UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment : Wesbrook building Wang, Weicen 2013-11-18

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Wang_Weicen_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 3.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108903.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108903-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108903-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108903-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108903-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108903-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108903-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108903-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108903.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportWeicen WangLIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT - Wesbrook BuildingCIVL 498CNovember 18, 201310651550University of British Columbia Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.  1 | P a g e   PROVISIO This study has been completed by undergraduate students as part of their coursework at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and is also a contribution to a larger effort – the UBC LCA Project – which aims to support the development of the field of life cycle assessment (LCA). The information and findings contained in this report have not been through a full critical review and should be considered preliminary. If further information is required, please contact the course instructor Rob Sianchuk at rob.sianchuk@gmail.com                      Weicen Wang  LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT - Wesbrook Building  CIVL 498C November 18th, 2013                                       2  Table of Content    Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 4 List of Figures .................................................................................................. 5 List of Tables ................................................................................................... 6 1.0 General Information on the Assessment ................................................. 7 1.1 Purpose of the assessment .................................................................. 7 1.2 Identification of the building .................................................................. 8 1.3 Other Assessment Information ........................................................... 10 2.0 General Information of the Object of Assessment ............................... 11 2.1 Functional Equivalent ......................................................................... 11 2.2 Reference Study Period ..................................................................... 12 2.3 Object of Assessment Scope ............................................................. 12 3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment .... 14 3.1 System Boundary ............................................................................... 14 3.2 Product Stage .................................................................................... 15 3.3 Construction Stage ............................................................................. 16 4.0 Environmental Data ................................................................................. 17 4.1 Data Sources ..................................................................................... 17 4.2 Data Adjustment and Substitutions .................................................... 18 4.3 Data Quality ....................................................................................... 18 5.0 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results .. 20 5.1 Impact Assessment Method ............................................................... 20 5.2 Impact Categories .............................................................................. 20 5.2.7 Fossil fuel consumption .......................................................................... 23 Figure 20 Fossil fuel consumption cause/effect chain ..................................... 23 6.0 Model Development................................................................................. 23 6.1 Modeling actions ................................................................................ 23 6.2 Model Improvement............................................................................ 26 6.3 Bill of Materials ................................................................................... 26 7.0 Communication of Assessment Results ............................................... 29 7.1 Results of impact categories .............................................................. 29 7.2 Impact hotspots for Level 3 Elements ................................................ 33 3  Reference ....................................................................................................... 38 Annex A – Interpretation of Assessment Results ...................................... 39 A.1 Benchmark Development ................................................................... 39 A.2 UBC Academic Building Benchmark .................................................. 39 Annex B – Recommendation for LCA Use .................................................. 44 Annex C – Author Reflection ........................................................................ 46 Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions .............................. 51                           4  Executive Summary  The objective of this LCA study is to analysis the environmental impacts, which come from product manufacturing and construction process, of the Wesbrook building, which is located at 6174 University Blvd. This building is one lf the oldest academic buildings in the UBC Vancouver campus.  The methods for this study are carried of from general information assessment to the statement of boundaries and scenarios used in the assessment. On-Screen Takeoff is used here for building measurement, in order to get better accuracy. Then all the IE inputs and assumptions are put into Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, which has one of the largest Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) database in North America, to get the environmental impacts from different impact categories.   This study showed that the reinforced concrete and the modular clay brick structural system contributed the most to the final environmental impacts of the Wesbrook building, and Global Warming Pretention is the biggest impact category in this module. The result of this study can be used for decision makers and further LCA study.               5  List of Figures Figure 1 Location of Wesbrook Building Figure 2 the Wesbrook Building Figure 3 the Wesbrook Building Figure 4&5 Exterior Wall of Wesbrook Building Figure 6 Display of modular information for the different stages of the building assessment Figure 7 Flow chat for Product stage Figure 8 Flow chart for Construction process stage Figure 9 Production of cement Figure 10&11 Model Uncertainty Figure 12 Data Uncertainty Figure 13 Spatial Uncertainty Figure 14 Glow warming potential cause/effect chain Figure 15 Acidification potential cause/effect chain Figure 16 Human health criteria cause/effect chain Figure 17 Eutrophication potential cause/effect chain Figure 18 Ozone depletion potential cause/effect chain Figure 19 Smog potential cause/effect chain Figure 20 Fossil fuel consumption cause/effect chain Figure 21 Comparison of Global warming Figure 22 Comparison of Acidification Figure 23 Comparison of Human health criteria Figure 24 Comparison of Eutrophication Figure 25 Comparison of Ozone depletion potential Figure 26 Comparison of Smog Figure 27 Comparison of Fossil fuel consumption Figure 28 Hotspot of A11 Foundations Figure 29 Hotspot of A21 Lowest Floor Construction Figure 30 Hotspot of A22 Upper Floor Construction Figure 31 Hotspot of A23 Roof Construction Figure 32 Hotspot of A31 Walls Below Grade Figure 33 Hotspot of A32 Walls Above Grade Figure 34 Hotspot of B11 Partitions Figure 35 Global warming Comparison 6  Figure 36 Acidification Comparison Figure 37 Human health criteria Comparison Figure 38 Eutrophication Comparison Figure 39 Ozone layer Comparison Figure 40 Smog Comparison Figure 41 Fossil fuel consumption Comparison Figure 42 Cost scatter plots Figure 43 Global warming scatter plots      List of Tables Table.1 Other Assessment Information Table.2 Functional equivalent definition template Table.3 Building Definition Template Table.4 Level 3 Elements list Table.5 BOM of The Wesbrook building Table.6 BOM of A11 Foundations Table.7 BOM of A21 Lowest Floor Construction Table.8 BOM of A22 Upper Floor Construction Table.9 BOM of A23 Roof Construction Table.10 BOM of A31 Walls Below Grade Table.11 BOM of A32 Walls Above Grade Table.12 BOM of B11 Partitions Table.13 Impact / Building gross area Table.14 Impact / Each function space       7  1.0 General Information on the Assessment 1.1 Purpose of the assessment  1.1.1 Goal of Study (a) Intended application (Describes the purpose of the study) This Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study of the Wesbrook building at the University of British Columbia is carried out to explore the environmental impacts caused by the product and construction process stages. At the same time, the result of this study will be used as part of the benchmark in the overall database repository of UBC academic buildings.  (b) Reason for carrying out the study (Describes the motivation for carrying out the LCA study) This study helps practices better understanding LCA and its related knowledge. The result from the study can be used as environmental impact references and the establishment of a materials inventory for the Wesbrook building. It will make contribution to the further LCA study of UBC academic buildings.  Through the environmental performance comparisons among these academic buildings, better choice of materials, structural types and construction processes can be made for the further design, so that the sustainability design can be realized.  (c) Intended audience (Describes those who the LCA study is intended to be interpreted by) People, who involved in the building development related policymaking at UBC, might be part of the intended audiences. Governments, private industry and other universities whom may want to learn more or become engaged in performing similar LCA studies within their organizations can become the intended audience. At the same time, this study can make contribution to further develop of LCA studies.  8  (d) Intended for comparative assertions (State whether the results of this LCA study are to be compared with the results of other LCA studies) No comparative assertion within this study of Wesbrook building are made, however, as it is a part of a larger database, the study might be used for comparative assertions with other UBC buildings or other academic buildings, which have the similar function.  1.2 Identification of the building  The Wesbrook building, located at 6174 University Blvd, is one of the oldest academic buildings in the UBC Vancouver campus. The building was built in 1950’, financed by BC government. Sharp & Thompson, Berwick Pratt, who played a major role in Vancouver and Canadian architecture through the century, were responsible for this project.   Figure 1 Location of Wesbrook Building  Figure 1 shows a map of this building. Flow line around the building, entrances and exits of it are all signed on the map. 9  The Wesbrook building was designed as Preventive Medicine Institute, and it became the microbiology department in 1960’s. When the microbiology department moved to the new Life Science Center, the building is now occupied by pharmacists.   Figure 2 the Wesbrook Building   Figure 3 the Wesbrook Building  It has three above grade floors and one below grade floor. The gross area of this building is 98705 square feet, which consists of Classroom, offices, activity rooms, testing labs, library, study/research/prep/computer lab rooms and a lecture hall. During the past 60 years, this building has been renovated for several times. 10         Figure 4&5 Exterior Wall of Wesbrook Building  Figure 4&5 show the exterior walls of this building, which are made of concrete and bricks. The drawing of Wesbrook indicates that concrete is widely used in most parts of structure, so that, it can be assumed that most environmental impacts of this project come from concrete.  1.3 Other Assessment Information  Client for Assessment Completed as coursework in Civil Engineering technical elective course at the University of British Columbia. Name and qualification of the assessor First author: Weicen (Kate) Wang, MEng student; Second author: Si Wu, Civil Engineering student. The building is used by pharmacists. Impact Assessment method Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, Version 4.2.0208; On-Screen Takeoff, Version 3.9.0.6 Point of Assessment 63 years. 11  Period of Validity 5 years. Date of Assessment Completed in December 2013. Verifier Student work, study not verified.  Table.1 Other Assessment Information   2.0 General Information of the Object of Assessment 2.1 Functional Equivalent  2.1.1 Functional units (Quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit) The functional units used in this assessment is to normalize the LCA results of the Wesbrook Building include:  Per institutional post-secondary research building square meter constructed for building total area  Per institutional post-secondary academic building square meter constructed for functional area Based on these clearly functional units, better comparisons of environmental impacts on different systems can be realized. Further introduction of this will be made in the 7.0 Communication of Assessment Results.  2.1.2 Functional equivalent definition Aspect of Object of Assessment Description Building Type Institutional - Post Secondary - Research Technical and functional requirements Classroom, activity rooms, offices, testing labs, library, study/research/prep/computer lab rooms, lecture hall for microbiology department. Pattern of use Monday-Friday 07:15-18:00, Saturday/Sunday/Holidays - Closed Required service life It is supposed to be around 100 years. Table.2 Functional equivalent definition template 12  2.2 Reference Study Period  2.2.1 Required service life The building was built in 1950’, and it has been used for more than 60 years, however, there is not clear information showing how long the service life is, so that, it is assumed to be around 100 years.  2.2.2 Reason for excluding Modules B, C and D According to EN 15978, building Life Cycle Assessment has four modules. This LCA study only focuses on the environmental impacts caused by building construction. Module A, which contains the Product stage and Construction Process stage, has integrated information of building construction from raw material supply to construction installation. Module B is about the Use stage, Module C describes the End of Use stage, while Module D is the Supplementary Information Beyond the Building Life Cycle. All of them are happened after the finish of building construction, so that Modules B, C and D are excluded in this study.  2.3 Object of Assessment Scope  2.3.1 Description of the building Cast-in place concrete and modular bricks are two main materials of the Wesbrook building. The interior walls are consisted of cast-in-place walls, which have general painting on it, and brick walls, which are covered by ½” regular gypsum board. Most of the structure parts, in terms of footings, columns, slab-on-grade, beams, floors, stairs, are made of concrete. Suspended concrete slabs are the main material of floors. While open web steel joint roof and precast concrete slab are the two parts of roof, both of them are covered by 3-mil polyethylene and roof asphalt. Modular bricks are used as the inside envelope of exterior walls, which are concrete structure as well. Furthermore, the building envelope has very little insulation, which is only 0.5 inch thick, so that it leads to the inefficient thermal performance. Table-5 below summarizes the elements included in this building. 13  CIVL 498C Level 3 Elements Description Quantity (Amount) Units A11 Foundations Strip footings, concrete columns 2510 m2 A21 Lowest Floor Construction Concrete slab-on-grade 2510 m2 A22 Upper Floor Construction Concrete suspended slabs (1st, 2nd floors), concrete columns (1st, 2nd floors), concrete beams (1st, 2nd floors), floors (1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors), “cast in place” stairs 3182 m2 A23 Roof Construction Concrete suspended slab (3rd floor), concrete beams (3rd floor), concrete columns (3rd floor), steel joint roof, concrete slab 222 m2 A31 Walls Below Grade Exterior below grade walls, “cast in place” walls 833 m2 A32 Walls Above Grade Exterior above grade walls, “cast in place” walls, brick wall, mortar, gypsum board 3182 m2 B11 Partitions All interior walls, “cast in place” walls 2026 m2  Table.3 Building Definition Template  2.3.2 Reason for only addressing the structure and envelope This LCA study is based on product stage and construction process stage. Table-5 describes the detail elements referred to in these two stages. All the elements belong to building structure and building envelop.        14  3.0 Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment 3.1 System Boundary (Set of criteria specifying which unit processes are part of a product system, and which impacts created by the product system is considered)   Figure 6 Display of modular information for the different stages of the building assessment  The LCA study of the Wesbrook building only includes Module A, which contains raw material supply, transport, manufacturing for Product stage, and transport, construction installation process for Construction process stage. Any processes beyond or after this system boundary will not be included in this study. For Module A, upstream process can be regarded as the collection of raw materials and variety energy requirement. Once the extracted resources used in next stage is produced, the emissions and construction waste will become the downstream process. Figure 7&8 below show the detail flow chat of upstream and downstream processes in Module A.  Figure 7 Flow chat for Product stage 15   Figure 8 Flow chart for Construction process stage  3.2 Product Stage  (The product stage is also known as 'cradle to gate' for the building products and services that are reference flows for the construction stage of the object of assessment.) As mentioned in the building identification before, the main materials used for the Wsebrook building are concrete and brick.  3.2.1 Concrete Concrete is made of cement and water; different water/cement ratio can generate concrete with different strength. Cement is made by heating limestone (calcium carbonate) with small quantities of other materials to 1450 degree in a kiln (Figure 9). Silica fume, fly ash and natural pozzolans are used as Supplementary Cementing Materials (SCMs), which almost used in every the concrete manufacturing as they can realize better workability and reduce the water required through the production process. Since this building was built 60 years ago, there is no clear information showing which SCM it contains, in this study, it is assumed to be with average amount of fly ash. For all the concrete production, 28 days are the least curing time. 16   Figure 9 Production of cement  BC Province has its cement manufacture, so that the raw material is transported to the production site by truck. The transportation of precast concrete as well as the concrete used for cast-in-place concrete form production gate to construction site can be realized by truck as well. Fossil fuel consumption will be caused in this process. The biggest emission in this process is CO2, as 1 ton of cement generates 1 ton of CO2. In addition, the reaction of cement and water produces heat exhaust as another form of pollution.  3.2.2 Brick Bricks are made by placing the cement mixture and aggregates into a mold at the production site, where it is dried and cured, therefore the product stage of it is similar with concrete.  3.3 Construction Stage (The construction stage covers the processes from the factory gate of the different construction products to the practical completion of the construction work.) The precast concrete and brick are easy for storage in the construction site; some cover on them is useful. Other concrete elements in this building are cast-in-place concrete, such as cast-in-place walls and cast-in-place roof, which should be built on site. 17  Pouring a cast-in-place wall typically consists of assembling the formwork and placing reinforcing rebar in the forms and around openings, then pouring concrete into the forms. The concrete will arrive on site in a concrete mixing truck and will be poured using a concrete pump or a crane and bucket. The forms may be assembled by hand or crane for large-scale formwork. Rebar would typically be assembled by hand. A wall might need temporary heating for concrete curing. On site waste for concrete is estimated at 5%, and consists of any spillage from the forms and the dumping of excess concrete not required on site. Formwork is re-used until its degradation adversely affects the surface finish of the concrete work.  On average, a 10% loss of material can be assumed after each use.   4.0 Environmental Data 4.1 Data Sources  4.1.1 Athena LCI Database The Athena Institute has been originally leading life cycle research, developing an increasing set of all-inclusive and comparable life cycle inventory databases for minority. For now, the experts of Athena conduct research independently to accomplish core program objectives, and work with industry to manager through life cycle inventories. The Athena’s databases almost cover every section, the databases are sensitive to distinguish the differences for products produced in various regions; and the databases are using actual process models, which are not rely on government data sources. Most noteworthy is that Athena can provide a software tools to users with an unmatched level of detail and specificity.  4.1.2 US LCI Database U.S. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database is created between National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and its partners. The purpose is to help life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners explain environmental impacts. US 18  LCI database provides accounting of energy individually, the style can be gate-to-gate, cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave; database provides material flows into and out of the environment, which are related to producing a material, component, or assembly in the United States.  4.2 Data Adjustment and Substitutions  Data adjustment and substitutions start with deviation detection in this LCA study. The deviations exist between the construction drawings, which are opened in On-Screen Takeoff, and the inputs documents in both Athena and Excel. There are two solutions for the deviation:  If Athena has the required data, and this deviation is caused by careless of the previous student, the adjustment is changing the deviation into the right one according to the construction drawings.  If Athena dose not have the required data, the substitution might be found in another database. Calculation is used here to get the percentage of waste factor, which might be taken into account directly by Athena, and then use the original data minus the waste factor to get the final substitution.  4.3 Data Quality (Data quality describes the characteristics of the data used in terms of its ability to satisfy stated requirements.) Most data of the Wesbrook building can be found or put into Athena for the impact assessment; only few model, data, spatial and temporal uncertainty types exist in this LCA study.  4.3.1 Model Uncertainty Due to the lack of information, the concrete type and percentage of fly ash are unsure for “Footing_F1_Strip”. According to the help description: #20M (equal to 3000 psi) rebar should be selected for column footings, so that 3000-psi concrete is used here. See Figure 10&11.   19    Figure 10&11 Model Uncertainty  4.3.2 Data Uncertainty In Figure 12, the measurements in On-screen Takeoff show that, the thickness of “Footing_F5_Column” is 21in, however when entering 21in thickness into Athena, it warns that “thickness value mush be>=7.5in and<=19.7in”, so that assumption has to be made here due to the data limitation.  Figure 12 Data Uncertainty  4.3.3 Spatial Uncertainty When putting the floor width (51ft) and span (479ft) into Athena, it warns that “Span is out of range, choose 0<span<=31.98819”. In order to get a similar size of suspended slab, the assumption here is using the measured area of suspended slab divide the possible largest span size, which is allowed in Athena, to get the assumed floor width (Figure 13): (51ft * 479ft) / 31ft = 788ft 20   Figure 13 Spatial Uncertainty  4.3.4 Temporal uncertainty  The wesbrook building was built in 1950’, however this LCA study is applied on it with current standards. Therefore, taking into account of the developed technology in today’s society, the actual impacts should be much larger.   5.0 List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results 5.1 Impact Assessment Method  The impact assessment methods used in this LCA study are Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings (Version 4.2.0208), which is the only available software meeting the requirements of this study, and On-Screen Takeoff (Version 3.9.0.6).   5.2 Impact Categories  The environmental impacts in this LCA study are divided into seven categories. Six of them are characterized by US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI). Fossil fuel consumption is the only one characterized by Athena Institute.  5.2.1 Global warming potential The cause/effect chain modeled of Global Warming Potential (GWP) can be described in the Figure-9 below. GWP is caused by air emission, which is 21  general known as CO2. The effect of GWP is enormous and wide, and the endpoint impacts of it range from human health to natural damage.  Figure 14 Glow warming potential cause/effect chain  5.2.2 Acidification potential The cause/effect chain modeled of Acidification Potential (AP) can be described in the Figure-10 below. AP is caused by air emission, which is general known as SO2. The effect of AP is mostly from leaching, and the endpoint impacts are on the natural environment.  Figure 15 Acidification potential cause/effect chain  5.2.3 Human health criteria – respiratory The cause/effect chain modeled of Human Health (HH) can be described in the Figure-11 below. HH is caused by air emission, which is inhaled by human. The effect of HH is related to Particulate Matter (PM), which might lead to directly endpoint impacts on human. 22   Figure 16 Human health criteria cause/effect chain  5.2.4 Eutrophication potential The cause/effect chain modeled of Eutrophication Potential (EP) can be described in the Figure-12 below. EP is caused by water emission, which is arrival to nutrient limited aquatic ecosystem. Toxicity is the biggest endpoint impact of EP.  Figure 17 Eutrophication potential cause/effect chain  5.2.5 Ozone depletion potential The cause/effect chain modeled of Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) can be described in the Figure-13 below. ODP is caused by air emission, and due to the depletion, more and more UVB coming into earth. The endpoint impacts of ODP are similar to GWP, expect it might lead to material damage.  Figure 18 Ozone depletion potential cause/effect chain  23   5.2.6 Smog potential The cause/effect chain modeled of Smog Potential (SP) can be described in the Figure-14 below. SP is caused by air emission; it might affect on the human health, and even lead to the death.  Figure 19 Smog potential cause/effect chain  5.2.7 Fossil fuel consumption The cause/effect chain modeled of Fossil fuel consumption can be described in the Figure-15 below. Fossil fuel consumption is required by the increasing energy use worldwide. Long-time fossil fuel consumption might bring huge impacts to human health.  Figure 20 Fossil fuel consumption cause/effect chain   6.0 Model Development 6.1 Modeling actions  6.1.1 Modeling and sorting of Level 3 elements The modeling and sorting of this LCA study is based on Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (CIQS) elemental format. In this standard, an element is defined as a major component common to most buildings, fulfilling the same 24  function irrespective of its design, specification or construction. Table 4 indicates the Level 3 elements in this report. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 A Shell A1 Substructure A11 Foundations A2 Structure A21 Lowest Floor Construction A22 Upper Floor Construction A23 Roof Construction A3 Exterior Enclosure A31 Walls Below Grade A32 Walls Above Grade B Interiors B1 Partitions & Doors B11 Partitions  Table.4 Level 3 Elements list  The Wesbrook building has four floors in all, one below grade level and three above grade levels. According to the CIQS level 3 sorting:  A11 Foundations Concrete strip footings and column footings consist of the foundation elements, supporting the whole building.  A21 Lowest Floor Construction Concrete slab-on-grade is the only floor construction for basement, which belongs to lowest floor.  A22 Upper Floor Construction All columns and beams, which supporting the second and third floors are upper floor construction. In additional, the concrete suspended slab on the first, second and third floors belong to this category, as well as stairs.  A23 Roof Construction 25  All columns and beams, which supporting the roof, are roof construction, as well as all the roof elements.  A31 Walls Below Grade All the exterior walls of basement, as well as their envelope and windows are walls below grade.  A32 Walls Above Grade All the exterior walls of first, second and third floors, as well as their envelope and windows are walls above grade. The modular clay brick wall, mortar between brick and regular gypsum board, which are used on the exterior walls also belong to this category.  B11 Partitions All the interior walls of the building, as well as the doors and windows in them are partitions.  6.1.2 Methods summarization This LCA study is based on the report of the previous student. After sorting the IE inputs and assumptions documents in Microsoft Excel according to the CIQS Level 3 Elements, the sorting results are put into the Athena Impact Estimator. Then is the deviation detection between the construction drawings and inputs documents, which is introduced in 4.2 Data Adjustment and Substitutions. After deviation detection, a Bill of Materials is created through Athena to generate a cradle-to-grave LCI profile for the building. In this study, LCI profile results focus on the raw material supply, transportation of construction materials to site and their installation as structure and envelope assemblies of the Wesbrook building.  On-Screen Takeoff used here to perform linear, area and count measurements of the building’s structure and envelope. The deviation detection can be realized through the measurements, so that the IE inputs used for the takeoff process can be more accurate.  26     6.2 Model Improvement  The first action of model improvement is go thought the model in On-Screen Takeoff, checking if all the measurements are correct.  Once the deviation is detected, put the right data into the Inputs excel form. Accurate measured data can improve the quality of IE Inputs.  There are some difference between IE Inputs and measured data, based on the previous student’s work, some of them were made by careless. The improvement action here is change all the IE Inputs according to the measured data. If the change cannot be realized due to the limitation of Athena, assumption might need to be made, which is introduced in 4.3 Data Quality. Data adjustment and substitutions, which is mentioned in 4.0 Environmental Data is another used in this study for improvement action.  6.3 Bill of Materials (Reference flows are measuring of the outputs from processes in a given product system required to fulfill the function expressed by the functional unit)  The tables below list the Bill of Materials of the Wesbrook building, and each Level 3 Element. These results come from Athena Impact Estimator.   Material Quantity Unit 1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 22124.0423 m2 3 mil Polyethylene 2841.6794 m2 5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board 10069.9441 m2 6 mil Polyethylene 2592.7768 m2 Aluminum 41.2462 Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 3928.3615 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 1203.2427 m3 Double Glazed No Coating Air 1167.0896 m2 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 1662.2419 kg Galvanized Decking 1.7104 Tonnes 27  Glazing Panel 0.9126 Tonnes Joint Compound 10.0500 Tonnes Metric Modular (Modular) Brick 10788.7329 m2 Mortar 638.4939 m3 Nails 1.9963 Tonnes Open Web Joists 3.1079 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.1153 Tonnes Precast Concrete 228.9053 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 504.9637 Tonnes Roofing Asphalt 19925.4280 kg Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 17.2627 m3 Stucco over porous surface 41.5160 m2 Water Based Latex Paint 159.9846 L Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 5.1651 Tonnes Table.5 BOM of The Wesbrook building  Material Quantity Unit Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 340.1019 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 7.5603 Tonnes Table.6 BOM of A11 Foundations  Material Quantity Unit 5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board 2688.5883 m2 6 mil Polyethylene 2592.7768 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 263.1816 m3 Joint Compound 2.6833 Tonnes Nails 0.0252 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.0308 Tonnes Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 2.2652 Tonnes Table.7 BOM of A21 Lowest Floor Construction  Material Quantity Unit 5/8"  Regular Gypsum Board 7382.9979 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 2180.0318 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 759.2233 m3 28  Joint Compound 7.3684 Tonnes Nails 0.0691 Tonnes Paper Tape 0.0846 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 362.7570 Tonnes Stucco over porous surface 66.4257 m2 Water Based Latex Paint 7.1450 L Table.8 BOM of A22 Upper Floor Construction  Material Quantity Unit 3 mil Polyethylene 2746.0402 m2 Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 66.1845 m3 Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 444.0193 m3 Galvanized Decking 1.7104 Tonnes Open Web Joists 3.1079 Tonnes Precast Concrete 228.9053 m3 Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 109.2438 Tonnes Roofing Asphalt 19925.4280 kg Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 2.9000 Tonnes Table.9 BOM of A23 Roof Construction  Material Quantity Unit 3 mil Polyethylene 106.8324 m2 Aluminum 7.0702 Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 243.9246 m3 Double Glazed No Coating Air 156.9136 m2 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 286.9696 kg Nails 0.2474 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 6.0027 Tonnes Table.10 BOM of A31 Walls Below Grade  Material Quantity Unit 1/2"  Regular Gypsum Board 22124.0423 m2 3 mil Polyethylene 146.0038 m2 Aluminum 34.1760 Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 404.7424 m3 29  Double Glazed No Coating Air 1010.1760 m2 EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 1375.2722 kg Glazing Panel 0.9126 Tonnes Metric Modular (Modular) Brick 10788.7329 m2 Mortar 638.4939 m3 Nails 1.3552 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 12.8220 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 5.3654 m3 Water Based Latex Paint 48.3370 L Table.11 BOM of A32 Walls Above Grade  Material Quantity Unit Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 340.6919 m3 Nails 0.2994 Tonnes Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 11.5315 Tonnes Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln-dried 11.8973 m3 Water Based Latex Paint 107.1820 L Table.12 BOM of B11 Partitions   7.0 Communication of Assessment Results 7.1 Results of impact categories  The figures below make comparisons of the environmental impacts, which caused by the seven impact categories, between product stage and construction process stage.  30   Figure 21 Comparison of Global warming  As mentioned above, Global Warming consists of the biggest impact in this study. From Figure 21, it shows that in these two stages, product stage has a significant higher Global warming impact. At the same time, among these Level 3 Elements, A22, A23 and A32 occupy large parts of the impact.    Figure 22 Comparison of Acidification  From Figure 22, it shows that in these two stages, product stage has a significant higher Acidification impact. At the same time, among these Level 3 Elements, A22 and A32 occupy large parts of the impact. 31   Figure 23 Comparison of Human health criteria  From Figure 23, it shows that in these two stages, product stage has a significant higher Human health criteria impact. At the same time, among these Level 3 Elements, A22 and A32 occupy large parts of the impact.    Figure 24 Comparison of Eutrophication  From Figure 24, it shows that in these two stages, product stage has a relative higher Eutrophication impact. At the same time, among these Level 3 Elements, A23 and A32 occupy large parts of the impact. 32   Figure 25 Comparison of Ozone depletion potential  From Figure 25, it shows that in these two stages, product stage has a significant higher Ozone layer depletion impact. At the same time, among these Level 3 Elements, A22, A23 and A32 occupy large parts of the impact.    Figure 26 Comparison of Smog  From Figure 26, it shows that in these two stages, product stage has a relative higher Smog impact. At the same time, among these Level 3 Elements, A23 and A32 occupy large parts of the impact.  33   Figure 27 Comparison of Fossil fuel consumption  From Figure 27, it shows that in these two stages, product stage has a relative higher Fossil fuel consumption impact. At the same time, among these Level 3 Elements, A23 and A32 occupy large parts of the impact.  7.2 Impact hotspots for Level 3 Elements  The figures below indication the percentage of impact caused by different structure components in Level 3 Elements. Red square highlight the hotspot for each Level 3 Elements. Hotspot is assumed to be the component, which has a higher impact percentage.   Figure 28 Hotspot of A11 Foundations  34   Figure 29 Hotspot of A21 Lowest Floor Construction   Figure 30 Hotspot of A22 Upper Floor Construction    Figure 31 Hotspot of A23 Roof Construction  35   Figure 32 Hotspot of A31 Walls Below Grade   Figure 33 Hotspot of A32 Walls Above Grade  36  Figure 34 Hotspot of B11 Partitions  7.3 Application of Functional units  Table.13 Impact / Building gross area The Table-2 indicates how these environmental impacts distribute on the four process modules, as well as the total impacts on each square meter of the Wesbrook building. Comparisons can be made among these process modules within this building, or with the other buildings, which use the similar modules. 37   Table.14 Impact / Each function space The Table-3 shows how the total environmental impacts distribute on different categories, as well as the impacts on each functional space of the Wesbrook building. Comparisons can be made among these functional spaces within this building, or with the other buildings, which have the similar functional spaces.                  38  Reference  Previous report of the Wesbrook building  Wikimapia: http://wikimapia.org/1911804/Wesbrook-Building  CIVL529 Class notes  Athena LCI Database: http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/lca-databases/  US LCI Database: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/  CIVL 498C Class notes                           39  Annex A – Interpretation of Assessment Results A.1 Benchmark Development  Benchmarking in LCA is made up of a series of average results from the analysis of a numbers of buildings with similar functions. Based on benchmarking, students can make comparison between the data in a typical building and the average results, and then evaluation of that building can be realized. In order to create a benchmarking, collection of data should start at the beginning, any change of the data, which is enrolled in benchmarking, will lead to the change of the total benchmarking. In this LCA study, as students keep on updating their data, the benchmark is changing all the time.  A.2 UBC Academic Building Benchmark  A.2.1 Results of comparison with class benchmark   Figure 35 Global warming Comparison  The comparison between the Wsebrook building and class benchmark indicates that the Wsebrook building has a little higher global warming impact than the benchmark, especially Level 3 Elements - A23, the impact caused by it is twice than the average. 40  Figure 36 Acidification Comparison  The comparison between the Wsebrook building and class benchmark indicates that the Wsebrook building has a little higher acidification impact than the benchmark. Level 3 Elements - A23 and A32 contribute most to this impact.   Figure 37 Human health criteria Comparison  The comparison between the Wsebrook building and class benchmark indicates that the Wsebrook building has a same human health criteria impact with the benchmark. However, Level 3 Elements - A23 still has a higher impact. 41    Figure 38 Eutrophication Comparison  The comparison between the Wsebrook building and class benchmark indicates that the Wsebrook building has a little higher eutrophication impact than the benchmark. Level 3 Elements - A23 still made a big amount of impact.   Figure 39 Ozone layer Comparison  The data of ozone layer depletion is quite small, which is quite difficult to point out, so that little comparison can be made in this part.  42   Figure 40 Smog Comparison  The comparison between the Wsebrook building and class benchmark indicates that the Wsebrook building has a little higher smog impact than the benchmark. Level 3 Elements - A23 still made a big amount of impact.   Figure 41 Fossil fuel consumption Comparison  The comparison between the Wsebrook building and class benchmark indicates that the Wsebrook building has a little higher fossil fuel consumption impact than the benchmark. Level 3 Elements - A23 still made a big amount of impact, as well as A32. 43  A.2.2 Results of comparison with the other buildings   Figure 42 Cost scatter plots   Figure 43 Global warming scatter plots  The Figure 42 and 43 show that, among the 16 buildings, the Wesbook building is on the 5th rank of cost, similar with CHBE. For the global warming potential impacts, it ranks 5th as will, almost same with Pharmacy building. Generally, these two figures indicate that the higher cost, the higher global warming impact.   44  Annex B – Recommendation for LCA Use  The product and construction stages are a short period compared with duration of building using.  Through the use of building, environmental impact might come from a variety of aspects, in terms of mechanical systems use, water resources use, energy consumption, and the occupant in the building will also create environmental impacts. All of them happen in a long term. Module A can be chose as the start point of LCA, however, once it is done, the other modules should catch up to fulfill the results.  LCA is a good method for early decision-making, which is quite important to the development of a building. It can help designer choose better material to reduce the environmental impact. For example, during the reaction of concrete manufacturing, adding fly ash can reduce the water requirement and the heat emission. However, different percentages of fly ash will lead to different results. The excessive use of it might bring damage to the structure of concrete. In Athena, we can compare the outputs of different amount of fly ash and get the optimal choice.  In this LCA study, because of the long history of the Wesbrook building, parts of the data were missing, so that, assumption has to be made. At the same time, all the drawings of this building are hand drawings, measurement cannot reach that detail. Both of these factors will affect the accuracy of LCA result. Furthermore, the data and models are handled by two authors in different time. Lack of communication between them might lead to the misunderstanding for parts of the information.  There is no doubt that GWP is the priority impact, due to the tremendous emission of CO2. Ozone layer depletion becomes more and more serious in today’s society, since almost every family use refrigerate. Same situation happens on fossil fuel consumption, as the significant increasing vehicles. The impacts from AP and EP see not that close with people’s daily life. Human health criteria and smog are few to be talked about. The categories could be 45  divided according the endpoint of effect. For instance, impacts, which have directly effect on human health, could be combined together, other impacts, which might cause serious natural disaster could be put into one category.  Steps to operationalize LCA methods:  Get familiar with all the drawings, in terms of size, function, and space etc. of the building.  Make sure the goal and scope of this LCA study.  Collect and sort the data.  Analysis and classify the environmental impacts which might be caused by this building.  Enter all the inputs into Athena, base on the impact categories to make assessment.  Conclude all the results.                    46   Annex C – Author Reflection  I’m taking a course called Sustainable Building Science Program (SBSP) Topic this semester, which has some similar topics with this course, we also analysis the LCA of CIRS building in that course. In this course, history and current state of LCA, structure of LCA, development of a whole building LCA study and uncertainty in LCA are introduced.  I’m so glad that through this course and the final project I have a deeper understanding of LCA. More and more people talk about LCA now, after this course, I think I can join them, talk about it, instead of being a listener. Since my background is architecture, I’ll try to combine LCA with my future architecture design.  The part interested me in this final project is the “cause/effect chain” of the impact categories, which help me get a better understanding the environmental impacts. Not only in this final project, but also in my future study, I can utilize that knowledge. Furthermore, I learned the different methods used for impact assessment from this report, as well as the interesting software. However, I met a small problem during using Athena, I put the picture below to show the issue. I’m not sure whether it caused by the display of my laptop, or it is the software’s problem.     (The display of these two boxes is overlapping, so that I cannot check the data after I entering into it, and I’m worried if it affects the final outputs. This problem happened on 50% of my input elements.) 47   CEAB Graduate Attributes    Graduate Attribute         Name Description Select the content code most appropriate for each attribute from the dropdown menue Comments on which of the CEAB graduate attributes you believe you had to demonstrate during your final project experience.          1 Knowledge Base Demonstrated competence in university level mathematics, natural sciences, engineering fundamentals, and specialized engineering knowledge appropriate to the program. IA = introduced & applied            2 Problem Analysis An ability to use appropriate knowledge and skills to identify, formulate, analyze, and solve complex engineering problems in order to reach substantiated conclusions. DA = developed & applied            3 Investigation An ability to conduct investigations of complex problems by methods that include appropriate experiments, analysis and interpretation of DA = developed & applied   48  data, and synthesis of information in order to reach valid conclusions.          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. IDA = introduced, developed & applied When meeting some complex problems, I'd like to get familiar with them first, try to find the order inside them, classify them into small categories, in order to make them simple. Then, I'll find my own way to rebuild the categories.          5 Use fo Engineering Tools An ability to create, select, apply, adapt, and extend appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering tools to a range of engineering activities, from simple to complex, with an understanding of the associated limitations. DA = developed & applied            6 Individual and Team Work An ability to work effectively as a member and leader in teams, preferably in a multi-disciplinary setting. DA = developed & applied            49  7 Communication An ability to communicate complex engineering concepts within the profession and with society at large. Such ability includes reading, writing, speaking and listening, and the ability to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, and to give and effectively respond to clear instructions. DA = developed & applied            8 Professionalism  An understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the professional engineer in society, especially the primary role of protection of the public and the public interest. IA = introduced & applied            9 Impact of Engineering on Society and the Environment An ability to analyze social and environmental aspects of engineering activities.  Such ability includes an understanding of the interactions that engineering has with the economic, social, health, safety, 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. IA = introduced & applied            50  10 Ethics and Equity An ability to apply professional ethics, accountability, and equity. IDA = introduced, developed & applied At this part, I think I always try my best to observe the rule.          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. DA = developed & applied            12 Life-long Learning An ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world in ways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. IA = introduced & applied                   51  Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions  General Description      Project Name:  Wesbrook    Project Location:  Vancouver    Gross square (square ft):  98705    Building Life Expectancy:  1 year    Building Type:  Intitutional    Operating Energy Consumption:  TBA         Assembly Group Assembly Type Assembly Name Input Fields Input Values  Known/Measured IE Inputs  A11 Foundations     1.1  Concrete Footing           1.1.1  Footing_F1_Strip           Length (ft) 1841 1841    Width (ft) 1 1    Thickness (in) 12" 12"    Concrete (psi) 2500 3000    Concrete flyash % - Average    Rebar - #6    1.1.2  Footing_F2_Strip           Length (ft) 718.5 718.5    Width (ft) 2'7" 2'7"    Thickness (in) 18" 18"    Concrete (psi) 2500 3000    Concrete flyash % - average    Rebar - #6    1.1.3  Footing_F3_Column            Length (ft) 2.83 2.83      Width (ft) 2.83 2.83      Thickness (in) 10" 10"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average       Rebar - #6    1.1.4  Footing_F4_Column           Length (ft) 22.4 22.4      Width (ft) 22.4 22.4      Thickness (in) 15" 15"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average  52      Rebar - #6    1.1.5  Footing_F5_Column           Length (ft) 7.1 7.1      Width (ft) 7.1 7.1      Thickness (in) 21" 19.7"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #6    1.1.6  Footing_F6_Column           Length (ft) 13.8 13.8      Width (ft) 13.8 13.8      Thickness (in) 24" 19.7"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #6    1.1.7  Footing_F7_Column           Length (ft) 10.5 10.5      Width (ft) 10.5 10.5      Thickness (in) 27" 19.7"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #6    1.1.8  Footing_F8_Column           Length (ft) 18.3 18.3      Width (ft) 18.3 18.3      Thickness (in) 30" 19.7"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #6    1.1.9  Footing_F9_Column           Length (ft) 24.2 24.2      Width (ft) 24.2 24.2      Thickness (in) 33" 19.7"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #6    1.1.10  Footing_F10_Column           Length (ft) 50 50      Width (ft) 50 50      Thickness (in) 38" 19.7"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average  53      Rebar - #6  A21 Lowest Floor Construction  2.1  Concrete Slab-on-Grade           2.1.1  SOD_Concrete Slab on Grade_Basement           Length (ft) 162.2 162.2      Width (ft) 162.2 162.2      Thickness (in) 4" 4"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % average average      Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board      Material Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"      Thickness (in) - -    Envelope Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier      Material Polyethylene 6 mil Polyethylene 6 mil      Thickness (in) - -    2.1.2 SOG_Concrete Slab on Grade_Ramp Up           Length (ft) 25.9 25.9      Width (ft) 25.9 25.9      Thickness (in) 4" 4"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % average average    Envelope Category - -      Material   -      Thickness (in) - -  A22 Upper Floor Construction   3.1  Columns and Beams          3.1.1 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Concrete_Basement Wings       Number of Columns 44 44      Number of Beams 20 20      Floor to Floor Height (ft) 12'6" 12'6"      Bay Sizes (ft) 24.5 24.5      Supported Span 25 25      Live Load (psf) 100 100     3.1.2 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Concrete_Basement           Number of Columns 61 61      Number of Beams 20 20  54      Floor to Floor Height (ft) 12'6" 12'6"      Bay Sizes (ft) 16.7 16.7      Supported Span 16.7 16.7      Live Load (psf) 100 100     3.1.3 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Concrete_First Floor Wings           Number of Columns 44 44      Number of Beams 20 20      Floor to Floor Height (ft) 12'6" 12'6"      Bay Sizes (ft) 24.5 24.5      Supported Span 25 25      Live Load (psf) 100 100     3.1.4 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Concrete_First Floor           Number of Columns 56 56      Number of Beams 20 20      Floor to Floor Height (ft) 12'6" 12'6"      Bay Sizes (ft) 16 16      Supported Span 16 16      Live Load (psf) 100 100     3.1.5 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Concrete_SecondFloor Wings            Number of Columns 44 44       Number of Beams 20 20       Floor to Floor Height (ft) 12'6" 12'6"       Bay Sizes (ft) 24.5 24.5       Supported Span 25 25       Live Load (psf) 100 100     3.1.6 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Concrete_SecondFloor             Number of Columns 58 58       Number of Beams 27 27       Floor to Floor Height (ft) 12'6" 12'6"       Bay Sizes (ft) 16.1 16.1       Supported Span 16.1 16.1       Live Load (psf) 100 100   3.2 Floor_ Concrete Suspended Slab Floor          3.2.1 - Floor_Concrete       55  Suspended Slab Floor_First Floor     Floor Width (ft) 51 788       Span (ft) 479 31       Concrete (psi) 2500 3000       Live load (psf) 75 75       Concrete Flyash % average average       Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"       Thickness (in) - -     3.2.2 - Floor_Concrete Suspended Slab Floor_Second Floor            Floor Width (ft) 51 771       Span (ft) 469 31       Concrete (psi) 2500 3000       Live load (psf) 75 75       Concrete Flyash % average average       Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"       Thickness (in) - -     4.1.3 - Floor_Concrete Suspended Slab Floor_Third Floor            Floor Width (ft) 51 659.7       Span (ft) 401 31       Concrete (psi) 2500 3000       Live load (psf) 75 75       Concrete Flyash % average average       Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board       Material Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"       Thickness (in) - -   3.3 Starirs_Cast in place            3.3.1 Starits_Cast in Place_ hand rest 5"           Length (ft) 200 200      Height (ft) 3' 3" 3' 3"      Thickness (in) 5" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category Cladding Cladding    Envelope Material Stucco - over porous surface Stucco - over porous surface  56      Thickness 0.1" 0.1"    3.3.2 Starits_Cast in place_6"           Length (ft) 34.64 34.64      Width (ft) 34.64 34.64      Thickness (in) 6" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5    Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board      Material Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"      Thickness (in) - -    3.3.3 Starits_Cast in place_9"           Length (ft) 47.6 47.6      Width (ft) 47.6 47.6      Thickness (in) 9" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5    Envelope Category Gypsum Board Gypsum Board      Material Gypsum Regular 5/8" Gypsum Regular 5/8"      Thickness (in) - -  A23 Roof Construction   4.1  Columns and Beams          4.1.1 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Concrete_ThirdFloor Wings          Number of Columns 58 58       Number of Beams 28 28       Floor to Floor Height (ft) 12'6" 12'6"       Bay Sizes (ft) 24.5 24.5       Supported Span 25 25       Live Load (psf) 100 100     4.1.2 - Column_Concrete_Beam_Concrete_ThirdFloor            Number of Columns 26 26      Number of Beams 23 23      Floor to Floor Height (ft) 12'6" 12'6"      Bay Sizes (ft) 19 19      Supported Span 19 19      Live Load (psf) 100 100   4.2          57  Open Web Steel Joint Roof    4.2.1- Roof_OWSJ_Middle           Roof Width (ft) 40 40       Span (ft) 46.5 46.5       Live load (psf) 75 75       Decking Type Open Web Steel Joint Roof Open Web Steel Joint Roof       Concrete Topping With With       Category Roof enlveopes Roof enlveopes       Material Roof Asphalt Roof Asphalt      Thickness (in) 0.5" 0.5"     Envelope Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier       Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil       Thickness (in) - -    4.3 Concrete Precast Concerete Slab            4.3.1 - Roof_CPCS_Wings           Bay Size (ft) 24 24      Span (ft) 22 22      Number of Bays 46 46      Live load (psf) 75 75      Concrete Topping With With      Category Roof enlveopes Roof enlveopes    Envelope Material Roof Asphalt Roof Asphalt      Thickness (in) 0.5" 0.5"      Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier      Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil      Thickness (in) - -   4.4 Third Floor           4.4.1 Wall_cast in place_third floor exterior 8" extra roof           Length ( ft) 858 858      Height ( ft) 2" 2"      Thickness (in) 10" 12"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5  58    Envelope Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier      Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil      Thickness - -  A31 Walls Below Grade  5.1 Basement           5.1.1 Wall_cast in place_basement exterior10" full           Length (ft) 251 251      Height (ft) 14'4" 14'4"      Thickness (in) 10" 12"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    5.1.2 Wall_cast in place_basement exterior10" half           Length (ft) 434 434      Height (ft) 14' 4" 14' 4"      Thickness (in) 10" 12"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    5.1.3 Wall_cast in place_basement exterior8 extra           Length (ft) 406 406      Height (ft) 2' 8" 2' 8"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5    Envelope Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier      Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil      Thickness - -    Window  Number of Windows 131 131      Total Window Area (ft2) 2,183.00 2,183.00  59      Fixed/Operable Operable Operable      Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum      Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing  A32 Walls Above Grade  6.1 First Floor          6.1.1 Wall_cast in place_First Floor exterior10" half           Length (ft) 544 544      Height (ft) 15' 4" 15' 4"      Thickness (in) 10" 12"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    Window  Number of Windows 150 150      Total Window Area (ft2) 4,000.00 4,000.00      Fixed/Operable Operable Operable      Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum      Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing    6.1.2 Wall_cast in place_First Floor exterior8" full           Length (ft) 274 274      Height (ft) 12' 6" 12' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    Door  Number of Doors 7 7      Door Type Aluminum Exterior Door 80% Glazing Aluminum Exterior Door 80% Glazing    Window  Number of Windows 5 5      Total Window Area (ft2) 200.00 200.00      Fixed/Operable Fixed Fixed      Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum      Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard  60  Glazing   2.2.3 Wall_cast in place_First Floot exterior8 extra           Length (ft) 547 547      Height (ft) 2' 8" 2' 8"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier      Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil      Thickness - -   6.2 Second Floor           6.2.1 Wall_cast in place_second floor exterior 8" full size           Length (ft) 110 110      Height (ft) 12' 6" 12' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    6.2.2 Wall_cast in place_second floor exterior 8 middle half           Length (ft) 165 165      Height (ft) 12' 6" 12' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    Window  Number of Windows 42 42      Total Window Area (ft2) 1,053.00 1,053.00      Fixed/Operable Operable Operable      Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum      Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing    6.2.3 Wall_cast in       61  place_second floor exterior 8 middle half     Length (ft) 468 468      Height (ft) 12' 6" 12' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    Window  Number of Windows 126 126      Total Window Area (ft2) 3,360.00 3,360.00      Fixed/Operable Operable Operable      Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum      Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing   6.3 Third Floor           6.3.1 Wall_cast in place_third floor exterior 8" full size           Length ( ft) 81 100      Height ( ft) 14' 6" 14' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5    Eenvelope Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    Door  Number of Doors 0 69      Door Type Solid Wood Door Solid Wood Door    6.3.2 Wall_cast in place_third floor exterior 8 half size           Length (ft) 651 651      Height (ft) 14' 6" 14' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5    Door  Number of Doors 5 11      Door Type Aluminum Exterior Door 80% Glazing Aluminum Exterior Door 80% Glazing    Window  Number of Windows 174 174  62      Total Window Area (ft2) 4,641.00 4,641.00      Fixed/Operable Operable Operable      Frame Type Aluminum Aluminum      Glazing Type Standard Glazing Standard Glazing    6.3.3 Wall_cast in place_third floor exterior 9 extra middle           Length ( ft) 84 84      Height ( ft) 3" 3"      Thickness (in) 9" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5    Eenvelope Category Vapour Barrier Vapour Barrier      Material Polyethylene 3 mil Polyethylene 3 mil      Thickness - -   6.4 Brick Wall            6.4.1 Modular Clay Brick Wall_ 4" thick           Area ( Sf) 110599 110599   6.5 Mortar            6.5.1 Mortar Between Bricks           Volume (yd^3) 726.19 726.19   6.6 Regular Gypsum board           6.6.1 Regular Gypsum board 1/2 "          Area ( Sf) 216492 216492  B11 Partitions  7.1 Basement         7.1.1 Wall_cast in place_basement interior 10"           Length (ft) 121 121      Height (ft) 12' 6" 12' 6"      Thickness (in) 10" 12"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -  63      Thickness - -    7.1.2 Wall_cast in place_basement interior8"           Length (ft) 683 683      Height (ft) 12' 6" 12' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    Door  Number of Doors 10 46      Door Type Solid Wood Door Solid Wood Door   7.2 First Floor           7.2.1 Wall_cast in place_First Floor interior8"           Length (ft) 244 244      Height (ft) 12' 6" 12' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -    Door  Number of Doors 4 65      Door Type Solid Wood Door Solid Wood Door    7.2.2 Wall_cast in place_lecture room 6"           Length (ft) 63 63      Height (ft) 12'  12'       Thickness (in) 6" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5   7.3 Second Floor         7.3.1 Wall_cast in place_second floor interior 8"           Length (ft) 284 284      Height (ft) 12' 6" 12' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average  64      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -      Number of Doors 3 42      Door Type Solid Wood Door Solid Wood Door   7.4 Third Floor         7.4.1 Wall_cast in place_third floor interior 8           Length (ft) 170 170      Height (ft) 12' 6" 12' 6"      Thickness (in) 8" 8"      Concrete (psi) 2500 3000      Concrete flyash % - average      Rebar - #5      Category - -      Material - -      Thickness - -   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108903/manifest

Comment

Related Items