Judging Home |
Life-Cycle Assessment Study of Buchanan Building-D (#52) |
|
 |
|
|
|
Images
| |
| Type of building: | School |
Entry Description | |
| Originally built in 1960 as a multi-purpose classroom, Buchanan-D (5,090sm) is currently being renovated under the university’s Renew Program. The goals of the project are to meet the current and future academic needs, and optimize space to improve learning and research, while addressing the university’s deferred maintenance debt. As part of the project, a post-mortem life cycle assessment and salvage value cost estimate study was completed using the Athena Environmental Impact Estimator tool. | |
| A discussion of design for adaptability and disassembly techniques incorporated: The project included 4 design objectives: provide public space and a connection to the outdoors, provide a healthy working environment, provide ease of operation, and utilize a triple bottom line/ecological footprint/life cycle analysis(LCA) as a basis for design decisions. A two pronged LCA study was conducted to provide an in-depth look at the salvaged value, environmental life cycle benefits and ramifications, and the tradeoffs of renovating versus constructing a new building. Secondly, a life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) matrix was developed to evaluate individual products and building systems. Opportunities for creating a flexible space as well as looking at the operation and maintenance issues were considered along with environmental and economic benefits when analysing the potential for reusing the existing structure versus building a new building. The project team collaborated with building operation and maintenance staff in the design process and used information they provided on the current conditions and functionality of the building to design a more accessible and efficient building. Providing flexible classrooms for new and changing teaching pedagogies was of major concern to the University and the project team as well as respecting the building’s architectural heritage and preserving the legibility of the original architecture. This analysis was instrumental in the decision to retain the Buchanan Block D and adapt it to future needs as well as create a business case for maintaining, reusing and adapting other buildings on the University campus which could result in a significant cost effective solution and reduce the life cycle impact of existing and future campus buildings. This study set the ground work for the the University’s Renew Program, helped the University fully understand the magnitude and scope of up and down stream environmental implications, and challenged the design team to find creative ways to adapt existing buildings for future usage. | |
| Environmental implications of entry: Considerable embodied energy, pollution and natural resource impacts are avoided by retaining building components. In parallel, by retaining building components, the quantity of materials that was not sent to landfill (or to recycling facilities) is significantly greater than what is sent as a consequence of the selective demolition process. As a stand alone exercise of assessing the avoided environmental impacts of retaining major structural and envelope components of Building D, the University has prevented: 218,919 kg of solid waste from being sent to local landfills or recycling facilities; 773,248 Kg of CO2 equivalent emissions from being released into the atmosphere; and 12.3 million Mega Joules of primary energy from being consumed during the manufacturing, construction and end-of-life stages, the equivalent of 300,000 litres of heavy fuel. | |
| Economic or policy implications of entry: The economic analysis of cost savings for retaining the existing building was critical in creating the business case for the the university’s Renew Program policies. One such policy was the creation and use of a LCCA matrix which was created to help guide the decision making process in selecting building products and systems for future university projects. The LCCA matrix was broken down into three categories based on the University’s triple bottom line approach: economic, social and ecological. The cost analysis completed estimated the salvage value of the retained components to be $7,650,500. In addition, it was estimated to cost $400,000 for full demolition of the existing building and $421,500 for excavation work of the New Building. Including the tendered costs of $5,920,000 for Building D, the new building would have potentially cost $14,392,500. In sum, an estimated $8,472,000 has been saved by choosing to renovate rather than construct a new building. | |
| Explain how the entry advances lifecycle building education: The goals of University Renew program is to improve learning, research and working conditions as well as create a new model for public institutions in the region. The LCCA matrix which was created for the project, in addition to the LCA analysis, will be used not only on the Buchanan D project but as a tool for the evaluation of products and systems being proposed for all of the projects in the University’s Renew Program. The life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is designed to evaluate three different materials per specification section, the results from this analysis will be used to educate all of the user groups involved in the decision making process for the projects on the tradeoffs and benefits of various material choices. Rather than basing decisions primarily on a financial analysis, this study was useful in creating an environmental business case to inform executive decision makers within the institution regarding ecological, social and economic life cycle benefits of certain material choices as well as retaining a building on campus. The university is paving the way for other public institutions in the region by creating a model for decision making that strengthens the triple bottom line and creates meaningful partnerships with the Provincial Government and other stakeholders. | |
| Additional information: The campus comprises nearly 255 academic buildings, with close to 60% being more than 30 years old. The University Renew’s mandate is to retain foundations, structures, and envelopes of buildings, but otherwise completely revitalize the buildings. The Renew is a multi-phase initiative, and is the result of a funding partnership with the Provincial Government with a budget of $120 million for Phase 1. When Phase 1 of the Renew program is completed it will have: produced 10 renewed buildings, eliminated $77.4 million from the University’s accumulated deferred maintenance debt, saved nearly $89 million in construction costs as compared to new construction, & prevented an estimated 6,000 tonnes of GHG from being released into the atmosphere. | |
Entry Metrics | |
| Estimated building square footage: 5090 square feet | |
| Tons of concrete reduced/conserved in your entry: 6 tons | |
| Explanation: The project saved 2592 cubic meters of concrete as well as 7,083 concrete blocks | |
| Tons of wood reduced/conserved in your entry: 0 | |
| Explanation: NA | |
| Tons of steel reduced/conserved in your entry: 150 | |
| Explanation: We saved 10.76 tonnes welded wire mesh, 138.9 tonnes rebar, and .9 tonnes steel studs. | |
| Tons of aluminum reduced/conserved in your entry: 3 | |
| Explanation: We saved 3.9 tonnes aluminum as well as 1,771 meters of aluminum frame | |
| Tons of carpet reduced/conserved in your entry: 0 | |
| Explanation: NA | |
| Other material: Glazing Panel | |
| Tons of other material reduced/conserved in your entry: 10.79 | |
| Explanation: | |
| Tons of Green House Gasses Reduced: 773 | |
| Discussion of Green House Gas reduction implications of your entry: In Canada, buildings are major consumers of energy, water, and material resources. More specifically, residential and commercial buildings within the Greater Vancouver area on an annual basis are estimated to emit 3.6 million tonnes of greenhouse gas, representing 35% of the regional contribution to greenhouse gases. The study estimated that the Buchanan Building D, by retaining major structural and envelope components has prevented 773,248 Kg of CO2 equivalent emissions from being released into the atmosphere. The C02 equivalent, or Global Warming Potential (GWP), accounts for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen oxide. Additionally the University Renew Project has prevented an estimated 6,000 tonnes of GHG from being released into the atmosphere. Additionally the renovation and upgrades to the envelope and mechanical system created a 16% increase in energy efficiency resulting in a significant reduction in green house gases over the life of the building as well as a significant cost savings for the purchase of carbon offsets for the University. | |
| Measurement tool used to calculate GHG reduction: Athena Environmental Impact Estimator | |
| Website of GHG measurement tool used: http:// | |
| Other energy conservation features of your entry: In comparing the renovation and new construction schemes, the inclusion of Total Operating Energy consumption became a determining factor since its effect is greatly accentuated by the life-expectancy of the building. The new building was estimated to be 26.4% more efficient than the existing building and 10% more efficient than the renovated building, however, this calculation is based on a life expectancy of 80 years. The new building will not have a lower primary energy use compared to the renovated building model until 40 years of operation. Additionally, the LCA included an evaluation of the existing mechanical system compared to ASHRAE with the objective of avoiding the installation of air conditioning units. The mechanical team proposed upgrades to the mechanical, ventilation system and envelop. The new renovation program involved improving the ventilation through a new distributed supply air system, replacing the overhead supply air with low-level air displacement supply system, installing a heat recovery system to provide supplementary heat to pre-heat the domestic water tank, replacing the existing single pane windows with double glazing and thermally broken frames, and replacing the existing plumbing piping. These upgrades are expected to help the University reach its goals of achieving an energy use reduction as compared to the Canadian Model National Energy Code for Buildings, achieve LEED Gold certification, and a water use reduction of at least 20% compared to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. | |