure 23. Eutrophication Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing  Figure 24. Photochemical smog Potential Comparison between Benchmark and Chemistry building South wing See Figure 25 to 27, Chemistry building South wing¶s cost is lower than most of the building, however the GWP is higher than most. In order to consider the relation with cost and GWP relation for each building, we further converted two kinds of building into similar scale. (Figure 27) There is a tendency that higher budget building has less GWP. This is just a tendency, no evidence shows the direct relation between building cost and GWP. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Building total average A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions Eutrophication UBC Builiding Benchmark Chemistry South 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Building total average A11 Foundations A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B11 Partitions Smog  UBC Builiding Benchmark Chemistry South UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  32 / 54   Figure 25. Comparison of building cost between UBC buildings and Chemistry building South wing  Figure 26. Comparison of GWP between UBC buildings and Chemistry building South wing  0 20000000 40000000 60000000 80000000 100000000 120000000 140000000 160000000 180000000 0 5 10 15 20 UBC builidng Cost Chemistry South 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 0 5 10 15 20 UBC builidng GWP Chemistry South UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  33 / 54   Figure 27. Comparison of building cost and GWP between UBC buildings and Chemistry building South wing Annex B - Recommendations for LCA Use  LCA study is the life time study from WKHSURGXFWV¶³%LUWKWRWKH*UDYH´. For a building itself, the four stages comes to the whole life time. Furthermore, the energy use in operation stage contributes the most of energy consumption in building life, because the operation period is much larger than any other period in the rest of stages. Therefore the passive design in building is recommend for designers. However, for data collection in operation stage, it is harder to track the information. UBC now has the on time energy record which could be further used in LCA studies. Also, the waste management of building demolish stage is also a key factor for environment.  A proper way to recycle or degradation material will led to less long term effects to earth.  By doing the LCA study, people involved in the project will understand how decision in early stage will have a great effect on building. Like the effect/cause graph, the early little changes will change the result better in late big changes. The LCA study of product and construction stage will give reader a better understanding of material selection and its environmental impact.  The LCI data is the fundamental but important parts in LCA study. There are lots of uncertainties and assumptions in the LCA study. In this study, the IE input coming from material takeoff also -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 UBC builidng GWP UBC builidng Cost (Convert) UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  34 / 54  has some limitations. First is the knowledge of drafter. The drafter without any civil or architecture background will have difficult even in understand the drawing. Second is the inconsistence of drawing itself. Most buildings in UBC have a long history and the hand drawing can not be read clearly after decades. Further, the option in Athena will not cover all components, data adjustments are need. Then the question comes to how to find the Availability and quality data.  Prioritizing impact categories are different from person to person. In the aversion survey in the class, most people think the GWP is the priority one. During the discussion we found people with different background will treat the problem differently. Students coming from one particular area will give a high value in certain problems, like the student coming from China, smog or HH air are big concerns for them. The impact categories could be divided into two parts: the long term impacts which comes slower and might cause global effects as well as harder to recover; and the short term impacts which comes faster in particular area as well as rise a huge impact on local environment and social problems.  First, for myself, since the product and construction stage are already done, I can save the energy on use stage by not waste energy in the daily life. Also, I will talk about it to some friends who GRQ¶WNQRZRUKDYHDOLWWOHXQGHUVWDQGLQJRI/&$/&$LVDELJWRSLFZhich include many sub topic related to many disciplines. People will find their own interested point relate to their background.  Annex C - Author Reflection Reflect on your experience completing this final project in the course.  Make sure to cover the following points in your discussions.  Mark and briefly comment on which of the 12 CEAB graduate attributes you believe you had to demonstrate during your final project experience (see CEAB Graduate Attributes.xls on course wikispace Final Project Page under Stage 4).  Just fill in the table and paste it in this section of your final report. One of the good things about this course is it gives people a whole picture of LCA and not require for much background knowledge. The terminology use is a little hard for a beginner, but the introduction for LCI, LCIA, LCCA are useful. The final project is a good practice for UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  35 / 54  student to have a better understanding of how to do a LCA and what should be covered in a report. The most interesting thing is to know how LCA works DQGNQRZWKH³EODFNER[´LQAthena.              Graduate Attribute         Name Description Select the content code most appropriate for each attribute from the dropdown menue Comments on which of the CEAB graduate attributes you believe you had to demonstrate during your final project experience.           1 Knowledge Base Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. IDA = introduced, developed & applied Can understand the backgroud of LCA study and writing a report           UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  36 / 54  2 Problem Analysis An ability to use appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions. DA = developed & applied             3 Investigation An ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and synthesis of information in order to reach valid conclusions. IA = introduced & applied Getting into the detail of every single input of Athena IE to check the inaccuracy            4 Design An ability to design solutions for complex, open-ended engineering problems and to design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate attention to health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmental, cultural and societal IA = introduced & applied The Comparison between all the elements and stages UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  37 / 54  considerations.           5 Use fo Engineering Tools An ability to create, select, apply, adapt, and extend appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities, from simple to complex, with an understanding of the associated limitations. IDA = introduced, developed & applied Well understand of material takeoff and Athena           6 Individual and Team Work An ability to work effectively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi-disciplinary setting. DA = developed & applied             UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  38 / 54  7 Communication An ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and with society at large. Such ability includes reading, writing, speaking and listening, and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, and to give and effectively respond to clear instructions. DA = developed & applied             8 Professionalism  An understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer in society, especially the primary role of protection of the public and the public interest. IA = introduced & applied             9 Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment An ability to analyze social and environmental aspects of engineering activities.  Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, social, health, safety,     UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  39 / 54  legal, and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship.           10 Ethics and Equity An ability to apply professional ethics, accountability, and equity.               11 Economics and Project Management An ability to appropriately incorporate economics and business practices including project, risk, and change management into the practice of engineering and to understand their limitations. IA = introduced & applied             12 Life-long Learning An ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world in ways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancement of DA = developed & applied   UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  40 / 54  knowledge.  Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions  Assembly Group Quantity Units Assembly Type Assembly Name Input Fields Input Values Known/Measured IE Inputs A11 Foundation 1216.8435 m2                 1.2  Concrete Footing                1.2.1  Footing_Type10                 Length (ft) 12.5 16.5          Width (ft) 6.25 6.25          Thickness (in) 26 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #10, #6 #6        1.2.2  Footing_Type11                 Length (ft) 45.5 14.4          Width (ft) 3 #REF!          Thickness (in) 24 #REF!          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #4 #4        1.2.3.  Footing_Type12                 Length 38.5 47 UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  41 / 54  (ft)          Width (ft) 3.5 3.5          Thickness (in) 24 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #4 #4        1.2.4  Footing_Type13                 Length (ft) 14 14          Width (ft) 3 3          Thickness (in) 18 18          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #6, #4 #4        1.2.5  Footing_Type14                 Length (ft) 5 5          Width (ft) 2.5 2.50          Thickness (in) 16 16          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #6, #4 #4        1.2.6  Footing_Type2                 Length (ft) 34 44.9          Width (ft) 8.5 8.50          Thickness (in) 26 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #8, #11 #6        1.2.7  Footing_Type3                 Length (ft) 18 23.76          Width (ft) 9 9          Thickness (in) 26 19.7 UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  42 / 54           Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #11, #8 #6        1.2.8  Footing_Type4                 Length (ft) 7 15.84          Width (ft) 7 3.50          Thickness (in) 26 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #10, #7 #6        1.2.9  Footing_Type5                 Length (ft) 12 15.84          Width (ft) 3.5 3.50          Thickness (in) 26 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #9, #10 #6        1.2.10  Footing_Type6                 Length (ft) 15.2 20.02          Width (ft) 9.6 9.59          Thickness (in) 26 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #10, #8, #11 #6        1.2.11  Footing_Type7                 Length (ft) 10.5 13.86          Width (ft) 14.5 14.50          Thickness (in) 26 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  43 / 54            Rebar #11. #5, #10 #6        1.2.12  Footing_Type8                 Length (ft) 5.42 14.3          Width (ft) 5.42 5.42          Thickness (in) 26 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #5, #6 #6        1.2.13  Footing_Type9                 Length (ft) 4 5.3          Width (ft) 3.5 3.50          Thickness (in) 26 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #9, #11 #6        1.2.14  Footing_Type1                 Length (ft) 17.5 23.1          Width (ft) 3 3          Thickness (in) 26 19.7          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #11, #9 #6        1.2.15  Footing_2'8"                 Length (ft) 117 117          Width (ft) 2.67 2.67          Thickness (in) 12 12          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar - #5        1.2.16  Footing_3'9"                 Length 38 38 UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  44 / 54  (ft)          Width (ft) 3.75 3.75          Thickness (in) 12 12          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar - #5        1.2.17  Footing_2'                 Length (ft) 78.00 78.00          Width (ft) 2.00 2.00          Thickness (in) 12.00 12          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar - #6        1.2.18  Footing_Type16                 Length (ft) 7.00 7.00          Width (ft) 3.50 3.50          Thickness (in) 15.00 15          Concrete (psi) - 4000           Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #4 #4        1.2.19  Footing_3'2"                 Length (ft) 31.00 31.00          Width (ft) 3.17 3.17          Thickness (in) 12.00 12          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar - #5        1.2.20  Footing_Type17                 Length (ft) 11.00 11.70          Width (ft) 5.50 5.50          Thickness (in) 23.00 19.7 UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  45 / 54           Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Rebar #7, #5 #6 A21 Lowest Floor Construction  1216.8435 m2                 1.1  Concrete Slab-on-Grade                 1.1.1 SOG_125mm                 Length (ft) 222.00 197.00           Width (ft) 59.00 59.00           Thickness (in) 5 8           Concrete (psi) - 4000           Concrete flyash % - average A22 Upper Floor Construction  2634.6362 m2                 4.1  Concrete Suspended Slab                 4.1.1  Floor1_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm              Floor Width (ft) 398.5 398.5          Span (ft) 30 30          Concrete (psi) 4000 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Life load (psf) - 100       4.2  Concrete Suspended Slab                 4.2.1      UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  46 / 54  Floor2_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm          Floor Width (ft) 273.4 273.4          Span (ft) 30 30          Concrete (psi) 4000 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Life load (psf) - 75       4.3  Concrete Suspended Slab                 4.3.1  Floor3_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm              Floor Width (ft) 273.4 273.4          Span (ft) 30 30          Concrete (psi) 4000 4000          Concrete flyash % - average           Life load (psf) - 75           Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier           Material - Polyethylene 6 mil           Thickness - -       3.1  Concrete Column                 3.1.1  Column_Concrete_Beam_Basement_Floor1               Number of Beams 65 65           Number of Columns 52 52           Floor to floor height (ft) 12 12           Bay sizes (ft) 25.67 25.67           Supported span (ft) 18.58 18.58           Live load - 100 UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  47 / 54  (psf)        3.1.3  Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor2_Floor3              Number of Beams 84 84          Number of Columns 72 72          Floor to floor height (ft) 13 13          Bay sizes (ft) 19.5 19.5          Supported span (ft) 18.1 18.1          Live load (psf) - 100        1.2.15  Stairs_Concrete_TotalLength                Length (ft) 277 277          Width (ft) 5.25 5.25          Thickness (in) 8 8          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average          Rebar #5, #6 #6        1.2.15  Stairs_Concrete_LectureHall_TotalLength              Length (ft) 60 60          Width (ft) 45 45          Thickness (in) 8 8 i        Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average          Rebar #4 #4 A23 Roof Construction 1201.7932 m2                 5.2  Concrete         UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  48 / 54  Roof         5.2.1  Roof_Concrete                Roof Width (ft) 431.2 3554.22          Roof Length (ft) 30.00 17.35          Decking Type Concrete Concrete          Decking Thickness 5 5.00        Envelope Category Roof Envelopes Roof Envelopes          Material 4 ply built up asphalt roof system(inverted) 4 ply built up asphalt roof system(inverted)          Thickness - -          Category Cellulose, Glass Felt Cellulosel, Glass Felt          Material 4" 4"          Thickness - -          Category Insulation Insulation          Material Polyisocyanurate Foam Polyisocyanurate Foam          Thickness 2" 2"          Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier          Material - Polyethylene 6 mil          Thickness - -        3.1.4  Column_Concrete_Beam_Floor3_Roof              Number of Beams 76 76          Number of Columns 71 71          Floor to floor height (ft) 13 13          Bay sizes (ft) 14.333 14.333          Supported span (ft) 19 19          Live load (psf) - 75 A31 Walls Below Grade 736.81369 m2           UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  49 / 54        2.1  Cast In Place               2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-Place_Basement_230mm              Length (ft) 439 439.00          Height (ft) 14 14          Thickness (in) 9 8          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average       2.2  Concrete Block Wall   Rebar - #5        2.2.3  Wall_ConcreteBrick_200mm_ShortBrickAddIn_Basement                Length (ft) 119 119          Height (ft) 15 15          Rebar - -        Envelope Category Cladding Cladding          Material Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)          Thickness - -          Category Insulation Insulation          Material Batt Batt          Thickness 2" 2"          Category Stud Stud          Material Wood Wood          Thickness 4" 2'X4"          Category Covering Covering          Material Plaster 1" gypsum          Thickness 3/4" 1"          Rebar - -        Door Opening Number of Doors - -          Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  A32 Walls Above Grade 2047.0247 m2                 2.1  Cast        UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  50 / 54  In Place        2.1.2  Wall_Cast-in-Place_Elevator_200mm                Length (ft) 53 53          Height (ft) 51.00 51.00          Thickness (in) varies 12          Concrete (psi) - 4000          Concrete flyash % - average          Rebar #4 #4       2.2  Concrete Block Wall                2.2.4  Wall_ConcreteBrick_200mm_ShortBrickAddIn_Floor1                Length (ft) 334 334          Height (ft) 13 13          Rebar - -        Envelope Category Cladding Cladding          Material Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)          Thickness - -          Category Insulation Insulation          Material Batt Batt          Thickness 2" 2"          Category Stud Stud          Material Wood Wood          Thickness 2" 2"X2"          Category Covering Covering          Material Plaster 1" gypsum          Thickness 3/4" 1"          Rebar - -        Door Opening Number of Doors 2 2          Door Type Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing         2.2.5  Wall_ConcreteBrick_200mm_ShortBrickAddIn_Floor2       UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  51 / 54           Length (ft) 246 246          Height (ft) 13 13          Rebar - -        Envelope Category Cladding Cladding          Material Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)          Thickness - -          Category Insulation Insulation          Material Batt Batt          Thickness 2" 2"          Category Stud Stud          Material Wood Wood          Thickness 2" 2"X2"          Category Covering Covering          Material Plaster 1" gypsum          Thickness 3/4" 1"          Rebar - -        Door Opening Number of Doors 2 2          Door Type Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing         2.2.4  Wall_ConcreteBrick_200mm_ShortBrickAddIn_Floor3              Length (ft) 247 247          Height (ft) 13 13          Rebar - -        Envelope Category Cladding Cladding          Material Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)          Thickness - -          Category Insulation Insulation          Material Batt Batt          Thickness 2" 2"          Category Stud Stud          Material Wood Wood          Thickness 2" 2"X2"          Category Covering Covering          Material Plaster 1" gypsum          Thickness 3/4" 1"          Rebar - -        Door Opening Number of Doors 2 2 UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  52 / 54           Door Type Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing        2.3.3  Wall_CurtainWall_Total                Length (ft) 660 660          Height (ft) 13 13          Percent Viewable Glazing 95 95          Percent Spandrel Panel 5 5          Thickness of Insulation (in) 2 2          Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass) Metal Metal        Door Opening Number of Doors 16 16          Door Type - Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  B11 Partitions  1160.9159 m2                 2.2  Concrete Block Wall                2.2.1  Wall_ConcreteBlock_Partition_250mm_total                Length (ft) 688 688          Height (ft) 12 12          Rebar - #4           Category Cladding Cladding           Material Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)          Thickness 10 10        2.2.2  Wall_ConcreteBlock_Partition_Stairwell_25      UBC CIVL498C   LCA of Chemistry Building South  53 / 54  0mm_total          Length (ft) 80 80          Height (ft) 53 53          Rebar - #4           Category Cladding Cladding           Material Brick - Modular (metric) Brick - Modular (metric)           Thickness 10 10    

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108899/manifest

Comment

Related Items