Feasibility Study FINAL-1

161 Louis-Pasteur Private

Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5

UNIVERSITY CENTRE DESIGN

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feasibility Study

161 Louis-Pasteur Private Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5

December 3, 2014

Neil Patrick Smith

CEO, APENN Structural and Architectural Consultants Ltd.

Dr. Alaa Abdulridha, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Dr. Majid Mohammadian, Ph.D., P.Eng.

University of Ottawa

75 Laurier Ave E

Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5

Dear Professors,

It is with great pleasure that APENN presents this feasibility study for the new University

Centre on the University of Ottawa campus.

This study analyzes three alternative designs by way of a decision matrix that incorporates

multiple design criteria. In the end, the new University centre will be located between the

Simard building and the Residential Complex, on the site currently occupied by the parking

lot. The building’s structural system will consist of concrete shear walls, and a living wall

will be the centre point of the building’s lobby. It will strive for a platinum LEED

designation.

We hope that this will exceed your expectations. Feel free to contact us with any questions

you may have.

Sincerely,

_____________________________________________

Neil Patrick Smith, CEO, APENN

_______________________

Date

Enclosed: University Centre Project Feasibility Study

CC: Dr. Alaa Abdulridha, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Dr. Majid Mohammadian, Ph.D., P.Eng.

University Centre Design - Feasibility Study

I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This feasibility study presents three distinct design alternatives for a new University Centre

for the University of Ottawa, and selects the preferred alternative based on a weighted

decision matrix; it proceeds to introduce a preliminary building envelope design along with

several selected design criteria. This report presents a unique design concept that aims to

reinvigorate the University of Ottawa campus with an architectural gem that will instil pride

among community members at the University of Ottawa, and throughout the city of Ottawa.

In addition, this University Centre will stand as a pinnacle of green building design and will

hold a Platinum LEED designation.

This University Centre will be designed by a team of experienced structural engineers; each

engineer having over twenty years’ experience in the field of structural engineering. At

APENN Structural and Architectural Consultants, we will work diligently on the

architectural and structural design of the new University Centre.


II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary .................................................................................................................................................. I

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... II

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... IV

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. IV

1 – Problem Identification .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 – Current University Centre Background ........................................................................................... 1

1.2 – Goals ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 – Scope .............................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 – Constraints ................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4.1 - Location ................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4.2 - Population ............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.5 – Selection Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2 – Preliminary Design ........................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 – Building Location Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 4

2.2 – Structural Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 – Indoor Garden Design Alternatives ................................................................................................... 8

3 – Low Environmental Impact and High Efficiency Alternatives ..................................................... 10

4 – Comparison of design alternatives .......................................................................................................... 12

4.1 - Selection Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 - Cost .......................................................................................................................................................... 2

4.1.2 - Functionality ....................................................................................................................................... 3

4.1.3 - Durability .............................................................................................................................................. 5

4.1.4 - Disturbance .......................................................................................................................................... 5

4.1.5 - Ease of construction ......................................................................................................................... 6

4.1.6 - Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 8

4.1.7 - Accessibility based on location .................................................................................................... 9

4.1.8 - Construction Time ............................................................................................................................ 9

4.1.9 - Certainty............................................................................................................................................. 11

4.2 - Decision matrix ........................................................................................................................................ 12

5 – Selected Alternative ...................................................................................................................................... 13

5.1 – Preliminary Architectural Layout ................................................................................................... 13

5.2 – Building Material .................................................................................................................................... 13

5.3 – Specialized Building Material ........................................................................................................... 13


III

5.4 – Predicted Project Cost .......................................................................................................................... 14

6 – Project Plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 19

6.1 – Project Breakdown Structure ........................................................................................................... 19

6.2 – Project schedule: PERT Analysis ..................................................................................................... 21

7 – Design Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................................. 22

8 – Structural Analysis Program ...................................................................................................................... 22

9 – Preliminary Building Envelope Design.................................................................................................. 23

10 – References ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix 1- Decision Matrix................................................................................................................................. i

Appendix 2 – PERT Analysis for Duration Estimate .................................................................................. ii

Appendix 3 – Project Timeline ............................................................................................................................ v

Appendix 4 – Network Diagram ....................................................................................................................... vi

Appendix 5 – Resources Allocation and Cost Estimates ........................................................................ vii

Appendix 6 - LEED Point Details ....................................................................................................................... ix

Sustainable Sites – 26 possible points ................................................................................................... ix

Water Efficiency – 10 possible points .................................................................................................... x

Energy and Atmosphere – 35 possible points .................................................................................... xi

Materials and Resources – 14 possible points ................................................................................ xiii

Indoor Environmental Quality – 15 possible points .................................................................... xiv

Innovation in Design – 6 possible points .......................................................................................... xvi

Regional Priority – 4 possible points .................................................................................................. xvi

Appendix 7 – RSMeans data ............................................................................................................................ xvii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ xx


IV

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Proposed Location Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 - Aerial view #1 .................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3 - Aerial view #2 .................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 4 - View from lower roof ...................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 5 - Front view ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 6: Project Timeline ..................................................................................................................................... v Figure 7: Network Diagram ................................................................................................................................ vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Point Division ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 2 - Performance rating ............................................................................................................................ 12 Table 3 - Alternatives abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 2 Table 4 - Weighted criteria ................................................................................................................................ 12 Table 5 - Current university centre dimensions ....................................................................................... 14 Table 6 - University centre division ............................................................................................................... 15 Table 7 - Total area with 25% expansion .................................................................................................... 15 Table 8 - University centre cost by area ....................................................................................................... 16 Table 9 - Cost estimate comparison ............................................................................................................... 17 Table 10 - Project breakdown .......................................................................................................................... 19 Table 11 - Project breakdown tasks .............................................................................................................. 20 Table 12: Critical Tasks ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 13: Team Resources Breakdown ........................................................................................................ 22 Table 14 - Decision matrix ..................................................................................................................................... i Table 15: PERT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ ii Table 16: Resources Allocation and Cost Breakdown ............................................................................ vii Table 17 - Optimize energy performance point breakdown ............................................................... xii Table 18 - On-site renewable energy point breakdown ........................................................................ xii


1

1 – PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

This document proposes a new building for the University of Ottawa which will replace the

current university centre, also known as UCU. As part of this building proposal, a feasibility

study was performed and the best alternatives were determined.

1.1 – CURRENT UNIVERSITY CENTRE BACKGROUND

The University of Ottawa currently has a University Centre on campus: the Jock Turcot

University Centre. Built in 1973, it is located at 85 University Private between Morisset

library and Montpetit Hall. It is a primarily concrete structure in a brutalist style, similar to

many other campus buildings in the area. It houses some retail outlets including a

convenience store, the university’s Bookstore, a food court, the Alumni Auditorium, a small

open presentation area, a pub, and some office space. The building encapsulates a gross

square meter area of 15,732 while the net usable square meter area is of 9,314. The

construction costs of the UCU exceeded $6 million.

1.2 – GOALS

This project aims to design a world-class landmark university centre for the University of

Ottawa. This building will be the heart of the University, and must therefore aspire to more

than the practical requirements demanded of it – though it must certainly be practical. It

will be a symbol of the University, defining it for decades to come, and reflecting the values

and the very identity of the institution. Prospective students and donors will ask themselves

if the University of Ottawa is an institution they want to associate themselves with, and this

building should be worth more than a thousand words resoundingly in its favour.

First and foremost, the building must be practical; it must function properly and efficiently

as a university centre. Failure to reach this goal will have the obvious consequence of having

a building that doesn’t work very well. On a symbolic level, the consequences are even more

severe however, as the entire university will share in the image of excess and ineptitude.

The building must be sustainable. In the year 2014 there is no excuse to ignore the

environmental impacts of new building development. Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) is the dominant green building design designation in North

America, and this building will strive for the highest certification level – platinum. As

attending university is an investment in the student’s future, so too should the university be

mindful of investing in the future of our society.

The building must be accessible. This concept extends beyond the obvious accessibility

issues facing people with disabilities. The University Centre should be accessible in the

same way that access to higher learning should be accessible. Most entrances of the existing

building are preceded by steps or are far from the nearest road, making this building


2

difficult to access for those with mobility issues, and this will be avoided in the design of the

new university centre.

The building will be aesthetically pleasing. Aesthetics are more than a superficial add-on, as

the physical design of the building will leave an impression upon interaction; the goal is to

get people engaged with this building.

1.3 – SCOPE

As required by the client, the new University Centre's main structural system shall consist of

reinforced concrete construction. In addition, the client requires the content of the building

to include large office spaces, a retail area occupying the ground floor, a main food court, a

presentation stage and theatre, and a suitably sized underground parking. In keeping with

the University of Ottawa's dedication to being a leader in sustainability, a platinum LEED

designation will be achieved for this building.

Existing services offered in the UCU will require space in the new University Centre. A total

of eleven SFUO services, include but are not limited to: Bike Co-op, Food Bank, Women’s

Resource Centre, Pride Centre, and Sustainable Development Centre will be required. In

addition, the University Bookstore, Food Court, and Career Services are required. Existing

UCU floor plans will be brought in and analyzed to assure no university service is left

without adequate space.

Based on the past and expected growth of the student population, the new university centre

should take into account the current gross floor area of the UCU and expand upon that area

using the difference between the population growth at the time of construction and the

current growth factor. Also, current UCU facilities with overcrowding and overuse should be

expanded, in addition to the expansion due to current growth factor. A major source of

overcrowding and overuse is seen in the current use of the food courts.

1.4 – CONSTRAINTS

The constraints of the proposed building are summarised in the following sub-sections.

1.4.1 - LOCATION

City of Ottawa By-Law Zone for the University of Ottawa location labels the area enclosing

the three building alternatives as "I2A[347] F(3.0)". This designation labels the area as a

"Major Institutional Zone" with an "Exception Zone" and with a "Floor Space Indices". It

must be noted that the University of Ottawa has been given a special zoning designations by

the City of Ottawa. This special designation limits retail stores to a gross floor area of 2,000

square meters but expands upon the floor space index. The Exception Zone designates a

minimal lot area of 3,500 square meters. Additional zoning provisions concerning accessory

structures, uncovered, or unenclosed features, and setback requirements must be met.


3

Designation "F" has the effect of limiting the gross floor area that may be built on the zoned

area. The building must meet By-Law zoning requirements to be approved for construction

by the City of Ottawa.

The latest National Building Code of Canada and the Ontario Building Code will be respected

in all aspects of architectural and structural design.

1.4.2 - POPULATION

The University of Ottawa has had a considerable student population growth over the past

decade. The undergraduate student population in 2009 was 32,630 students and this

number increased to over 40,000 students in 2014. Any new development on the campus

must reflect the growing student body of the university.

1.5 – SELECTION CRITERIA

Selection of the right alternative for the University of Ottawa will depend on a careful

balance of overall project cost, construction timetable, building design, efficacy versus

safety versus durability, environmental impact, and building features. All selection criteria

will be analyzed in this Feasibility Report.

It is also important to mention that the right alternative should minimize the inconvenience

to the student's education and university experience during and after the construction

process.


4

2 – PRELIMINARY DESIGN

The design options to be considered are summarized below.

2.1 – BUILDING LOCATION ALTERNATIVES

Two locations within the University of Ottawa campus are considered for the proposed

University Centre project. Within those two different locations, three buildings alternatives

will also be examined.

The first location is the current position of the “University Centre Universitaire”, as seen in

Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: PROPOSED LOCATION ALTERNATIVES


5

Option 1: New building on Current University Centre Location

The current University Centre will be demolished and a new building will be constructed in

its place that will meet Platinum LEED standards and will accommodate the current

university population.

Advantages:

Ideal central location based on university layout;

Inter-building connection to the Morisset Library and sports facilities;

Freedom of design creativity;

Incorporation of more sustainable development to reduce carbon footprint;

Possibility of expanding vertically.

Disadvantages:

High cost of demolishing the current building;

Structure cannot expand beyond its current footprint;

Displacement of students and current facilities during construction at a high cost.

Option 2: Expansion of Existing University Centre

The second alternative is to retrofit and expand the current UCU building to include more

high performance energy saving strategies. The existing structure has 4.5 floors and its total

height varies from 10 to 13 m.

Advantages:

Ideal central location based on university layout;

Inter-building connection to the Morisset Library and sports facilities;

Possibility of expanding vertically;

Significantly lower demolition cost;

Lower operational cost due to better efficiency;

Fewer structural components to build.

Disadvantages:

Existing layout restricts expansion design;

Reconfiguration of existing floor plan;

Construction of underground parking lot presents extreme challenges;

Existing structural integrity uncertain.


6

Option 3: New Building Using Parking Location

A new building will be constructed between the Simard building and the Residential

Complex, within the current location of the parking lot “K”, as seen in Figure 1.

Advantages:

Creation of a new landmark for the University through an aesthetically pleasing

design;

Freedom of design creativity with minimal constraints;

Incorporation of more sustainable development to reduce carbon footprint;

No demolition required;

Possibility of building an underground passageway to Morisset building;

Possibility of inter-building connection to neighbouring residential building;

Current University Centre services operational during construction;

Location suitable for public display.

Disadvantages:

Temporary removal of existing parking lot “K”.

2.2 – STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES

The client requires the building to be designed out of reinforced concrete. To satisfy load

capacity and earthquake requirements, three structural alternatives will be considered for

the proposed building. All three of these options will be considered for the chosen location,

regardless if the design requires a new building or an addition, as all three can be built as

stand-alone structures, attached structures, or superimposed to an existing building.

Pre-stressed elements such as slabs and beams will be considered in the design process to

allow greater spans between columns, which will be an asset to the creation of large open

spaces for common areas and stores.

Option 1: Concrete Moment Frames

The concrete moment frame building will consist of reinforced concrete beams and columns

where lateral forces are resisted by the concrete moment frames that develop their stiffness

through stiff frame connections. The structure will be cast in-place since it requires the

beams and columns connections to be cast in one piece.

Advantages:

Slabs can be cast on site or transported by truck and placed by crane during

construction.


7

Disadvantages:

Greater size of columns and beams in order to resist bending moments;

Greater amounts of materials required, especially reinforcing steel;

Medium non-movable obstacles in the floor plan such as columns;

Higher density of columns since beam span cannot be long.

Option 2: Concrete Shear Wall Building

The concrete shear wall building will consist of walls of certain lengths that resist lateral

loads by shear resistance through their height. Columns will only be required for vertical

support of slabs and other beam components since the building is braced against lateral

load through the shear walls. The shear wall will be cast in-place and the columns and slabs

will be poured afterwards.

Advantages:

Lower density of columns since no moment beams are present;

Permits large open areas in the floor plan;

Opens the door to architectural creativity since the outside walls are not frames.

Disadvantages:

Large non-movable walls in the floor plan that can block sunlight and limits line of

sight.

Option 3: Concrete Frame with Infill Masonry Shear Walls

The concrete frames building with infill masonry shear walls will be made of reinforced

concrete frames, with beams and columns resembling those of the moment frames but with

smaller dimensions, that will include shear walls made out of masonry. These shear walls

will be erected at key places to stiffen the building against lateral loads in the same way a

concrete shear wall would, but the masonry shear wall will be built between frame

elements.

Advantages:

Smaller size of columns and beams since bending moments are lower;

Smaller amounts of materials required, especially reinforcing steel.


8

Disadvantages:

The masonry shear walls will have to be erected before too many floors are built

above to avoid damage in the event of an earthquake during construction, since the

frames will not have enough moment resistance to resist lateral loads;

Large non-movable walls in the floor plan that can block sunlight and limits line of

sight.

2.3 – INDOOR GARDEN DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Indoor gardens are becoming a trend in universities. They have been shown to increase

positive attitude, as well as relieve stress in students, therefore will be incorporated in the

University Centre design. Below are the two design alternatives for an indoor garden that

will be evaluated.

Option 1: Living Wall

The living wall is a new technology becoming a trend in Canadian universities. It consists of

living plants in a vertical arrangement affixed to a wall which encapsulates the soil and

water thus creates a beautiful mural. Many styles are provided by NedLaw Living Walls, and

are at the client’s disposal.

Advantages

Aesthetically pleasing;

Cleanses the air;

Acts as a humidifier;

Helps regulate building temperature.

Disadvantages

Consumes large amounts of water;

Emits greenhouse gases;

Needs sufficient amount of sunlight or artificial lighting.

Option 2: ZFarming

“ZFarming”, also known as Zero-Acreage Farming, is a relatively new method used to

produce agriculture in dense urban areas. This type of farming is done outside of buildings,

such as on a green rooftop or inside rooftop greenhouses, or indoors, such as indoor

gardens. The main goal of this process is to have sustainable food production, educational

and social commitment, as well as to improve urban qualities. Considering project

limitations and the diversity of the Canadian climate, an indoor garden or rooftop

greenhouse are the two possible options.


9

Advantages

No location-specific requirements;

Creates fresh and local products, eliminates food transportation fees, and food does

not perish as fast;

Gardens fed by rain water and compost.

Disadvantages

Restricted to growing leafy foods, therefore the University Food Services cannot rely

fully on this method;

Higher initial investment.


10

3 – LOW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND HIGH EFFICIENCY ALTERNATIVES

Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is an internationally recognized

designation which is granted to buildings that meet acceptable levels of green, sustainable,

and efficient design. It “covers such areas as water and energy efficiency, using recycled and

salvaged building materials, durability, and improving the indoor environment for

employees.”1 It is not the only such designation, but it is the most widely used in North

America.

The LEED designation is a point-based system in which points are awarded for meeting

specific sustainable criteria. The number of points acquired by a project determines if the

project will achieve LEED designation, and what level of designation it will be awarded. The

maximum number of base points available is 100. The rating system employed for this

project also has 10 additional points available - for Regional Priority initiatives, and

Innovation in Design.

There are four levels of certification which may be achieved in LEED: certified (40-49

points), silver (50-59 points), gold (60-79 points), and platinum (80+ points). Since 2005,

the federal government of Canada has insisted that all new federal buildings achieve a gold

LEED designation. The City of Ottawa requires all new buildings with a gross floor area

greater than 500 m2 to achieve at least a silver LEED rating. Among recent buildings on

campus, the Faculty of Social Sciences building achieved a gold LEED designation, and the

Research Centre achieved a silver LEED designation. Due to the prominence and symbolic

significance of the University Centre, a platinum designation will be achieved.

Many different projects, and even people, can seek LEED designation, and to accommodate

the variety of factors that need to be addressed, LEED is broken down into five rating

systems: Building Design and Construction, Interior Design and Construction, Building

Operations and Maintenance, Neighbourhood Development, and Homes. The Building

Design and Construction designation is appropriate for this project, and can be further

specified into the LEED Canada New Construction and Major Renovation 2009 category.

LEED has been refined over the years with updated versions of the designation. LEED v4 is

the most recent and stringent edition, however, registration to have a LEED project

designated using LEED v2009 has been extended until October 31, 2016. For this reason,

LEED v2009 has been used for this project.

It is not appropriate to firmly state which points will be attempted at this time due to the

iterative nature of the design process. Rather the points can loosely be divided into

Achieved (through site selection), Achievable, and Unachievable; some points are achievable

but beyond the scope of the building design.

1 David, R. (2015)


11

TABLE 1 - POINT DIVISION

Achieved Achievable Unachievable Beyond Scope

12 Points 77 Points 11 Points 10 Points

Out of 110 Points - 80 for Platinum

The location is well-suited to score well in the location and transportation category since

the site is located in a dense urban area and very close to convenient transit options. It will

also achieve a point for the sensitive land category, since the land has been previously

developed. Similarly, it will score well in the surrounding density and diverse uses category,

and the access to quality transit category.

Bicycle storage will be included in order to achieve the bicycle facilities point. This will also

necessitate a bicycle access route to nearby Laurier Street, which has bicycle lanes.

The underground parking included in the building will be enough to achieve the reduced

parking footprint point. Designating 5% of parking spaces for green vehicles in the parking

lot and installing charging stations in 2% of parking spaces will allow the building to

achieve a point in the green vehicles category. Limiting the parking capacity to the

minimum required by City of Ottawa bylaws will achieve another point.

Water meters and energy meters will be installed to monitor their respective use. In this

manner, potential leaks can be identified and fixed, and reduction of utility use can be

monitored and rewarded.

Designing a useable green roof with native vegetation will be a prominent building feature

and contribute to the achievement of several LEED points in water efficiency, heat island

effect, and stormwater design.

The use of on-site renewable energy and an indoor garden will also be prominent building

features contributing to the achievement of several LEED points.

There are many other opportunities for sustainable design which will be examined and

considered throughout the design process, keeping in mind the overall goal of achieving 80+

points for the platinum LEED designation. Please see Appendix 5 for the details of each

point as it pertains to this project. The "LEED Canada For New Construction and Major

Renovations 2009" rating system was consulted for each item, and additional references are

as noted.


12

4 – COMPARISON OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

4.1 - SELECTION CRITERIA

Preliminary research exploring a simplified cost estimate for the project alternatives and

structural considerations for the new University have been done. This information is used in

determining which alternative is the best.

The preferred alternative will be chosen based on the list of criteria. These decision

components are broken down into two sections: required criteria and weighted criteria. The

required criteria must be achieved while the scores for the weighted criteria can be found in

the list below.

The required criteria are:

LEED designation

Client requests

Capacity

The weighted criteria are:

Cost

Functionality

Durability

Disturbance

Ease of Construction

Aesthetics

Accessibility based on location

Construction Time

Certainty

Table 2 - performance rating

Performance

Perfect 10

Excellent 9

Very Good 8

Good 7

Satisfactory 6

Adequate 5

Tolerable 4

Poor 3

Very Poor 2

Inadequate 1

Non-Existent 0


2

Please note that for the following sections, each alternative has been abbreviated:

TABLE 3 - ALTERNATIVES ABBREVIATIONS

Location Alternation Abbreviation

New building on Current University Centre Location L1

Expansion of Existing University Centre L2

New Building Using Parking Lot Location L3

Concrete Moment Frames C1

Concrete Shear Wall Building C2

Concrete Frame with Infill Masonry Shear Walls C3

Living Wall G1

ZFarming G2

4.1.1 - COST

Cost was given a weighted criterion of 1 out of 5. As requested by the client, the emphasis of

this project is not on cost but instead aesthetics and functionality. This building will be a

landmark building for the university, regardless of cost.

Location Alternatives:

L1 - 8/10

L2 - 6/10

L3 - 10/10

As part of the cost estimate research, M. Brad Banks, Project Superintendent for PCL

Constructors Canada Inc, as well as M. Danny Vaughan, from Novatech Engineering were

consulted.

In term of cost, alternative L2 is estimated be the most expensive option. As Mr. Banks

stated, the only reason a client would consider refurbishing an existing structure is if this

structure is a heritage building. For the current UCU center, he also predicted that the cost

of renovating an existing structure is 1.5 time more expensive than the actual cost of

building a new structure. He also pointed out that since this structure was built in the 1970,

a seismic reinforcement upgrade will be needed since there has been amendments in the


3

NBCC in regard to seismic activity. Since the UCU is not a heritage building and the cost

associated to incorporating an indoor parking area in an existing building will be too high,

conclusions are made that this option is not a viable solution.

As for alternative L1, Mr. Banks has predicted that a budget of 2.5 M should be provided for

asbestos removal since older buildings are subject to asbestos contamination. If

contaminates are found, there will also be a cost associated to producing a designated

substance report which cost around 100 000$. He also mentioned that, considering the size

of the UCU building, there should be a 2.5 M demolition cost in regards to removing the

existing concrete structure.

Incorporating all these considerations, it has been determined that L3 is the best option

because the construction of a new University Centre on L3 will not incur the extra costs that

alternatives L1 and L2 will.

Structural Alternative:

C1 – 0/10

C2 – 0/10

C3 – 0/10

These alternatives do not have any noticeable differences that will impact the cost of the

project since they require approximately the same amount of material and labour; therefore

all alternatives obtain a score of 0.

Indoor Garden:

G1 – 0/10

G2 – 0/10

The cost is extremely variable for these projects, there is no set price. The prices are

addressed case by case. Furthermore, it is assumed that the cost for both options will come

down to being similar prices.

4.1.2 - FUNCTIONALITY

Functionality is defined as the quality of having practical use. Each alternative will be

evaluated on this basis. This weighted criterion was given a weight of 2 out of 5 because

even though functionality is very important for a university building, the client requests an

aesthetically marvellous landmark building.


4


L1 – 10/10

L2 – 7/10

L3 – 10/10

In this section, alternatives L1 and L3 are given the highest score since functional design can

be directly incorporated into a newly built structure. Both locations offer the option of

building an interior underground parking area, as requested by the client. This option will

allow more on-campus indoor parking spaces available for the rising population of students,

professors and employees attending the University of Ottawa. Alternative L2 is given the

lowest score considering that functionality needs to be re-designed and integrated into an

existing building. Furthermore, the possibility of incorporating an interior underground

parking area under an existing building might not be the best feasible option.


C1 – 6/10

C2 – 9/10

C3 – 9/10

The functionality of these structural alternatives is based on the interference created in

gathering areas of the building and the negative effect of blocking sunlight. Both C2 and C3

alternatives have shear wall components that block sunlight. However, these walls can be

placed near the center of the building, minimising the impact of this disturbance. C1

requires deeper beams and thicker columns; therefore this alternative will gradually block

sunlight, making it comparable to the other two alternatives. In terms of interference, the

span between columns is more restricted with the C1 option compared to C2 and C3 since

these two alternatives do not require large beams between the columns. To conclude, C2

and C3 both obtain a score of 9, while C1 obtains a score of 6 due to its limited spans that

will impact gathering areas.

Indoor Garden:

G1 – 8/10

G2 – 6/10

These values were given for G1 and G2, because both of these alternatives provide

functionality to the building, but one a little more than the other. G2, the ZFarming,

demonstrates productivity by creating food for the facility to sale and/or make meals.

Unfortunately it is only limited to leafy foods, therefore will not be able to sustain for the

entire productivity, and outside resources will be necessary. The G1, Living Wall, is


5

functional by cleansing the air of the building, reducing the amount of energy consumed. It

also acts as a natural humidifier.

4.1.3 - DURABILITY

The new University Centre must be able to withstand the harsh Ottawa conditions as well as

the constant and aggressive use by the University students and facility. In this regard, each

alternative will be evaluated.


L1 – 0/10

L2 – 0/10

L3 – 0/10

The impact of durability has no direct effect on the location alternatives. Therefore, these

options will receive no score.


C1 – 0/10

C2 – 0/10

C3 – 0/10

These alternatives do not have any noticeable differences that will impact durability;

therefore all alternatives obtain a score of 0.

Indoor Garden:

G1 – 7/10

G2 – 6/10

For durability of the plants, Ottawa winters are a concern. For ZFarming, the roof garden is

out of the question unless a greenhouse is built. With a greenhouse the temperature will

need be controlled all year long. The living wall will be inside therefore not affected by the

exterior climate. The challenge will be to give it the perfect amount of artificial sunlight,

combined with enough water. Some issues have been found, but quickly fixed as the

technology advances.

4.1.4 - DISTURBANCE

The construction of the project and the activity surrounding it will affect the quality of the

student’s university experience. This disturbance should be minimized in order to maintain


6

the quality of education currently set by the university. This weighted criterion is of high

importance and thus was given a weight of 4 out of 5.

The score for each alternative is seen below:


L1 – 6/10

L2 – 7/10

L3 – 5/10

The construction process of alternative L1 will entail demolition of the existing university

center as well the erection a new infrastructure. These processes will undoubtedly prolong

the on-campus construction activity, therefore having a direct impact on by the students

attending this university. As for option L2, remodelling the existing structure as well as

adding two extra floors will render this building useable for parts of the construction phase.

Finally, option L3 will have disturbance issues considering its proximity of the neighbouring

residential complex. The students living in the complex will be subjected to a continuous

activity during the construction phase.


C1 – 0/10

C2 – 0/10

C3 – 0/10

These alternatives do not have any noticeable differences that will impact the amount of

disturbance since they will generate approximately the same amount of disturbance;

therefore all alternatives obtain a score of 0.

Indoor Garden:

G1 – 0/10

G2 – 0/10

The indoor garden alternatives have no effect on the disturbance.

4.1.5 - EASE OF CONSTRUCTION

An important factor for this project, the selected alternative will be chosen based on how

easy it is to construct the buildings. One of the main considerations for this weighted

criterion is if demolition, in whole or part, is required or not.


7


L1 – 6/10

L2 – 7/10

L3 – 9/10

Alternative L3 is most favourable in regards to ease of construction since the only

demolition required is the removal of the existing asphalt parking lot. In addition,

construction scheduling will need to be coordinated with the current LRT development

project. Option L1 must consider the demolition of the existing building as well the

construction of a new superstructure. As for option L2, this entails a total remodel of the

existing structure. For this alternative, construction scheduling needs to be flexible in the

event of unforeseeable renovation complications.


C1 – 6/10

C2 – 10/10

C3 – 10/10

Ease of construction for structural alternatives can be determined by comparing the

erection methods required to cast these alternatives. The C1 alternative requires overhead

beams to be cast between columns, adding a challenge for the support of the forms, as well

as requiring additional time for curing before the slabs are positioned or poured. The C2

and C3 alternatives can easily be constructed since slabs can be positioned or poured as

soon as the column forms are stripped, and only requires conventional formwork than is

positioned between floors. Shear walls are also easy to erect since they can be poured along

the columns for the C2 alternative, or assembled while the floors above are poured for the

C3 alternative since they are masonry infill. These considerations allow a score of 10 for

both the C2 and C3 options, but a 6 for the C1 option.

Indoor Garden:

G1 – 6/10

G2 – 8/10

The G2 option can be constructed almost anywhere, making the planning phase very easy. It

can be added into a new or existing building. To insert the G1 option into an existing

building would prove to be more challenging. The wall would have to be smaller or

intensive rebuilding of exiting walls would be required. The living wall will need a more

complex design.


8

4.1.6 - AESTHETICS

As requested by the client, this new University Centre will be a landmark for the University.

Each alternative will not only be evaluated on the potential aesthetics but potential

exposure to the University community and city community. Since this particular criterion is

the ultimate goal of the client, an aesthetics weight of 5 out of 5 was given.


L1 – 9/10

L2 – 8/10

L3 – 10/10

Freedom in design creativity is best utilized by L1 and L3 since both these options will

require constructing a newly designed structure. In addition, alternative L3 offers an

optimal location for public exposure. As for alternative L2, the existing structural skeletal

system will certainly restrict some aspect of the architect’s design creativity.


C1 – 7/10

C2 – 10/10

C3 – 4/10

Aesthetics of these structural alternatives can be based on their visual impact. The C3

alternative has slender columns, but has infill masonry shear walls, which greatly impacts

the potential modern look of the building, and have to be painted. The C2 alternative also

has slender columns, but concrete has a modern look and does not have to be painted. The

C1 alternative has beams and voluminous columns, which greatly impacts the visual aspect.

Therefore, the C1 alternative obtains a score of 7 due to its bulky columns and beams, the

C2 alternatives obtains a score of 10 since it meets expectations, and the C3 alternative

obtains a score of 4 due to the masonry components that do not look modern.

Indoor Garden:

G1 – 10/10

G2 – 6/10

The living wall is without a doubt a beautiful masterpiece. It gives a modern style, as well as

a little piece of nature in an urban location. The ZFarming is more of an agricultural aspect,

then aesthetic. It is less attractive to look at then a majestic garden.


9

4.1.7 - ACCESSIBILITY BASED ON LOCATION

The new University Centre will be the heart of the University of Ottawa. For this reason,

each alternative will be scored on its accessibility by the university students and faculty, as

well as its visual accessibility by the community.


L1 – 10/10

L2 – 8/10

L3 – 10/10

Since options L1 and L3 will be fitted with a newly designed structure, these alternatives

will offer more design flexibility in term of accessibility. The possibility of completely

incorporating the New Accessibility Amendments to Ontario’s Building Code within these

two locations will be evaluated. As for option L2, this option offers limits in terms of

refurbishing the existing building to provide a higher standard of accessibility to the

university students and faculty.


C1 – 0/10

C2 – 0/10

C3 – 0/10

These alternatives benefits do not change with location; therefore all alternatives obtain a

score of 0.

Indoor Garden:

G1 – 10/10

G2 – 6/10

Option G1 will be a centerpiece viewed by all who access the building. It won’t be hidden,

and be accessible by all. Option G2 will most likely be located in a greenhouse, or in a

designated room, not as accessible to public as option G1 would be.

4.1.8 - CONSTRUCTION TIME

The time it takes to complete the construction of the new University Centre is important

and ties into the disturbance criteria seen previously. Each alternative score will take into

consideration the length of time each alternative will take to construct. This weighted

criterion was given an overall weight of 3 out of 5. Even though it is important to complete


10

the construction as quickly as possible so to minimize the disturbance to the university

campus, this goal of this project is to construction the new University landmark and this will

take time.


L1 – 7/10

L2 – 8/10

L3 – 9/10

Initial estimates foresee that option L1 will have longer construction period since this

alternative will require additional time for demolition of the existing university center as

well as the time to erect a new landmark for the university. Alternative L2 must have a more

flexible construction time since this would be dependent on the current structural integrity

of the building. Option L3 would require the least construction time since this location

considers a minimal allocated demolition time of the existing parking area as well as the

erection time of a newly build superstructure.


C1 – 6/10

C2 – 10/10

C3 – 10/10

Construction time is greatly influenced by the amount of consecutive components that have

to be formed on each floor. The C1 option requires columns, beams, and slabs for a total of 3

components that cannot be built simultaneously. The C2 option requires columns and slabs

for a total of 2 components, since the shear wall can be built independently and will not

require additional time. The C3 option requires columns and slabs for a total of 2

components, since the masonry shear walls can also be erected independently and does not

require additional time. Therefore, the C2 and C3 alternatives both obtain a score of 10, but

the C1 option obtains a score of 6.

Indoor Garden:

G1 – 0/10

G2 – 0/10

It cannot be proven that one option will take longer than the other since both options are

specifically designed for the type and size of the project.


11

4.1.9 - CERTAINTY

Certainty is an important factor to be considered for each alternative. It is necessary to

evaluate the risk involved in the construction of each alternative. Risk could surround the

existing conditions of a site, structural integrity of a construction method or lifetime of an

indoor centerpiece.


L1 – 10/10

L2 – 9/10

L3 – 8/10

In terms of risk assessment, alternative L1 poses the least uncertainty since this location

already houses an existing structure. Option L2 will need to consider the current structural

integrity of the existing building. Due to the age of the building, there is great uncertainty in

its condition. In addition, in any old building, asbestos contamination will most likely be

encountered during the refurbishment phase. As for alternative L3, a geotechnical

investigation might reveal that the soil is contaminated and remediation the existing soil

will be required.


C1 – 10/10

C2 – 10/10

C3 – 9/10

Structural integrity of option C1 and C2 do not differ, but the C3 alternative may pose a

certain risk since the masonry shear walls can show cracks under tension, and show

reduced capacity if these tension cracks occur. Therefore both C1 and C2 obtain a score of

10, and C3 obtains a score of 9 since the tension crack risk can be minimised with regular

inspection.

Indoor Garden:

G1 – 7/10

G2 – 6/10

Both options come with the uncertainty that the plants will not survive. The ZFarming is a

newer technology, still undergoing modifications, while the living wall has been tested and

updated throughout the years, making it more reliable.


12

4.2 - DECISION MATRIX

As seen in the table below, a weight has been assigned for each criterion as discussed is the

above section, “Selection Criterion”.

TABLE 4 - WEIGHTED CRITERIA

Weighted Criteria (1 out of 5)

Cost 1

Functionality 3

Durability 2

Disturbance 4

Ease of Construction 2

Aesthetics 5

Accessibility based on location 3

Construction Time 3

Certainty 4

Using these weighted values, a decision matrix was created to determine the best

alternatives. It was determined that the best alternatives are as follows:

L3: new building using the parking lot;

C2: concrete shear wall building;

G1: living wall.

This decision matrix can be seen in Appendix – 1.


13

5 – SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

5.1 – PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT

The new University Centre building will consist of five floors. The main floor will be an open

and continuously flowing space with 20 foot ceiling allowing for the inclusion of the

enlarged main food court, living wall, presentation stage and theatre, and the University of

Ottawa bookstore. Adequate space will be allotted to student study and mingling space.

The basement level will allow access to the underground parking and space for building

operations centres and maintenance rooms.

The floors above the main floor will consist of a combination of offices for SFUO services

and university operations offices. Several large classrooms will also be included on these

levels.

Covered inter-building connection will be established to surrounding buildings.

5.2 – BUILDING MATERIAL

In order to achieve an open and continuously flowing space on the main floor, concrete

shear walls will be employed. In addition to providing large, open spaces, large amounts of

sunlight will need to allowed entrance into the core of the building to sustain the living wall.

Thus large portions of the exterior of the building will consist of a glass façade, supported

by a steel frame, reaching the top of the building.

5.3 – SPECIALIZED BUILDING MATERIAL

LEED suggests several specialized materials for use in a LEED certified building. For the

construction of the new University the following LEED suggestions will be met:

Green roof (native vegetation)

Solar panels

salvaged, refurbished, or reused materials for a total of 10% of the cost of materials

1/2 pre-consumer recycled content + all post-consumer recycled content = 20%

material by cost

30% local materials: manufacturing site is within 800 km of site. Raw materials are

within 800 km of manufacturing site.

2.5% rapidly renewable materials by cost. Such as: bamboo, wool, cotton insulation,

agrifibre, linoleum, wheatboard, strawboard, and cork.

50% of all wood will be Forest Stewardship Council Certified wood

Adhesives, sealants, and paints on the interior of the building will comply with LEED

requirements for volatile organic compounds.


14

Carpet and carpet cushion will meet the requirements of the Carpet and Rug

Institute Green Label program2.

5.4 – PREDICTED PROJECT COST

Four methods are available to predict the project cost. The first method is to use RSMeans

square foot cost data with the original UCU areas (the RSMeans data is presented in

Appendix 7). The next two involve comparing to the cost of similar buildings, which are the

current UCU cost and FSS building cost. The third involves a general estimate figure

suggested by a contractor.

Cost estimate 1: Using RSMeans

Based on the current UCU’s dimensions and RSMeans, the cost estimate is calculated below.

TABLE 5 - CURRENT UNIVERSITY CENTRE DIMENSIONS

Current UCU dimension (GMS: Gross meter square)

Level 0 5088.37

Level 00 3684.51

Level 1 2988.81

Level 2 2282.83

Level 3 1687.56

Total 15732.08

*From Provided Plans “UCU Bldg008 SpaceReportbyFloor Oct2014

2 Canadian Green Building Council (2010)


15

The main space use was then divided into sections.

TABLE 6 - UNIVERSITY CENTRE DIVISION

Level Usage % of total use Area Rs Means comparable Explanation

Level 0 Bookstore 40 2035.348 Library

Closest to

support books

Bento Sushi 10 508.837 Fast food Similar usage

Corner store 10 508.837 Convenience store Similar usage

Photo store 10 508.837 Retail Similar usage

Auditorium 20 1017.674 Auditorium Similar usage

Club space 10 508.837 Club social Similar usage

Level 00 Print center 25 921.1275 Post office

Closest to

paper work

Storage 50 1842.255 Warehouse self storage Similar usage

Office 25 921.1275 Office 1 floor Similar usage

Level 1 Cafeteria 50 1494.405 Fast food Similar usage

Restaurant 40 1195.524 Restaurant Similar usage

Service center 10 298.881 Post office

Closest to

paper work

Level 2 Tim Horton’s 10 228.283 Fast food Similar usage

Bar 30 684.849 Restaurant Similar usage

Club space 60 1369.698 Club, social Similar usage

Level 3 Office space 100 1687.56 Office 1 floor Similar usage

To consider student growth impact, the eating area is given a 25% expansion, as well as

classroom area dedication is increased. This gave totals shown below:

TABLE 7 - TOTAL AREA WITH 25% EXPANSION

RS Means definition Total area in m2 Total area in ft2

Library (green) 2035.348 21908.28

Store, convenience 508.837 5477.071

Store, retail 508.837 5477.071

Auditorium 1017.674 10954.14

Warehouse (green) 1842.255 19829.85

Post office 1220.0085 13132.05

Restaurant, fast food 2789.406 30024.89

Restaurant (green) 1880.373 20240.15

Club, social 1878.535 20220.36

Office, 1 storey (green) 2608.6875 28079.65

College, Classroom 2-3 stories (green) 1687.56 18164.73

Garage, underground parking 3500 37,673.65


16

To compensate for the green building, all items that are not “green” will be added a 15%

cost increase. This gives costs of:

TABLE 8 - UNIVERSITY CENTRE COST BY AREA

RS Means definition Total area in m2 Total area in ft2 Cost

Library (green) 2035.348 21908.28 $ 4,255,000.00

Store, convenience 508.837 5477.071 $ 827,425.00

Store, retail 508.837 5477.071 $ 1,010,850.00

Auditorium 1017.674 10954.14 $ 2,416,725.00

Warehouse (green) 1842.255 19829.85 $ 2,752,000.00

Post office 1220.0085 13132.05 $ 2,171,775.00

Restaurant, fast food 2789.406 30024.89 $ 7,641,750.00

Restaurant (green) 1880.373 20240.15 $ 4,978,000.00

Club, social 1878.535 20220.36 $ 3,755,900.00

Office, 1 storey (green) 2608.6875 28079.65 $ 4,970,500.00

College, Classroom 2-3

stories (green) 1687.56 18164.73 $ 4,387,500.00

Garage, underground

parking 3500 37,673.65 $ 4,244,650.00

Total 21477.52 231181.90 $ 43,412,075.00

This method of estimation is fairly inaccurate since it incorporates square foot cost

estimations of many 1 to 2 story buildings. Some assumed values were also chosen when no

cost data was available for the desired structural system.

Cost estimate 2: From existing University Centre cost.

The existing UCU cost 6 million dollars in 1973. Using a size factor and a time index, the cost

of the new University Centre can be related to the cost of the existing one.

The cost in 1973 for the UCU was $6M for a building of 15,732.08 m². The new building will

have a gross area of approximately 21,477.52 m². This relates to 17,977.52 m² of floor area

and 3,500 m² of underground parking space.

Therefore, the cost of a 21,447.52 m² building in 1973 is estimated using the ratio of the

two areas, which is 1.36, and by multiplying by the total cost of the building for a total of

$8.20 M.

The historical cost index for 1973 is 18.6 and the index for 2014 is 100, therefore, the

building will cost 5.38 times more in 2014 than in 1973. The $8.20 M building in 1973 will

now cost $44.08 M.


17

By adding 15% to the cost to account for expenses related to achieving LEED designation,

the new University Centre is estimated to cost $50.70 M.

However, this method of estimation has major sources of error. The current University

Centre building does not have the same type of structure and the difference in materials

may affect the estimate.

Cost estimate 3: From Faculty of Social Sciences building.

The existing FSS building cost $112.5 M in 2012 and has a gross area of 25,499 m². The

estimate of the new University Centre can be calculated in the same manner than the

previous estimate.

The ratio of the areas is 0.84, and the estimated cost for the new University Centre in 2012

is $94.76 M. The cost index for 2012 is 96.0, therefore this building would cost $98.71 M in

2014. There is no need of adding 15% to account for LEED related upgrades since the FSS

building is LEED gold certified and the estimate is based on this basis.

This method of estimation is fairly accurate since the new University Centre has similar

features than the FSS building that is being compared. Both buildings use a shear wall and

columns design and will have glass curtains. They both incorporate gathering areas, stores,

and classrooms, therefore they are really similar in nature.

Cost estimate 4: From contractor estimate.

A general figure provided by a PCL contractor states that a 500,000 ft² new building of this

type of function costs $160 M on average in 2014. This relates to an area of 46,468 m²

The ratio of the area of the new University Centre to this figure is 0.46, which leads to an

estimated cost of $73.85 M. With consideration for LEED related improvements, the

building will cost an estimated $84.93 M.

This method of estimation is fairly accurate since the initial figure provided relates

specifically to buildings of this type of structural systems, and is not corrected for time,

which reduces the possibility of error.

Comparison

The four cost estimates are condensed below.

TABLE 9 - COST ESTIMATE COMPARISON

Type Cost estimate ($M)

RSMeans square foot cost data 43.41

Similar building comparison (UCU) 50.70

Similar building comparison (FSS) 98.71

Contractor estimate comparison 84.93


18

Since the type of design of the building differs from RSMeans estimate and the current

University Centre, the first two cost estimates are considered optimistic. Using the two most

precise estimates, the proposed building is estimated to cost $91.82 M which is the average

of the two.


19

6 – PROJECT PLAN

6.1 – PROJECT BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

The project breakdown structure is based on a two-level model which is composed of 7

sections in the first level. The desired level of detail is considered to be the most detailed

level that includes tasks that have durations of at least 1 hour; otherwise the tasks will have

shorter durations than the base units of the schedule. Since this is a design project, the

sections are chosen based on main requirements and steps of the project. Below are the

sections of the first level of detail with the description of their tasks and objectives.

TABLE 10 - PROJECT BREAKDOWN

Section Description

Initial Meetings Meetings required to start the project

Feasibility Tasks required to complete the feasibility report and

present it to the client

Architectural Design Tasks required to design the architectural aspect of the

building

Structural Design Tasks required to design the structural aspect of the

building

Geotechnical Design Tasks required to design the geotechnical aspect of the

building

Technical Drawings Tasks required to complete technical drawings and

specifications

Final Design Tasks required to revise, implement changes, approve, and

deliver the project to the client

Within each section, many tasks are required to complete the goal of the section. These

tasks are defined as the second level of detail. Other levels of detail are not required since all

tasks of the second level of detail have durations that fit the desired level, and an additional

level of detail will have tasks of a shorter duration than 1 hour.

All tasks are summarized in the table below, with their respective sections.


20

TABLE 11 - PROJECT BREAKDOWN TASKS

First level of detail Second level of detail

Initial Meetings Preliminary Meeting With Client

Internal Meeting

Feasibility

Site Investigations

Analyse Site Investigations

Analyse Location Alternatives

Selection of Location Alternatives

Analyse Structural Alternatives

Structural Systems Selection

Analyse Green and Sustainable Alternatives

Green and Sustainable Alternatives Selection

Preparation of Decision Matrix

Selection of Design Alternatives

Preparation of Feasibility Report

Presentation of Feasibility Report

Architectural Design

Preliminary Sketches

Floor Plan Design

Building Facade and Exterior Design

Landscape Design

Final Design

Structural Design

Load Analysis

Preliminary Design

Optimisation of Design

Geotechnical Design Preliminary Design

Optimisation of Design

Technical Drawings

Architectural Drawings

Structural Drawings

Foundation Drawings

Landscape Drawings

Final Design

Revision of Drawings

Client Meeting and Presentation of Plans

Implementation of Design Changes

Second Revision of Drawings

Approval of Final Drawings

Deliverance of Final Drawings

The complete list of tasks, including their schedule and network, are presented in Appendix

X, Y, and Z respectively. These are based on the tasks and PERT analysis presented in the

Project Proposal published in November 2014.


21

6.2 – PROJECT SCHEDULE: PERT ANALYSIS

The design timeline of the intended project can be found in Appendix 2. This timeline is

constructed using PERT analysis results. Careful considerations will be made to respect

these intended timelines.

The critical path is the list of the tasks that will affect the project’s duration if their

respective duration is not followed. The critical path is as follows:

TABLE 12: CRITICAL TASKS

Task Name

Site Investigations

Analyse Site Investigations

Selection of Location Alternatives

Preparation of Decision Matrix

Selection of Design Alternatives

Preparation of Feasibility Report

Presentation of Feasibility Report

Preliminary Sketches

Floor Plan Design

Final Design

Load Analysis

Preliminary Design

Architectural Drawings

Revision of Drawings

Client Meeting and Presentation of Plans

Implementation of Design Changes

Second Revision of Drawings

Approval of Final Drawings

Deliverance of Final Drawings

The project is estimated to be completed in 78 working days but will not exceed 92 working

days, based on a 95% confidence analysis. The network diagram can be found in Appendix

3.

The project has started November 10th 2014 and will be completed on or before June 5th

2015. However, the estimated completion date is April 3rd 2015. See Appendix 2 for the

complete schedule.

Up to date, the design is on schedule to deliver the feasibility report and presentation on

December 3rd, 2014.


22

7 – DESIGN COST ESTIMATES

APENN resources will be divided in 6 teams for the design of the proposed University

Centre. Their characteristics are presented below.

TABLE 13: TEAM RESOURCES BREAKDOWN

Team Number of

members

Average billing rate

($/hr)

Total billing rate

($/hr)

Structural 6 130 780

Geotechnical 5 130 650

Architectural 4 100 400

Drafting 6 95 570

Field Technicians 4 95 380

Secretaries 3 45 135

Project Manager 1 230 230

The table in Appendix 4 presents the resources allocation and their respective cost

estimates for the different types of services during the design process. The total design cost

estimate is $719,733 for the proposed building.

8 – STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM

As requested by the client, SAP2000 will be employed for the structural design of the new

University Centre. SAP2000 is a powerful, user-friendly software that allows the user to

employ templates for simpler structural designs, such as the one for the new University

Centre. In addition to these advantages, SAP2000 also provides elaborate instruction on-

line to users.


23

9 – PRELIMINARY BUILDING ENVELOPE DESIGN

The building envelope was conceived with practical, environmental, and aesthetic considerations in mind. The top roof is crowned with a mechanical room covered on the south side with solar panels. The three lower roofs are accessible and showcase native vegetation, walking and seating areas. An awning covers the main entranceway and shelters bicycle storage from inclement weather. The building features glass facings, allowing natural light to filter to the occupants within.

FIGURE 2 - AERIAL VIEW #1

FIGURE 3 - AERIAL VIEW #2


24

FIGURE 4 - VIEW FROM LOWER ROOF

FIGURE 5 - FRONT VIEW


25

10 – REFERENCES

Adam, J., and Tremblay, A. (2014). "Reviving the living wall." University of Ottawa Gazette, .

American Society of Civil Engineers. (2000). "Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic

Rehabilitation of Buildings." Rep. No. FEMA-356, Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Canada Green Building Council (2010). “LEED Canada For New Construction and Major

Renovations 2009.”

Canada Green Building Council. (2013). “Regional Priority Credits: LEED Canada for New

Construction and Major Renovations (NS) 2009.”

City of Ottawa. (2008). "Zoning By-Law 2008-250 Consolidation." City of Ottawa, Ottawa,

Ontario.

City of Ottawa. (2014). "Intrepreting Zoning Information (Sec. 29-

46)." http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/laws-licenses-and-permits/laws/city-ottawa-zoning-

law/zoning-law-2008-250-consolidation--1 (October 26, 2014).

David, R. (2015). "Government of Canada Adopts New Environmental Standards For

Buildings." Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa.

Doxey, J. (2009). "The Impact of Interior Plants in University Classrooms on Student Course

Performance and on Student Perceptions of the Course and Instructor. " Hortscience,44(2),

384-391.

geoOttawa. (2014). "Zoning." http://maps.ottawa.ca/geoottawa/ (October 26, 2014).

Haselbach, L. (2008). Engineering Guide to LEED-New Construction - Sustainable

Construction for Engineers. New York McGraw-Hill, New York.

Mueller, T. (2014). "2013 LEED Canada Buildings in Review." SAB Magazine, .

Natarajan, M., Rahimi, M., Sen, S., Mackenzie, N., and Imanbayev, Y. (2014). "Living wall

systems: evaluating life-cycle energy, water and carbon impacts " Urban Ecosystems, .

Nedlaw Living Walls. (2014). http://www.nedlawlivingwalls.com/ (October 26, 2014).

RSMeans Online. (2014). "Square Foot Estimator."

http://rsmeansonline.com/SquareFootEstimate/Index/RefreshPage (November 26, 2014).

http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/laws-licenses-and-permits/laws/city-ottawa-zoning-law/zoning-law-2008-250-consolidation--1

http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/laws-licenses-and-permits/laws/city-ottawa-zoning-law/zoning-law-2008-250-consolidation--1

http://maps.ottawa.ca/geoottawa/

http://www.nedlawlivingwalls.com/


26

RS, M. C. "RSMeans green building cost data." RSMeans Green Building Cost Data.; RS Means

Green Building Cost Data, .

Thomaier, S., Specht, K., Henckel, D., Dierich, A., Siebert, R., Freisinger, U., and Sawicka, M.

(2014). "Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-

Acreage Farming (ZFarming) " Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 1-12.

U.S. Green Building Council. (2014). "LEED." http://www.usgbc.org/leed (11/05, 2014).

University of Ottawa. (2014). "SPACE INVENTORY by

BUILDING." http://www.facilities.uottawa.ca/en/facts (10/04, 2014).

http://www.usgbc.org/leed

http://www.facilities.uottawa.ca/en/facts


i

APPENDIX 1- DECISION MATRIX

TABLE 14 - DECISION MATRIX

Cost Funct. Durab. Disturb.

Ease of

Construction Aesthetics Access.

Construction

Time Certainty

w1

= 0.04

w2

= 0.11

w3

= 0.07

w4

= 0.15 w5= 0.07

w6

= 0.19

w7

= 0.11 w8= 0.11

w9

= 0.15 Σw = 1.0

Alternati

ve p1

w1p

1 p2

w2p

2 p3

w3p

3 p4

w4p

4 p5 w5p5 p6

w6p

6 p7

w7p

7 p8 w8p8 p9

w9p

9

WP =

Σwp

wp =

WP/ΣWP

L1 8 0.30 10 1.11 0 0.00 6 0.89 6 0.44 9 1.67 10 1.11 7 0.78 10 1.48 7.78 0.34

L2 6 0.22 7 0.78 0 0.00 7 1.04 7 0.52 8 1.48 8 0.89 8 0.89 9 1.33 7.15 0.31

L3 10 0.37 10 1.11 0 0.00 5 0.74 9 0.67 10 1.85 10 1.11 9 1.00 8 1.19 8.04 0.35

ΣWP

= 22.96

C1 0 0.00 6 0.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 0.44 7 1.30 0 0.00 6 0.67 10 1.48 4.56 0.29

C2 0 0.00 9 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 0.74 10 1.85 0 0.00 10 1.11 10 1.48 6.19 0.39

C3 0 0.00 9 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 0.74 4 0.74 0 0.00 10 1.11 9 1.33 4.93 0.31

ΣWP

= 15.67

G1 0 0.00 8 0.89 7 0.52 0 0.00 6 0.44 10 1.85 10 1.11 0 0.00 7 1.04 5.85 0.57

G2 0 0.00 6 0.67 6 0.44 0 0.00 8 0.59 6 1.11 6 0.67 0 0.00 6 0.89 4.37 0.43

ΣWP

= 10.22


ii

APPENDIX 2 – PERT ANALYSIS FOR DURATION ESTIMATE

To calculate the project duration and cost, the following table was created. This assumes 8

working hours per day, 5 working days per week, and design office closure after the

feasibility presentation until January 12, 2015.

TABLE 15: PERT ANALYSIS

Task

#

Des

crip

tio

n

Pre

ced

ence

Op

tim

isti

c, t

o (

hrs

)

Mo

de,

tm

(h

rs)

Pes

sim

isti

c, t

p (

hrs

)

Mea

n (

hrs

)

Var

ian

ce (

hrs

)

Earl

iest

Sta

rt (

Dat

e)

Late

st S

tart

(D

ate

Tota

l Sla

ck (

hrs

)

1 Project

2 Initial Meetings

3 Preliminary Meeting With

Client

2 2 3 2.2 0.03 10/11/14 24/11/14 84.01

4 Internal Meeting 3 3 5 6 4.8 0.25 10/11/14 24/11/14 84.01

5 Feasibility

6 Site Investigations 100 105 120 106.7 11.11 10/11/14 10/11/14 0

7 Analyse Site Investigations 4

6

2 2 3 2.2 0.03 27/11/14 27/11/14 0

8 Analyse Location

Alternatives

4 15 18 20 17.8 0.69 10/11/14 25/11/14 84.01

9 Selection of Location

Alternatives

8

7

2 2 3 2.2 0.03 27/11/14 27/11/14 0

10 Analyse Structural

Alternatives

4 13 15 16 14.8 0.25 10/11/14 25/11/14 87.18

11 Structural Systems

Selection

10 2 2 2 2.0 0.00 12/11/14 27/11/14 87.18

12 Analyse Green and

Sustainable Alternatives

4 7 8 8 7.8 0.03 10/11/14 26/11/14 95.01

13 Green and Sustainable

Alternatives Selection

12 1 1 2 1.2 0.03 11/11/14 27/11/14 95.01

14 Preparation of Decision

Matrix

9

11

13

6 8 12 8.3 1.00 27/11/14 27/11/14 0

15 Selection of Design

Alternatives

14 6 6 8 6.3 0.11 28/11/14 28/11/14 0

16 Preparation of Feasibility

Report

15 16 16 18 16.3 0.11 01/12/14 01/12/14 0

17 Presentation of Feasibility

Report

16 2 2 2 2.0 0.00 03/12/14 03/12/14 0

18 Architectural Design

19 Preliminary Sketches 15 45 48 58 49.2 4.69 12/01/15 12/01/15 0

20 Floor Plan Design 19 50 55 57 54.5 1.36 20/01/15 20/01/15 0


iii

Task

#

Des

crip

tio

n

Pre

ced

ence

Op

tim

isti

c, t

o (

hrs

)

Mo

de,

tm

(h

rs)

Pes

sim

isti

c, t

p (

hrs

)

Mea

n (

hrs

)

Var

ian

ce (

hrs

)

Earl

iest

Sta

rt (

Dat

e)

Late

st S

tart

(D

ate

Tota

l Sla

ck (

hrs

)

21 Building Facade and

Exterior Design

20 15 20 22 19.5 1.36 28/01/15 13/02/15 93.33

22 Landscape Design 21 10 12 15 12.2 0.69 02/02/15 25/02/15 136.99

23 Final Design 22

26

29

30 45 50 43.3 11.11 27/02/15 27/02/15 0

24 Structural Design

25 Load Analysis 20 102 110 135 112.8 30.25 28/01/15 28/01/15 0

26 Preliminary Design 21

25

50 55 65 55.8 6.25 18/02/15 18/02/15 0

27 Optimisation of Design 26 25 26 29 26.3 0.44 27/02/15 03/03/15 18.33

28 Geotechnical Design

29 Preliminary Design 20 60 64 70 64.3 2.78 28/01/15 17/02/15 104.33

30 Optimisation of Design 29

26

3 4 6 4.2 0.25 27/02/15 06/03/15 46.33

31 Technical Drawings

32 Architectural Drawings 23 18 19 20 19.0 0.11 06/03/15 06/03/15 0

33 Structural Drawings 27 15 18 19 17.7 0.44 04/03/15 06/03/15 18.33

34 Foundation Drawings 30 10 12 13 11.8 0.25 27/02/15 09/03/15 46.33

35 Landscape Drawings 22 2 3 3 2.8 0.03 03/02/15 10/03/15 196.49

36 Final Design

37 Revision of Drawings 32

33

34

35

52 58 60 57.3 1.78 10/03/15 10/03/15 0

38 Client Meeting and

Presentation of Plans

37 10 12 13 11.8 0.25 19/03/15 19/03/15 0

39 Implementation of Design

Changes

38 42 45 48 45.0 1.00 23/03/15 23/03/15 0

40 Second Revision of

Drawings

39 20 22 25 22.2 0.69 31/03/15 31/03/15 0

41 Approval of Final Drawings 40 7 7 9 7.3 0.11 02/04/15 02/04/15 0

42 Deliverance of Final

Drawings

41 2 2 3 2.2 0.03 03/04/15 03/04/15 0


iv

Using the Beta distribution, the expected (mean) duration time of each task is calculated

using the following equation,

𝑡𝑒 =2𝑡𝑚 +

𝑡𝑜 + 𝑡𝑝

23

=𝑡0 + 4𝑡𝑚 + 𝑡𝑝

6

The expected (mean) duration for each task is used to identify the total slack time and the

critical path of the project.

Once the critical path is found, the variance for each critical point is found using the

equation,

𝜎2 = (𝑡𝑝 − 𝑡𝑜

6)

2

This value can then help determine the critical path standard deviation with the equation,

𝜎 = √∑ 𝜎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙2

Then using the standard variable table, a value can be found for 95% confidence,

𝑧 =𝑇 − 𝑇𝑒

𝜎

1.65 =𝑇 − 78

8.36839

𝑇 = 91.81 ≈ 92 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠


v

APPENDIX 3 – PROJECT TIMELINE

FIGURE 6: PROJECT TIMELINE


vi

APPENDIX 4 – NETWORK DIAGRAM

FIGURE 7: NETWORK DIAGRAM


vii

APPENDIX 5 – RESOURCES ALLOCATION AND COST

ESTIMATES

TABLE 16: RESOURCES ALLOCATION AND COST BREAKDOWN

Type of work

Engineering Plans Field

Tests Office

Stru

ctu

ral

Ge

ote

chn

ica

l

Arc

hit

ect

ura

l

Dra

ftin

g

Fie

ld

Tech

nic

ian

s

Secr

eta

rie

s

Pro

ject

Man

age

r

Description of task Mean

(hrs)

Total billing rate ($/hr)

780 650 400 570 380 135 230

Initial Meetings

Preliminary Meeting With Client 2.2 1690 1408 867 293 498

Internal Meeting 4.8 3770 3142 1933 653 1112

Feasibility

Site Investigations 106.7 40533

Analyse Site Investigations 2.2 1408 498

Analyse Location Alternatives 17.8 2408 4102

Selection of Location Alternatives 2.2 498

Analyse Structural Alternatives 14.8 11570 3412

Structural Systems Selection 2.0 1560 460

Analyse Green and Sustainable

Alternatives

7.8 1802

Green and Sustainable Alternatives

Selection

1.2 268

Preparation of Decision Matrix 8.3 1125 1917

Selection of Design Alternatives 6.3 855 1457

Preparation of Feasibility Report 16.3 2205

Presentation of Feasibility Report 2.0 1560 1300 800 270 460

Architectural Design

Preliminary Sketches 49.2 19667

Floor Plan Design 54.5 21800

Building Facade and Exterior Design 19.5 7800

Landscape Design 12.2 4867

Final Design 43.3 17333 9967

Structural Design

Load Analysis 112.8 88010

Preliminary Design 55.8 43550

Optimisation of Design 26.3 20540 6057

Geotechnical Design

Preliminary Design 64.3 41817


viii

Type of work

Engineering Plans Field

Tests Office

Stru

ctu

ral

Ge

ote

chn

ica

l

Arc

hit

ect

ura

l

Dra

ftin

g

Fie

ld

Tech

nic

ian

s

Secr

eta

rie

s

Pro

ject

Man

age

r

Description of task Mean

(hrs)

Total billing rate ($/hr)

780 650 400 570 380 135 230

Optimisation of Design 4.2 2708 958

Technical Drawings

Architectural Drawings 19.0 10830

Structural Drawings 17.7 10070

Foundation Drawings 11.8 6745

Landscape Drawings 2.8 1615

Final Design

Revision of Drawings 57.3 44720 37267 32680 13187

Client Meeting and Presentation of

Plans

11.8 9230 7692 2722

Implementation of Design Changes 45.0 35100 29250 18000 10350

Second Revision of Drawings 22.2 17290 14408 12635 5098

Approval of Final Drawings 7.3 5720 4767 2933 1687

Deliverance of Final Drawings 2.2 1690 1408 1235 498

Totals 286000 146575 96000 75810 40533 7808 67007


ix

APPENDIX 6 - LEED POINT DETAILS

The "LEED Canada For New Construction and Major Renovations 2009" rating system was consulted for each item, and additional references are as noted.

SUSTAINABLE SITES – 26 POSSIBLE POINTS

SSp1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required

This is a LEED prerequisite and has no associated extra costs since local codes usually cover

the requirements.

SSc1 Site Selection 1 Point

The selected site meets the requirements for this point with no extra costs.

SSc2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 3–5 Points

The selected site meets the requirements for all 5 points.

SSc3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 Point

The selected site is not a brownfield site, and therefore cannot achieve this point.

SSc4.1 Alternative Transportation – Public Transportation Access 3–6 Points

The selected site achieves all six points.

SSc4.2 Alternative Transportation – Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 Point

Provide secure and covered bicycle racks within 200 yards of a building entrance for 5% of

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) occupants and 5% of peak Transient Users.

Provide shower and changing facilities in the building for 0.5% of FTE occupants.

SSc4.3 Alt. Transportation – Low-Emitting & Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3 Points

Provide electric refuelling stations for 3% of the total vehicle parking capacity of the site.

SSc4.4 Alternative Transportation – Parking Capacity 2 Points

As per Ottawa bylaws, the minimum parking capacity for a Post-Secondary Educational

Institution is 0.75 per 100 m2 of gross floor area. In order to achieve these points, the

minimum must not be exceeded, and preferred parking must be provided for carpools or

vanpools for 5% of parking spaces3.

3 City of Ottawa (2008)


x

SSc5.1 Site Development – Protect or Restore Habitat 1 Point

Using native or adapted vegetation, restore the greater of: 50% of the site area excluding

the building footprint, or 20% of the total site area. The roof surface may be included in this

calculation.

SSc5.2 Site Development – Maximize Open Space 1 Point

25% of the site area must either be either vegetated or pedestrian-oriented hardscape.

SSc6.1 Stormwater Design: Quantity Control 1 Point

Implement a stormwater management plan that results in a 25% decrease in the rate and

volume of stormwater runoff from the 2-year 24-hour design storms.

Vegetated roofs, pervious paving, and reuse of stormwater for non-potable uses are

potential strategies to incorporate.

SSc6.2 Stormwater Design: Quality Control 1 Point

Collect and treat 90% of the annual rainfall such that 80% of total suspended solids are

removed.

SSc7.1 Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof 1 Point

This point can be achieved with a green roof and underground parking. Otherwise heat

island-friendly techniques must be used on 50% of the site hardscape.

SSc7.2 Heat Island Effect: Roof 1 Point

Use high Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) materials for at least 75% of the roof surface, or

install a vegetated roof for at least 50% of the roof surface. A weighted average of the two

conditions can also be applied.

SSc8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 Point

Provide occupant-sensing luminaires which last no more than 30 minutes between the

hours of 11 pm and 5 am.

Light exterior areas only as required for safety and comfort. Ensure that no more than 5%

of fixture light is emitted at an angle of 90 degrees of higher from nadir (straight down).

WATER EFFICIENCY – 10 POSSIBLE POINTS

Wep1 Water use reduction Required

Use low-flow fixtures to achieve a water use reduction of 20% below baseline levels. Install

a water meter for potable water.


xi

Wec1 Water efficient landscaping 2–4 Points

2 Points can be achieved by reducing the use of potable water for landscaping by 50%.

4 Points can be achieved by reducing the use of potable water for landscaping by 100%.

Possible sources of water are: captured rainwater, recycled greywater, recycled

wastewater, or non-potable water conveyed by a public agency.

Wec2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 Points

Reduce potable water use by 50% below baseline levels. This can be achieved through a

combination of low-flow fixtures, and using non-potable sources of water.

OR

Treat 50% of rainwater to tertiary levels on-site.

Wec3 Water Use Reduction 2–4 Points

Reduce water consumption below baseline levels – 2 points for a 30% reduction; 3 points

for a 35% reduction; 4 points for a 40% reduction.

ENERGY AND ATMOSPHERE – 35 POSSIBLE POINTS

EAp1 Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Required

Properly commission the building energy systems. This is achievable, but irrelevant to the

design.

EAp2 Minimum Energy Performance Required

Demonstrate a 23% cost improvement compared to a reference building performance

rating.

EAp3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required

No CFC-based refrigerants. This is legislated.

EAc1 Optimize Energy Performance 1–19 Points

Each point will be awarded for achieving a certain % cost improvement as compared to the

reference building performance, as follows:


xii

TABLE 17 - OPTIMIZE ENERGY PERFORMANCE POINT BREAKDOWN

Cost reduction Points

25% 1

27% 2

28% 3

30% 4

32% 5

33% 6

35% 7

37% 8

39% 9

40% 10

42% 11

44% 12

45% 13

47% 14

49% 15

50% 16

52% 17

54% 18

56% 19

EAc2 On-Site Renewable Energy 1–7 Points

Points are awarded for attaining a certain percentage of renewable energy in the building,

as follows:

TABLE 18 - ON-SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY POINT BREAKDOWN

% Renewable Energy Points

1% 1

3% 2

5% 3

7% 4

9% 5

11% 6

13% 7


xiii

EAc3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 Points

These points can be achieved through proper commissioning processes. This is achievable,

but irrelevant to the design.

EAc4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 Points

Install HVAC equipment such that Lifecycle Direct Global Warming Potential + (Lifecycle

Ozone Depletion Potential) x 105 <= 100

EAc5 Measurement and Verification 3 Points

Monitor the energy use for a period of 1 year, and present a plan for correction if the energy

goals are not achieved. This is achievable, but irrelevant to the design.

EAc6 Green Power 2 Points

Provide 35% of the building's electricity from renewable sources for at least 2 years, based

on consumption not cost.

MATERIALS AND RESOURCES – 14 POSSIBLE POINTS

MRp1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Required

Provide a dedicated area for the collection and storage of recycling materials.

MRc1.1 Building Reuse: Maintain Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 1–3 Points

These credits are unattainable, as there is no current building to reuse.

MRc1.2 Building Reuse: Maintain Interior Non-Structural Elements 1 Point

These credits are unattainable, as there is no current building to reuse.

MRc2 Construction Waste Management 1–2 Points

These points are achievable, but would be the construction manager's responsibility to

achieve.

MRc3 Materials Reuse 1–2 Points

Use 5% or 10% salvaged, refurbished, or reused materials by cost for 1 or 2 points,

respectively.

MRc4 Recycled Content 1–2 Points


xiv

Use materials that contain recycled content such that the sum of all post-consumer recycled

content and 1/2 the pre-consumer content constitutes 10% or 20% of the total value of the

materials in the project.

MRc5 Regional Materials 1–2 Points

Use regional materials for 20% or 30% of the building materials by weight for 1 or 2 points,

respectively.

The raw materials must be within 800 km of the manufacturing site, and the manufacturing

site must be within 800 km of the construction site to be considered regional materials.

MRc6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 Point

Use rapidly renewable materials for 2.5% of the value of building materials. Bamboo, wool,

cotton insulation, agrifibre, wheatboard, strawboard, and cork are all considered rapidly

renewable materials.

MRc7 Certified Wood 1 Point

50% of the wood (by cost) should be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY – 15 POSSIBLE POINTS

IEQp1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Required

Meet the ASHRAE standard for indoor air quality.

IEQp2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required

Prohibit smoking in and near the building. This is achievable, but irrelevant to the design.

IEQc1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 Point

Constantly monitor the ventilation and CO2 levels in the building using sensors.

IEQc2 Increased Ventilation 1 Point

Increase outdoor air ventilation rates by 30% above minimum.

IEQc3.1 Constr. Indoor Air Quality Mgmt. Plan: During Construction 1 Point

This point is achievable, but irrelevant to the design.

IEQc3.2 Constr. Indoor Air Quality Mgmt. Plan: Before Occupancy 1 Point

This point is achievable, but irrelevant to the design.

IEQc4.1 Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives and Sealants 1 Point


xv

Adhesives and sealants must be low emitters of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).

IEQc4.2 Low-Emitting Materials: Paints and Coatings 1 Point

Paints and coatings must be low emitters of VOC.

IEQc4.3 Low-Emitting Materials: Flooring Systems 1 Point

All flooring must be low emitters of VOC. Carpet and carpet cushion must meet the

requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label Program.

IEQc4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood and Agrifibre Products 1 Point

Composite wood and agrifibre products must not contain added urea-formaldehyde resins.

IEQc5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 1 Point

Main entrances need 3m systems at entrances to collect dirt. Grates, grills, and slotted

systems must account for the first metre, and mats may be used for the remainder so long

as a weekly cleaning contract is engaged. Entrances to the parking garage can use 3m mats.

The parking garage, and copy/printing area must be ventilated such that negative pressure

is achieved with respect to adjacent spaces. These spaces must have self-closing doors and

either a hard-lid ceiling or deck-to-deck partitions.

IEQc6.1 Controllability of System: Lighting 1 Point

In individual spaces such as offices, provide individual lighting controls. In group spaces

provide lighting controls that comply with ASHRAE standards.

IEQc6.2 Controllability of System: Thermal Comfort 1 Point

In individual spaces, provide individual comfort controls. In group spaces, provide comfort

controls.

IEQc7.1 Thermal Comfort: Design 1 Point

Meet ASHRAE standards for HVAC design.

IEQc7.2 Thermal Comfort: Verification 1 Point

This point is achievable, but irrelevant to the design process.

IEQc8.1 Daylight and Views: Daylight 1 Point

Demonstrate that 75% of regularly occupied spaces have access to daylight.

IEQc8.2 Daylight and Views: Views 1 Point


xvi

Demonstrate a direct line of sight to the outdoor environment for 90% of all regularly

occupied areas.

INNOVATION IN DESIGN – 6 POSSIBLE POINTS

IDc1 Innovation in Design 1–5 Points

Up to three points can be earned by achieving an exemplary performance in another

category – one for each instance.

The remaining two points, or the full five points can be earned by achieving a measurable

environmental performance using a strategy not addressed in any of the above points.

IDc2 LEED Accredited Professional 1 Point

A LEED Accredited Professional (AP) must be a principal participant of the project team.

This point is not achievable.

REGIONAL PRIORITY – 4 POSSIBLE POINTS

RPc1 Durable Building 1 Point

Demonstrate that the predicted service life exceeds the design service life.

RPc2 Regional Priority Credit4 1–3 Points

Achieve up to three of the following credits, deemed priorities in urban Ontario, and

propose those credits as regional priority credits:

SSc2 – Development Density and Community Connectivity

SSc6.1 – Stormwater Control: Quantity Control

SSc7.1 – Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof

SSc7.2 – Heat Island Effect: Roof

WEc3 – Water Use Reduction (>=35%)

EAc1 – Optimize Energy Performance (MNECB >=40% or ASHRAE >=30%)

4 Canada Green Building Council (2014)


xvii

APPENDIX 7 – RSMEANS DATA


xviii

*Multiply by 6 to get 30,000 ft

*Multiply by 4 to get 20,000 ft


xix


xx

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the Executive Director of Faculities, Claudio Brun del Re for

providing this group with plans to the existing UCU centre.

In addition, we would like to thanks Dr. Mohammadian, Dr. Martin-Perez, and Dr.

Abdulridha for their guidance.

Special thanks should also be accorded to M. Brad Banks, Project Superintendent for PCL

Constructors Canada Inc, as well as M. Danny Vaughan, from Novatech Engineering for their

time and expertise.

Documents

Feasibility Study FINAL-1