1. John Basbagill Integration of Life Cycle Assessment and Conceptual Building Design June 16, 2012

2. Agenda Motivation Method 2 Scope 3 1 of 18 1 4 Case Study 5 Results 6 Extension of Current Work

3. 12 3 4 Conceptual Design Development Construction Administration Operation 1 2 3 4 Ability to impact cost Cost of design changes Traditional design process Preferred design process Design Stage Impact Motivation 1 John Basbagill June 16, 2012 2 of 18

4. perception that LCA requires a highly detailed understanding of building components lack of methods for estimating material quantities CAD tools poorly integrate with LCA feedback energy simulation tools designed for post-design process Motivation 1 Challenges with integrating LCA during conceptual design : John Basbagill June 16, 2012 3 of 18

5. Motivation 1 John Basbagill June 16, 2012 4 of 18

6. Intuition: Multi-disciplinary design optimization (MDO) and LCA can be integrated during conceptual building design to minimize impacts Motivation 1 John Basbagill June 16, 2012 5 of 18

7. Method Building information model Pre- operational CO 2 e Energy simulation MRR Schedule Pre- operational cost Operational CO 2 e Operational cost Life-cycle CO 2 e Life-cycle cost Optimizer 1 1 23 41,4 25 5 6 1 = DProfiler 2 = Athena, SimaPro 3 = eQUEST 4 = CostLab 5 = Excel 6 = ModelCenter Software Implementation Key 2 6 of 18 LCA-MDO Integration Framework

8. Scope 3 John Basbagill June 16, 2012 7 of 18

9. Case Study SCOPE (1) Housing buildings OBJECTIVES (1) Minimize life-cycle cost (2) Minimize carbon footprint VARIABLES (1) Number of buildings (3 or 4) (2) Number of stories (5, 6, 7, or 8) (3) Building orientation (0-360°) (4) Building shape (5)Window-to-wall ratio (0.15-0.50) CONSTRAINTS (1)Gross floor area (2)Location (3)Building type DESIGN SPACE SIZE Possible design configurations: 1.46E11 ab c d e f 4 8 of 18

10. Life Cycle Cost (USD, Millions) Carbon Footprint (met tons CO 2 e) 275k280k285k290k295k 165 180 195 210 225 + KEY Baseline Lowest Cost Lowest Carbon Footprint 3 Buildings, 5 Stories 3 Buildings, 6 Stories 3 Buildings, 7 Stories 3 Buildings, 8 Stories 4 Buildings, 5 Stories 4 Buildings, 6 Stories 4 Buildings, 7 Stories 4 Buildings, 8 Stories 285k 5 Results: Life Cycle Cost vs. Carbon Footprint 9 of 18

11. Results: Base Design Configuration Life-Cycle Performance Capital Operational Baseline Number of buildings: 4 Number of floors: 8 Glazing: 15% Baseline COST (USD, Millions)IMPACT (met ktns. CO2e) 198 286 Design Cycle Duration: 4 wks Number of cycles: 1 Process Efficiency 10 of 18 5

12. Results: Design 1560 Configuration Life-Cycle Performance Capital Operational BaselineDesign1560 Number of buildings: 3 Number of floors: 6 BaselineDesign1560 (-14%) (-5%) COST (USD, Millions)IMPACT (met ktns. CO2e) Design Cycle Duration: 7 s Number of cycles: 21,360 Process Efficiency 5 11 of 18

13. 6 Extension of Current Work John Basbagill June 16, 2012 12 of 18 1. Building component materials 2. Building component sizes Limitation: What level of detail is needed when using MDO-LCA integration to provide impact feedback during conceptual building design?

14. Uniformat element AssemblySub-componentsMaterial Choices Min (m) Max (m) Size A: Substructure B: Shell C: Interiors D: Services piles footings mat foundation columns and beams floor structure roof stairs cladding exterior walls glazing doors partitions doors wall finishes flooring ceiling mechanical electrical plumbing fire conveying piles, vapor barrier, caps, slab-on-grade, grade beam, rebar, formwork footings, vapor barrier, slab-on-grade, grade beam, rebar, formwork foundation, vapor barrier railings wall structure, insulation, membrane, gypsum, paint glass, polyvinyl butyral, frame, hardware hardware partition structure, gypsum, paint hardware covering, paint surface, insulation plaster, gypsum, paint (17) (16) (22) (4) elevator CLASSIFICATION SCHEME 13 of 18 6 Extension

15. Material Quantity Heuristics (1) Equation A10 Foundations Uniformat Code A1010.90200.PC 0.2 * density * slab areapoured concrete footing A1020.8010.FW wood formwork for grade beams 4 * thickness * perimeter B2010.2010.ST B2010.2040.WG density * thickness * (1-WWR) * perimeter * height 10.76 * (gross floor area + roof area) B20 Exterior vertical enclosures C2030.2010.CR ceramic floor tile C10 Interior Construction density * thickness * gross floor area Material steel cladding WF column/glulam beam C2030.2010.ST stone floor tile density * thickness * gross floor area C2030.2010.CM cement facing tile with fiber (1) 231 material quantity equations John Basbagill June 16, 2012 14 of 18 6 Extension

16. Pre- operational CO 2 e Energy simulation MRR Schedule Pre- operational cost Operational CO 2 e Operational cost Life-cycle CO 2 e Life-cycle cost Optimizer 1 23 41,4 25 5 6 1 = DProfiler 2 = Athena, SimaPro 3 = eQUEST 4 = CostLab 5 = Excel 6 = ModelCenter Software Implementation Key Building information model 1 15 of 18 6 Extension of Current Work

17. SCOPE (1) Housing buildings OBJECTIVES (1) Minimize carbon footprint VARIABLES (1) Building component materials (2) Building component sizes (3) Number of buildings (3 or 4) (4) Number of stories (5, 6, 7, or 8) (5) Building shape (6) Window-to-wall ratio (0.15-0.50) Possible design configurations: (1) materials 1.24E14 (2) sizes 5.66E10 Actual designs considered : 5832 DESIGN SPACE SIZE 16 of 18 ab c d e f 6 Extension of Current Work

18. 1. Choose worst-performing material for all components. 17 of 18 6 Extension of Current Work Impact Reduction Scheme: Cladding Material Example 3. Choose best-performing material for [cladding]. 4. Calculate impact reduction as % of building’s max embodied impact. 5. Repeat for all 5832 designs. 2. Calculate building’s maximum embodied impact. 6. Repeat Steps 3 through 5 for all building components. 7. Rank building components from largest to smallest impact reduction.

19. Decision number Assembly Impact Reduction (% max embodied impact) Min Max Whole building62.95 74.94 1Cladding38.8659.70 2Substructure29.7144.23 3Partitions22.8932.03 4Flooring surface16.1121.75 5 Floor structural assembly 10.7617.28 6Column and beams6.5014.52 7Window assembly5.398.37 8Wall assembly3.144.78 9Wall finishes1.412.97 10Mechanical system0.711.03 11Roof assembly0.321.00 12Stairs0.070.12 13Interior doors0.010.03 14Exterior doors00 Level of Detail Results: Materials 18 of 18 6 Extension of Current Work Whole Building Cladding Substructure

20. Questions? John Basbagill June 16, 2012

21. perception that LCA requires a highly detailed understanding of building components lack of methods for estimating material quantities CAD tools poorly integrate with LCA feedback energy simulation tools designed for post-design process Challenges with integrating LCA during conceptual design : John Basbagill June 16, 2012 12 of 18 6 Extension of Current Work

22. 18 of 18 Level of Detail Results: Sizes Decision number Assembly Impact Reduction (% entire embodied impact) Min Max 1Cladding 10.6716.67 2Flooring surface 6.6910.09 3Ceiling 3.826.98 4Wall finishes 1.564.69 5Substructure 0.243.66 6Window assembly 0.000.78 7Mechanical system 0.000.21 8Electrical system 0.000.01 9Plumbing system 00 6 Extension of Current Work

23. 5 Current Work Impact Reduced/$ % Reduction A: Substructure B: Shell C: Interiors D: Services 1020304050 piles mat foundation footing columns and beams roof floors cladding mechanical electrical conveying fire plumbing partitions wall finishes doors flooring ceiling 15 John Basbagill June 16, 2012

24. 12 3 4 Conceptual Design Development Construction Administration Operation 1 2 3 4 Ability to impact cost Cost of design changes Traditional design process Preferred design process Design Stage Impact Motivation 1 John Basbagill June 16, 2012 2 of 18

25. Uniformat element AssemblySub-componentsNumber of material choices Min (m) Max (m) Thickness A: Substructure B: Shell C: Interiors D: Services piles footings mat foundation columns and beams floor structure roof stairs cladding exterior walls glazing doors partitions doors wall finishes flooring ceiling mechanical electrical plumbing fire conveying piles, vapor barrier, caps, slab-on-grade, grade beam, rebar, formwork footings, vapor barrier, slab-on-grade, grade beam, rebar, formwork foundation, vapor barrier railings wall structure, insulation, membrane, gypsum, paint glass, polyvinyl butyral, frame, hardware hardware partition structure, gypsum, paint hardware covering, paint surface, insulation plaster, gypsum, paint (17) (16) (22) (4) elevator 2, 2 2 2 10 12 15 9 7 6 5 3 2 2 2 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.10.4 0.10.4 0.21.8 0.020.08 0.0070.02 0.40.6 0.0090.02 0.0060.02 0.10.2 n/a 5 BUILDING COMPONENT DECISION CLASSIFICATION SCHEME Current Work 19 of 25

26. LCA-MDO integration can enable better conceptual design decision-making by providing feedback on the level of detail needed for building design choices 5 Current Work John Basbagill June 16, 2012 17 of 25 1. Building component materials 2. Building component sizes Intuition: Multi-disciplinary design optimization (MDO) and LCA can be integrated during conceptual building design to minimize impacts What level of detail is needed when using MDO-LCA integration to provide feedback during conceptual building design?

27. Façade Cladding Louvers Glazing Framing Fins Level 1 (class) Level 2 (sub-component) Level 3 (category) Level 4 (property) Level 5 (type) Material Metal Non- Ferrous metals Level 6 (processing) Level 7 (specific database entry) Ferrous metals Aluminum Steel Iron Iron cast Iron pig Iron scrap Steel chromium Iron4 Steel sheet Steel coil Steel unalloyed Aluminum shaped Aluminum primary Cast iron, at plant/RER U Iron, sand casted/US Ferrite, at plant/GLO U Iron and steel, production mix/US Building Component Pig iron, at plant/GLO U Iron scrap, at plant/RER U Chromium steel 18/8, at plant/RER U Steel, electric, chromium steel 18/8 Steel, converter, chromium steel 18/8 Cold rolled sheet, steel, at plant/RNA Hot rolled sheet, steel, at plant/RNA Stainless steel hot rolled coil, annealed & pickled Steel hot rolled coil, blast furnace route Steel, electric, un- and low-alloyed, at plant Steel, converter, unalloyed, at plant Aluminum extrusion profile Aluminum sheet, primary prod., semi- finished sheet product Aluminum, primary, at plant Aluminum, primary, liquid, at plant Aluminum, primary, ingot, at plant Aluminum, primary, smelt, at plant Galvanized steel sheet, at plant/RNA System Motivation 1 5 of 25

28. MRR Schedule (1) ActivityYears occurring after construction Method B20 Exterior Enclosure Uniformat Element Window Repair 15, 30, 45 Facade Paint 10, 20, 30, 40 Walls Repair 30 Door locks Maintain 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 Door Refinish 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 Door Repair 10, 20, 30, 40 Door Replace 40 Door locks Replace 10, 20, 30, 40 DoorRefinish DoorPaint C10 Interior Construction 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 10, 20, 30, 40 (1) 232 activities 2 8 of 25

29. Results: Design 177 Configuration Life-Cycle Performance Capital Operational BaselineDesign1560 Number of buildings: 4 Number of floors: 5 BaselineDesign1560 (-8%) (-2%) COST (USD, Millions)IMPACT (met ktns. CO2e) 4 16 of 25

30. Life Cycle Cost (USD, Millions) Carbon Footprint (met tons CO 2 e) 275k280k285k290k295k 165 180 195 210 225 Results: Life Cycle Cost vs. Carbon Footprint + KEY Baseline Lowest Cost Lowest Carbon Footprint 3 Buildings, 5 Stories 3 Buildings, 6 Stories 3 Buildings, 7 Stories 3 Buildings, 8 Stories 4 Buildings, 5 Stories 4 Buildings, 6 Stories 4 Buildings, 7 Stories 4 Buildings, 8 Stories 4 13 of 25

31. BUILDING SYSTEM BUILDING LIFE CYCLE PHASE Pre-Operational Operational A: Substructure B: ShellC: Interiors D: ServicesG: Building Sitework E: Equipment & Furnishings Cost Impact Cost Impact Utilities MRR DProfiler Cost Lab International Energy Agency Utilities MRR $0.20 / kWhr AND $3.00 / therm Scope Athena / SimaPro 3 John Basbagill June 16, 2012 10 of 25

32. LCA-MDO integration can enable better conceptual design decision-making by providing feedback on the level of detail needed for building design choices 5 Current Work John Basbagill June 16, 2012 17 of 25 1. Building component materials 2. Building component sizes Intuition: Multi-disciplinary design optimization (MDO) and LCA can be integrated during conceptual building design to minimize impacts

33. Impact Allocation Scheme Results 4

34. 5b 26 of 28 Impact Allocation Scheme

35. Impact Reduction Scheme Results 4

36. RankMaterial ChangeReduction (% max embodied) Size ChangeReduction (% max embodied) 1 2 3 4 5 cladding piles floor structure duct insulation columns and beams 17.54 10.18 5.52 4.70 3.40 cladding duct insulation lighting fixtures floor insulation floor surface 13.20 4.56 2.45 1.55 1.51 Impact Ranking Scheme Results 4

37. 5b 26 of 28 Impact Reduction Scheme

38. MRR Schedule (1) ActivityYears occurring after construction B20 Exterior Enclosure Uniformat Element Window Repair 15, 30, 45 Facade Paint 10, 20, 30, 40 Walls Repair 30 Door locks Maintain 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 Door Refinish 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 Door Repair 10, 20, 30, 40 Door Replace 40 Door locks Replace 10, 20, 30, 40 DoorRefinish DoorPaint C10 Interior Construction 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 10, 20, 30, 40 (1) 232 activities Case Study 3

39. Method Uniformat element AssemblySub-componentsMaterial ChoicesMinMax Sizes A: Substructure B: Shell C: Interiors D: Services 2 1. Define scope BUILDING COMPONENT DECISION CLASSIFICATION SCHEME Building life cycle phases Material choices Size choices RSMeans, Beck Technology RSMeans, Industry sources 2. Obtain data Material quantities MRR schedule RSMeans, Industry sources RSMeans, Industry sources RSMeans, Industry sources Building components Material choices Size choices Materials Sizes Materials Sizes

40. Method Uniformat element AssemblySub-componentsNumber of material choices Min (m) Max (m) Thickness A: Substructure B: Shell C: Interiors D: Services piles footings mat foundation columns and beams floor structure roof stairs cladding exterior walls glazing doors partitions doors wall finishes flooring ceiling mechanical electrical plumbing fire conveying piles, vapor barrier, caps, slab-on-grade, grade beam, rebar, formwork footings, vapor barrier, slab-on-grade, grade beam, rebar, formwork foundation, vapor barrier railings wall structure, insulation, membrane, gypsum, paint glass, polyvinyl butyral, frame, hardware hardware partition structure, gypsum, paint hardware covering, paint surface, insulation plaster, gypsum, paint (17) (16) (22) (4) elevator 2 2 2 10 12 15 9 7 6 5 3 2 2 2 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.10.4 0.10.4 0.21.8 0.020.08 0.0070.02 0.40.6 0.0090.02 0.0060.02 0.10.2 n/a 4b 25 of 28 Building Component Classification Framework

41. MRR Schedule (1) ActivityYears occurring after construction Method B20 Exterior Enclosure Uniformat Element Window Repair 15, 30, 45 Facade Paint 10, 20, 30, 40 Walls Repair 30 Door locks Maintain 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 Door Refinish 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 Door Repair 10, 20, 30, 40 Door Replace 40 Door locks Replace 10, 20, 30, 40 DoorRefinish DoorPaint C10 Interior Construction 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 10, 20, 30, 40 (1) 232 activities 4b 24 of 28

42. BUILDING SYSTEM BUILDING LIFE CYCLE PHASE Pre-Operational Operational A: Substructure B: ShellC: Interiors D: ServicesG: Building Sitework E: Equipment & Furnishings Cost Impact Cost Impact Utilities MRR DProfiler Cost Lab International Energy Agency Utilities MRR $0.20 / kWhr AND $3.00 / therm Scope John Basbagill May 2, 2012 Athena / SimaPro 3b 22 of 28

43. Results: Design 1898 Configuration Life-Cycle Performance Capital Operational BaselineDesign1560 Number of buildings: 3 Number of floors: 7 BaselineDesign1560 (-9%) (-3%) COST (USD, Millions)IMPACT (met ktns. CO2e) 16 of 28 3

44. Results: Design 838 Configuration Life-Cycle Performance Capital Operational BaselineDesign1560 Number of buildings: 4 Number of floors: 8 BaselineDesign1560 (-9%) (-1%) COST (USD, Millions)IMPACT (met ktns. CO2e) 15 of 28 3

45. Method John Basbagill May 2, 2012 2 Building life cycle phases 1. Define scope BUILDING COMPONENT DECISION CLASSIFICATION SCHEME Material choices Building components Size choices

46. Method 2 3. Validate with case study BUILDING COMPONENT DECISION CLASSIFICATION SCHEME Building life cycle phases Material choices Building components Size choices 1. Define scope 2. Obtain data Materials Sizes Material quantities MRR schedule

47. Optimizer Next Steps 6 Pre- operational CO 2 e Energy simulation MRR Schedule Pre- operational cost Operational CO 2 e Operational cost Life-cycle CO 2 e Life-cycle cost 1 23 41,4 25 5 6 1 = DProfiler 2 = Athena, SimaPro 3 = eQUEST 4 = CostLab 5 = Excel 6 = ModelCenter Software Implementation Key Building information model 1 28 of 28

48. Impact Allocation SchemeImpact Reduction Scheme (as % of total embodied impact) Material change (as % of max embodied impact) Size change (as % of max embodied impact) Uniformat element Assembly Minimum impact Maximum impact Min impact reduction Max impact reduction Min impact reduction Max impact reduction Whole building 62.9574.9419.9837.33 A: Substructure 0.2155.077.7719.650.332.03 piles1.3551.517.7719.650.330.63 footings11.1355.07n/a 0.330.63 mat foundation 0.2110.68n/a 0.852.03 B: Shell 2.2278.9721.1749.646.0327.27 columns and beams 0.2719.182.594.50n/a floor0.2925.773.747.31n/a C: Interiors 5.4270.2714.9826.238.6113.82 partitions0.9239.406.8112.20n/a doors0.000.440.050.09n/a wall finishes0.8923.401.351.812.022.5 D: Services 8.0670.271.091.940.000.78 mechanical4.1242.621.091.940.000.57 electrical2.9624.10n/a 0.000.2 plumbing0.846.72n/a 0.000.01