Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Life cycle assessment of Chemistry Building North Block Weng, Minge 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-Weng_Minge_SEEDS_2015.pdf [ 1.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0108904.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108904-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108904-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108904-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108904-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108904-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108904-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0108904-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0108904.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportMinge WengLife Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North BlockCIVL 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  Running head: Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block   CIVL 498 – Life Cycle Assess  Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block   Minge Weng  November 18 th, 2013  Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             1   Executive Summary  Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) evaluates the environmental impacts of the inputs and outputs of a product system. 22 buildings on University of British Columbia Point Grey Campus were chosen to complete this study. The study is to peek into LCA by investigating the environmental impacts of buildings using current LCA methods. The works were executed as part of the study for CIVL 498.  As the LCA project of this course has been ran for a few years, this study was based on the results of previous years of study. This year it mainly focused on evaluating the impacts of the selected buildings and improving quality of the data.  7ZRPDLQVRIWZDUHWRROVDUHWREHXWLOL]HGWRFRPSOHWHWKLV/&$VWXG\2Q&HQWHU¶VOnScreen TakeOff (OST) DQGWKH$WKHQD6XVWDLQDEOH0DWHULDOV,QVWLWXWH¶V,PSDFW(VWLPDWRU(IE) for buildings. OST performed the material take-off of the building then its output were input into Athena IE to analyze the impacts.  Detailed assessment methods were described in section 6.0 and the results of this study are displaying under section 7.0.    Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             2   List of Content  1.0    General Information on the Assessment  ............................................................................ 5  1.1   Purpose of the assessment ............................................................................................... 5  1.2   Identification of building 1 ................................................................................................ 61.3   Othe r assessment information ......................................................................................... 7  2.0   General Information on the Object of Assessment  ............................................................ 9  2.1   Function equivalent .........................................................................................................  9  2.2   Reference study period ....................................................................................................  9  2.3   Object of Assessment Scope .......................................................................................... 10  3.0   Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment .................................... 13  3.1   System boundary ........................................................................................................... 13 3.2   P roduct Stage 2 ................................................................................................................ 14 3.3   C onstruction Stage 3  ....................................................................................................... 15  4.0   Environmental Data  ......................................................................................................... 17  4.1   Data sources ................................................................................................................... 17 4.2   Da ta adjustments and substitutions................................................................................ 19 4.3   Da ta quality.................................................................................................................... 205.0   List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results 6  ............................... 22  6.0   Model Development ......................................................................................................... 24  7.0   Communication of Assessment Results  ........................................................................... 27  7.1   Life-Cycle Results .........................................................................................................  27  Annex A – Interpretation of Assessment Results .................................................................... 31  Annex B – Recommendations for LCA Use............................................................................ 33  Annex C – Author Reflection .................................................................................................. 34  Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions  ............................................................ 37     Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             3   List of Figures  Figure 1. Location of the Chemist U\%XLOGLQJ1RUWK%ORFN««««««««««..«««6  Figure 2. Display of system boundary of the LCA study ««««««««««««... 3  Figure 3. Pie Chart: Construction of Level 3 Elements to Fossil Fuel Consumption «««27 Figure 4. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Global Warming Potential«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««....«28  Figure 5. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Acidification Potential««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««...««.28  Figure 6. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Respiratory Effect Potential««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 28  Figure 7. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Eutrophication Potential«««««««««««««««««««««««««...«««««««.28  Figure 8. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Ozone Depletion Potential««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« 29  Figure 9. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Smog Potential«««««««..«««««««««««««««««««««««..««29  Figure 10. Bar Chart: Comparison of Fossil Fuel Consumption between Manufacturing and &RQVWUXFWLRQ0RGXOHV««««««««««««««««««««««««..««« 30  Figure 11. Bar Chart: Comparison of the Chemistry North Performance with Benchmark on )RVVLO)XHO&RQVXPSWLRQ««««««««««««««««««««......««««« 32  Figure 12. Bar Chart: Comparison of the Chemistry North Performance with Benchmark on *OREDO:DUPLQJ3RWHQWLDO«««««««««««««««««««««««32    Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             4   List of Tables  Table 1. Other Assessment Information«««««««««««««««««««..«8  Table 2. Functional Equivalent Definition ««««««««««««««..«.««.««9  Table 3. Building Definition ««««««««««««««««««««««.....«12  Table 4. Bill of Materials of Chemistry Building North Block «««««««...«...««.2 7  Table 5. CEBA Graduate Attributes «««««««««««««««««..«...«.«3 6  Table 6. CIQS Sorted Level 3 Elements «««««««««««««««..«..«««7  Table 7. IE Inputs Assumption «««««««««««««««...«««..««.««..42               Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             5   1.0 General Information on the Assessment 1.1   Purpose of the assessment Intended use of the assessment: This life cycle analysis of the Chemistry Building Nor th Block (Chemistry North) at the University of British Columbia was carried out as an exploratory study to evaluate the impacts of the building during its manufacturing and construction phases on the global environment. The LCA study of Chemistry North is also part of a series of 21  other buildings at UBC that are being carried out with the same purposes simultaneously. Reasons for carrying out the study: The study helps disseminate education on LCA and further the development of this scientific method into sustainability in building construction practices at UBC and the green building industry. Furthermore, all the UBC building LCA studies can be organized together to form a tool providing knowledge for decision making process, also assisting policy/decision makers to establish quantified sustainable guidelines for further use on further UBC construction, renovation and demolition projects. Intended audience: The results of the study will be communicated to the public, the intended audience could be those who are involved in building construction related decision making at UBC. Other potential audiences could be architects, engineers, contractors involved in design planning. Also on a broader view the industry companies and government groups that engaged or want to become engaged in the green building development. Intended for comparative assertions: The results of this LCA study are not intended for comparative assertion. However, the studies of the UBC buildings in all can be Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             6   used to carry out the performance comparison across UBC building over time and between difference materials, structural type and building functions.  1.2   Identification of building1  The Chemistry building located in a prominent setting on Main Mall in the centre of the campus. The North Block is small wing attached to the center from its north side (see Figure 1, the red dashed line surrounded area). The Chemistry building is one of the few buildings executed from the original plan for the Campus. The Chemistry Centre was completed in 1925 with the cost of $96,000. Starting 1959 the QHZZLQJVZHUHDGGHGWKURXJKWKH\HDUVDQGLQWKH1RUWKZLQJRSHQHGDQGLW¶Vmeant to be for the use of research. It had experienced piecemeal renovations on a small scale and as particular needs arose over the years, however these are outside the scope of the study.  Figure 1. Location of the Chemistry Building North Block _ _ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ 1. http://www.chem.ubc.ca/about/about-department/history http://www.projectservices.ubc.ca/portfolio/renewal/chemistry-north htm Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             7    Under the UBC Renew program the existing space was completely refurbished and reconfigured and now meets state-of-the-art lab research standards. The building was gutted and brought up to current building codes. It received fire and life safety upgrades, seismic upgrades, new ventilation, improved air quality, modernized heating and computer systems, all while promoting sustainability by consuming fewer resources than demolition/construction of a new building.  The overall project cost was approximately $10 Million compared to $15.5 Million for a replacement building. Construction took a total of 12 months (6 months less than a new building) and was completed in June 2007.  1.3   Other assessment information  Two main software tools are to be utilized to complete this LCA study; 2Q&HQWHU¶V2Q6FUHHQ7DNH2IIDQGWKH$WKHQD6XVWDLQDEOH0DWHULDOV,QVWLWXWH¶V Impact Estimator (IE) for buildings.  The study is built on the LCA study from previous years. An Athena Impact Esti mator file, an Onscreen Takeoff file and an IE inputs document were taken from the results of the previous study. Firstly, a rearrange of the elements in the IE inputs document was executed according to the CIQS Element Format. The Onscreen Takeoff file served as an ancillary and provided reference for the action. Then the new categorized document wa s referred to update the contents of the original Athena IE file. After the new Athena IE  file is generated the estimator is ran to collect the quantified results for the Chemistry North building in Vancouver region as an institutional building type. As this study was a cradle to gate assessment, the expected Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             8   service life of the building was set to 1 year, which maintenance, operating energy and end of OLIHVWDJHVRIWKHEXLOGLQJ¶VOLIHF\FOHwere left outside the scope of assessment. The impacts were estimated on the following environmental aspects: F ossil Fuel Consumption, Global Warming, Acidification, Human Health Criteria Respiratory, Eutrophication, Ozone Layer Depletion, and Smog.  Below is the table of summary of the assessment information. The formatted inputs can be viewed in Annex D.  Client for Assessment Completed as coursework in Civil Name and qualification of the assessor Minge Weng  (MEng student in Civil Engineering); Previous $XWKRU¶V info is missing Impact Assessment method $WKHQD6XVWDLQDEOH0DWHULDOV,QVWLWXWH¶V Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings (Version 4.2.0208) [Software] ; 2Q&HQWHU¶VOn Screen Takeoff (Version 3.9.0)  Point of Assessment 52 years  Period of Validity 5 years  Date of Assessment  Completed in De cember 2013  Verifier Coursework, study not verified Table 1. Other Assessment Information  Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             9   2.0   General Information on the Object of Assessment 2.1   Function equivalent  The purpose of using functional equivalents in this study is to standardize the LCA results from the Chemistry Building North Bock, including:  Per square meter area constructed  Per cubic meter constructed  Per specific functional use area  Following is the concise describe of Chemistry North ¶s functional equivalent. Aspect of Object of Assessment Description  Building Type Laboratory Technical and Functional Requirements Air circulation due to fume hood intense synthetic chemistry labs, fire safety and seismic stability Pattern of Use  Required Service Life 100  years Table 2. Functional Equivalent Definition  2.2   Reference study period  According to EN 15978, the default value for the reference study period shall be required service life of the building. But this LCA study was focused solely on the Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             10   period of the building¶VOLIHIURPFUDGOHWRgate, meaning the manufacturing and construction phases including all the processes from extraction of the raw material to completion of the construction, exclude operation, maintenance and demolishment of the building.  This study aimed for a focus on the cradle to gate life period of a building. Only addressing the structure and envelop help secure the accuracy. As mentioned on the homepage of Athena Institute the Impact Estimator tool is capable of modeling well over 1200 structural and envelope assembly combinations and is generally applicable to more than 90% of the typical North American building stock. Besides, the end of life module in IE is not fully developed yet, it only account s for the structural materials for demolition stage. When the digital information of the building was inputted into the Athena Impact Estimator the service life was set 1 year.   2.3   Object of Assessment Scope  The Chemistry North building is a product of concrete. Its foundation is constituted by cast in place concrete pad footings and strip footings. Built on that is the 4 -inch concrete slab on grade. The upper floors type is 2.5 -inch thick suspended concrete slab and the roof construction is 2-inch concrete slab. Exterior wall types are cast in place 8-inch and 12-inch thick concrete walls with polystyrene isolation envelop. Interior wall types are cast in place 8-inch thick concrete wall with polystyrene isolation envelop and 6-inch concrete blocks with brick cladding. The characteristic of each element are described in the table below with their quantities. Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             11   CIVL 498 Level 3 Elements  Description  Quantity  Units A11 Foundations  ´ thick cast in place concrete pad footings and strip footings 615.9471552  m2  A21 Lowest Floor Construction 5  ´thick Cast- in- place concrete slab on grade 615.9471552  m2  A22 Upper Floor Construction Concrete columns & beams; Semi- basement, Ground, 2nd, 3rd floors: ´WKLFNcast in place concrete suspended slabs 1198.825473312  m2  A23 Roof Construction ´WKLFNFast in place concrete slab with polyisocyanurate foam isolation and standard modified bitumen membrane 332.044755264  m2  A31 Walls Below Grade  ´WKLFKFast in place concrete walls with polystyrene isolation envelop 707.0 8503744  m2  Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             12   A32 Walls Above Grade  ´DQG´WKLFNFast in place concrete walls with polystyrene isolation envelop 1295.774440704  m2  B11 Partitions ´WKLFNFast in place concrete walls with polystyrene isolation envelop DQG´concrete block walls with brick cladding 1925.025311232  m2  Table 3. Building Definition   Modified version of CIQS Level 3 elements was used for a more systemically categorized result. Compare to categorizing by type of elements, in the case of DGGUHVVLQJEXLOGLQJ¶VVWUXFWXUDODQGHQYHORSLW¶VPRUHORJLFDOWRORRNDWHDFKstructural part of the building. Within each structural part the elements are of similar components and function. In collaboration with Athena IE, the CIQS category also made the impact results of each structural part available. Proportion of contributes between the building parts are also led achievable.  Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             13   3.0   Statement of Boundaries and Scenarios Used in the Assessment 3.1   System boundary  The system boundary determines the processes that are taken into account for the object of assessment. Manufacturing and construction modules of the building ¶s life cycle composed the scope of study. Along with their upstream and downstream processes that are supporting them, from beginning of the upstream to the end of the downstream was studies and assessed.  In a very general way, mDQXIDFWXULQJPRGXOH¶VXSVWUHDPSURFHVVHVDUHenergy generation, raw material harvest/extraction, refining and processing, downstream processes are waste downcycle/treatment, packaging and marketing. For construction module the upstream processes are transportation of products to the site, storage, preparation of the products before use, downstream processes are trimming and maintenance after the installation, site cleanup, and recycle/waste treatment  Below is the figure shows the scope information of this LCA study.  Figure 2. Display of system boundary of the LCA study Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             14   3.2   Product Stage2  Athena Sustainable Materials Institute state that the energy and emission data is proprietary and they do not release it to the public. Thus a LCI/LCA product report was studied to investigate how Athena the impact estimator deals with the detailed processes within the product stage. Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Produced in Canada in chosen to look into the trivial.  Each material basis included in the Athena tool is  assessed consider the impacts starting with extracting raw material from the earth and ending with the packaging of the products ready to ship. For CLT it includes input raw materials, transportation of materials throughout the cradle to gate life stages.  Works in the background are accomplished in order to fulfill the requirements: energy and fuel in forestry, logging, milling and secondary manufacturing, and Inputs and outputs of the product process are specifically analyzed and are strictly stick to ZKDW¶UHLQUHDOity. Inputs include rough sawn lumber, 4 types of glue, ancillary materials and sorts of energy such as BC electricity, gasoline, fuel oil, natural gas, biomass, etc. Outputs are CLT and wood portion  The lumber LCA project was completed in 2009 and developed a Canadian average forest management, harvesting and log transportation process data as well as unit process data for rough milling, drying, and planning.  Regional survey is done for electricity grid, transportation mode and distances   ___________________________  2.  $WKHQD6XVWDLQDEOH0DWHULDOV,QVWLWXWH³/LIH&\FOHAssessment of Cross Laminated Timber 3URGXFHG LQ&DQDGD´Available online from http://www.athenasmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CtoG-LCA-Canadian-CLT.pdf Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             15   and even product manufacturing applicable to the product mix for the selected region.  Moreover, U.S. LCI database, ISO 21930 Sustainability in building construction – Environmental declaration of building products, mid-point indicators form the U.S. EP A Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical, and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) v 4.03 were used for references to help generate data together and fulfill the requirement of the assessment.  The study of the process information considered in the module indicates that the upstream/downstream included in the manufacturing module is well rounded. It has simulated the process really and taken into account every factor that may affect WKHUHVXOW$VVXPSWLRQVDQGXQFHUWDLQW\FHUWDLQO\H[LVWEXWWKH\¶UHQRWDYRLGDEOH  3.3   Construction Stage3  The process of pouring a concrete wall was studied as an example to collect the process information considered in the database of the transportation and construction installation modules. It provides knowledge of what consist the impact results and what are the assumptions made.   Pouring a cast-in-place wall typically consists of transporting the concrete to the site, assembling the formwork, placing reinforcing rebar in the forms and around   ___________________________  3.  $WKHQD6XVWDLQDEOH0DWHULDOV,QVWLWXWH³$WKHQD,PSDFW(VWLPDWRUIRU%XLOGLQJs V 4.2 Software and Database 2YHUYLHZ´$YDLODEOHRQOLQHIURP                                                                            http://calculatelca.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ImpactEstimatorSoftwareAndDatabaseOverview.pdf Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             16   openings, pouring concrete into the forms and maintenance afterwards. Uncertainties in these processes could include the transportation distance, energy consumed by the equipments, waste factors, etc.  Below are the points of uncertainties that have been taken into account and involved:  The forms may be moved about the site by forklift or crane and may be assembled by hand or crane for large-scale formwork.  Rebar is moved around the site using forklifts and/or cranes and would typically be assembled by hand.    The concrete will arrive on site in a concrete mixing truck and will be poured using a concrete pump or a crane and bucket.    Both concrete and rebar are assumed to make a 40 km round trip from mixing plant or distributor to the building site. On site waste for concrete is estimated at 5%, a nd consists of any spillage form 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.  Whether a wall needs temporary heating for concrete curing is determined by the proportion of the year that the temperature falls below 0 ℃. Thus a proportion of the energy needed has been factored into the construction. Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             17    Like in the manufacturing module, detailed processes and possible assumption for the uncertainties in the construction module have been implant into the database of each material basis. According to Athena Institute the deviation of the data from the real one is under 15%.  4.0   Environmental Data 4.1   Data sources  Athena LCI Database is managed by Athena Sustainable Materials Institute 4   From the beginning, the Athena Institute has been conducting life cycle research, developing an ever-growing set of comprehensive, comparable life cycle inventory (LCI) databases for building materials and products. Since 2002, the Athena software tools were released, the first tool Athena IE was developed in collaboration with Morrison Hershfield. After that, Athena kept undertaking researches that go into developing, verifying and updating the databases that form the basis of the Athena software tools. To date, Athena has invested more than $2 million on database development.  The Athena Institute has developed data not only for building materials and products but also for energy use, transportation, construction and demolition processes including on- VLWHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIDEXLOGLQJ¶VDVVHPEOLHVPDLQWHQDQFHrepair and replacement effects through the operating life, and demolition and disposal. ___________________________  4.  $WKHQD6XVWDLQDEOH0DWHULDOV,QVWLWXWH³/&,'DWDEDVHV´$YDLODEOHRQOLQHIURPhttp://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/lca-databases/ Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             18    US LCI Database is managed by National Renewable Energy Laboratory 5  The U.S. LCI Database project began in 2001, when the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) directed the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Athena Institute to explore the development of a national public database. The U.S. LCI Database was created and has been made publicly available.  Environmental product labels such as carbon footprints or complete environmental product declarations (EPDs) based on LCA are growing in use as voluntary applications. As areas that are expected to see the expanded used of LCA, LCI databases need to grow and evolve to support and maintain compatibility with new methods.  Now steps are still taking places toward the primary goal of providing a publicly available source of high-quality, transparent U.S.-based LCI data. In order to achieve the goals the manage team developed a list of action items for the next two years and will update and keep the action after two years. These items cover: Project/Data Management meaning fully round and function the LCI project, and build a data quality control process; Expansion/Revision of the Data; Database Development; and Communications.     ___________________________  5.  86'HSDUWPHQWRI(QHUJ\³86/LIH &\FOH,QYHQWRU\'DWDEDVH5RDGPDS´$YDLODEOHRQOLQHIURPhttp://www nrel.gov/lci/pdfs/45153.pdf Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             19   4.2   Data adjustments and substitutions  Chemistry Building North Block was built in 1961. Some materials used in this building are lack of proof to find out. For example all the concrete used is unclear on the strength and percentage of fly ash contained. Live load of the columns and floor slabs are also unknown and the best assumption was applied.  Other than unknown properties, mismatches between the IE inputs and the real measured also exist ed. Such as the pad footings built in real measured are of 30-inch thickness while they¶re19 -inch in IE inputs. Limitations are set in the Athena tool considering of building codes or specifications. For certain parameter only number value within the set range is acceptable. For example the thickness of footings has to EHEHWZHHQ´WR´.With UHDOWKLFNQHVVEXLOWLV´, a compromise was taken to accommodate the difference. According to the principal the total volume of concrete are the same an equation was used to adjust the length of the pad footings while maintain the thickness that cannot be changed. By adjusting the dimension of the elements the goal was to minimize the deviation.  Trivial errors were also found in the IE input excel document  done by human mistake. Such as number value in IE input excel didn ¶t match the value inputted in Athena tool. All the elements had been went through and checked with Athena tool to correct any errors.  The drawings and Onscreen Takeoff were adopted to do error check for the measurement of each element in the building take-off process done by previous student. They also helped in the sorting process as provided visual reference for easily identification of building structure and elements. Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             20   4.3   Data quality Data  Due to assumptions within the LCI database such as the transportation distance, waste factor, the estimated results cannot be taken as real facts but references on potential impacts.  For old buildings the drawings were handmade and scanned to use in the OST. Unknown information exists such as material properties and envelops. Differences between drawings and real building could exist and the fuzziness potentially increased the deviation of measuring. Furthermore the uniformity of the scale between drawings is not guaranteed. Model  In OST because of the operational method varies from person to person iW¶Vimpossible to undertake takeoffs in 100 percent accuracy. Error is thus potentially created when using the software.   In Athena IE uncertainties can occur variously: due to inaccuracy of input data, software assumptions, human choices and human mistakes.  Inaccuracy of input data is led at the material take-off level. Software assumptions primarily include the database implant. Uncertainties due to human choices are choices that made under SHRSOH¶VDVVXPSWLRQ,W¶VQRWDYRLGDEOH,W¶Vnoted that the walls contained in original Chemistry Building North Block Athena files are of three types regardless of interior or exterior, below grade or above grade. ,QUHDOLW\LW¶VPRVWOLNHO\QRWWKHFDVe. This is due to fuzzy drawings and lack of Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             21   specification, assumptions had to be properly made in the context to complete the whole study. Human mistakes can happen in inputting numbers, selecting properties, leaving out what VKRXOGQ¶Wbe, etc. Temporal  Chemistry Building North Block ZDVEXLOGLQ¶VZKLOHD/&$VWXG\LVapplied on it with current standards. Therefore, taking into account the technology advancement the actual impacts should be much larger Spatial  Spatial difference can affect the use of data. In Athena IE the building region is selected at the first place, it will determine the electricity and transportation grids and even product manufacturing technologies applicable to the product mix for the selected region. A series of survey of region based raw materials/primary energy distribution. Then average value of the results is selected to be used in the LCA calculation.  ,QGLFDWLQJWKHUH¶UHVWLOOLQDFFXUDFLHVH[LVWLQJ Some of the inaccuracies exist even in the same region such as urban versus rural condition, impacts that depend on external factors such as temperature, and treatment processes. Variability between sources  Several databases were contributed to the final data used. The compatibility and uniformity of the data have potential risks of causing deviations.  Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             22   5.0   List of Indicators Used for Assessment and Expression of Results6  The impact assessment method used in the study of Chemistry Building North Block was the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings developed by Athena Institute. The database implanted in the tool impact categories used in the final report are described below:  F ossil fuel consumption – MJ   The availability of energy relies extensively on the availability of fossil fuels: the oil, natural gas, and coal that together constitute 80 percent of global energy consumption. Combustion of fossil fuel produces green house gas and other pollutants like sulfuric, carbonic, and nitric acids, which fall to Earth as acid rain.  Possible endpoint impacts: acid rain that damages both natural area and built environment, human diseases such as acute respiratory illness, aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis and decreased lung function, global energy crisis.  Global warming potential – kg CO2 equivalents   GWP is primarily caused by CO2 emission. CO2 emission exists majorly in the industries. Oil extraction, refining, energy generating processes and most product processes emit CO2. CO2 impacts the environment by absorbing infrared radiation and bringing up the air temperature. Thus slow but gradual climate change is caused, negatively affects the water resources, human heath, agricultural effects, forest, etc.   Possible endpoint impacts: increases in tree mortality in forests, redistribution of the water resources on earth, overwhelming floods and submerged coastal areas, extinction of species, human diseases. _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 6.  6LDQFKXN5RE³,PSDFW$VVHVVPHQW´2FWREHUWK Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             23    Acidification potential – H+ mol equivalents   Acidification potential is mainly caused by the emission of SO2 and NOx into the atmosphere. The gases then react with water under certain conditions to generate acidity, and it goes back to the ground in the form of acid rain or snow, cause acidity in soil and ocean systems.  Possible endpoint impacts: damages on natural and manmade environments, mortality of aquatic species, diseases, acid rain.  Human health respiratory effects potential – kg PM10 equivalents  Reparatory effects are caused by the particles in the air emission that with a certain range of diameter, able float in the air and can be breath in by human. The particles deposits in alveoli and effect human health.  Possible endpoint impacts: coughing/weezing, human mortality, human diseases such as asthma, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and pneumonia.   Eutrophication potential – kg N equivalents   The main causes of eutrophication are natural run-off of nutrients from the soil and the weathering of rocks, run-off of inorganic fertilizer and manure from farms. It tremendously increases the growth of algae and aquatic weed in surface waters. The boom of algae and weed then causes toxics release to poisoning fish and shellfish, blocks up the aquatic transportation and prevent sunlight from going deep into the water.  Possible endpoint impacts: death of fish and shellfish, toxicity to humans, marine mammals and livestock. Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             24    Ozone depletion potential – kg CFC-11 equivalents  Reduction of Ozone layer is caused by emission of ozone-depleting group of chemicals. These chemicals such as Chlorofluorocarbons(CFC) are manmade that are very stable in the atmosphere. They take from 20 to 120 years to break down and all the while they are destroying ozone molecules. Then the UVB that reaches Earth is increased and the stratospheric ozone column is changed.  Possible endpoint impacts: increase the speed of the global warming, cause of human diseases especially skin cancers, damages on plants and species even changing of the DNA.  Smog potential – kg O3 equivalents  Known as photochemical ozone formation, air emission of VOCx, NOx chemically react in the present of sunlight to generate zone and other pollutants. This process reduces photosynthesis and growth.  Possible endpoint Impacts: human/plant mortality, diseases on human/animals, reduces life of materials, low visibility.  6.0   Model Development  Construction drawing was the only resource of information for the Chemistry North. It along with the OST played an important role in the element modeling. The set of construction drawings were inputted into OST and the take-off was performed on the drawings. Initially the scale needed to be properly set for each drawing, then for each element Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             25   a colored area was used to cover it. Elements like footings, slabs, walls, columns & beams were modeled in the floor plan with height value found from elevation/section plan of the drawings and inputted. Windows, doors, and stairs were modeled in the elevation and section plan. Once the colored areas were set and the number value in the other dimension was provided, that is when the volume of elements can be calculated, OST was able to perform the take-off of the building.  The output of OST could then be inputted into Athena IE to evaluate the environmental impacts of the building. Athena IE achieves this by applying a set of algorithms to the inputted takeoff data in order to complete the takeoff process and generate a bill of materials.  This bill of materials then utilizes the Athena Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Da tabase in order to generate the cradle to grave LCI profile for the building. US Environme ntal Protection Agency (US EPA) and  the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) are also implanted in the Athena IE to filters the LCA results through a set of characterization measures to generate the final environmental impact profile.  Level 3 elements in Chemistry Building North Block were modeled under the instruction of CIQS Elemental Format. Due to Chemistry North is a relatively small building (a basement, a semi-basement and three upper floors) that has a reasonable amount of elements and the previous student did a good job naming them, the sorting went smoothly. Firstly the original Inputs and Assumption documents in excel was looked at, it  was categorized by building element type. Then according to the CIQS instruction all footings were sorted under the A11 Foundation; Slab on grade was sorted under A21 Lowest Floor Construction; Columns & beams that support the roof and the roof slab went into A23 Roof Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             26   Construction; The rest of columns & beams and floor slabs went into A22 Upper Floor Construction.  $PRQJDOOWKHEXLOGLQJHOHPHQWVWKHUH¶UHRQO\WKUHHZDOOHOHPHQWVFDWHJRUL]HGE\thickness, regardless of exterior or interior, above grade or below grade. The OST tool and drawings were applied to investigate the wall elements. First the proportional scale used was adjusted, and then manual measurement of the walls below grade was executed. The result is then brought into the excel document and walls belong to different level 3 elements were separated from the total wall file.  Reference flow indicates the carrier of the VWXG\,QWKLVFDVHLW¶VWKHEXLOGLQJEHLQJstudied thus Chemistry North building is the reference flow. Below is the table of bill of materials contained in the whole building. Material  Quantity  Unit 6 mil Polyethylene  4251.6864  m2  Aluminum 3.7207  Tonnes Cold Rolled Sheet 0.1387  Tonnes Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av)  660.45  m3  Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av)  1087.5331  m3  Concrete Blocks 8739.6016  Blocks Concrete Brick 721.0892  m2  Double Glazed Hard Coated Air  282.840 4  m2  EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil)  254.494 2  kg Extruded Polystyrene  6165.3273  m2 (25mm)  Galvanized Sheet  6.5628  Tonnes Modified Bitumen membrane  5868.6769  kg Mortar  180.349 7  m3  Nails  0.6743  Tonnes Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             27   Polyiso Foam Board (unfaced)  2093.3952  m2 (25mm)  Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 166.489 7  Tonnes Solvent Based Alkyd Paint 31.2467  L Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire  0.5566  Tonnes Table 4. Bill of Materials of Chemistry Building North Block  7.0   Communication of Assessment Results 7.1   Life-Cycle Results  The following pie charts were generated using the Athena IE results. They illustrate the proportioned contribution of the CIQS level 3 elements to the environmental impacts.   Figure 3. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements of Fossil Fuel Consumption   The biggest contribution comes from A22 upper floor constructions, then in order B11 partitions, A31 walls above grade and A23 roof construction. Investigation of bill of materials indicates the sequences of contribution to the impacts reflects the Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             28   sequence of concrete and rebar consumption from high to low of the level 3 elements. This is due to the structure of Chemistry North building is mainly consisted by reinforced concrete, and both concrete and rebar have relatively heavy producing processes. Thus the more they¶re contained in a level 3 element the more the element contributes most to the environmental impacts.   F igure 4. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Global Warming Potential Figure 5. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Acidification Potential    Figure 6. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Respiratory Effect Potential Figure 7. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Eutrophication Potential  Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             29    Figure 8. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Ozone Depletion Potential Figure 9. Pie Chart: Percentage Contribution of Level 3 Elements to Smog Potential   Bar charts were generated to visually express the impacts of the level 3 elements in their manufacturing module and construction modules of life cycle. The proportions of contribution between the two modules are similar among the 7 environmental impacts categories, thus only one chart is shown. The figure below indicates the process of manufacturing consumes around 7 times more fossil fuel than the process of construction, that¶s why sustainable decisions need to be made at early stages of life cycle. Also, when improving the sustainability of the processes, the ones in the manufacturing module could be considered first for more effectiveness. Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             30    Figure 10. Bar Chart: Comparison of Fossil Fuel Consumption between Manufacturing and Construction Modules   The annexes A – D contain supportive documents of this LCA study that provide the reader with further interpretation of the results.  In Annex A – Interpretation of assessment results, the result of this study is reviewed in the context of all the LCA studies executed this year ; In Annex B – Recommendations for LCA use, the concern, practice, issues in application of LCA are described; Annex C –Author Reflection reflects the experience of the author during this study; Annex D –  IE inputs and assumptions made display of the takeoff document generated by Onscreen Takeoff, the elements had been sorted into CIQS level 3 element format and updated in the Athena IE to generate impact results for each element.   Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             31   Annex A – Interpretation of Assessment Results Benchmark Development  Within industrial sectors and indeed, individual industrial plants, there is always a need to improve efficiency.  Even if environmental considerations are not the driving force, economic factors may provide the spur.  However, it is impossible to make changes and demonstrate that the changes have been effective if there is no standard against which to measure the improved system.  This is the basis of benchmarking. 7   The role of common goal & scope is to unify the standard of the LCA studies that have been involved as part of the benchmark. Only with uniform scope & contents of study the separately executed studies can be compared together or the results could be used to calculate the average level. The functional unit serves for the unity of the studies as a scale. If the study was not carried out under the same scope or scale, the value of considering them as one series of study or comparing their results is decreased, benchmark cannot be forms as well.  UBC Academic Building Benchmark  Below are the bar charts that display the comparison of two common environmental impacts between the benchmark and the Chemistry North. The benchmark is calculated on November 17 th, 2013.  _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 7.  %RXVWHDG&RQVXOWLQJ86$³8VLQJ/&$VIRU%HQFKPDUNLQJ´$YDLODEOHIURPhttp://www.bousteadusa.com/UsingLCAs/benchmarking.html Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             32    Compare to the benchmark the performance of Chemistry North is a lot better especially in A31 Walls Below Grade, A22 Upper Floor Construction and A32 Walls above grade.  Figure 11. Bar Chart: Comparison of the Chemistry North Performance with Benchmark on Fossil Fuel Consumption  Figure 12. Bar Chart: Comparison of the Chemistry North Performance with Benchmark on Global Warming Potential Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             33   Annex B – Recommendations for LCA Use  Consideration of life cycle modules beyond cradle to gate stages is essential. As the length of maintenance 10 or more times the construction stage, the impact of the building can comes more from the maintenance phase rather than product and construction. The choices made in design phase also affect the service life/replace period of the assemblies and the resources consumed later than the construction phase until its demolishment compose the impacts of the stages beyond product and construction.  LCA can affect material choice related decision making during the design stage, even the mechanical and architectural design can be influenced. LCA provides a lifelong simulation of the impacts the product will have during each stage of its life cycle.By looking at the impacts hotspots and improve accordingly the most effective decisions can be made, and by changing the product properties and associated material used the impacts will swing and tell things. LCA can be used as a reference along with quality, cost, time, and other variables to help designer make optimum decisions.  The results of previous years of study are available and are very helpful documents to the preparation of this LCA study report. In the data and model there may exist inaccuracies and uncertainties, but the concept of the study is well rounded and uniform. As for the quality of benchmarks, major buildings are doing way better than the benchmark  Issues exist in applications such as prioritizing impact categories and their interpretation. Once the impact results are out tradeoffs need to be made when using as a reference to help decision making. Due to decision making could happen in any life stage of the product, different materials vary largely in the distribution of impacts, and regional factors have to be taken in to account, when practicing the situation is more complicated. Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             34   And how to tradeoff between the product characteristics, product sustainability and practicality become a knotty issue.  1. Find a building has been done the LCA study that is going near the end of the maintenance period. 2. Make use of the LCA study to analyze the impacts of the maintenance. 3. Find possible hotspots where impacts could be reduced. 4. See if real change that improves the environmental performance can be adopted.  Annex C – Author Reflection  As sustainability has becoPHDZRUOGZLGHSRSXODUWRSLFVLQFHWKH¶VUHJDUGOHVVRIWKHindustry its understandings have been advanced and diffused as more applications being developed. I knew sustainability briefly and accumulatively from hearing lectures & presentations. But no systemic learning was done. Also this was my first time hearing and getting in touch with LCA. As described in this report one of its purposes is to disseminate the education which is imperative. CIVL 498C gave us a comprehensive understanding of the LCA and its surrounded concepts. Starting with the terminologies applied in the LCA study to process-simulating exercises, and to final real practice.  :KDW,IRXQGLQWHUHVWHGDERXWWKLVFRXUVHZDVDQHZDUHD,¶YHQRWEHHQWRWKHOHVVstressful test methods, group learning/activities versus individual assignments, and hands-on real practices. Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             35    /&$LVDELJWRSLFFRQWDLQVPDQ\SDUWVDQGUHVRXUFHV,W¶VHDV\WRJHWWRNQRZZKDWit is about, but the more you get in the more is there to explore. Two and a half month is a very short time to take a bit and digest the LCA cake. Confusions (on terminology, on methodology, on collaboration of software, on expectation of final result) kept coming out during the whole process and especially near the end when a full study report is required to generate individually. After all it was interesting experience exploring new knowledge area along with real practice. Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             36   Table 5. CEBA Graduate Attributes Graduate AttributeName DescriptionSelect the content codemost appropriate foreach attribute from thedropdown menueComments on which of the CEAB graduateattributes you believe you had todemonstrate during your final projectexperience.1 Knowledge BaseDemonstrated competence inuniversity level mathematics,natural sciences, engineeringfundamentals, and specializedengineering knowledge appropriateto the program.DA = developed & applied2 Problem AnalysisAn ability to use appropriateknowledge and skills to identify,formulate, analyze, and solvecomplex engineering problems inorder to reach substantiatedconclusions.DA = developed & applied3 InvestigationAn ability to conductinvestigations of complex problemsby methods that include appropriateexperiments, analysis andinterpretation of data, andsynthesis of information in orderto reach valid conclusions.IDA = introduced, developed &applied4 DesignAn ability to design solutions forcomplex, open-ended engineeringproblems and to design systems,components or processes that meetspecified needs with appropriateattention to health and safetyrisks, applicable standards, andeconomic, environmental, culturaland societal considerations.IDA = introduced, developed &applied5 Use fo EngineeringToolsAn ability to create, select,apply, adapt, and extendappropriate techniques, resources,and modern engineering tools to arange of engineering activities,from simple to complex, with anunderstanding of the associatedlimitations.DA = developed & applied6 Individual and TeamWorkAn ability to work effectively as amember and leader in teams,preferably in a multi-disciplinarysetting.7 CommunicationAn ability to communicate complexengineering concepts within theprofession and with society atlarge. Such ability includesreading, writing, speaking andlistening, and the ability tocomprehend and write effectivereports and design documentation,and to give and effectively respondto clear instructions.DA = developed & applied8 Professionalism An understanding of the roles andresponsibilities of theprofessional engineer in society,especially the primary role ofprotection of the public and thepublic interest.D = developed9 Impact ofEngineering onSociety and theEnvironmentAn ability to analyze social andenvironmental aspects ofengineering activities.  Suchability includes an understandingof the interactions thatengineering has with the economic,social, health, safety, legal, andcultural aspects of society, theuncertainties in the prediction ofsuch interactions; and the conceptsof sustainable design anddevelopment and environmentalstewardship.N/A = not applicable10 Ethics and EquityAn ability to apply professionalethics, accountability, and equity.DA = developed & applied11 Economics andProject ManagementAn ability to appropriatelyincorporate economics and businesspractices including project, risk,and change management into thepractice of engineering and tounderstand their limitations.N/A = not applicable12 Life-long LearningAn ability to identify and toaddress their own educational needsin a changing world in wayssufficient to maintain theircompetence and to allow them tocontribute to the advancement ofknowledge.D = developedLife Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             37   Annex D – Impact Estimator Inputs and Assumptions Table 6. CIQS Sorted Level 3 Elements   A11 Foundations1.2  Concrete Footing1.2.1  Footing_F1Length (ft) 11 17.37Width (ft) 10 10.00Thickness (in) 30 19Concrete (psi) 3000 3000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.2  Footing_F2Length (ft) 9.5 15Width (ft) 10 10.00Thickness (in) 30 19Concrete (psi) 3000 3000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.3.  Footing_F3Length (ft) 4 6.3Width (ft) 4 4Thickness (in) 30 17.7Concrete (psi) 3000 3000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.4  Footing_SF1Length (ft) 345 345Width (ft) 1.4 1.4Thickness (in) 12 12Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.5  Footing_SF2Length (ft) 204 204Width (ft) 3.1 3.10Thickness (in) 18 18Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #5CIQS Level 3ElementsAssemblyTypeAssemblyNameInput Fields IE InputsKnown/MeasuredInformation1.2.6  Footing_SF3L ngth (ft) 20 20Width (ft) 1.6 1.60Thickness (in) 12 12Co crete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.7  Footing_SF4Le gth (ft) 78 98.5Width (ft) 2.1 2.1Thickness (in) 24 19Conc ete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.8  Footing_SF5Length (ft) 18 8Width (ft) 3.3 3.30Thickness (in) 18 18Concrete flyash - averageRebar #5 #51.2.9  Footing_SF6Length (ft) 10 10Width (ft) 3 3.00Thickness (in) 18 18Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #5Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             38   1.2.10  Footing_SF7Length (ft) 28 28Width (ft) 2.8 2.8Thickness (in) 18 18Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.11  Footing_SF8Length (ft) 8 8Width (ft) 2.5 2.5Thickness (in) 18 18Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.12  Footing_SF9Length (ft) 10 10Width (ft) 5.4 5.4Thickness (in) 18 18Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.13  Footing_SF10Length (ft) 75.00 75.00Width (ft) 1.20 1.20Thickness (in) 18.00 18Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.14  Footing_SF11Length (ft) 26.00 26.00Width (ft) 2.00 2.00Thickness (in) 18.00 18Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #51.2.14  Footing_SF12Length (ft) 15.00 15.00Width (ft) 4.00 4.00Thickness (in) 18.00 18Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #5A21 Lowest Floor Construction1.1  Concrete Slab-on-Grade1.1.1 SOG_5"Length (ft) 104.00 130.00Width (ft) 51.00 51.00Thickness (in) 5 4Concrete (psi) 3000 3000Concrete flyash % - averageA22 Upper Floor Construction3.1  Concrete Columns & Beams3.1.1  Column1_Concrete_Sub-BasementNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 5 5Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay siz s (ft) 16.8 16.8Supported span (ft) 16.8 16.6Live load (psf) - 753.1.2  Column2_Concrete_Sub-BasementNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 3 3Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 9.5 9.5Supported span (ft) 9.5 9.5Live load (psf) - 75Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             39   3.1.3  Column3_Concrete_Sub-BasementNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 5 5Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 15.8 15.8Supported span (ft) 15.8 15.8Live load (psf) - 753.1.4 Column4_Concrete_Sub-BasementNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 2 2Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 7.5 10Supported span (ft) 7.5 10Live load (psf) - 753.1.5 Column5_Concrete_Sub-BasementNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 24 24Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 9.5 10Supported span (ft) 9.5 10Live load (psf) - 753.1.6  Column1_Concrete_Diaphragm Beam_BasementNumber of Beams 58 58Number of Columns 4 4Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 16.8 16.8Supported span (ft) 16.8 16.8Live load (psf) - 753.1.7  Column2_Concrete_BasementNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 4 4Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 18 18Supported span (ft) 18 18Live load (psf) - 753.1.8 Column3_Concrete_BasementNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 2 2Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 7.5 10Supported span (ft) 7.5 10Live load (psf) - 753.1.9 Column4_Concrete_BasementNumber of Beams 0 0Number of Columns 24 24Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 9.5 10Supported span (ft) 9.5 10Live load (psf) - 753.1.10 Column_BeamA-D_Typical interior_MainfloorNumber of Beams 6 6Number of Columns 5 5Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 19.1 19.1Supported span (ft) 19.1 19.1Live load (psf) - 753.1.11 Column_Diaphragm Beam_Typical exterior_MainfloorNumber of Beams 58 58Number of Columns 24 24Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 9.5 10Supported span (ft) 9,5 10Live load (psf) - 753.1.12 Column_BeamA-D_Typical interior_SecondfloorNumber of Beams 6 6Number of Columns 5 5Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 19.1 19.1Supported span (ft) 19.1 19.1Live load (psf) - 75Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             40    3.1.13 Column_Diaphragm Beam_Typical exterior_SecondfloorNumber of Beams 58 58Number of Columns 24 24Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 9.5 10Supported span (ft) 9,5 10Live load (psf) - 754.1  Concrete Slab 4.1.1  Floor_concrete_Basement_2.5"Floor Width (ft) 105.8 105.8Span (ft) 53.7 30Concrete (psi)  - 4000Concrete flyash % - averageLife load (psf) - 754.1.2  Floor_concrete_Mainfloor_2.5"Floor Width (ft) 105.8 105.8Span (ft) 53.7 30Concrete (psi)  - 4000Concrete flyash % - averageLife load (psf) - 754.1.3  Floor_concrete_Secondfloor_2.5"Floor Width (ft) 105.8 105.8Span (ft) 53.7 30Concrete (psi)  - 4000Concrete flyash % - averageLife load (psf) - 754.1.4  Floor_concrete_Thirdfloor_2.5"Floor Width (ft) 105.8 105.8Span (ft) 53.7 30Concrete (psi)  - 4000Concrete flyash % - averageLife load (psf) - 754.1.2 Floor_concrete_Thirdfloor_4.5"Floor Width (ft) 9.5 9.5Span (ft) 21.9 21.9Concrete (psi)  - 4000Concrete flyash % - averageLife load (psf) - 75A23 Roof Construction3.1.14 Column_BeamA-D_Typical interior_ThirdfloorNumber of Beams 6 6Number of Columns 5 5Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 19.1 19.1Supported span (ft) 19.1 19.1Live load (psf) - 753.1.15 Column_Diaphragm Beam_Typical exterior_ThirdfloorNumber of Beams 58 58Number of Columns 24 24Floor to floor height (ft) 11.8 11.8Bay sizes (ft) 9.5 10Supported span (ft) 9,5 10Live load (psf) - 755.1  Concrete Slab 5.1.1  Roof_concrete slab_2"Roof Width (ft) 105.8 105.8Span (ft) 53.7 30Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageLife load (psf) - 755.1.2  Roof_concrete slab_4.5"Roof Width (ft) 18.1 18.1Span (ft) 22.1 22.1Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageLife load (psf) - 75Life Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             41          A31 Walls Below Grade2.1  Cast In Place2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-place_8"Length (ft) 645 645.00Height (ft) 11.8 11.8Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #5A32 Walls Above Grade2.1  Cast In Place2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-place_8"Length (ft) 817 817.00Height (ft) 11.8 11.8Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #52.1.3  Wall_Cast-in-place_12"Length (ft) 365 365Height (ft) 11.8 11.8Thickness (in) 1 1Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #5 #5B11 Partitions2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-place_8"Length (ft) 1090 1,090.00Height (ft) 11.8 11.8Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #52.1.2  Wall_Concrete Block_6"Length (ft) 666 666Height (ft) 11.8 11.8Thickness (in) 8 8Concrete (psi) 4000 4000Concrete flyash % - averageRebar #4 #5Window Opening Number of Windows 70 70Total Window Area (ft2) 3213 3213Frame Type Fixed, Aluminum Frame ixed, Aluminum FrameGlazing Type - Low E Tin GlazingDoor Opening Number of Doors 52 52Door Type - Steel Interior DoorLife Cycle Assessment of Chemistry Building North Block                                                                             42   Table 7. IE Inputs Assumption  A 1 1  Foundation1 2  Concrete Footing 1.2.1  Footing_F1The thickness of the footing was adjusted to accommodate the ImpactEstimator Limitation of Footing thickness to be under 19.7 ".The thicknessand the width are maintained, longth were adjusted using the followingequation:Measured(longth x width x thickness)=Cited(longth x width x thickness)    1 1 'x 1 0 ' x 3 0 "/1 2 =X ' x 1 0 ' x 1 9 "/1 2Thus, X=1 7 3 7 '1 2  Concrete Footing1.2.2  Footing_F21.2.3 Footing_F31.2.7  Footing_SF4have the same limitation problem andare adjusted using the same method.Same method as aboveA2 1 Lowest Floor Construction1.1  Concrete Slab-on-Grad 1.1.1 SOG _5 "Due to the limited slab thickness options in the Athena tool, either 4" or 8"has to be chosen. But in real the SOG was built with the thickness of 5". Thewidth and the thickness are maintained and the longth is to be adjustedwith the following equation:Measured (length x width x thickness) = Cited (length x width x thickness)10 4 ' x 5 1 ' x 5 "/1 2 = X' x 5 1 ' x 4 "/1 2Thus, X=1 3 0 '3.1  Concrete Columns & B3.1.2  Column2_Concrete_Sub-Basement3.1.4 Column4_Concrete_Sub-Basement3.1.5 Column5_Concrete_Sub-Basement3.1.8 Column3_Concrete_Basement3.1.9 Column4_Concrete_Basement3.1.11 Column_Diaphragm Beam_Typicalexterior_Mainfloor3.1.13 Column_Diaphragm Beam_Typicalexterior_SecondfloorLimitation for Bay Size in Athena IE is >10 ft. Thus in these beam properties whenthe bay size is less than 10 ft, 10 ft is assumed and inputted.4.1  Concrete Slab 4.1.1  Floor_concrete_Basement_2.5"4.1.2  Floor_concrete_Mainfloor_2.5"4.1.3 Floor_concrete_Secondfloor_2.5"4.1.4  Floor_concrete_Thirdfloor_2.5"Limitation for slab span is less than 31 9 '  thus 30 ' is assumed to input intothe Athena IE. Investigated has been done the measured slab span hasbeyond the maximum value, it's not safe. Most likely errors were generatedat the measured information collection steps.A2 3 Roof Construction3.1  Concrete Columns & B3.1.1 5 Column_DiaphragmBeam_Typical exterior_ThirdfloorLimitation for Bay Size in Athena IE is >1 0 ft. Thus in these beam propertieswhen the bay size is less than 10 ft, 1 0 ft is assumed and inputted.A3 1 Walls Below Grade2.1  Cast In Place 2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-place_8 "Rebar # 5 was actually used but due to lack of options (only # 4 and # 6)rebar # 4 is assumed that was used.A3 2 Wa ls Above Grade2.1  Cast In Place 2.1.1  Wall_Cast-in-place_8 "Rebar # 5 was actually used but due to lack of options (only # 4 and # 6)rebar # 4 is assumed that was used.General All the concrete used in the building is unclear on the strength and percentage of fly ash contained.Level 3 Elements Assembly Type Assembly Name Specific Assumptions

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.18861.1-0108904/manifest

Comment

Related Items