Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Tse, Daniel 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-Tse_Daniel_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 2.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108900.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108900-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108900-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108900-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108900-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108900-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108900-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108900-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108900.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportDaniel TseLife Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research LaboratoryCIVL 498CNovember 18, 2013University 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”.      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       CIVL 498C Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory UBC LCA Database Project Daniel Tse    November 18, 2013  Final Report  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   ii Ta ble of Cont ent s  Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ iv List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................... vii 1 General Information on the Assessment ..............................................................................................................8  1.1 Purpose of the Assessment .........................................................................................................................8  1.2 Identification of Building .............................................................................................................................9  1.3 Other Assessment Information ................................................................................................................ 10  2 General Information on the Object of Assessment ........................................................................................... 11  2.1 Functional Equivalent ............................................................................................................................... 11  2.2 Reference Study Period ........................................................................................................................... 12  2.3 Object of Assessment Scope .................................................................................................................... 13  3 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment ..................................................................... 15  3.1 System Boundary ..................................................................................................................................... 15  3.2 Product Stage ........................................................................................................................................... 16  3.3 Construction Process Stage ...................................................................................................................... 17  4 Environmental Data ........................................................................................................................................... 18  4.1 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................................ 18  4.1.1 Athena LCI Database ................................................................................................................. 18  4.1.2 US LCI Database ........................................................................................................................ 18  4.2 Data Adjustments and Substitutions ....................................................................................................... 19  4.3 Data Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 19  5 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results .................................................................... 21  6 Model Development .......................................................................................................................................... 23  6.1 Quantity Takeoffs ..................................................................................................................................... 23  6.1.1 Construction and Architectural Drawings ................................................................................ 23  6.1.2 Architectural Construction Assemblies .................................................................................... 23  6.1.3 On -Screen Takeoff .................................................................................................................... 23  6.2 Modelling of Assembly Groups ................................................................................................................ 24  6.2.1 Foundations .............................................................................................................................. 24  6.2.2 Walls ......................................................................................................................................... 24  6.2.3 Mixed Columns and Beams ...................................................................................................... 24  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   iii 6. 2.4 Floors ........................................................................................................................................ 25  6.2.5 Roof .......................................................................................................................................... 25  6.2.6 Extra Basic Materials ................................................................................................................ 25  6.3 Model Review and Sorting ....................................................................................................................... 26  6.3.1 Original Bill of Materials ........................................................................................................... 26  6.3.2 Original Summary Measure Report .......................................................................................... 28  6.3.3 CIQS Level 3 Sorting .................................................................................................................. 30  6.3.4 Model Review ........................................................................................................................... 31  6.4 Model Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 33  6.4.1 CIQS Level 3 Sorting .................................................................................................................. 33  6.4.2 Geometric Measurements ........................................................................................................ 33  6.4.3 Material Types and Properties ................................................................................................. 33  6.5 Impact Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 34  6.5.1 Input and Assumptions Document ........................................................................................... 34  6.5.2 Impact Estimator ...................................................................................................................... 34  6.5.3 Revised Bill of Materials ........................................................................................................... 35  6.5.4 Revised Summary Measure Report .......................................................................................... 37  6.6 Net Present Value .................................................................................................................................... 38  7 Communication of Assessment Results ............................................................................................................. 39  7.1 Life Cycle Results ...................................................................................................................................... 39  7.2 Supporting Annexes ................................................................................................................................. 44  8 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 45  Annex A  ʹInterpretation of Assessment Results ......................................................................................................... 47  A1  ʹBenchmark Development .......................................................................................................................... 47  A2  ʹUBC Academic Building Benchmark ........................................................................................................... 47  Annex B  ʹRecommendations for LCA Use ................................................................................................................... 51  Annex C  ʹAuthor Reflection ........................................................................................................................................ 52  C1  ʹPrior Exposure to LCA and Sustainability ................................................................................................... 52  C2  ʹCourse and Final Project Highlights ............................................................................................................ 53  C3  ʹLCA and Sustainability Commentary .......................................................................................................... 53  C4  ʹCEAB Graduate Attributes .......................................................................................................................... 53  Annex D  ʹImpact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions ................................................................................................. 55   CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   iv E xecutive Summary  Project Context This study is completed as the final report for the undergraduate civil engineering course CIVL 498C: Life Cycle Assessment. It is one of many building LCA studies completed as part of the larger UBC LCA Database Project. While significant development on this study was done by a previous author in 2009, this study represents the most complete compilation for product and construction process LCA results for the AERL building.   Methods Significant previous work has already been completed to model and assess the environmental performance of AERL. The previous report author, Rob Sianchuk, orginated a quantity takeoff model, LCA building model, a spreadsheet documenting model input and assumptions, and a draft LCA report. These items were reviewed and improved upon to create this study.  Software has been a key component. Using On-Screen Takeoff v3.9.0.6, the original construction and architectural drawings were annotated to create quantity takeoffs for the entire building. Using the Athena Impact Estimator for buildings, these quantities were inputted and translated into environmental impacts. A pair of Excel spreadsheets has been utilized to document the input and assumptions between models .   This study presents environmental performance using the TRACI v2.1 impact assessment method. The Athena and US LCI databases are referenced by the IE. The study references a number of standards. Of note are ISO 14040, ISO 14044, and EN 1597 8.  Results The functional unit is square meters of floor space (inclusive of slab- on-grade and suspended slabs). For AERL, this quantity is       . Environmental performance is evaluated by life cycle stage (product, construction process) and CIQS level 3 elemental format and normalized to the functional unit. Tables of values and figures of these results are given in Section 7.1 Life Cycle Results.  Interpretation The interpretation of results is made in the context of the environmental performance of all the other building LCA studies in the UBC >C Database project. /n other words, interpretation of EZ>͛s environmental performance is referenced against this benchmark.   Comparison against the benchmark suggests two things. First, AERL creates less impacts per square meter than most buildings across all TRACI indicators. Second, the percent reduction in impact per square meter can be characterized by the global warming potential (units of kg CO2eq / m2). That is to say, one recommendation for operationalizing building LCA is to characterize performance in terms of a single indicator (in this case, global warming potential), with the understanding that this has the indirect effect of improving performance across all impacts.   Limitations This study focuses on product and construction process stages; that is, this study does not consider use and end- of-life stages The building components considered in the model are limited to material, envelope, and barrier products.  Paints/finishes and a host of building components (such as parapets) are not included in the model. In future years, the work of this study could be further developed to include additional life cycle stages as well increased scope of building materials and components.   CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   v Lis t of Figures  Figure 1: AERL Functional Areas by Percentage ............................................................................................................ 11  Figure 2: Whole-Building LCA Stages and Information Modules According to EN 1597 8 ............................................. 13  Figure 3: Whole-Building LCA System Boundary According to EN 15978 ..................................................................... 15  Figure 4: Bar Graph of Original Whole-Building Bill of Materials .................................................................................. 27  Figure 5: Bar Graph of Original Whole-Building Summary Measures ........................................................................... 29  Figure 6: Bar Graph of Revised Whole-Building Bill of Materials .................................................................................. 36  Figure 7: Bar Graph of Revised Whole-Building Summary Measures ........................................................................... 38  Figure 8: Absolute Environmental Impacts (Totalized) by CIQS Level 3 Element ......................................................... 41  Figure 9: Normalized Environmental Impacts (Totalized) by CIQS Level 3 Element ..................................................... 42  Figure 10: Relative Environmental Impacts by CIQS Level 3 Element ........................................................................... 44  Figure 11: AERL vs. Benchmark (21 -Oct-2013) .............................................................................................................. 47  Figure 12: AERL Absolute Difference Relative to Benchmark (21 -Oct-2013) ................................................................ 48  Figure 13: AERL Percent Difference Relative to Benchmark (21 -Oct-2013) .................................................................. 49  Figure 14: Total Cost vs. Total Global Warming per Square Meter for All Studies ....................................................... 50       CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   vi Lis t of Tables  Table 1: AERL At-a-Glance ............................................................................................................................................... 9  Table 2: Summary of Assessment Information ............................................................................................................. 10  Table 3: Functional Equivalent Definition ..................................................................................................................... 11  Table 4: AERL Functional Areas by Gross Floor Area ..................................................................................................... 11  Table 5: AERL Building Definition by Building System ................................................................................................... 14  Table 6: AERL Building Definition by CIQS Level 3 Element .......................................................................................... 14  Table 7: Product Stage Upstream and Downstream Processes for a 100 Year Reference Study Period ...................... 16  Table 8: Construction Process Stage Upstream and Downstream Processes for a 100 Year Reference Study Period. 16  Table 9: Description of Types of Data Uncertainty by LCA Stage .................................................................................. 19  Table 10: Study-Specific Examples of Uncertainty at the Inventory Analysis Stage ..................................................... 20  Table 11: Assessment Indicators and Possible Endpoint Impacts ................................................................................. 21  Table 12: Assessment Indicators and Cause/Effect Chains ........................................................................................... 22  Table 13: Design Live Loads (Structural Drawing 316- 07 -00 1) ...................................................................................... 25  Table 14: Original Whole-Building Bill of Materials ...................................................................................................... 26  Table 15: Original Whole-Building Summary Measure Report ..................................................................................... 28  Table 16: Description of CIQS Level 3 Elements ............................................................................................................ 30  Table 17: Model Improvements for CIQS Level 3 Sorting ............................................................................................. 31  Table 18: Model Improvements for Geometric Measurements ................................................................................... 31  Table 19: Model Improvements for Material Type and Property ................................................................................. 32  Table 20: Revised Whole-Building Bill of Materials ....................................................................................................... 35  Table 21: Revised Whole-Building Summary Measure Report ..................................................................................... 37  Table 22: AERL Net Present Value ................................................................................................................................. 38  Table 23: Relative Environmental Impacts by CIQS Level 3 Element ............................................................................ 43  Table 24: Sustainability in Prior Courses ....................................................................................................................... 52  Table 25: CEAB Graduate Attributes ............................................................................................................................. 54  Table 26: Sorted CIQS Level 3 Impact Estimator Inputs ................................................................................................ 55  Table 27: Sorted CIQS Level 3 Impact Estimator Assumptions ..................................................................................... 71  Table 28: IE Inputs Document  ʹCalculation for Upper Floor Construction Steel ......................................................... 84  Table 29: IE Inputs Document  ʹCalculation for Roof Construction Steel ..................................................................... 84        CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   vii Lis t of Abbreviations  Abbrev iat ion  Description  AERL Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory  ASMI Athena Sustainable Materials Institute  BCBC British Columbia Building Code BCFU BC Fisheries Research Unit BOM Bill of materials CEAB Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board  CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CIQS Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors  EPD Environmental product declaration FC UBC Fisheries Centre GHG Greenhouse gas  HSS Hollow structural steel (a type of steel column)  IE Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings  IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  IRES The Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability  LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design  LUCAS LCIA method Used for a CAnadian - Specific context  NBCC National Building Code of Canada  OST On - Screen Takeoff  ReCiPe RIVM and Radboud University, CML, and PRé Consultants  RJC Read Jones Christofferson  SOG Slab- on- grade TRACI Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts  US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency  WMO World Meteorological Organization      Methane      Carbon dioxide     CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   8 1  G enera l Info rma tio n on the Assessment  This section introduces purpose and focus of this study. 1.1  Pur p os e of the Ass es s men t The purpose of this assessment is to quantify the environmental performance of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory. This study is just one building assessed as part of a larger project, the UBC LCA Database Project. This larger project is one of the first of its kind: it represents one of the largest collections of institutional building LCA data. This study is an opportunity to evaluate EZ>͛s >EED certification by another set of metrics, life cycle approaches. In addition, this study creates precedent for the design and construction of other buildings at UBC, since LCA is quickly becoming a requirement for projects at UBC. 1  Further, these studies act as learning tools and opportunities for teaching and applying life cycle methods in a practical and accessible context.  This assessment is intended to be used for benchmarking and subsequently, decision making. The aggregated average results of each building in the UBC LCA Database Project creates precedent for new buildings at UBC. This database could be utilized to compare the environmental performance of various building materials (concrete, steel, timber). It can also be used to track the relative changes in environmental performance of buildings over time.   The intended audience is diverse. Of note, policy makers, pote ntially those at UBC͛s Sustainability Kffice, would be interested in the results of this study. In addition, the intended audience includes engineering firms, contractors, financiers, developers, architects, building owners, and building occupants as these parties closely interact with buildings. Finally, the intended audience also includes any other bodies, such as government, or other interested parties, including the public.    Because this study is intended for benchmarking (and eventually policy making), it is not intended for comparative assertions.   Given the use of this study for benchmarking and policy making, level of detail should be detailed, but errors, omissions or inaccuracies do not render the results unusable. Instead, due the aggregative nature of the project, accurate or missing detail in one study will likely be highlighted and counterbalanced by well modelled results in another study. The use of CIQS level 3 elemental sorting reflects the idea that greatest opportunity for environmental performance of buildings is the onus of the design team. That is, CIQS is an elemental format is based around design elements (as opposed to formats such as MasterFormat, which prioritize costing and scheduling). The decision to exclude components such as landscaping, ceiling and acoustic finishes, lab/research equipment, mechanical/electrical systems, and furnishings reflects the product and construction process foci of this study.                                                             1 (UBC Building Operations, 20 13) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   9 1.2  Iden tif ic ati on of Bui ldi ng The Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory, AERL, is described in Table 1 .  Table 1: AERL At-a-Glance2 Aspect  Description  Storeys 4  Address 2 20 2 Main Mall  Hours Monday - Friday    08:00  ʹ17:3 0  Saturday/Sunday/Holidays  CLOSED  Users UBC Fisheries Centre (FC) The Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES)  BC Fisheries Research Unit (BCFU) Project Manager Rob Brown Architect Patkau Architects  Structural Engineer Read Jones Christofferson (RJC)  Construction Bird Construction Project Size 5 2,770     Budget $ 15,725,000  Completion March 2006  Occupancy March 2006  Sustainability Rating LEED Gold (Certified)  LEED - BC- NC 1.0; Gold certification; Project 1001 0 3  Design Code British Columbia Building Code 1998 (based on the National Building Code of Canada 1995)   The building, funded by the Federal Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Provincial BC Knowledge Development Fund, 4  has a single lecture hall (Room 12) with a capacity of 144 seats and approximately 330 open office desk spaces.  5  s described by the previous author, “dhe concept of combining these research units was to create an interdisciplinary research facility with a focus on the evaluation and management of fisheries in natural aƋuatic ecosystems”6  In addition, the building is designed with a number of design features:  7   Passive air handling system  Wet lab research area  State of the art immersion lab  Four storey atrium lobby  Optimum light levels via strategic glazing (penthouse, size/placement of windows)                                                             2 (UBC Properties Trust, 2009) 3 (Canadian Green Building Council, 2013) 4 (Sianchuk, 2009) 5 (Sianchuk, 2009) 6 (Sianchuk, 2009) 7 (Bird Construction Inc, 2013) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   1 0  1.3  Ot her Ass es s men t I nfor mati o n  Table 2  gives other assessment information for this study.  Table 2: Summary of Assessment Information Assessmen t Informat ion  Description  Client for assessment Completed as coursework in a Civil Engineering technical elective course at the University of British Columbia Name and qualification of the assessor First author:  Daniel Tse Second author:  Rob Sianchuk, BScW, MASc  Impact assessment method Athena Impact Estimator v4.2.0208  US EPA TRACI v2.1 (2007)  Point of assessment 7 years  Period of validity 5 years  Date of assessment Completed in December 2013  Verifier Student work  ʹstudy not verified Standards Referenced EN 15978  ISO 1404 0  ISO 1404 4    CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   1 1 2  G enera l Info rma tio n on the Object of Ass ess ment  This section describes the functional unit, reference study period, and object of assessment scope. 2.1  F uncti ona l Eq uiva le nt The basis for expressing the results of an LCA study is in terms of a function unit. According to ISO 14044, functional units are the “Yuantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit.”8  It allows the results of the study to be normalinjed such that comparisons can be completed using a “common basis”. 9  The functional equivalent definition for AERL is given in Table 3 .  Table 3: Functional Equivalent Definition Aspect of Object of Assessment  Description  Building type Institutional/Post - Secondary, Research10  Functional requirements Research space  ʹdry and wet labs, immersion lab Lecture seating for 144 occupants  Office space  Technical requirements LEED Gold (Certified)  BCBC 1998, NBCC 1995  Pattern of use 1 44 lecture seats, 72 office spaces  Significant lab research space Monday to Friday operating hours  Required service life 1 00 years 11   For this study, the chosen functional unit is square metres of floor area (inclusive of all slab on grades and suspended slabs). Floor space can then be categorized in terms of use. Table 4  and Figure 1  summarinje EZ>͛s functional areas in terms of square meters.   Table 4: AERL Functional Areas by Gross Floor Area F un ct ion al Area Type  Gross Floo r Area      Auditorium/Lecture Hall 1 90  Computer Room 1 5  Elevator Shaft (inclusive of each floor) 2 1  First Aid 6  Hall/Atrium 8 17  Library 7 3  Mechanical/Electrical/Equipment 1 56  Offices 7 56  Research Lab 1 80 9  Research Room 3 58  Stairs/Stairwells 2 29  Storage 3 3  Washroom 1 43    Figure 1: AERL Functional Areas by Percentage                                                           8 (Standards Council of Canada, 2006) 9 (Quantis US, 200 9) 10 (UBC Properties Trust, 2009) 11 (UBC Building Operations, 20 13)  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   1 3  Figure 2: Whole-Building LCA Stages and Information Modules According to EN 1597814   For this study, Modules B, C, and D have been excluded. This is done for a number of reasons:  This study emphasizes the product and construction processes stages (Module A)  Modelling of use, end- of-life, and demolition stages (Modules B, C) is complex.  These studies can expanded to include additional modules in future years.  2.3  Obj ec t of Ass es s m en t Sco p e  According to EN 15 ϵϳϴ, the scope of a building >C study should include the “foundations to the edžternal worŬs enclosed within the area of the building͛s site, over the reference study period.”15  However, the scope of this study deviates from the scope defined in EN 15978 : it is limited to the structural components and envelope and barrier materials only. This reduction in scope is meant to focus and enhance the modelling and results the product and construction process stages. In addition, the reduced scope highlights the fact that this course is being offered through civil engineering.  For this study, a number of building systems have been excluded, such as: projects and overhangs, parapets, fittings and equipment, and finishes among other building systems. What is included in the study is summarized in two tables. Table 5  identifies aspects of AERL are included in this study by building system. Table 6  shows this same information but sorted to reflect CIQS level 3 elements. This sorting has been applied to reflect the Canadian context of this study. In addition, the fact that this sorting scheme is element emphasizes the potential use of LCA during the building design stages.                                                               14  (Coldstream Consulting, 2011) 15 (Life Cycle Assessment Final Project Outline, 2013) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   1 4  Table 5: AERL Building Definition by Building System16 Bui ldin g Syst em  Specific Charact eristics of AERL  Structure  Concrete and HSS columns supporting concrete suspended slabs  Floors  Basement: concrete slab on grade   Ground, second, third, and fourth: suspended concrete slabs  Exterior walls  Basement: cast - in- place concrete walls  Ground, second, third, and fourth: aluminum framed curtain walls; steel stud walls with modular brick cladding, extruded polystyrene, windows; cast - in- place concrete walls with modular brick cladding and extruded polystyrene   Penthouse: aluminum framed curtain walls   Interior walls  Basement: gypsum on steel stud walls   Ground, second, third, and fourth: gypsum on steel stud walls, some acoustic batt insulation Windows  All windows and curtain walls low E tin glazed  Roof  Main roof: suspended concrete slab with 2 - ply SBS modified bitumen membrane roofing and polyisocyanurate insulation  Penthouse roof: steel deck with 2 - ply SBS modified bitumen membrane roofing and polyisocyanurate insulation  Table 6: AERL Building Definition by CIQS Level 3 Element C IVL 498C Lev el  3 Elemen t  Description  Quant ity  (Amoun t)  Uni t s  A11 Foundations Strip and spread footings, various depths 1708     A21 Lowest Floor Construction Slab on grade (125mm, 150mm, 200mm thick) -  150mm slab is exposed/outside walkway  1708     A22 Upper Floor Construction Suspended slabs (200mm -  ground, 2nd, 3rd, 4th), concrete/HSS steel columns (basement, ground, 2nd, 3rd), all staircases  3543     A23 Roof Construction Suspended slab (200mm, roof), 4th floor columns (concrete, HSS steel), steel joist (penthouse) 1388     A31 Walls Below Grade  Cast- in- place concrete walls (150mm, 200mm, 400mm thick) of various wall assemblies 664     A32 Walls Above Grade  Cast- in- place concrete walls (300mm), concrete block walls (200mm thick) of various wall assemblies, curtain wall (steel spandrel and glazing), steel stud walls  3154     B11 Partitions  Cast- in- place concrete walls (200mm, 250mm, 400mm thick) of various wall assemblies, concrete block wall (200mm thick), curtain walls, steel stud partition walls of various assemblies 4894                                                                   16 (Sianchuk, 2009) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   1 5  3  Sta tement of Bounda ries and Scena rio s Used in the Assess ment  This section describes the system boundary detailed in standard EN 1597 8. A description of the production and construction process stages, the focus of this study, follows.  3.1  Sys t em Bou ndar y  In utilizing EN 15978, the system boundary should include the four building life cycle stages (product, construction process, use, and end- of-life), as illustrated in Figure 3 . While not shown in Figure 3 , the system boundary also includes “all the upstream and downstream processes needed to establish and maintain the function(s) of the object of assessment, from the acquisition of raw materials to their disposal or to the point where materials exit the system boundary during the defined reference study period.” 17    However, this study focuses only on the product and construction process stages. The intent of this study is to determine the material and construction impacts and associated environmental impacts as mentioned in section 1.1 Purpose of the Assessment.  Figure 3: Whole-Building LCA System Boundary According to EN 1597818                                                              17 (Life Cycle Assessment Final Project Outline, 2013) 18  (Coldstream Consulting, 2011) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   1 6  Table 7  and Table 8  give general descriptions downstream and upstream processes that support the information modules of the produce and construction process stages, respectively. These sections are described further in sections 3.2 Product Stage and 3.3 Construction Process Stage.  Table 7: Product Stage Upstream and Downstream Processes for a 100 Year Reference Study Period  Informat ion  Module  Down stream Processes  Upst ream Processes  A1 Raw Material Supply    A2 Transport   A3 Manufacturing     Table 8: Construction Process Stage Upstream and Downstream Processes for a 100 Year Reference Study Period  Informat ion  Module  Down stream Processes  Upst ream Processes  A4 Transport   A5 Construction-  Installation Process     3.2  Pro d uc t Stag e The product stage includes the process between material extraction and material production. Because standard EN ϭϱϵϳϴ is not publically accessible and no suitable alternate sources were located, this section contains the author͛s best estimates of the process information at the product stage.   The following are considered in the manufacturing module:  The energy requirements during manufacturing could be characterized the plant energy operating requirements. However, the energy requirements also need to reflect the upstream energy production impacts. For example, if a manufacturing plant is powered by coal-generated electricity, the emissions to land, water, and air need to account for the emissions created during the manufacturing process in addition to those generated during the burning of the coal.  Impacts for packaging should be considered in a similar manner.    The following are considered in the transportation module:  Transportation could include the energy requirements between the extraction and refinement point and from one refinement point to another until the final product  Energy and emissions are also assumed to be generated during the transportation of manufacturing wastes.    CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   1 7  3.3  Constr uc tio n Pr oc es s Stag e The construction stage includes the process between products leaving the factory gates until the practical completion of construction works.   The following are considered in the transportation module: 19   Transportation accounts for energy required to transport material from a factory to a regional distribution centre, and then onwards to the construction site. Distances are based on regional surveys.  It is assumed that a similar procedure is used to quantify the energy requirements for waste disposal.  The following are considered in the construction-installation module: 20   Energy requirements are considered in the construction of a given building assembly. For example, operating a concrete pump would require a different amount of energy consumption than operating a pile driving rig. Both, however, would have different emissions to land, air and water.   Weather and temperature conditions affect the energy and material requirements. For example, additional energy and material would be required to properly cure concrete in cold temperatures.  For mid- and high-rise structures, energy requirements are considered when hoisting material to the required elevation. The same can be assumed for deep excavations.                                                                  19 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 20 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   1 8  4  E nvironmenta l Data  This section discusses data sources, data adjustments and substitutions, and data quality. 4.1  Data Sourc es The IE combines two main sources of data: 1)  Athena LCI Database for material process data 2)  US LCI Database for energy combustion and pre-combustion processes for electricity generation and transportation The use of this database information is integrally built into the function of the program͖ that is, they “are not appropriately viewed as standalone files because they are designed to work only in the context of the data integration undertaŬen by the /mpact Estimator.”21   4.1.1  At hen a LCI Dat abase The Athena Institute was started in 1989 as Forintek Canada Corp. Originally a wood products research institute, Forintek received national funding to research the environmental footprints of other building materials such as steel and concrete. By the mid- ϭϵϵϬs, this worŬ became Ŭnown as the “thena Wroject”. /n 1 99 6, the Athena Institute became a separate entity from Forintek. 22  Athena has been conducting life cycle research since 1989. Today, the institute studies energy use, transportation, construction and demolition, maintenance, repair and replacement effects, and demolition and disposal environmental impacts in addition to the original material impacts.23    This database includes a wide range of structural and envelope materials. 24  For structural materials, it includes various types of concrete, steel, wood, and wood composite materials.  For envelope details, this database has information on cladding, insulation and barrier products, paint, gypsum board, roofing products and windows.  The SD/ ultimately manages this database. dhey utilinje a “membership-based non-profit research collaborative”25  model, which means data is not publically available. They grow and maintain the database in two ways. They secure research contracts from industry and produce industry averages on “commodity products such as concrete, lumber, gypsum, etc.” 26  For other data, such as demolition and end- of-life processes, Athena membership fees and research grants are utilized. 27  4.1.2  US LCI Dat abase The US LCI database was conceived on May 1, 2001. T he project “gained national prominence at a meeting of interests hosted by the &ord Dotor Company” Since then, representatives from manufacturing, government, non-government organizations, and LCA experts have come together to form an advisory committee for the database.28  The Athena Institute made a major contribution to the database in 2002.  29                                                             21 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 22 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 23 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 24 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 25 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 26 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 27 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 28 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010) 29 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   1 9  The materials included in this database are extensive. However, the IE uses only energy data from this database. To account for regional difference, electricity generation profiles are chosen based on provide, regional, or continental criteria. This database is publically accessbile.   The US LCI database is managed by the National Renewable Energy Lab. 30  There are currently two lead researchers: 31  Michael Deru, PhD and Alberta Carpenter, PhD. The Athena Institute uses this database for energy consumption impacts, they have been “major proponents of, and contributors to, the US >C/ Database.”32  4.2  Data Adj us tm en ts and Subs tit u tio ns Although the IE is designed to specificity of a wide range of construction products and materials, there are still instances where the program does not have information for a given product of material used in the actual building construction. In such cases, it would be prudent for the modeller to find other suitable data such that the environmental impacts of these products can be better quantified.   Section 6.4.3 Material Types and Properties discusses these sort of material improvements further. Example material type and properties are presented, and a general methodology for quantifying their impacts is presented. 4.3  Data Quali ty Data quality describes the level with which it satisfies stated requirements. Where the data does not meet these requirements, it is described as uncertain. Table 9  describes five types of data uncertainty covered in this study while Table 10  gives study specific examples at the inventory analysis stage.  Table 9: Description of Types of Data Uncertainty by LCA Stage33 Uncertaint y  Description  Data Data uncertainty is associated with the actual collected numbers; uncertainty during data collection must be propagated throughout the analysis Model Model uncertainty is associated with the analysis method of collected data. In particular, this is qualified as whether a model is linear or non- linear. For example, model uncertainty asks whether a given amount of input will result in less output (non- linear), the same amount of output (linear), or more output (non- linear). Model uncertainty also includes the chose n impact assessment method. Using North American metrics (TRACI, LUCAS) provides different outcomes than using European metrics (ReCiPe), for example.  Temporal Temporal uncertainty is associated with change of data for a given product over time; it consid ers improving technologies over time as well as environmental mechanisms or chemical reactions which require significant time to become visible and quantifiable (ie. acquifer damage).  Spatial Spatial uncertainty is associated with regional differences in data Variability between Sources This type of uncertainty is associated with differences in data given that temporal and spatial uncertainty is minimal. That is, this is the remaining uncertainty in the case that, for example, two factories in the same region operating at the same time. It accounts for the differences between factories, such as the production technologies employed. In addition, it includes differences in human exposure patterns. For example, children and infants are more susceptible to en docrine disrupting compounds than adults.                                                              30 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 31 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010) 32 (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, 201 3) 33 (Week 8 Notes, October 23, 2013) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   2 0  Table 10: Study-Specific Examples of Uncertainty at the Inventory Analysis Stage34 Uncertaint y  Inv ent ory Analysis  Study Specific Example  Data Data collection and allocation procedures; inaccurate or missing data Uncertainty in the completeness of the quantity takeoffs completed in OST  Model Linear or non - linear modelling  ʹTemporal Differences in yearly factory emissions; data vintage  For the overall UBC LCA Database Project, a number of buildings contain banned substances such as asbestos. Uncertainty results because studies are not, and likely will not be, conducted on such materials. Spatial Regional differences between factories Uncertainty in the use of cementitious materials regionally: Vancouver uses flyash, but Ontario uses slag. Both are cementitious materials, but they are by products of dissimilar industrial process. However, the IE only considers the use of flyash in concrete. Variability between Sources Differences between factories; differences in production technologies for the same product  There are a number of concrete suppliers in Vancouver which are located at different distances from a given building site. The source of their aggregates, and the efficiency and configuration of their batch plants could differ.                                                                34 (Week 8 Notes, October 23, 201 3)  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   2 1  5  Lis t of Ind icato rs Used for Ass essment and Expression of Results  The indicators used for this study are based on the TRACI (2007, v2.1) midpoint assessment method. 35  While the IE uses the TRACI impact assessment method, the program excludes Human Health Cancer, Noncancer, and Ecotoxicity indicators. In lieu, Fossil Fuel Consumption, an indicator from the LCI database, is substituted. One reason for this exchange is the fact that significant quantities of energy go into producing many construction materials; in addition, energy requirements are non-negligible for on-site construction practices. Without this indicator, the assessment is not as valid.   To aggregate the environmental impacts of a host of emissions, characterization factors are used to determine the equivalency of one emission in terms of a reference emission. The IE has characterization factors built into the program.  Table 11  summarizes the impact categories used in this study. A detailed description of the impact categories, including a general description of the cause/effect chain modelled, is given in Table 12 .  Table 11: Assessment Indicators and Possible Endpoint Impacts Assessmen t  Indicat or  Category  Indicat or  Charact erized By  Possible Endp oint Impacts  Acidification Potential           US EPA  Habitat loss, biodiversity loss, ecosystem disruption, agricultural effects, infrastructure effects, flora and fauna mortality Eutrophication        US EPA  Habitat loss, biodiversity loss, ecosystem disruption, hypoxic aquatic environments  Fossil Fuel Consumption    Athena Sustainable Materials Institute  Global warming potential, resource depletion, agricultural effects Global Warming Potential           Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  Water resource effects, human health, agricultural effects, forest effects, species damage, coastal area damage36  Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential             US EPA  Human health (loss of life, productivity, enjoyment), Ozone Depletion       -      World Meteorological Organization (WMO)  Agricultural effects, reproduction effects, material degradation effects Photochemical Smog Potential         US EPA  Human health (loss of life, productivity, enjoyment), cancer potential                                                                35  (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012) 36 (Week 6 Notes, October 9, 20 13) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   2 2  Table 12: Assessment Indicators and Cause/Effect Chains  Assessmen t  Indicat or  Cause/Effect Chain  Acidification Potential A variety of gaseous compounds hold the potential for being acidic in the environment. Wet deposition occurs when these compounds come into contact with water. Hence, during precipitation events, these compounds acidify lakes and streams. By contrast, if t hese gases remain dry, they will eventually accumulate on the ground as particulates, at which point they will acidify if hydrated.  Eutrophication The release of excess nutrients (in the form of nitrogen or phosphorus, often from fertilizers) into water bodies promotes the excess growth of phytoplankton. As the algae bloom dies, the dissolved oxygen content in the water is depleted. At the same time,  the algae bloom releases toxic substances such as cyanobacteria. Hence, aquatic life is damaged and water is no longer fit for consumption.  Fossil Fuel Consumption dhis impact category includes “all energy, direct and indirect, used to transform or transport raw materials into products and buildings, including inherent energy contained in raw or feedstock materials that are also used as common energy sources.” 37  Global Warming Potential An excess of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (such as     and     for example) absorbed infrared radiation from the sun, which heats the atmosphere; in turn, this affects the climate, precipitation patterns, and sea levels.38  Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential Air emissions often contain both gaseous and particu lar matter. When particulate matter is inhaled, it is deposited in the lungs. Inhalation of these particulates affects human health and mortality, especially when they contain harmful compounds. 39  Ozone Depletion As chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) disperse into the atmosphere, Us rays from the sun “ŬnocŬout” or ionize a chlorine atom from the parent molecule; at this point, the highly reactive chlorine free radical (a chlorine atom without a complete set of electrons) reacts with (stratospheric) ozone to produce oxygen and other compounds.  Photochemical Smog Potential Volatile organic compounds (benzenes, etc) as well as nitrous oxides react in the troposphere in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Exposure to ozone is harmful for humans and plants. 40                                                               37 (Week 6 Notes, October 9, 20 13) 38 (Week 6 Notes, October 9, 20 13) 39 (Week 6 Notes, October 9, 20 13) 40 (Week 6 Notes, October 9, 20 13) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   2 3  6  Mo del Development  This section describes the model development in terms of quantity takeoffs, modeling of assembly groups, model review and sorting, model improvements, impact assessment and net present value. 6.1  Quan ti ty Tak eo ffs In order to determine the impacts of materials used in the construction of AERL, an accurate estimation of material quantities is required. Quantity takeoffs is the concept of calculating the required quantities of a given construction material in a building. For this study, an estimating program called On-Screen Takeoff (OST) (v3.9.0.6) is used.  6.1.1  C on struct ion and Architect ural Drawin gs The record drawings drafted in part by the structural engineering firm Read Jones Christofferson (JRC) are the main source of quantity information. From these drawings, it is possible to determine, for example, precise volumes of concrete for footings, columns, slabs, and walls among other cast- in-place concrete components. With sufficient effort and expertise, it is possible to determine with great precision the quantities of all structural and building elements. In some instances, quantities are also derived from the architectural drawings as well.   By contrast, the architectural drawings are used to identify the placement of a specific type of wall, partition, floor slab, ceiling finish, or acoustic finish among other assemblies. They also provide detail for placement of equipment (both on the floor and on the ceilings). For this study, these drawings are used primarily to reference the location of specific wall and partition assemblies. 6.1.2  Archit ect ural Con st ruct ion Assemblies This document by the architectural firm describes the materials in a specific assembly.  For this study, it is used to determine the envelope and barrier characteristics for the roof, exterior wall, floor, and interior partition assemblies. However, it also contains details for parapet, acoustic wall finish, ceiling/acoustic ceiling/soffit assemblies as well, all of which are not included in the scope of this study. 6.1.3  O n -Screen Takeo ff  In this study, On-Screen Takeoff is used to determine material quantities that are not easily determine by reading the construction drawing. OST functions by creating links to existing drawing sets at the proper scale. Users generate specific types of condition to annotate a given drawing. In order to maintain structure, conditions can be organized by condition type, and further organized into folders. Once the takeoffs are complete, they can be exported into other formats.   OST contains three conditions: area, linear, and count. Area conditions are used, for example, to determine the area of a spread footing or the area of a window. Walls and strip footings are modelled well as linear conditions. Finally, the number of columns, windows, or offices can be modelled with the count condition.  However, it is often the case that a combination of conditions is required to estimate the total quantity of a given assembly. For example, the total surface area of windows can be determined by a combination of count and area conditions.   Still, some quantities cannot be fully estimated using just OST. For HSS columns, OST can determine the count each type of column; at best, the program will give the total linear length of each type of column; however, to obtain an equivalent volume of steel, cross-sectional areas must be referenced from texts such as the Handbook of Steel Construction (10E).   CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   2 4  6.2  Mo d elli ng of Ass e m bly Gr ou ps The assembly groups noted here are chosen to reflect the way the IE operates. A comprehensive explanation of the modelling process has already been written 41  by the previous author (Rob Sianchuk). As a result, the content provided in this section is largely a paraphrase of the previous work. In some instances, where improvements are not made to the existing text, an excerpt is provided . 6.2.1  F oun dat ion s There are two types of assemblies within the foundations assembly group: concrete slab- on-grade (SOG) and concrete footings. Concrete stairs are modelled as concrete footings.  SOG is measured as an area condition. Because the IE takes length and width inputs with fixed thicknesses (100mm or 200mm), it is sometimes necessary to scale the length and width dimensions to compensate for a thickness other than 100mm or 200mm. For AERL, there are three SOG thicknesses: 125mm, 150mm, and 200mm. The extents of each SOG is given on structural drawing 316 - 0 7 -0 03.  There are three types of footings in AERL: spread and strip footings. Spread footings have variable length, width, and thickness. They are measured using area conditions. Strip footings, however, have constant width and depths. Hence, they are measured using linear conditions. The previous modeller (Rob Sianchuk) used a previous version of the /E ;version not statedͿ where footing thicŬnesses were “limited to be between ϳ.ϱ” and ϭϵ.ϳ” thicŬ”. thile the current version of the /E ;v. ϰ.Ϯ.ϬϮϬϴͿ has lifted the thicŬness restriction on footings, the inputs have not been changed since the quantities remain sound. Structural drawing 316 - 07 -00 3 contains a footing schedule and details the location of each footing.   The concrete stairs on either side of the building are modelled as footings. A measured average thickness (structural drawing 316 - 0 7 -0 02), width (structural drawing 316 - 07 -01 0), and linear condition (architectural drawing 316- 06 -014) for the length are used as inputs to the IE.   6.2.2  Walls The wall assemblies had the largest amount of variation of all the building assembly groups. With reference to the architectural construction assemblies, walls can be grouped as exterior or partition (interior) walls. According to this document, there are a total of 17 different wall assemblies. OST was used with linear counts to determine the length of a given wall type. To account for glazing, count and area conditions were used: the area of a single window is multiplied by the number of windows. A similar procedure is used to account for doors. Additional assumptions are contained in Annex  D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions. 6.2.3  Mi xed Column s and Beams The methodology to model mixed columns and beams in the IE is described well by the previous author. As was previously written:  The method used to measure column sizing was completely depended upon the metrics built into the Impact Estimator.  That is, the Impact Estimator calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the following inputs: number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, supported span and live load.  This being the case, in OnScreen, since no beams were present in the AERL building, concrete columns were accounted for on each floor using a count condition, while each floor͛s area was measured using an area condition.  The number of beams supporting each floor is assigned an average bay and span size in order to cover the measured area, which are seen in the Input Assumption Document.  Since the live loading was not located within the provided information, a live load of 75psf on all four floors and the basement level were assumed.  The hollow structural steel (HSS) columns in                                                           41 (Sianchuk, 2009) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   2 5  the AERL building were modeled in the Extra Basic Materials, where their associated assumptions and calculations are also documented.  However, the information provided for this report contains live load demands. Table 13  gives the design live loads, as listed in structural drawing 316 - 0 7 -0 01. With reference to Table 13, any improvements are discussed further in Section 6.4 Model Improvements.  Table 13: Design Live Loads (Structural Drawing 316-07-001) De sign Live Load                Roof (Ground Snow and Rain Load) 1.9 + 0.3  45  Office Floors 3.1  65  Laboratory 3.6  75  Mechanical Room 3.6  75  Lobby Level Interior 4.8  100  Stairs and Corridors 4.8  100  6.2.4  F loors Using OST, floor area is measured as an area condition. The IE takes floor width and span, as well as concrete strength, percent flyash, and live load as modelling inputs. To be clear, thickness is not a required input. Information on the flyash content of the concrete was not provided in the structural drawing general notes (316- 07 -00 1, 316 - 07 -00 2) Ͷhence an “average” flyash content is assumed. thile the floors support design live loads of         ,         and        , the majority of the area is laboratory and office space. Hence, a live load of           is inputted into the model. The concrete strength is assumed to be 30 MPa even though structural drawing 316 - 07 -00 1 indicates a design compressive strength of 25 MPa (at 28 days).  6.2.5  Roof The roof for AERL comprises of a suspended concrete slab in conjunction with a steel joist for the penthouse. Both were modelled as area conditions in OST. For the concrete slab, the live load was modelled as         rather than a combined design live load of        . Again the concrete strength is modelled as       rather than       (at 28 days). The steel joist roof was modelled as a steel joist assembly. 6.2.6  Ext ra Basic Mat erials HSS steel columns are modelled as extra basic materials. Count conditions were used to determine the quantity of each type of column. Linear densities are obtained from the Handbook of Steel Construction (10 th Edition) to determine the total mass of steel.    CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   2 6  6.3  Mo d el Rev ie w and Sorti ng Model review and sorting comprises of re- organizing the original OST, IE, and excel files according to CIQS level 3 elements. The bill of materials and summary measures from the original model are given here for reference.  6.3.1  Origi n al Bill of Materials The bill of materials generated for the IE model completed by the previous author is summarized in Table 14  and Figure 4 . Of note is the fact that the three largest quantities are all insulation products: modified bitumen membrane (59973.00 kg), polyiso foam board (unfaced) (28024.51 m 2  (25mm)), and FG Batt R11-15 (11080.04 m 2  (25mm )).  Table 14: Original Whole-Building Bill of Materials Mat erial  Quant ity  Uni t  1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 1 00.58     5/8"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 8 14 6.67     5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board 8 07 6.03     6 mil Polyethylene 8 45 3.73     Aluminum 3 6.70         Cold Rolled Sheet 0.22         Commercial(26 ga.) Steel Cladding 6 8.72     Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 2 51.12     Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 2 42 5.12     Concrete Blocks 1 87 4.81         Double Glazed Hard Coated Air 1 82.58     EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 7 02.82     Extruded Polystyrene 4 26 4.99            FG Batt R11-15 1 10 80.04            Galvanized Sheet 1 5.02         Galvanized Studs 8 8.26         Glazing Panel 8 8.00         Hollow Structural Steel 1 4.50         Joint Compound 1 6.29         Metric Modular (Modular) Brick 1 15 6.29     Modified Bitumen membrane 5 99 73.00     Mortar 6 6.24     Nails 1.40         Paper Tape 0.19         Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) 2 80 24.51            Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 1 51.62         Screws Nuts & Bolts 2.96         Softwood Plywood 6 3.85           Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 2 5.53    Water Based Latex Paint 7.39    Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 1.94            CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   2 7  Figure 4: Bar Graph of Original Whole-Building Bill of Materials   1.94  7.39  25.53  63.85  2.96  151.62  28024.51  0.19  1.40  66.24  59973.00  1156.29  16.29  14.50  88.00  88.26  15.02  11080.04  4264.99  702.82  182.58  1874.81  2425.12  251.12  68.72  0.22  36.70  8453.73  8076.03  8146.67  100.58  Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire (Tonnes)  Water Based Latex Paint (L)  Solvent Based Alkyd Paint (L)  Softwood Plywood (m2 (9mm))  Screws Nuts & Bolts (Tonnes)  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections (Tonnes)  Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) (m2 (25mm))  Paper Tape (Tonnes)  Nails (Tonnes)  Mortar (m3)  Modified Bitumen membrane (kg)  Metric Modular (Modular) Brick (m2)  Joint Compound (Tonnes)  Hollow Structural Steel (Tonnes)  Glazing Panel (Tonnes)  Galvanized Studs (Tonnes)  Galvanized Sheet (Tonnes)  FG Batt R11 - 15 (m2 (25mm))  Extruded Polystyrene (m2 (25mm))  EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) (kg)  Double Glazed Hard Coated Air (m2)  Concrete Blocks (Blocks)  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) (m3)  Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) (m3)  Commercial(26 ga.) Steel Cladding (m2)  Cold Rolled Sheet (Tonnes) Aluminum (Tonnes)  6 mil Polyethylene (m2)  5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board (m2)  5/8"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board (m2)  1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board (m2)  Quantity CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   2 8  6.3.2  Origi n al Summary Measure Report The summary measure report generated by the IE model completed by the previous author is summarized in Table 14  and Figure 5 . Fossil fuel consumption is the largest impact across all categories. Global warming potential is the second largest impact. Because this study is limited to the material (product) and construction impacts, the use and end- of-life phase summary measures are omitted.   Table 15: Original Whole-Building Summary Measure Report Summary Measures Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) Acidification Potential (kg SO2 eq) HH Particulate (kg PM2.5 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) PRODUCT  Manufacturing  1.79E+07  1.56E+06  1.17E+04  6 84E+03  6.61E+02  8.78E - 0 3  1.61E+05  Transport 5.60E+05  3.23E+04  2.04E+02  5.70E+00  1.42E+01  1.32E - 0 6  7.22E+03  Total 1.85E+07  1.59E+06  1.19E+04  6 84E+03  6.75E+02  8.79E - 0 3  1.68E+05  CONSTRUCTION  PROCESS  Construction-  installation Process  1.10E+06  9.02E+04  6.40E+02  1 20E+02  3.55E+01  3.71E - 0 4  1.68E+04  Transport 1.10E+06  7.65E+04  3.89E+02  1.17E+01  2.78E+01  3.06E - 0 6  1.38E+04  Total 2.20E+06  1.67E+05  1.03E+03  1 32E+02  6.33E+01  3.74E - 0 4  3.05E+04  TOTAL  EFFECTS Non - Transport 1.90E+07  1.65E+06  1.23E+04  6 96E+03  6.96E+02  9.16E - 0 3  1.77E+05  Transport 1.66E+06  1.09E+05  5.93E+02  1.73E+01  4.20E+01  4.38E - 0 6  2.10E+04  Total 2.07E+07  1.75E+06  1.29E+04  6 98E+03  7.38E+02  9.16E - 0 3  1.98E+05     CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   3 0  6.3.3  C IQS Leve l 3 Sort in g The Canadian /nstitute of Yuantity Surveyors publishes an elemental format to “standardinje a list of elements that enable cost analyses and control on building projects.” 42  The elements are ordered in a hierarchy of four levels. >evel ϭ is a “major group element”͖ level Ϯ is an “group element”͖ level ϯ is an “element”͖ level ϰ is a “sub- element”. &or this study, it was decided to model at level ϯ.  This distinction allows for sufficient detail to delineate different buildings in terms of their foundational, structural and material characteristics. By stopping at level 3, the study avoids the added effort to achieve the specificity of level 4 sorting, especially since this study focuses on the product and construction process environmental impacts.  While the CIQS format is extensive, only some of the level 3 elements are included in this study. This is summarized in Table 16 Table 17 .  Table 16: Description of CIQS Level 3 Elements43 L evel 3 Eleme nt  Description  A11 Foundations  This includes all structures used to transfer structural loads to the ground. Such foundations include footings, piles, caissons, and rock anchors. Also included is perimeter insulation, crawl space walls, and special dewatering measures.   A21 Lowest Flo or Construction Lowest floor construction comprises of slab - on- grade (regardless of being below-  or at- grade) and any associated barrier or envelope materials A22 Upper Floor  Construction Upper floor construction includes all structural components which rest on top of the lowest floor construction but excludes any structural components that support the roof. All walls are excluded from this level 3 element. Stair construction is included. Other typical components include columns, beams and floor slabs.  A 23 Roof  Construction Roof construction comprises of the structural components that support the roof (columns or beams) and the surfaces on top of the building that are exposed to the elements. All walls are excluded from this level 3 element.  A31 Walls Below Grade  This level 3 element includes all exterior walls below grade.  A32 Walls Above Grade  This level 3 element includes all exterior walls above grade.  B11 Partitions  This level 3 element includes all inner walls (fixed, movable, and structural partitions).                                                               42 (CIQS Class Notes, 201 3) 43 (CIQS Class Notes, 201 3) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   3 1  6.3.4  Model Review This study has been completed in stages. Stage 3, in particular, assessed the model for potential improvements. A number of sorting, geometric measurement, and material type and property improvements were identified. These are summarized in Table 17 , Table 18 , and Table 19 .  Table 17: Model Improvements for CIQS Level 3 Sorting Level 3 Element Description of Inaccuracy IE Inputs Affected Improvement A11 Foundations  Okay  A21 Lowest Floor  Construction Okay  A22 Upper Floor  Construction  Improper sorting of Level 3 elements between A22 and A23   Steel HSS columns supporting Level 4 (ie. on level 3) and the roof (ie. on level 4); suspended slabs  Create additional condition in OST and reflect changes in the IE  A23 Roof  Construction A31 Walls  Below Grade   Improper sorting of Level 3 elements among A31, A3 2, and B11   All walls and partitions   Create additional condition in OST and reflect changes in the IE  A32 Walls  Above Grade  B11 Partitions   Table 18: Model Improvements for Geometric Measurements Level 3 Element Description of Inaccuracy IE Inputs Affected Improvement A11 Foundations Okay  A21 Lowest Floor  Construction Okay  A22 Upper Floor  Construction Okay  A23 Roof  Construction  Missing penthouse/roof skylights   IE input does not match OST quantity   Create new input  Roof_Steel_Penthouse   Add as window   Investigate further  A31 Walls  Below Grade  Okay  A32 Walls  Above Grade   OST measurements okay; quantities from OST not well reflected in IE   Check all components   Export OST and manually enter in dimensions B11 Partitions   Missing Wall_Cast - In -Place_NoEnv_200mm on ground floor  OST measurements okay; quantities from OST not well reflected in IE   Create new input  Check all components   Add as wall   Export OST and manually enter in dimensions    CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   3 2  Table 19: Model Improvements for Material Type and Property Level 3 Element Description of Inaccuracy IE Inputs Affected Improvement A11 Foundations  Okay  A21 Lowest Floor  Construction A22 Upper Floor  Construction HSS steel okay  A23 Roof  Construction HSS steel okay  A31 Walls  Below Grade  Okay  A32 Walls  Above Grade   Wrong wall assembly (W1 for below grade walls only)  Concrete_Cast - in-Place_400mm_W1_AboveGrade  Model as P3 (DWG 316 - 06 - 006)  B11 Partitions   Spot checks of partition assemblies P3, P4, P6, and P7; all require minor edits   Check all components   Use Assemblies  document and reference architectural drawgings A11 Foundations   Concrete strengths  Rebar sizes   All components   IE has limited inputs, choose closest value (rounded up) -  see DWG 316 - 07 - 001   Identifying and actuating improvements is an iterative processͶin many instances, additional areas for improvement were identified as the work on the model progressed. Hence, some improvements are not listed in the above tables. Of note, a number of HSS columns were not identified in the original model; in other instances, walls were mislabelled and modelled using an incorrect assembly. Further discussion is contained in section 6.4 Model Improvements.   CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   3 3  6.4  Mo d el Im pro ve me nt s This section discusses the model improvements made as part of stage 4 of the final study. While it was the intent to document every change made from the original model to the model analyzed as part of this study, inconsistent naming among the Excel, OST, and IE for the same inputs made this challenging. As such, only a brief description of the major improvements is discussed here.  6.4.1  C IQS Leve l 3 Sort in g The following points summarize CIQS Level 3 sorting efforts:   To improve the sorting, it was often necessary to divide conditions between lowest floor, upper floor, and roof construction. This was also necessary for properly sorting the walls among below grade, above grade, and partition.  In the process of locating different annotations in the OST file, it became evident that a number of elements were missed in the original model. These include: o HSS columns in the stairwells o Additional partition walls  At the same time, comparison of the architectural drawings against the structural drawings indicated that a number of the walls were assigned an incorrect assembly. The assemblies were consequently remodelled.  6.4.2  Geomet ric Measurement s Overall, the quantities estimated by OST in the original model were sound. However, the transfer of quantities into Excel and then IE was not performed well. A comprehensive review of the output of OST compared against the inputs in Excel and IE was completed. Of note, almost every steel stud partition wall (B11 Partitions) had an improperly entered length in both Excel and OST. Another significant improvement included correcting the span and length dimensions of the steel joist for the penthouse.   However, a notable potential improvement was not addressed. The HSS columns throughout the building are modelled as extra basic materials. That is, they are modelled only for their production impacts without incorporation of the construction impacts. The improvement involves factoring in these with the concrete columns to obtain harmonized bay and span dimensions for both types of columns. This improvement was not carried out due to a lack of available time.  6.4.3  Mat erial Types and Properti es While there are a number of potential material improvements that could have been carried out, the tight schedule with which to complete this extensive study prevent thorough material improvements. One of the main material improvements involves re-assessing the environmental impacts of 25 MPa concrete.  As indicated on structural drawing 316 - 0 7 -0 01, a number of concrete elements have a design compressive strength     of 25 MPa (at 28 days). These include footings, walls, and slabs. The IE has pre-set strengths of 20 MPa, 30 MPa, and 60 MPa. Since the production and usage of concrete produces significant environmental impacts, it would be utilize databases such as EcoInvent.   To complete a material improvement, the following steps could be followed. These steps are given in the context of re-modelling 30 MPa concrete into 25 MPa concrete.   1)  In the IE, move the assembly with 30 MPa into a new, separate file. 2)  Obtain the summary measures for the original file and the BOM for the daughter file. 3)  Using information from an EPD and the original quantity of 30 MPa concrete from the BOM, determine the proportioned impacts an equivalent amount of 25 MPa concrete 4)  dd these new impacts bacŬ to the original model͛s summary measures ;in a spreadsheet program such as Excel) to obtain correct environmental impacts.  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   3 4  6.5  Impac t Ass es s me nt To complete the impact assessment, a number previously developed tools were utilized. Work completed by the previous author was summarinjed in “/nput and ssumptions” documents͖ edžisting models generated in KSd and /E were available for viewing and editing.   6.5.1  Inp ut and Assumpt ions Documen t To track the quantities and modelled assemblies between OST and IE, two spreadsheets were compiled by the previous author. n “/nputs” document indedžed the Ƌuantity taŬeoff outputs from KSd and, where necessary, converted dimensions for ease of input into IE. In addition, envelop and barrier assembly details from the “architectural construction assemblies” document is included in this spreadsheet.  However, assumptions are often required to model both the material properties as well as the envelop and barrier materials. ,ence, another spreadsheet, “ssumptions” document, cross references an actual material in the building with available options in IE. The purpose of these spreadsheets is not only to document the progress of the study, but to create transparency in the data and modelling.   The combination of these spreadsheets is extensively utilized to cross-check the original model. Since model improvements have been carried out, both spreadsheets have been updated to reflect the most current and accurate building model.  6.5.2  Impact Estimat or dhe SD/͛s /mpact Estimator for Buildings is a publically available program intended for life cycle assessment of buildings in Canada.  /t utilinjes thena͛s own proprietary >CI database. According to Wayne Trusty and Scot Horst 44  the /E can be classified as a “level Ϯ” life cycle program, one that produces assessments at the whole-building scale. The IE acts as a black box program, as the targeted user group is assumed to have limited LCA-related experience. In other words, it is not robust like other tools such as SimaPro.   Using the quantity takeoffs completed in OST, individual building assemblies can be modelled in the IE. These include common assemblies such as footings and floor slabs to more specialized assemblies such as partition walls. Once the modelling is complete, generated bill of materials and summary measure indicate the quantity of materials contained in the building and the associated environmental impacts of these products inclusive of the construction methods.                                                              44 (Trusty & Horst, 2005) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   3 5  6.5.3  Rev ised Bill of Mat erials The revised bill of materials generated for the IE model is summarized in Table 20  and Figure 6 . Of note is the fact that the three largest quantities are all insulation products: modified bitumen membrane (59965.11 kg), polyiso foam board (unfaced) (2802 0.83m2 (25mm)), and extruded polystyrene (25656.52 m2 (25mm)).  Table 20: Revised Whole-Building Bill of Materials Mat erial  Quant ity  Uni t  1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 34.92    5/8"  Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 22.07    5/8"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board 16895.63    5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board 17395.71    6 mil Polyethylene 19153.34    Aluminum 32.59        Cold Rolled Sheet 1.83        Commercial(26 ga.) Steel Cladding 68.72    Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 251.12    Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 2432.98    Concrete Blocks 1851.48        Double Glazed Hard Coated Air 0.00    EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 422.34    Extruded Polystyrene 25656.52           FG Batt R11-15 11135.47           Galvanized Sheet 28.46        Galvanized Studs 129.12        Glazing Panel 88.10        Hollow Structural Steel 13.52        Joint Compound 34.28        Metric Modular (Modular) Brick 9488.20    Modified Bitumen membrane 59965.11    Mortar 284.80    Nails 1.80        Paper Tape 0.39        Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) 28020.83           Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 156.93        Screws Nuts & Bolts 3.25        Softwood Plywood 22.16          Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 25.53   Water Based Latex Paint 7.39   Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 1.94           CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   3 6  Figure 6: Bar Graph of Revised Whole-Building Bill of Materials   Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire (Tonnes)  Water Based Latex Paint (L)  Solvent Based Alkyd Paint (L)  Softwood Plywood (m2 (9mm))  Screws Nuts & Bolts (Tonnes)  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections (Tonnes)  Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced) (m2 (25mm))  Paper Tape (Tonnes)  Nails (Tonnes)  Mortar (m3)  Modified Bitumen membrane (kg)  Metric Modular (Modular) Brick (m2)  Joint Compound (Tonnes)  Hollow Structural Steel (Tonnes)  Glazing Panel (Tonnes)  Galvanized Studs (Tonnes)  Galvanized Sheet (Tonnes)  FG Batt R11 - 15 (m2 (25mm))  Extruded Polystyrene (m2 (25mm))  EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) (kg)  Double Glazed Hard Coated Air (m2)  Concrete Blocks (Blocks)  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) (m3)  Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) (m3)  Commercial(26 ga.) Steel Cladding (m2)  Cold Rolled Sheet (Tonnes) Aluminum (Tonnes)  6 mil Polyethylene (m2)  5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board (m2)  5/8"  Moisture Resistant Gypsum Board (m2)  5/8"  Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board (m2)  1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board (m2)  Quantity CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   3 7  6.5.4  Rev ised Summary Measure Report The revised summary measure report generated by the IE model is summarized in Table 21  and Figure 7 . Fossil fuel consumption is the largest impact across all categories. Global warming potential is the second largest impact. Because this study is limited to the material (ie. product) and construction impacts, the use and end- of-life phase summary measures are omitted. These results are discussed further in Section 7 Communication of Assessment Results.  Table 21: Revised Whole-Building Summary Measure Report Summary Measures Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) Acidification Potential (kg SO2 eq) HH Particulate (kg PM2.5 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) PRODUCT  Manufacturing  2.42E+07  2.00E+06  1.43E+04  7.21E+03  7.90E+02  8.74E - 03  1.86E+05  Transport 7.07E+05  4.03E+04  2.54E+02  7.10E+00  1.77E+01  1.65E - 06  8.98E+03  Total 2.49E+07  2.04E+06  1.45E+04  7.22E+03  8.08E+02  8.74E - 03  1.95E+05  CONSTRUCTION  PROCESS  Construction-  installation Process  1.45E+06  1.18E+05  8.31E+02  1.60E+02  4.19E+01  4.24E - 04  1.89E+04  Transport 2.85E+06  2.07E+05  1.01E+03  3.07E+01  7.25E+01  8.28E - 06  3.57E+04  Total 4.30E+06  3.26E+05  1.84E+03  1.91E+02  1.14E+02  4.32E - 04  5.46E+04  TOTAL  EFFECTS Non - Transport 2.57E+07  2.12E+06  1.51E+04  7.37E+03  8.32E+02  9.16E - 03  2.04E+05  Transport 3.56E+06  2.48E+05  1.26E+03  3.78E+01  9.02E+01  9.92E - 06  4.47E+04  Total 2.92E+07  2.37E+06  1.64E+04  7.41E+03  9.22E+02  9.17E - 03  2.49E+05     CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   3 9  7  Co mmunica tion of Assessment Resu lts  Life cycle results for the AERL building are presented in this section. A brief overview supplementary annexes is also given. 7.1  Lif e Cycl e Res u lts Life cycle results (summary measures) can be exported from the IE for the whole building or individual level 3 elements for both the product and construction process stages.   In terms of who le-building life cycle results, the greatest impact is fossil fuel consumption. The second greatest impact is global warming potential. Table 21  and Figure 7 , applicable to whole-building summary measures, are shown again in this section for clarity. Table 21: Revised Whole-Building Summary Measure Report Summary Measures Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) Acidification Potential (kg SO2 eq) HH Particulate (kg PM2.5 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) PRODUCT  Manufacturing  2.42E+07  2.00E+06  1.43E+04  7.21E+03  7.90E+02  8.74E - 03  1.86E+05  Transport 7.07E+05  4.03E+04  2.54E+02  7.10E+00  1.77E+01  1.65E - 06  8.98E+03  Total 2.49E+07  2.04E+06  1.45E+04  7.22E+03  8.08E+02  8.74E - 03  1.95E+05  CONSTRUCTION  PROCESS  Construction-  installation Process  1.45E+06  1.18E+05  8.31E+02  1.60E+02  4.19E+01  4.24E - 04  1.89E+04  Transport 2.85E+06  2.07E+05  1.01E+03  3.07E+01  7.25E+01  8.28E - 06  3.57E+04  Total 4.30E+06  3.26E+05  1.84E+03  1.91E+02  1.14E+02  4.32E - 04  5.46E+04  TOTAL  EFFECTS Non - Transport 2.57E+07  2.12E+06  1.51E+04  7.37E+03  8.32E+02  9.16E - 03  2.04E+05  Transport 3.56E+06  2.48E+05  1.26E+03  3.78E+01  9.02E+01  9.92E - 06  4.47E+04  Total 2.92E+07  2.37E+06  1.64E+04  7.41E+03  9.22E+02  9.17E - 03  2.49E+05     CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   4 3  These results suggest that the greatest environmental impacts are contained in A23 Walls Above Grade. This makes sense, as AERL uses concrete and steel as main structural components. The fact that both materials, especially concrete, have energy-intensive production requirements is reflected in the proportionately larger fossil fuel consumption impacts.   Table 23  summarizes the relative environmental impacts by CIQS level 3 element expressed as a percent of the total impacts for each impact category. Of note, A32 Walls Above Grade contributes the greatest to each impact category except for ozone layer depletion. In addition, to the above, this could be understood as additional envelop and barrier materials used in the exterior, above grade walls such that thermal and moisture excellence is achieved. This claim is plausible because the building͛s design incorporates many sustainable features, as discussed in Section 1.2  Identification of Building . However, further research is required to substantiate this claim.   Table 23: Relative Environmental Impacts by CIQS Level 3 Element Lev el 3  Elem ent  Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) Acidification Potential (kg SO2 eq) HH Particulate (kg PM2.5 eq) Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq) Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq) Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) A11 Foundations 3.52%  6.50%  6.05%  5.01%  4.67%  9.38%  8.76%  A21 Lowest Floor Construction 1.73%  2.58%  2.49%  1.99%  2.10%  3.19%  3.65%  A22 Upper Floor Construction 15.66%  19.53%  18.64%  12.71%  28.61%  22.97%  24.98%  A23 Roof  Construction 27.71%  18.07%  14.35%  7.48%  21.18%  35.13%  12.90%  A31 Walls  Below Grade  1.18%  1.66%  1.52%  1.11%  1.63%  2.05%  2.22%  A32 Walls  Above Grade  41.78%  41.39%  44.54%  47.89%  31.06%  17.23%  37.53%  B11 Partitions  8.43%  10.26%  12.41%  23.81%  10.75%  10.05%  9.97%   Maximum  41.78%  41.39%  44.54%  47.89%  31.06%  35.13%  37.53%  Level 3 Element A32  A32  A32  A32  A32  A23  A32   Figure 10  summarizes the relative environmental impacts by both level 3 element and impact category. It should be noted, however, the following two items: 1)  The height of each colour band in a given column represents the proportional impact of a given impact category on a given level 3 element 2)  The data labels are proportioned against each impact category. That is, the sum of the data labels for each colour should total 100%.  The above two reasons justify why human health criteria appears (23.81%) for B11 Partitions appears disproportionate.   CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   4 5  8  Referenc es  Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013, April). Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings v4.2 Software and Database Overview. Retrieved from Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: http://calculatelca.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ImpactEstimatorSoftwareAndDatabaseOverview.pdf Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013). Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Retrieved from Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: http://calculatelca.com/about-us/athena-sustainable-materials-institute/ Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013). Database Details. Retrieved from Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: http://www.calculatelca.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/LCI_Databases_Products.pdf Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: http://calculatelca.com/faqs/ Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013). History. Retrieved from Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: http://www.athenasmi.org/about-asmi/history/ Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013). LCA Background Data. Retrieved from Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: http://calculatelca.com/software/impact-estimator/lca-database-reports/ Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013). LCA Data & Software. Retrieved from Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: http://www.athenasmi.org/what- we-do/lca-data-software/ Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2013). LCI Databases. Retrieved from Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/lca-databases/ Bird Construction Inc. (2013). Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory. Retrieved from Bird Construction: http://www.bird.ca/Projects/project-aquatic_ecosystems_research_lab.html Canadian Green Building Council. (2013). UBC Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory, Project 10010. Retrieved from Canadian Green Building Council: http://www.cagbc.org/leed/projectprofile_EN.aspx Coldstream Consulting. (2011). EN 15978 Standard. Retrieved from Coldstream Consulting: http://www.coldstreamconsulting.com/services/life-cycle-analysis/whole-building-lca/en-1597 8 -standard European Committee for Standardization. (2013, November 18). Sustainability of construction works - Published standards. Retrieved from European Committee for Standardization: http://www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/TechnicalCommitteesWorkshops/CENTechnicalCommittees/Pages/Standards.aspx?param=48183 0&title=Sustainability%20of%20construction%20works National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2010, September 24). About the LCI Database Project. Retrieved from US Life Cycle Inventory Database: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/about.html National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2010, September 24). Project Management Team. Retrieved from US Life Cycle Inventory Database: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/project_team.html Quantis US. (2009). Comparative environmental life ycle assesment of hand drying systemss: the XLERATOR Hand Dryer, conventional hand dryers and paper towel systems.  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   4 6  Sianchuk, R. (2009). AERL Final Report (Draft). Unpublished. Standards Council of Canada. (2006, December). National Standard of Canada: CAN/CSA-ISO 14044:06 . Ottawa: Standards Council of Canada. Trusty, W., & Horst, S. (2005). LCA Tools Around the World. Building Deisng & Construction - Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability, 12-15. UBC Building Operations. (2013). Design & Approvals. Retrieved from UBC Technical Guidelines: http://www.technicalguidelines.ubc.ca/technical/design_approvals.html UBC Building Operations. (2013). Performance Guidelines. Retrieved from UBC Technical Guidelines: http://www.technicalguidelines.ubc.ca/technical/performance_obj.html UBC Properties Trust. (2009). Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory. Retrieved from UBC Properties Trust: http://www.ubcproperties.com/portfolio_detail.php?category=Alphabetical&list=(A-G)&id=Aquatic%20Ecosystems%20Research%20Laboratory United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, August 16). Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI). Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/traci/traci.html     CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 0  Figure 14  is a scatter plot that compares the total cost of construction against the total global warming per square meter of floor space. This figure was created on November 18, 2013, where the benchmark dataset contained information for the following buildings: AERL, Allard Hall, CEME, Chemistry North, Chemistry South, Chemistry, ESB, FSC, Geography, Henry Angus, Kaiser, Lasserre, Math, Music, and Pharmacy.  Figure 14: Total Cost vs. Total Global Warming per Square Meter for All Studies   According to Figure 14, the cost- to-global warming envelope is bounded by the Earth Sciences Building (ESB), Chemistry North, and Geography. ESB has the highest cost per kg of equivalent     while Chemistry North has the highest kg of equivalent     per unit cost. Geography has the lowest cost for the lowest amount of global warming potential.   On a per square meter of floor area basis, AERL costs approximately         , which corresponds to approximately                 . This represents a design that is cost efficient yet still produces minimal global warming impacts.    AERL   Chem North  ESB  Geography   $ -      $2,000.00   $4,000.00   $6,000.00   $8,000.00   $10,000.00   $12,000.00   $14,000.00  0  200  400  600  800  1000  1200  1400  1600  1800  Cost per m2 Global Warming (kg CO2eq / m2) CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 1  Ann ex B – Reco mmenda t io ns for LCA Use  This annex gives a number of recommendations for operationalizing LCA in building design.  Adoption and Adherence to Standards In the same way that benchmarking requires equivalence in goal and scope, model development, and function units among other criteria, building LCA studies should adhere to a unified and standardized set of criteria. For this study, EN 1597 8 was only partially observed. Because LCA, and building LCA in particular, is still an emerging field in North America, it is important to create precedence for environmental performance. As discussed in Annex A, precedence is achieved through benchmarking, and benchmarking is achieved through standardizing studies. Hence, one recommendation is to create or adopting existing standards for use in building LCA in North America.   Application of LCA to Building Design One of the barriers to sustainable design is the high capital cost of improved energy systems, in-house wastewater treatment systems, and low-volatile paints among other design options. However, because building LCA strives to assess the product from cradle to grave, it can be used as a key negotiating tool with stakeholders. That is, LCA is one tool that can help rationalize higher initial costs of an improved design by quantifying long term returns (economic, environmental, and social). Because buildings are often publically funded, one recommendation for LCA operationalization would be to incorporate LCA studies into bid requirements.  Data Quality and Availability The quality of an LCA study is only as good as the source data from which it is modelled. In order to ensure high data quality and availability, government initiatives could be developed to colle ct, analyze and publish data. Statistics Canada is a prime example of a government body that produces a wide range of high quality data. One recommendation would be expand the mandate of existing organizations such as Statistics Canada to incorporate LCA data, or to publically fund private initiatives such as the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute.  Public Understanding of LCA Results Because any given LCA study requires knowledge of chemistry, economics and ecology among other fields, it is often difficult for the public to fully understand and utilize LCA results for decision making. In addition, because any given impact assessment method uses multiple indicators, it is often difficult for the public to fully adopt a wide range of environmental issues. By choosing a single indicator, or creating a weighting process among the indicators, LCA results could be better communicated to the public. In Europe, the decision to focus on global warming impacts seems prudent. Not only is global warming an issues that most are familiar with, many governments have adopted greenhouse gas emission reduction protocols. Hence, one recommendation is for North America to adopt a similar focus when evaluating the results of an LCA study.       CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 2  Ann ex C – Autho r Reflect io n  This annex briefly discusses and comments on LCA, sustainability, CIVL 498C, and the final project. C 1  – Prior Exp os ure to LC A and Sus taina bilit y While I have a combination of coursework and work experience related to sustainability, only the coursework is discussed here. I have no (formal) prior exposure to LCA.  Table 24: Sustainability in Prior Courses C ourses/C oursework  Description  APSC 201 “Technical Communication”  Wrote my term paper on the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS)   Interviewed Alberto Cayuela (in the AERL building)   This report gave an introductory look to green building design elements; in the case of CIRS, including but not limited to the following:  o Water management  Rainwater harvesting  Wastewater management and treatment  High efficiency water fixtures and plumbing  o Energy management  Photovoltaic panels   Ground source heat pump   Waste heat reuse o Indoor environmental quality   Ventilation   Daylighting o Resource conservation  Sustainable building materials  Modularity of partition walls  CIVL 201 “Civil Engineering” Among other activities, a few highlights:   UBC green building tours  ʹie. Life Sciences  ʹLEED certification   Commentary on a public lecture by Stewart Brand  ʹ“ZethinŬing 'reen”  (Liu Institute for Global Issues, October 5, 2010)  CIVL 445 “Engineering Design and Analysis I” dhis year͛s capstone project focuses on a redevelopment proposal for the UBC botanical gardens; one significant feature  of botanical gardens is the emphasis on conservation and sustainability  ʹmy project had elements of sustainability integrated into the proposal:   Drip irrigation system / bio filtration channel  Green features for the multi - storey parkade   Green features for the overhead walkway      CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 3  C 2  – Cours e an d Fin al Proj ec t Hig hl ig hts This section discusses course and final project highlights.   Course Highlights  The interdisciplinary nature of the life cycle approaches. In the context of civil engineering, this means opportunities to engage in higher level thinking beyond design codes and checks.   Discussion of sustainability: the interaction between the built environment and the natural environment.   The accounting methodology of LCA appeals to my interests in defining and categorizing information in a standardized way.  Completion of this project has been an interesting introduction into the field of life cycle approaches (social assessment, environmental assessment, and costing)  The timeline for the completion of the report has been rushed.  I would have much appreciated better time planning, as the fourth year civil course load is hardly insignificant, especially at the end of semester. The level of effort to turn over a report of this magnitude given just ϯ weeŬs͛ notice is significant beyond the workload demands of all my other courses combined.   Final Project Highlights  Opportunity to learn about engineering structures, architectural finishes and assemblies  Exposure to green building design element: the effect of “over” -glazing, passive ventilation systems, building modularity  Participation in a study that has the potential for far reaching impacts  ʹthese studies may create precedent for future UBC building design and construction  Having interviewed Alberto Cayuela in AERL two years ago about the CIRS building, this project brings my interaction with the building full circle. C 3  – LC A and Sus tain ab ilit y Co mm en tar y It appears that LCA has the potential to provide a consistent, reliable, and accurate quantification of sustainability. However, this accounting method is feasible only for those with enough interest and financial resources to afford it. That is, LCA seems to be largely unavailable to those who cannot afford to pay or uninteresting to those who do not understand its purpose and expression.   While the idea of sustainability has been mentioned in courses over the significant portion of my undergraduate edžperience, this has been the only course that has delineated the idea that being “more sustainable” is not the same as “more less unsustainable”. &rom my perspective, “actual” sustainability gains means quantifying a net zero or net positive environmental performance. In other words, being less unsustainable from any given reference point without achieving a net zero or positive impact is still being unsustainable.  C 4  – CEAB Gra dua te Attrib ut es  A related component of this course was to track the development of Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board graduate attributes. These attributes are summarized in Table 25  for this specific final project. The following content code is applied to the matrix: N/A not applicable I  introduced D  developed A  applied ID  introduced & developed IA  introduced & applied DA  developed & applied IDA introduced, developed & applied CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 4   Table 25: CEAB Graduate Attributes G rad u a te A tt ri b u t e  Desc rip ti on  Conten t  Code  Final P roj e ct Exp erie nce  1  Knowledge Base  Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. A  This project utilized basic arithmetic for summary measure calculations and analysis. Knowledge of the natural sciences (reaction mechanisms, chemistry nomenclature) was applied to understand the relation between emissions and impact potential. Knowledge of construction drawings was applied for quantity ta keoffs.  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  This project provides new learning material for which problem analysis is developed and applied. For this project, the engineering problem is the quantification of the environmental performance of AERL. The resulting solution has involved utilizing life cycle assessment with TRACI impact measures categorized by C/YS >evel ϯ elements all modelled by the SD/͛s Impact Estimator program.  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. N/A  This final project is research and modelling focused. There is significant interpretation (of drawings); however, there is no significant investigation potential. 4  Design An ability to design solutions  for complex, open - ended engineering problems and to design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate attention to health and safety risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmental, cultural and societal considerations. N/A  This final project is research and modelling focused. There is significant interpretation (of drawings); however, there is no significant design potential. 5  Use of Engineering Tools An ability to create, select, apply, adapt, and extend appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities, from simple to complex, with an understanding of the associated limitations.  A  The use of modelling programs such as OST and IE are the main engineering t ools utilized in this project. Their usage involves a substantial understanding of the underlying assumptions, applicability of results, and model limitations. 6  Individual and Team Work  An ability to work effectively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi- disciplinary setting. A  This project presented the opportunity to work with other students with reference to creation of benchmark results.  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  The life cycle approaches can be thought of as an accounting method with specific terminology and applicability. The final project has been an opportunity to interpret and communicate complex ideas such as functional unit, temporal uncertainty, elemental sorting, and characterization factors among other ideas.  8  Professionalism  An understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer in society, especially the primary role of protection of the public and the public interest. A  This project highlighted the requirement for engineers to understand the short -  and long-term implications associated with engineering decisions, especially in the context of environmental impacts and performance of engineering products. 9  Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment An ability to analyze social and environmental aspects of engineering activities.  Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, social, health, safety, legal, and cultural aspects of society, the uncertainties in the prediction of such interactions; and the concepts of sustainable design and development and environmental stewardship. DA  This project further developed my understanding of the environmental impacts and performance of buildings on the environment. This project was delivered in the context of one method to quantify sustainability Ͷlife cycle analysis. 10  Ethics and Equity  An ability to apply professional ethics, accountability, and equity.  A  This final project involved preparing a final report; appropriate citations and credit are given for referenced information and ideas. 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. IDA  A brief introduction into engineering calculations for net present value to project constructed costs (2006) to current costs (2013).  12 Life - long Learning  An ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world in ways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancement of knowledge.  DA  This project has been an opportunity to learn more about life cycle approaches while applying classroom knowledge through modelling a real - life building in a commercially available program to quantify environmental performance.  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 5  Ann ex D – Impact Estimator Inp uts and Ass umptions  Table 26: Sorted CIQS Level 3 Impact Estimator Inputs Assembly Group  Assembly Name  Input Fields  Known/Measured  IE Inputs  A11.1  Foundations A11.1.1  Footing_F1  Length (ft)  18.80  18.80  Width (ft) 9.40  15.58  Thickness (in)  31.50  19.00  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #7  #6  A11.1.2  Footing_F2  Length (ft)  34.00  34.00  Width (ft) 8.50  12.35  Thickness (in)  27.60  19.00  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #7  #6  A11.1.3  Footing_F3  Length (ft)  19.20  19.20  Width (ft) 4.80  4.80  Thickness (in)  17.70  17.70  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #5 & 6  #6  A11.1.4  Footing_F4  Length (ft)  59.40  59.40  Width (ft) 4.10  4.10  Thickness (in)  13.80  13.80  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #5  #5  A11.1.5  Footing_F5  Length (ft)  54.90  54.90  Width (ft) 6.10  6.97  Thickness (in)  21.70  19.00  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 6  Rebar #6  #6  A11.1.6  Footing_F6  Length (ft)  13.10  13.10  Width (ft) 6.60  8.20  Thickness (in)  23.60  19.00  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #6  #6  A11.1.7  Footing_F7  Length (ft)  14.80  14.80  Width (ft) 5.40  5.40  Thickness (in)  17.70  17.70  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #5 & 6  #6  A11.1.8  Footing_F8  Length (ft)  14.40  14.40  Width (ft) 7.20  9.70  Thickness (in)  25.60  19.00  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #6  #6  A11.1.9  Footing_F9  Length (ft)  5.40  5.40  Width (ft) 4.10  4.10  Thickness (in)  17.70  17.70  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #5  #5  A11.1.10   Footing_F10  Length (ft)  12.80  12.80  Width (ft) 6.40  7.31  Thickness (in)  21.70  19.00  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #5  #5  A11.1.11  Footing_SF1  Length (ft)  315.23  315.23  Width (ft) 2.00  2.00  Thickness (in)  9.80  9.80  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 7  Rebar #5  #5  A11.1.12  Footing_SF2  Length (ft)  31.38  31.38  Width (ft) 2.60  2.60  Thickness (in)  9.80  9.80  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #5  #5  A11.1.13  Footing_1400mm_LeftBasement  Length (ft)  52.73  52.73  Width (ft) 52.73  152.97  Thickness (in)  55.12  19.00  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #7  #6  A11.1.14  Footing_700mm_SmallLeftBasement Length (ft)  18.41  18.41  Width (ft) 18.41  26.71  Thickness (in)  27.56  19.00  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #7  #6  A21.1  Foundations A21.1.1 SOG_125mm  Length (ft)  104.65  116.08  Width (ft) 104.65  116.08  Thickness (in)  4.92  4.00  Concrete (psi) 3000.00  3000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average A21.1.3  SOG_150mm  Length (ft)  51.26  50.86  Width (ft) 51.26  50.86  Thickness (in)  7.87  8.00  Concrete (psi) 3000.00  3000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average A21.1.2 SOG_200mm  Length (ft)  69.32  84.23  Width (ft) 69.32  84.23  Thickness (in)  5.91  4.00  Concrete (psi) 3000.00  3000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average A22.1  Foundations A22.1.1  Stairs_Concrete_TotalLength  Length (ft) 207.03  207.03  Width (ft) 3.67  3.67  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 8  Thickness (in)  14.00  14.00  Concrete (psi) 4000.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #5  #5  A22.2  Columns and Beams A22.2.1  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Basement Number of Beams  0.00  0.00  Number of Columns  6.00  6.00  Floor to floor height (ft) 12.00  12.00  Bay sizes (ft)  16.17  16.17  Supported span (ft) 16.17  16.17  Live load (psf)  -  75.00  A22.2.2  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_GroundLevel  Number of Beams  0.00  0.00  Number of Columns  38.00  38.00  Floor to floor height (ft) 12.00  12.00  Bay sizes (ft)  17.35  17.35  Supported span (ft) 17.35  17.35  Live load (psf)  -  75.00  A22.2.3  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Level2  Number of Beams  0.00  0.00  Number of Columns  41.00  41.00  Floor to floor height (ft) 12.00  12.00  Bay sizes (ft)  17.92  17.92  Supported span (ft) 17.92  17.92  Live load (psf)  -  75.00  A22.2.4  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Level3  Number of Beams  0.00  0.00  Number of Columns  45.00  45.00  Floor to floor height (ft) 12.00  12.00  Bay sizes (ft)  17.10  17.10  Supported span (ft) 17.10  17.10  Live load (psf)  -  75.00  A22.3  Floors  A22.3.1  Floor_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm Floor Width (ft) 1271.28  1271.28  Span (ft) 30.00  30.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Life load (psf)  -  75.00  A22.4  Extra Basic Materials  A22.4.1  XBM_Columns_HSS_(UpperFloor)  Hollow Structural Steel (Tons)  -  5.64  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   5 9  A 23.1  Columns and Beams A23.1.1  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Level4  Number of  Beams 0.00  0.00  Number of Columns  45.00  45.00  Floor to floor height (ft) 12.00  12.00  Bay sizes (ft)  17.10  17.10  Supported span (ft) 17.10  17.10  Live load (psf)  -  75.00  A23.2  Roofs  5.1.1  Roof_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm Roof Width (ft) 379.37  379.05  Span (ft) 30.00  30.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Life load (psf)  -  75.00  Category Roof Envelopes Roof Envelopes Material  Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 ply  Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 ply  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Polyisocyanurate Foam  Polyisocyanurate Foam  Thickness  3.93  3.93  Category Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier  Material  -  Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness  -  -  5.2.1  Roof_SteelJoist_Penthouse  Roof Width (ft) 204.85  204.85  Roof Length (ft)  17.35  17.35  Decking Type  Dens Deck Roof Board  -  Decking Thickness  5/8  5/8  Steel Gauge  -  18.00  Joist Type  -  1 5/8 x 6  Joist Spacing  -  16.00  Category Roof Envelopes Roof Envelopes Material  Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 ply  Standard Modified Bitumen Membrane 2 ply  Thickness  -  -  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Dens- GlassGoldSheathing  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 0  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Polyisocyanurate Foam  Polyisocyanurate Foam  Thickness  3.93  3.93  Category Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier  Material  -  Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness  -  -  A23.3  Extra Basic Materials  A22.4.1  XBM_Columns_HSS_(RoofConstruction) Hollow Structural Steel (Tons)  -  7.29  A31.1  Walls (Cast- in-Place)  A31.1.1  Wall_Cast - in-Place_150mm  Length (ft)  27.30  20.48  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  6.00  8.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  A31.1.2  Wall_Cast - in-Place_W1_200mm  Length (ft)  331.87  331.87  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  8.00  8.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Rigid Insulation  Polystyrene Extruded  Thickness  1.5"  1.5"  A31.1.3  Wall_Cast - in-Place_W2_200mm  Length (ft)  18.00  18.00  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  8.00  8.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  Category Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier  Material  Polyethylene 6 mil  Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness  -  -  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 1  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt Thickness  150mm  150mm  A31.1.4  Wall_Cast - in-Place_W1_400mm  Length (ft)  218.49  291.32  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  16.00  12.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  Thickness  1.5"  1.5"  A32.1  Walls (Cast- in-Place)  A32.1.1  Wall_Cast - in-Place_300mm  Length (ft)  12.24  12.24  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  12.00  12.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  A32.1.2  Wall_Cast - In -Place_W3_200mm  Length (ft)  394.48  394.48  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  8.00  8.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  Category Cladding Cladding Material  Brick -  Modular (metric)  Brick -  Modular (metric)  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  Thickness  2.64"  2.64"  Category Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier  Material  -  Polyethylene 6 mil  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 2  Thickness  -  -  A32.2  Walls (Concrete Block Wall)  A32.2.1  Wall_ConcreteBlock_W4_200mm  Length (ft)  12.92  12.92  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Rebar #4  #4  Category Cladding Cladding Material  Brick -  Modular (metric)  Brick -  Modular (metric)  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  Thickness  2.64"  2.64"  Category Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier  Material   Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness  -  -  Number of Windows  2.00  2.00  Total Window Area (ft2)  32.00  32.00  Frame Type Fixed, Aluminum Frame  Fixed, Aluminum Frame  Number of Doors  1.00  16.00  Door Type -  Aluminum Exterior Door, 80% glazing  A32.2.2  Wall_ConcreteBlock_W4_200mm_ShortBrickAddIn_Length  Length (ft)  186.01  186.01  Height (ft)  3.58  3.58  Rebar #4  #4  Category Cladding Cladding Material  Brick -  Modular (metric)  Brick -  Modular (metric)  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Polystyrene Extruded  Polystyrene Extruded  Thickness  2.64"  2.64"  Category Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier  Material   Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness  -  -  A32.3  Walls (Curtain Wall) 2.3.1  Wall_CurtainWall_AllGlazing  Length (ft)  830.12  830.12  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Percent Viewable Glazing  100.00  100.00  Percent Spandrel Panel  0.00  0.00  Thickness of Insulation (in)  2.64"  2.64"  Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass)  Metal  Metal  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 3  Number  of Doors 12.00  12.00  Door Type -  Aluminum Exterior Door, 80% glazing  2.3.2  Wall_CurtainWall_MetalSpandrel  Length (ft)  737.00  737.00  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Percent Viewable Glazing  75.00  75.00  Percent Spandrel Panel  25.00  25.00  Thickness  of Insulation (in)  2.64"  2.64"  Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass)  Metal  Metal  Number of Doors  1.00  1.00  Door Type -  Aluminum Exterior Door, 80% glazing  A32.4  Walls (Steel Stud) 2.4.3  Wall_SteelStud_W5  Length (ft)  710.42  710.42  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Sheathing Type Dens- GlassGoldSheathing  None  Stud Spacing -  16oc  Stud Weight -  Heavy (20Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 6  1 5/8 x 6  Number of Windows  128.00  128.00  Total Window Area (ft2)  2151.68  2151.68  Frame Type Fixed, Aluminum Frame Fixed, Aluminum Frame  Glazing Type  -  Low E Tin Glazing  Category Cladding Cladding Material  Brick -  Modular (metric)  Brick -  Modular (metric)  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  CavityMateUltra  Polystyrene Extruded  Thickness  2.64"  2.64"  Category Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier  Material   Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness  -  -  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 4  Thickness  -  -  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board Material  Dens- GlassGoldSheathing  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  2.4.4  Wall_SteelStud_W5_SteelCladding -Add - in_Length  Length (ft)  175.58  175.58  Height (ft)  3.83  3.83  Sheathing Type Dens- GlassGoldSheathing  None  Stud Spacing -  16oc  Stud Weight -  Heavy (20Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 6  1 5/8 x 6  Category Cladding Cladding Material  Steel Cladding -  Commercial (26 ga.)  Steel Cladding -  Commercial (26 ga.)  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  CavityMateUltra  Polystyrene Extruded  Thickness  2.64"  2.64"  Category Vapour Barrier  Vapour Barrier  Material   Polyethylene 6 mil  Thickness  -  -  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Dens- GlassGoldSheathing  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  B11.1  Walls (Cast- in-Place)  B11.1.1  Wall_Cast - in- Place_NoEnv_200mm  Length (ft)  36.28  36.28  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  8.00  8.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  B11.1.2  Wall_Cast - in- Place_200mm_P1  Length (ft)  113.75  113.75  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 5  Thickness (in)  8.00  8.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  B11.1.3  Wall_Cast - in- Place_200mm_P3  Length (ft)  39.55  39.55  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  8.00  8.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  B11.1.4  Wall_Cast - in- Place_250mm  Length (ft)  38.83  32.36  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  10.00  12.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5  B11.1.5  Wall_Cast - in- Place_400mm_P3  Length (ft)  144.13  192.18  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Thickness (in)  16.00  12.00  Concrete (psi) 3500.00  4000.00  Concrete flyash %  -  average Rebar #4  #5   B11.2.1  Wall_ConcreteBlock_P2_Partition  Length (ft)  70.98  70.98  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Rebar #4  #4  Number of Doors  3.00  3.00  Door Type -  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  B11.3  Walls (Curtain Wall) B11.3.1  Wall_CurtainWall_TypeSF1  Length (ft)  788.29  788.29  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Percent Viewable Glazing  -  99.00  Percent Spandrel Panel  -  1.00  Thickness of Insulation (in)  -  0.10  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 6  Spandrel Type (Metal/Glass)  Metal  Metal  Number of Doors  16.00  16.00  Door Type -  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  B11.4  Walls (Steel Stud) B11.4.1  Wall_SteelStud_P3_Partition  Length (ft)  500.72  250.36  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Sheathing Type None  None  Stud Spacing 16 oc  16oc  Stud Weight -  Light (25Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 1 13/16  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category -  Gypsum Board  Material  -  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  B11.4.2  Wall_SteelStud_P4_Partition  Length (ft)  615.47  615.47  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Sheathing Type None  None  Stud Spacing 16 oc  16oc  Stud Weight -  Light (25Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  Number of Doors  60.00  60.00  Door Type -  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt Thickness  3.62  3.62  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  B11.4.3  Wall_SteelStud_P5_Partition  Length (ft)  316.97  316.97  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 7  Sheathing Type None  None  Stud Spacing 16 oc  16oc  Stud Weight -  Light (25Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 6  1 5/8 x 6  Number of Doors  16.00  16.00  Door Type -  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt Thickness  3.62  3.62  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  B11.4.4  Wall_SteelStud_P6_Partition  Length (ft)  1039.14  1039.14  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Sheathing Type None  None  Stud Spacing 16 oc  16oc  Stud Weight -  Light (25Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  Number of Doors  23.00  23.00  Door Type -  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt Thickness  3.62  3.62  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  B11.4.5  Length (ft)  233.73  233.73  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 8  Wall_SteelStud_P7_Partition  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Sheathing Type None  None  Stud Spacing 16 oc  16oc  Stud Weight -  Light (25Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  Number of Doors  13.00  13.00  Door Type -  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt Thickness  3.62  3.62  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  B11.4.6  Wall_SteelStud_P8_Partition  Length (ft)  186.17  186.17  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Sheathing Type None  None  Stud Spacing 16 oc  16oc  Stud Weight -  Light (25Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 6  1 5/8 x 6  Number of Doors  7.00  7.00  Door Type -  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt Thickness  3.62  3.62  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   6 9  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  B11.4.7  Wall_SteelStud_P9_Partition  Length (ft)  162.85  162.85  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Sheathing Type None  None  Stud Spacing 16 oc  16oc  Stud Weight -  Light (25Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 6  1 5/8 x 6  Number of Doors  3.00  3.00  Door Type -  Steel Interior Door, 50% glazing  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt Thickness  3.62  3.62  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Gypsum Moisture Resistant 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  B11.4.8  Wall_SteelStud_P10_Partition  Length (ft)  14.24  14.24  Height (ft)  12.00  12.00  Sheathing Type None  None  Stud Spacing 16 oc  16oc  Stud Weight -  Light (25Ga)  Stud Thickness  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  Category Insulation  Insulation  Material  Fiberglass Batt Fiberglass Batt Thickness  3.62  1.36  Category Gypsum Board  Gypsum Board  CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 0  Material  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Gypsum Regular 1/2"  Thickness  -  -  B11.4.9  Wall_SteelStud_Type29  Length (ft)  310.49  310.49  Height (ft)  3.42  3.42  Sheathing Type -  None  Stud Spacing -  24oc  Stud Weight -  Light (25Ga)  Stud Thickness  -  1 5/8 x 3 5/8  Category -  Gypsum Board  Material  -  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -  Category -  Gypsum Board  Material  -  Gypsum Regular 5/8"  Thickness  -  -     CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 1  Table 27: Sorted CIQS Level 3 Impact Estimator Assumptions Level 3 Element Assembly Group  Assembly Name Specific Assumption  A11  Foundations A11.1  Foundations A11.1.1  Footing_F1 The width of this slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The measured length was maintain, thicknesses were set at 19” and the widths were increased using the following calculations;  = [(Cited Width) x (Cited Thickness)] / (19”/12)  = [(9’) x (31.5”/12)] / (19”/12)  = 15.58 feet A11.1.2  Footing_F2 The width of this slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The measured length was maintain, thicknesses were set at 19” and the widths were increased using the following calculations;  = [(Cited Width) x (Cited Thickness)] / (19”/12)  = [(8.5’) x (27.6”/12)] / (19”/12)  = 12.35 feet A11.1.3  Footing_F3 N/A A11.1.4  Footing_F4 N/A A11.1.5  Footing_F5 The width of this slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The measured length was maintain, thicknesses were set at 19” and the widths were increased using the following calculations;  = [(Cited Width) x (Cited Thickness)] / (19”/12)  = [(6.1’) x (21.7”/12)] / (19”/12)  = 6.97 feet CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 2  A11.1.6  Footing_F6 The width of this slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The measured length was maintain, thicknesses were set at 19” and the widths were increased using the following calculations;  = [(Cited Width) x (Cited Thickness)] / (19”/12)  = [(6.6’) x (23.6”/12)] / (19”/12)  = 8.20 feet A11.1.7  Footing_F7   A11.1.8  Footing_F8 The width of this slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The measured length was maintain, thicknesses were set at 19” and the widths were increased using the following calculations;  = [(Cited Width) x (Cited Thickness)] / (19”/12)  = [(7.2’) x (25.6”/12)] / (19”/12)  = 9.70 feet A11.1.9  Footing_F9 N/A A11.1.10  Footing_F10 The width of this slab was adjusted to accommodate the Impact Estimator limitation of footing thicknesses to be under 19.7”.  The measured length was maintain, thicknesses were set at 19” and the widths were increased using the following calculations;  = [(Cited Width) x (Cited Thickness)] / (19”/12)  = [(6.4’) x (21.7”/12)] / (19”/12)  = 7.31 feet A11.1.11  Footing_SF1 N/A A11.1.12  Footing_SF2 N/A CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 3  A11.1.13  Footing_1400mm_LeftBasement The area of this slab was measured and multiplied by the cited thickness to get the volume.  Then the calculated volume was divided by the square root of the measured area and then divided again by 19" to get the width of the footing at 19".  This was done using the following calculations;  = [[(Measured Area) x (Cited Thickness)] / sqrt(Measured Area)] / (19”/12)]  = [[(2,780.73' x (55.12"/12)] / (52.73)] / (19”/12)  = 152.97 feet A11.1.14  Footing_700mm_SmallLeftBasement The area of this slab was measured and multiplied by the cited thickness to get the volume.  Then the calculated volume was divided by the square root of the measured area and then divided again by 19" to get the width of the footing at 19".  This was done using the following calculations;  = [[(Measured Area) x (Cited Thickness)] / sqrt(Measured Area)] / (19”/12)]  = [[(339.02 ft2) x (27.56"/12)] / (18.41')] / (19”/12)  = 26.71 feet A21  Lowest Floor Construction A21.1  Foundations SOG - General The Impact Estimator, SOG inputs are limited to being either a 4” or 8” thickness.  Since the actual SOG thicknesses for the AERL building were not exactly 4” or 8” thick, the areas measured in OnScreen required calculations to adjust the areas to accommodate this limitation. CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 4  A21.1.1 SOG_125mm The area of this slab had to be adjusted so that the thickness fit into the 4" thickness specified in the Impact Estimator.  The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Slab Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness))/(4”/12) ]    = sqrt[ (10,952.63 x (4.9”/12))/(4”/12) ]    = 116.08 feet A21.1.3  SOG_150mm The area of this slab had to be adjusted so that the thickness fit into the 4" thickness specified in the Impact Estimator.  The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Slab Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness))/(4”/12) ]    = sqrt[ (4,805.08 ft2 x (5.9”/12))/(4”/12) ]    = 84.23 feet A21.1.2 SOG_200mm The area of this slab had to be adjusted so that the thickness fit into the 8" thickness specified in the Impact Estimator.  The following calculation was done in order to determine appropriate Length and Width (in feet) inputs for this slab;    = sqrt[((Measured Slab Area) x (Actual Slab Thickness))/(4”/12) ]    = sqrt[ (2,628.03 x (7.9”/12))/(8”/12) ]    = 50.86 feet A22  Upper Floor Construction A22.1  Foundations A22.1.1  Stairs_Concrete_TotalLength The thickness of the stairs was estimated to be 14 inches based on the cross-section structural drawings CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 5 A22.2  Columns and Beams Columns - General The method used to measure column sizing was completely depended upon the metrics built into the Impact Estimator.  That is, the Impact Estimator calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the following inputs; number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, supported span and live load.  This being the case, in OnScreen, since no beams were present in the AERL building, concrete columns were accounted for on each floor, while each floor’s area was measured.  The number of beams supporting each floor was assigned an average bay and span size in order to cover the measured area, as seen assumption details below for each input.  Since the live loading was not located within the provided building information, a live load of 75psf on all four floors and the basement level were assumed.  The hollow structural steel (HSS) columns in the AERL building were modeled in the Extra Basic Materials, where their associated assumptions and calculations are documented. A22.2.1  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Basement Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(1,568.91 ft2) / (6)]  = 16.17 feet A22.2.2  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_GroundLevel Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(11,432.56 ft2) / (38)]  = 17.35 feet CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 6  A22.2.3  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Level2 Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(13.161.53 ft2) / (41)]  = 17.92 feet A22.2.4  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Level3 Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(13.161.53 ft2) / (45)]  = 17.10 feet A22.3  Floors Floors - General The Impact Estimator calculated the thickness of the material based on floor width, span, concrete strength, concrete flyash content and live load.  The only assumptions that had to be made in this assembly group were setting the live load to 75psf, as well as setting the concrete strength 4,000 psi, instead of the specified 3,500psi.  This was due to the IE’s limitation to model only 3,000, 4,000 or 9,000psi concrete strengths. A22.3.1  Floor_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm N/A A22.4  Extra Basic Materials XBM - General The Hollow Structural Steel (HSS) columns were accounted for using count conditions for the different types.  Using their cross sectional sizing, provided in the Steel Column Schedule in structural drawing 316-07-003, in conjunction with their height and per foot weight, referenced from the Steel Tube Institute, allowed for the calculation of the amount of HSS in weight for the columns seen below. CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 7  A22.4.1  XBM_Columns_HSS_(UpperFloor) See bottom of chart for assumptions and calculations A23  Roof Construction A23.1  Columns and Beams Columns - General The method used to measure column sizing was completely depended upon the metrics built into the Impact Estimator.  That is, the Impact Estimator calculates the sizing of beams and columns based on the following inputs; number of beams, number of columns, floor to floor height, bay size, supported span and live load.  This being the case, in OnScreen, since no beams were present in the AERL building, concrete columns were accounted for on each floor, while each floor’s area was measured.  The number of beams supporting each floor were assigned an average bay and span size in order to cover the measured area, as seen assumption details below for each input.  Since the live loading was not located within the provided building information, a live load of 75psf on all four floors and the basement level were assumed.  The hollow structural steel (HSS) columns in the AERL building were modeled in the Extra Basic Materials, where their associated assumptions and calculations are documented. A23.1.1  Column_Concrete_Beam_N/A_Level4 Because of the variability of bay and span sizes, they were calculated using the following calculation;  = sqrt[(Measured Supported Floor Area) / (Counted Number of Columns)]  = sqrt[(13.161.53 ft2) / (45)]  = 17.10 feet A23.2  Roofs Roof - General The live load was assumed to be 75 psf and the concrete strength was set to 4,000psi instead of the specified 3,500psi.   5.1.1  Roof_ConcreteSuspendedSlab_200mm Polyethylene was assumed to be 6mil. CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 8  5.2.1  Roof_SteelJoist_Penthouse Research showed that Dens-Deck Roof Board 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 its place.    Polyethylene was assumed to be 6mil. A23.3  Extra Basic Materials XBM - General The Hollow Structural Steel (HSS) columns were accounted for using count conditions for the different types.  Using their cross sectional sizing, provided in the Steel Column Schedule in structural drawing 316-07-003, in conjunction with their height and per foot weight, referenced from the Steel Tube Institute, allowed for the calculation of the amount of HSS in weight for the columns seen below. A22.4.1  XBM_Columns_HSS_(RoofConstruction) See bottom of chart for assumptions and calculations A31 Walls Below Grade A31.1  Walls (Cast-in-Place) Walls - General  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). A31.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-Place_150mm This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 8” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/8”]  = (27.18’) * [(5.91”)/8”]  = 20.06 feet CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   7 9  A31.1.2  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W1_200mm This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 8” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/8”]  = (331.87’) * [(7.87”)/8”]  = 326.64 feet A31.1.3  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W2_200mm This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 8” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/8”]  = (394.48’) * [(7.87”)/8”]  = 388.27 feet A31.1.4  Wall_Cast-in-Place_W1_400mm N/A A32 Walls Above Grade A32.1  Walls (Cast-in-Place) Walls - General  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). A32.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-Place_300mm N/A A32.1.2  Wall_Cast-In-Place_W3_200mm This wall was reduced by a factor in order to fit the 8” thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator.  This was done by reducing the length of the wall using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) * [(Cited Thickness)/8”]  = (394.48’) * [(7.87”)/8”]  = 388.27 feet CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   8 0  A32.2  Walls (Concrete Block Wall) A32.2.1  Wall_ConcreteBlock_W4_200mm Polyethylene was assumed to be 6mil because the this is a below ground wall. A32.2.2  Wall_ConcreteBlock_W4_200mm_ShortBrickAddIn_Length Polyethylene was assumed to be 3mil because the this is an exterior wall. A32.3  Walls (Curtain Wall) 2.3.1  Wall_CurtainWall_AllGlazing Aluminum Door with 80% glazing was the closest estimation to the observed doors in this wall. 2.3.2  Wall_CurtainWall_MetalSpandrel Aluminum Door with 80% glazing was the closest estimation to the observed doors in this wall. A32.4  Walls (Steel Stud) 2.4.3  Wall_SteelStud_W5 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 its place.    Windows were specified as having 'Warm Edge Technology' space bar, and Low Emissivity high transmittance coating.  All these options were not available in the impact Estimator, so Low E Tin Glazing was assumed.    Polyethylene was assumed to be 3mil because the this is an exterior wall. CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   8 1  2.4.4  Wall_SteelStud_W5_SteelCladding-Add-in_Length Research showed 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 its place.    Polyethylene was assumed to be 3mil because the this is an exterior wall. B11 Partitions B11.1  Walls (Cast-in-Place) Walls - General  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). B11.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-Place_NoEnv_200mm N/A B11.1.2  Wall_Cast-in-Place_200mm_P1 N/A B11.1.3  Wall_Cast-in-Place_200mm_P3 This wall's measured length was reduced by a factor of 2 order to fit the 1 5/8" x 3 5/8" stud thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator since the studs were specified as 1 5/8" x 1 13/16" . Because the length of the wall was halved the amount of gypsum they were covered with was halved as well.  To compensate for this both side were covered with gypsum. B11.1.4  Wall_Cast-in-Place_250mm N/A B11.1.5  Wall_Cast-in-Place_400mm_P3 This wall's measured length was reduced by a factor of 2 order to fit the 1 5/8" x 3 5/8" stud thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator since the studs were specified as 1 5/8" x 1 13/16" . Because the length of the wall was halved the amount of gypsum they were covered with was halved as well.  To compensate for this both side were covered with gypsum.   B11.2.1  Wall_ConcreteBlock_P2_Partition Steel Interior Door with 50% glazing was the closest estimation to the observed doors in this wall. CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   8 2  B11.3  Walls (Curtain Wall) B11.3.1  Wall_CurtainWall_TypeSF1 Steel Interior Door with 50% glazing was the closest estimation to the observed doors in this wall.    There was no insulation in this curtain wall since it is indoors, however, the Impact Estimator does not accept an input of zero. B11.4  Walls (Steel Stud) B11.4.1  Wall_SteelStud_P3_Partition This wall's measured length was reduced by a factor of 2 order to fit the 1 5/8" x 3 5/8" stud thickness limitation of the Impact Estimator since the studs were specified as 1 5/8" x 1 13/16" .  This was done using the following equation;  = (Measured Length) / 2  = (498.24’ ) / 2  = 249.12 feet  Because the length of the wall was halved the amount of gypsum they were covered with was halved as well.  To compensate for this both side were covered with gypsum. B11.4.2  Wall_SteelStud_P4_Partition Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.  Steel Interior Doors with 50% glazing were selected as the closest representation to the observed door type in this wall. B11.4.3  Wall_SteelStud_P5_Partition Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.  Steel Interior Doors with 50% glazing were selected as the closest representation to the observed door type in this wall. B11.4.4  Wall_SteelStud_P6_Partition Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.  Steel Interior Doors with 50% glazing were selected as the closest representation to the observed door type in this wall. CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   8 3  B11.4.5  Wall_SteelStud_P7_Partition Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.  Steel Interior Doors with 50% glazing were selected as the closest representation to the observed door type in this wall. B11.4.6  Wall_SteelStud_P8_Partition Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.  Steel Interior Doors with 50% glazing were selected as the closest representation to the observed door type in this wall. B11.4.7  Wall_SteelStud_P9_Partition Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate.  Steel Interior Doors with 50% glazing were selected as the closest representation to the observed door type in this wall. B11.4.8  Wall_SteelStud_P10_Partition Acoustic Batt insulation was not available in the Impact Estimator so Fiberglass Batt was selected as the closest surrogate B11.4.9  Wall_SteelStud_Type29 Since this was an interior wall, no sheathing was considered.  The gypsum on both sides was assumed to be of the same specifications as the other walls (ie.5/8" Regular Gypsum).    CIVL 498C : Life Cycle Assessment of the Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory Daniel Tse   8 4   Table 28: IE Inputs Document – Calculation for Upper Floor Construction Steel Upper Floor Construction Description Count Section kg/m mm2 kg XBM_Columns_HSS_102x76x9.5_Level3 2 HSS 102x76x9.5 21.9 2570 160 XBM_Columns_HSS_76x76x6.4_Level3 2 HSS 76x76x6.4 13.1 1310 96 XBM_Columns_HSS_SC1_Level3 11 HSS 89x89x8 18.9 2410 760 XBM Columns HSS SC2 Level2 20 HSS 89x89x9.5 21.9 2790 1602 XBM_Columns_HSS_SC2_Level3 11 HSS 89x89x9.5 21.9 2790 881 XBM_Columns_HSS_SC3_Level2 9 HSS127x76x8 22.1 2820 728 XBM_Columns_HSS_SC3_Level3 11 HSS127x76x8 22.1 2820 889 XBM Columns HSS SC4 GroundLevel 5 HSS 102x102.9.5 25.7 3280 470 XBM_Columns_HSS_SC5_Level2 2 HSS 152x102x6.4 23.2 2960 170 XBM_Columns_HSS_SC5_Level3 4 HSS 152x102x6.4 23.2 2960 339  Table 29: IE Inputs Document – Calculation for Roof Construction Steel Roof Construction Description Count Section kg/m mm2 kg XBM_Columns_HSS_102x76x9.5_Level4 2 HSS 102x76x9.5 21.9 2570 160 XBM_Columns_HSS_102x76x9.5_Level5 2 HSS 102x76x9.5 21.9 2570 160 XBM_Columns_HSS_76x76x6.4_Level4 2 HSS 76x76x6.4 13.1 1310 96 XBM Columns HSS 76x76x6.4 Level5 2 HSS 76x76x6.4 13.1 1310 96 XBM_Columns_HSS_SC1_Level4 33 HSS 89x89x8 18.9 2410 2281 XBM_Columns_HSS_SC5_Level4 4 HSS 152x102x6.4 23.2 2960 339 XBM_Columns_HSS_SC5_Roof 49 HSS 152x102x6.4 23.2 2960 4158  

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.18861.1-0108900/manifest

Comment

Related Items