Netzero 2 navindra budhwa by Navindra Budhwa

Net Zero House Envelope Report

BSC 820 // Building Science Studio 2 Prepared for: Ramani Ramakrishnan March 4th, 2018 Prepared by: Navindra Budhwa

Table Of Contents Executive Summery

Introduction

Foundation

Wall

Roof

Thermal Bridging

Material Analysis

Appendix

Executive Summery

As part of the study to design a net zero home, focus was placed on four major aspects which contributed to the final iteration; Solar efficiency/ generation, internal heating and cooling systems, and internal/external water systems. This report will focus on the last factor, which is the envelope and all its properties. This report will seek to organize large amounts of information into three major categories summarized below: Foundation: Preliminary analysis has found that highly insulating the basement was a way to minimize heat loss considerably. Therefore the foundation wall consists of 50mm exterior insulation, 100mm of under slab rigid insulation and a 2x6 stud wall on the interior with closed cell spray foam insulation (150mm). The Wall: After a comparison, the best alternative was to use a 2x6 regular framed wall, with additional exterior insulation to reach an R-value of 45.75. Careful detailing has been done in critical regions to help mediate thermal bridging and create an air tight envelope. Windows and doors, have been sourced based on three critical factors; U - Value, cost, and sizing available. As such, the best alternative chosen is Paradigm Windows or a brand with similar values. Roof: The flat roof has been designed with an R - value of 81.75 and detailed so that there is continuous insulation on the outer edges of the perimeter. The house contains 2x10 joists with closed sprayfoam insulation. 1

Introduction 18 Raeburn Avenue The Current The purpose of this series of reports is to attempt to create a net zero home on the current lot of 18 Raeburn Avenue. The client, currently undertaking the construction of a new home, may choose to implement some of these considerations to their liking. It has been advised to assume the lot is empty with foundations removed. The lot is currently located in the region of North York tilted 17 degreed West. The property is lightly shaded by neighboring buildings and two trees in the front yard. Restrictions include a 5 foot setback from the west property line, and enough room on the east side for a car to reach the parking located on the north end of the lot. Goal: The goal in this specific report is to showcase certain properties of the envelope and how they contribute to the overall house efficiency and deal with problematic areas. These areas include junctions with the chance of thermal bridging, the wall composition, transitions from foundation to main walls, and roof connections. In order to reach the goal, common building practices found both in net zero homes and passive houses have been used, in order to minimize energy use and lower the burden on energy generation. As a result, the envelope is designed with passive like strategies, but is still easily constructible.

Foundation Below grade walls and slab The client has stipulated that a basement is required for larger gatherings, and as such must not contain any interior partitions.

2. Exterior (50mm), interior (100mm) and under slab insulation (50mm)

During initial studies of the house in Hot 2000, a large amount of heat loss was coming from the foundation and basement slab. As such it is fundamental to well insulate it, similarly to the upper wall. In the initial thought process, research was done to determine common basement insulating practices for both Net Zero and Passive homes. High levels of insulation assisted in lowering energy costs and improve the Energuide number for the home.

3. R-24 Insulated concrete forms

Multiple ways of doing this arose and four of the most common methods of providing high insulation values were analyzed. [1] These include: 1. Exterior (50mm), interior (150mm) and under slab insulation (100mm)

4. Typical home, interior 2x4 stud wall (R-13)

Exterior: Research was done comparing expanded polystyrene (EPS), extruded polystyrene (XPS), and polyisocyanurate (ISO) panels. [2] The following chart compares the cost of 1 sqft that is 25mm thick relative to its insulation value. (Figure 1)

COST PER SQFT ($)

Cost vs Insulative Value 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

For underneath of the floor slab, the choice was to use the same XPS insulation, for its durability, but with 100mm for a total r-value of 20. Interior: When looking at the alternatives for interior insulation, the considerations were fiberglass, mineral wood, in addition to open and closed cell spray foam. [2] The following chart compares the price and r-values of each option. The metric used was cost in dollars and R-value per an inch with an area of 1sqft. (Figure 2) Cost vs Insulative Value 1.4 COST PER SQFT ($)

A key factor in designing and thinking about material choice was considering feasibility, costs and efficiency of the materials. As such, before tests were conducted to see which alternative was better in regards to R-values, the first step was to choose the types of insulation for the wall assembly. This was done by comparing multiple types of exterior and interior insulation.

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

R-VALUE PER INCH

R-VALUE PER INCH EPS

XPS

ISO

Figure 1

The ISO panels outperform the others followed by XPS and then EPS panels. However, with pricing, ISO is also the most expensive followed by XPS then EPS. When considering the life cycle and environmental impact of each material, the r-values of ISO panels begin to degrade over time. In addition the r-values of ESP panels lower when the material comes into contact with water, and return to normal as it dries. With all these factors at play the decision was to use a 2 inch XPS insulation board, with an r-value of 10.

Fibreglass

Mineral Wool

Open Cell Spray Foam Insulation

Closed Cell Spray Foam Insulation

Figure 2

As one can see, the closed cell polyurethane spray foam far outperforms the other types at almost double the r-value, followed by mineral wool, open cell, and fiberglass insulation. In regards to costs, closed cell is followed by mineral wool than fiberglass and open cell spray foam. In order to get a high R value in very limited space, closed cell polyurethane insulation was selected as it provides a high R-value (6.5/inch) in comparison to price. A con for using closed cell is its above average costs, and environment impact of its use. However, the attempt is that its use over the lifespan of this house will balance its environmental footprint, through energy saved.

Walls Top of foundation to roof With the XPS insulation working in tandem with the closed cell spray foam, the comparison between the original four methods of providing high insulation values in the basement wall composition can be made.

The wall segment of this report will focus on two main aspects in reducing energy consumption and reaching net zero for this particular house. This includes the exterior wall composition and openings on the facade (Windows and doors).

The chart below compares the alternatives based on the total r-value in regards to the energy saved (vs an uninsulated basement)(Figure 3).

The floor area of the house is approximately 180sqm, with a perimeter of 44m. It is important to build both a thermal and air tight building to lower the use of any heating or cooling system.

R-value vs Energy Saved ENERGY SAVED (KWH)

14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

R-VALUE Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

This investigation began with the goal of selecting a wall composition that would both perform well in retaining heat, but also mediate any thermal bridging. A consideration was the thickness of the wall assembly as thicker walls lead to less interior floor space. It was essential to find a good balance that would allow us to reach net zero.

Option 4

Figure 3

From the graph above option 1 (Exterior 50mm, interior 150mm and under slab insulation 100mm) is the best choice. Although the wall is slightly larger than option two, the additional r-value as well worth it. The foundation wall has an R-value of 47.25.

As such the goal was to look into multiple passive techniques for devising high r-valued walls. Precedents were taken from existing walls in northern climates, and compared to see what would be best for our conditions. Below are the different wall compositions compared. 1. 1200mm (4ft) double stud stray bale wall

Option one provides a larger r-value, and therefore will allow for better thermal comfort with reduced energy usage. The energy usage has dropped considerably from the additional insulation added, and as a result reduced the heating/cooling load of the house assisting in the goal of net zero. The thermal bridging of the foundation wall has also been calculated, and will be discussed in the thermal bridging portion following.

2. Rigid Insulation (50mm) and interior 2x6 (150mm)

The comparison showed the total r-value of the wall vs its thickness. In regards to the insulation used between wall cavities, closed cell spray foam was used for the 2x6 assemblies, and batt insulation for the double stud wall, for the reasons previously mentioned in the foundation study. The graph below shows the comparison of all four options based on r value and energy saved vs a 2x6 wall (Figure 4) R-value vs Energy Saved

3. Double stud 2x4 walls, total of 300mm

ENERGY SAVED (KWH)

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

100

Option 3

Option 4

120

140

R-VALUE Option 1

Option 2

Figure 4

The 4 ft double stud straw bale wall, far out performs any other assembly, followed by a tie between exterior/interior insulation, and double stud wall. 4. 2x8 wall (200mm)

After the comparison the 4 ft double stud bale wall had been disregarded for multiple reasons. First of all, the depth of the assembly used a considerable amount of floor area to gain a high r-value. A balance between wall thickness and r-value is necessary. In addition, the construction of the wall is not conventional or standard in Canada and as such, may require contractors to learn specific construction techniques. For these reasons the final decision was not to use this method of construction. [5]

The typical 2x8 wall construction was also eliminated due to thermal bridging through wall studs. This will be further explained in the thermal bridging portion of this report (see page 9) Between the last two options, option 2 (exterior/ interior insulation) was selected as the best alternative. The determining factor was cost. By using the exterior/interior insulated option rather than the third, the client would save approximately $.82 per a wall stud. (Figure 5) The final wall assembly has an R-value of 45.75.

Windows and Doors Part of the wall is any opens that would affect the performance of the envelope. This would include windows and doors. In determining the right window/door for the house the relative u-value, solar heat gain coefficient, visible transmittance, and air leakage were all considered. The first step in the window selection process was finding sources that could provide sufficient values and be used in the Canadian climate. A few alternatives were analyzed, and ultimately the windows by Paradigm provided the best value (Figure 6). [6] Window Type

$3.40 Each

$20.40 Total

$5.98 Each

$17.94 Total

Figure 5

As part of the envelope and design of the proposal, the house contains a cantilevered portion. The best choice to construct this would be to extend the joists of the house to sit atop the stud wall and extend to the exterior. Then enclose closed cell spray foam insulation between the joists, as well as exterior insulation to provide continuous thermal performance. The cladding used in the house is wood siding, and this was done with the intent to lower the environmental impact that stucco and vinyl posed. Through its air tight and high thermal envelope, the proposed house has achieved the goal of net zero. By using passive techniques and standards, it is possible to create an easy to build, net zero home using conventional construction techniques.

Clear/Clear LowE 270/Clear LowE 270/Clear Argon Fill Clear/LowE 270 Clear/LowE 270 Argon Fill LowE 270/LowE 270 Argon Fill LowE 270/i89 Argon Fill LowE w/ Argon & Foam Fill Frame LowE 270/Clear/LowE 270 Argon Fill LowE 270/Clear/LowE 270 Blend Fill

Low E270/Clear/LowE 270 Krypton Fill

U Factor

SGHC

0.42 0.29 0.26 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.21

0.54 0.25 0.25 0.31 0.32 0.23 0.25 0.33 0.22 0.21

0.55 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.4 0.46 0.62 0.37 0.37

0.19

0.22

0.37

Energy Rated

R value

NO NO YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

2.38 3.45 3.85 3.45 3.85 3.85 4.35 4 4.17 4.76

YES

5.26

Figure 6

The window was selected because it provided adequate values and requirements to assist with a net zero home, in the listed categories above. They also assisted in mediating acceptable solar heat gains during different times of the year. Through precedent research and analysis, it was found that most of the thermal bridging occurring in a window was through the panes of glass. However if it provided a low enough u-value as the examples above, the window frame begins to provide a higher degree of thermal bridging. As such a study was done, comparing window pane areas, to the frame size (Appendix 1.1). It was found better to have larger windows where 7

Roof Above second floor wall possible, as opposed to multiple smaller windows. [1] Therefore the largest standard window was used that complied with required performance values. On the south side this was 72in by 96in. In addition the house includes a majority fixed window panes, to minimize any air leakage. In areas requiring operable windows the best choice is to use casement windows, for the air tightness it provides. (Less air leakage). For the doors, the best alternative is standard 84in by 36in door by Paradigm for the same reasons mentioned in the windows. In addition the specific qualities of the door minimize air leakage with a triple point locking system. (Figure 7) [6]

The last major envelope component to discuss is the roof. The careful consideration of the roof, and details of it, are made to minimize any heat loss. The first choice for a residential house is usually a hipped or gable roof, and both of these options were analyzed. The benefit from this is that contractors are familiar with typical roof construction. However, an issue that commonly occurs is inadequate insulation around the perimeter of the envelope.[1] This can be solved by using a raised heel truss (Figure 8) but multiple issues arose. These included zoning height restrictions, and non-optimal conditions for solar panels.

Triple Locking Seal Heel truss

Raised Heel Truss

Figure 8

Figure 7

In conclusion, through research, the right windows and door, will help mediate thermal bridging, and provide an air tight seal throughout the envelope. In addition, it will help bring in solar heat gain where needed, and assist in lowering the heating load of the house. The windows will also be utilized to provide passive heating within the home. This will be further discussed in the accompanied reports for this home.

As a result the best choice is a flat roof, in order to maximize solar panel gains. In addition, it also allows for the insulation to be continuously wrapped around the envelope and create a bridge free home. The assembly of the roof, uses traditional 2 by 10 construction. The thought then focused on how to insulate the roof, and continue the high r-value performance of the walls. Considerations included mineral wool, blown in insulation, and closed cell spray foam insulation. The following chart compares the r-values of each 8

Thermal Bridging Analysis of Details In order to prove the thermal efficiency of the designed home, an analysis of key details have been done to understand how thermal bridging affects them.

Cost vs Insulative Value 1.4 COST PER SQFT ($)

1.2 1

37mm Gravel 1mm Waterproof Membrane 100mm XPS Rigid Insulation 18mm OSB Sheathing 250mm joist w/ Closed Cell Spray Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

R-VALUE Mineral Wool

Blown in Insulation

Closed Cell Spray Foam Insulation

Figure 9

material per an inch vs the cost to fill 1sqft of the joist space. (Figure 9)

15mm Wood Lapped Siding 15m Strapping 50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 15mm OSB Sheathing 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

The closed cell spray foam insulation outperforms the other in regards to r-value per an inch. However, none of these values alone are enough to insulate the roof, and account for thermal bridging. As a result, additional exterior XPS insulation is added for better thermal performance and mediate bridging through the studs. In the final design, the home uses closed cell spray foam insulation between joists, and 100mm of XPS rigid insulation on the exterior. The total r-value of the assembly is r-85. (Figure 10)

200mm Closed Cell Insulation 200mmx37mm Header 150mmx37mm Sole Plate

50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 200mm Concrete 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

Figure 10

15mm Wood Lapped Siding 15m Strapping 50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 15mm OSB Sheathing 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

As part of this study, an analysis of the roof/ parapet, the house footing to foundation wall, a typical wall plan, and second floor junction (Appendix 2.1) was conducted. An indoor temperature of 21C, outdoor temperature of -18C and a earth temperature of 4C was assumed. It was found, in regards to the roof detail, that thermal bridging was not an issue as the r-85 wall did not allow any effect on the indoor temperature. Also one layer (50mm) of rigid insulation from the exterior could be removed but opted not to as this can account for lower temperatures that may occur. In the basement there was no bridging in the foundation wall and slab. It outperforms the above Roof detail.THM ( 13%)

grade wall, due to the higher average temperature of the earth. When looking at the typical wall assembly (Appendix 2.1), the wall performs as required by not bridging through any wall studs. However, the header on the second floor junction slightly affect the heat flow, but ultimately disperses when reaching the interior gypsum board. If changes were to be made, it would have included placing an extra layer of rigid insulation on the exterior to further mediate any thermal bridging, and withstand colder temperatures. (All facts are based on the calculated psi values) [3] Foundation Detail.THM Foundation( Detail.THM 11%) ( 11%)

Therm Version Therm 7.6.1.V

Therm Version 7.6.1.0 (1 of 1)

Roof detail.THM ( 13%)

Therm Version 7.6.1.0 (1 of 1)

Roof detail.THM ( 13%)

Therm Version 7.6.1.0 (1 of 1)

Roof detail.THM ( 13%)

Parapet Cap

150mmx37mm Sole Plate 200mmx37mm Header 200mm Closed Cell Insulation

37mm Gravel Therm Version 7.6.1.0 (1 of 1) 1mm Waterproof Membrane 100mm XPS Rigid Insulation 18mm OSB Sheathing 250mm joist w/ Closed Cell Spray Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 200mm Concrete 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

100mm Rigid Insulation 150mm Concrete

15mm Wood Lapped Siding 15m Strapping 50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 15mm OSB Sheathing 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

Figure 12

15mm Wood Lapped Siding 15m Strapping 50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 15mm OSB Sheathing 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

Figure 11

50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 15mm OSB Sheathing 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

Roof

Material Analysis

Intermediate 15mm Wood Lapped Siding Floors 15m Strapping Exterior Walls Windows 50mm XPS Rigid Insulation Interior Walls 1mm Waterproof Membrane Roof 15mm OSB Sheathing TOTALS 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

1,905 2,120 452 109 1,593

Acidification Potential

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Foundations & Footings

ASSEMBLY

Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls

Athena

Windows Interior Walls Roof

Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls Windows Interior Walls Roof

0 234,672 146,291 2,602 292,402

Interior Walls Roof

758,977

2,063 0 1,905 2,120 452 109 1,593

As part of the envelope analysis, a study of materiality and its environmental impact was done. Eutrophication Potential Athena was the primary source for conducting this investigation. [4]

Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) TOTAL

83,010 0 0 234,672 146,291 2,602 292,402

758,977

Acidification Foundations GWP & Footings Potential (tonnes CO2eq) Columns & Beams (moles of H+ eq) TOTAL & Footings Foundations TOTAL Intermediate Floors 9 1,992 Columns & Beams Exterior Walls 0 0 Intermediate Floors 0 0 Windows Exterior Walls 12 3,394 Interior Walls 14 9,371 Windows Roof 35 Interior Walls 0 Roof

Interior Walls Roof

Fossil Fuel Consumption

530 0 0 570 1,395 6 466

11% 0% 0% 31% 19% 0% 39%

Global Warming Potential

17% 0% 0% 24% 27% 0% 32%

Acidification Potential

Human Health Criteria

Exterior Walls 10% Windows 0% Interior0% Walls Roof 18% TOTALS 49% 0% 22%

Eutrophication Potential

7% 0% 0% 24% 52% 0% 16%

Ozone Depletion Potential

2,120 52% 452 0% 109 0% 1,593 8% 38% 0% 2%

10% 0% 0% 27% 19% 0% 44%

0 Roof 234,672 12 3,394 18% 150mm Closed Cell Insulation 146,291 14 9,371 0% Vapour Barrier 0 35 0% 2,602 13mm Gypsum Board 292,402 17 4,282 19% 47% 758,977 52 19,074 0% 16%

Section 1 - Those dominated by window choice

These categories, on the right show what environmental impact the material poses, with Fossil Fuel Consumption windows influencing a majority of impacts. The specific Global Warming numbers can be seen in the charts below. Flashing

2,968

Foundations & Footings

Potential

Window Sill Columns & Beams Window Frame Intermediate Floors Triple Panes 150mm Mullion Exterior Walls

The window along with the frame chosen possessed the required thermal and air tight values, as well as low embodied energy. Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams

Windows

Intermediate Floors

Interior Walls

Exterior Walls

Roof

Windows

530

Roof

Acidification Potential Eutrophication Potential

Percentages by assembly gro

Foundations & Footings

The results summery follows, and can Foundations & Footings 2,063 be split into Columns & Beams 0 0 0 1,905 two sections: Intermediate Floors 15mm OSB Sheathing

Human Health Criteria (kg PM10 eq) TOTAL

40 0 0 129 275 2 85

530

Eutrophication Potential (g N eq) TOTAL

2,070 0 0 5,420 3,775 47 8,870

20,183

(these results are shown in the p

Ozone Depletion Potential (mg CFC-11 eq) TOTAL

71 0 0 11 52 0 3

137

Foundations & Footings

Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams Fossil Fuel Columns & Beams Consumption Intermediate Floors

Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) TOTAL

530 0 0 570 1,395 6 466

Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls 11% Exterior Walls 0% Windows 0% Windows Interior Walls 31% Interior Walls Roof 19% Roof

Global Warming Potential

0% 39%

2,968

Acidification Potential

17% 0% 0% 24% 27% 0% 32%

10% 0% 0% 18% 49% 0% 22%

Eutrophication Potential Smog Potential Global Warming Potential Foundations & Footings

Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors Columns & Beams Intermediate Exterior WallsFloors Intermediate Floors Exterior WindowsWalls Exterior Walls Windows Interior Walls Windows Interior Walls Roof Interior Walls Roof Roof

Interior Walls Roof

Smog Potential

Percentages by assembly groups

Acidification Potential

(these results are shown in the pie charts below) Human Health Fossil Fuel Criteria

Consumption

Foundations 11% & Footings Columns & Beams 0% Intermediate Floors 0%

Exterior Walls31% Windows

19% 0% 39%

Interior Walls Roof

Global Warming Potential

17% 0% 0% 24% 27% 0% 32%

Acidification Potential

10% 0% 0% 18% 49% 0% 22%

Human Health Criteria

7% 0% 0% 24% 52% 0% 16%

Eutrophication Potential

10% 0% 0% 27% 19% 0% 44%

52% 0% 0% 8% 38% 0% 2%

Smog Foundations & Footings Potential Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors

18% Exterior Walls 0% Windows 0% Interior Walls 19% Roof 47% 0% 16%

Eutrophication Potential Ozone Depletion Potential

Human Health Criteria

Foundations & Footings

Ozone Depletion Potential

Foundations & Footings

40 0 0 129 275 2 85

4,282

Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls Exterior Walls Floors Intermediate Windows Windows Exterior Walls Interior Walls Interior Walls Windows Roof Roof Interior Walls

Columns & Beams Acidification Fossil Fuel GWP Intermediate Floors Potential Consumption (MJ) (tonnes CO2eq) (moles of H+ eq) 15mm Wood Lapped Exterior Walls Siding TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 15m Strapping Windows 83,010 9 1,992 Smog 50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 0 0 0 Interior Walls Potential 1mm Waterproof Membrane

Human Health Criteria (kg PM10 eq) TOTAL

19,074

Foundations & Footings

Windows

(these results are shown in the pie charts below)

Columns & Beams

Exterior Walls

Total area

0 129 275 2 85

Version 19,0741.21 530 Location: Toronto ASHRAE climate zon

Foundations & Footings

During the initial investigation the type of concrete mixture and material assembly greatly impacted the environment. The largest contribution was through exterior walls and window materials. As a result certain materials were chosen with the Version 1.21 lowest environmental impact, especially in those Location: Toronto Potential listed categories above. Many efforts wereSmog made ASHRAE climate zone 6 to lower the consumption, and can be seen in the attached AthenaENVIRONMENTAL report (Appendix 3.1). IMPACT SUMMARY ASSEMBLY

0 3,394 9,371 35 4,282

Ozone Depletion Fossil Fuel Consumption Potential Acidification Potential

Intermediate Floors

Percentages by assembly groups

0 12 14 0 17

Human Health Criteria Fossil Fuel Consumption SUMMARY

Total area

TOTALS

mog Potential (kg O3 eq) TOTAL

0 0 0 0 5 6 6

Interior Walls

Columns & Beams Foundations & Footings Intermediate Floors Columns & Beams Exterior Walls Intermediate Floors Windows Exterior Walls Interior Walls Windows Roof Interior Walls Roof

Ozone Depletion Potential Foundations & Footings

H H C

Version 1.21 Location: Toronto ASHRAE climate zone 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY ASSEMBLY Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls Windows Interior Walls Roof

TOTALS

Total area 2,063 0 1,905 2,120 452 109 1,593

Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) TOTAL

Version 1.21 Toronto (these results are shown in the pie charts below) ASHRAE climate zone 6 Percentages by assembly groups Location:

GWP (tonnes CO2eq) TOTAL

83,010 0 0 234,672 146,291 2,602 292,402

9 0 0 12 14 0 17

758,977

Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) TOTAL

1,992 0 0 3,394 9,371 35 4,282

Human Health Criteria (kg PM10 eq) TOTAL

40 0 0 129 275 2 85

19,074

Eutrophication Potential (g N eq) TOTAL

2,070 0 0 5,420 3,775 47 8,870

530

Ozone Depletion Potential (mg CFC-11 eq) TOTAL

20,183

Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) TOTAL

Fossil Fuel Consumption

71 530 17% ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT11% SUMMARY

0 0 0 0 ASSEMBLY 11 570 52 1,395 Foundations 0 & Footings 6 Columns3& Beams 466 Intermediate Floors 137 2,968 Exterior Walls Windows Interior Walls Roof

ASSEMBLY

Fossil Fuel Consumption

0% 0% Fossil Fuel 0% 0% Total area Consumption (MJ) 31% 24% TOTAL 19% 27% 83,010 2,063 0% 0% 0 39% 32% 0 0 1,905 234,672 2,120 146,291 452 2,602 109 292,402 1,593

Total area

Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls Windows Interior Walls Roof

These categories, on the right show what environmental impacts are heavily influenced by roof materials.

Global Warming Potential

2,063 0 1,905 Foundations & Footings 2,120 Columns & Beams 452 Intermediate Floors 109 Exterior Walls 1,593

Version 1.21 Location: Toronto ASHRAE climate zone 6

Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams

Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls

TOTALS

Windows

Interior Walls

IMPACT For the roof, theENVIRONMENTAL results appear toSUMMARY have been ASSEMBLY Total area skewed due to the software restricting flat roof 83,010 Foundations & Footings 2,063 assemblies. Regardless, made to 90 0 Columns & Beams an attempt was 0 0 0 Intermediate Floors 1,905 234,672 Walls 2,120 minimize the roofExterior impact by using a flat roof, and 1214 146,291 Windows 452 Acidification Potential 2,602 0 Walls 109 avoiding asphalt.Interior 292,402 17 Roof 1,593 Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) TOTAL

GWP (tonnes CO2eq) TOTAL

758,977

Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) TOTAL

758,977

1,992 0 0 3,394 9,371 35 4,282

19,074

The specific type of concrete used, and assembly also affected the impacts, however, no matter the Fossil Fuel Consumption concrete the affects are heavily seen. Concrete was still used, but well insulated to help with thermal performance. The goal is to prolong the life of the material as best as possible, and to have [4] it last the lifespan of the house. Eutrophication Potential

Human Health Criteria (kg PM10 eq) TOTAL

40 0 0 129 275 2 85

530

Eutrophication Potential (g N eq) TOTAL

2,070 71 0 0 0 0 5,420 11 3,775 52 Human Health 47 0 Criteria 8,870 3

137

Foundations & Footings

Columns & Beams

Intermediate Floors

Exterior Walls

Windows

Interior Walls

Roof

GWP (tonnes CO2eq) TOTAL

Foundations & Footings

Columns & Beams

Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) TOTAL

Windows

Fossil Fuel Consumption Interior Walls

2,968

Interior Walls Roof Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams

Global Warming Intermediate Floors Potential Exterior Walls

Windows Foundations & Footings Interior Walls Columns & Beams Roof Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls

Intermediate Floors

Interior Walls

Exterior Walls

Windows

Roof Foundations & Footings

Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors

Roof

Eutrophication Potential Windows

Columns & Beams

Human Health Intermediate Floors Criteria Exterior Walls

Windows Foundations & Footings Interior Walls Columns & Beams Eutrophication Potential Roof Intermediate Floors

Exterior Walls

Windows

Windows Foundations & Footings Interior Walls Columns & Beams Roof Intermediate Floors

Interior Walls Roof

The overall affects of the embodied energy and life cycle analysis have been watched and mediated throughout the design process to ensure the house minimizes its environmental impact. Eutrophication Potential Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams

Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls Windows

Interior Walls Roof

Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams Intermediate Floors

Exterior Walls

Smog Potential Windows Interior Walls Roof Foundations & Footings Columns & Beams

Ozone Depletion Intermediate Floors Potential Exterior Walls

Windows Foundations & Footings Interior Walls Columns & Beams Smog Potential Roof Intermediate Floors

Exterior Walls

Windows

Windows Foundations & Footings Interior Walls Columns & Beams Roof Intermediate Floors

Interior Walls Roof

10% 0% 0% 18% 49% 0% 22%

Exterior Walls

Intermediate Floors

Foundations & Footings

17% 0% 0% 24% 27% 0% 32%

Acidification Potential

Exterior Walls

Ozone Depletion Potential

Interior Walls

5 3

530

Windows Acidification Potential

Columns & Beams

The amount of material is minimized on the exterior wall by avoiding double and triple wall systems in an attempt to reduce cost and material impacts. Smog Potential

Global Warming Potential

RoofFuel Consumption 530Fossil 11% 0 0% 0 0% 570 31% Foundations & Footings 1,395 19% Columns & Beams 0% 6 466 Intermediate Floors 39%

Foundations & Footings

Acidification Potential

40 0 0 129 275 2 85

Eutrophicat Potentia (g N eq) TOTAL

20,

Percentages by assembly groups

Columns & Beams

Roof

19,074

530

Human Health Criteria (kg PM10 eq) TOTAL

Exterior Walls

Foundations & Footings

Interior Walls

19,074

Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) TOTAL

Intermediate Floors

Exterior Walls

In regards to the other house materials, the exterior wall provides a large impact with other impacts becoming minuscule.

18%

0% Eutrophica Potentia 0% (g N eq 19% TOTAL 47%

Version 1.21 0% 2 Location: Toronto 16% ASHRAE climate zone 65

Acidification Potential Roof

Intermediate Floors

Roof

10% 7% 10% 52% 0% 0%Acidification 0% Human Health 0% GWP 0% 0% Potential 0% Criteria0% (tonnes CO2eq) (moles of H+ eq) eq) 18% 24% 27% (kg PM108% TOTAL TOTAL 49% 52% TOTAL 19% 38% 9 0% 1,992 0% 0% 0%40 016% 0 22% 44% 2% 0 0 0 0 12 3,394 129 14 9,371 275 0 35 2 17 4,282 85

Interior Walls Columns & Beams

Columns & Beams

Interior Walls

Smog Potential

Windows & Footings Foundations

Foundations & Footings

Windows

Ozone Depletion Potential

(these results are shown in the pie chart

Ozone Depletion Potential (mg CFC-11 eq) TOTAL

20,183

Eutrophication Potential

Intermediate Floors

Roof Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) TOTAL

Human Health Criteria

83,010 9 1,992 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fossil Fuel Consumption 234,672 12 3,394 146,291 14 9,371 2,602 0 35 292,402 17 4,282

Interior Walls

Roof

Foundations & Footings

Acidification Potential

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY TOTALS 758,977

Section 2 - Those dominated by roof use

TOTALS

Global Warming Potential

Exterior Walls

Human Health Criteria

7% 0% 0% 24% 52% 0% 16%

Conclusion Envelope Analysis

As part of the study to design a net zero home, four main design aspects were utilized, with this report focusing on the envelope and its properties. The best design and assembly options have been concluded through careful analysis and comparison for the following categories. Foundation: 50mm of exterior insulation and a 150mm insulated stud wall, with an addition 100mm of under slab rigid insulation. The R-value of the foundation wall is 47.25.

By doing all of this the house performs with the status of Net Zero, and produces an additional 2300 KWH per year. The EnerGuide number is 98 but could be better due to HOT 200 not allowing custom RSI values of windows. Regardless, the building envelope was just one factor of many helping to achieve this goal.

The Wall: 150mm closed cell spray foam insulated wall, with additional 50mm exterior insulation to reach an R-value of 45.75. Roof: A flat roof designed with an R - value of 80 and detailed so that there is continuous insulation on the outer edges of the perimeter. This includes 250mm joist with spray foam and 100mm rigid insulation on the exterior. In conjunction with this analysis other considerations included a life cycle analysis of materials used in the house, which sought to keep it to a minimum. Proceeding with the assembly, modeling was done though therm to minimize thermal bridging, and maintain a thermally sealed envelope. A key process was working back and forth with HOT 2000, in order to analyze the impacts that changes had on the envelope and overall energy consumption.

References

[1]

Zero Energy Project - 12 Steps to affordable net zero

http://zeroenergyproject.org/build/twelve-steps-affordable-zeroenergy-home-construction-design/super-insulate-net-zero-buildingenvelope/ [2] Insulfoam - Information on insulation qualities https://www.insulfoam.com/insulation-comparisons/ [3]

Engineers Edge - Providing thermal conductivity values

https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/insulation_material_ thermal_conductivity_chart__13170.htm [4]

Athena life cycle analysis - Eco Calculator

http://www.athenasmi.org/ [5]

Building with awareness - Straw bale wall construction

http://buildingwithawareness.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-straw-balewall-construction-in-green-building/ [6]

Paradigm Windows - Window values

http://www.paradigmwindows.com/replacement/rw-case

Appendix 1.1 Window pane to frame ratio

The following chart compares the size of window panes vs the frame size. The goal is to maximize the area of the pane while minimizing the frame size. As such, this investigation found the ratio between the two. The ratio number was how many times larger the pane was compared to the frame. The study found that for a given area of glazing required, it was better to opt for a single large window, as opposed to multiple smaller one. The proposal implements exactly that utilizing 72 by 96in windows.

Typical Window pane Sizes h W 12 18 24 36 48 52 60 62 72 78 96

Width of pane

Sizes With Frame h w

24 36 48 60 72 96 78 24 63

Height of pane

16 22 28 40 52 56 64 66 76 82 100

Area of pane

12 18 24 36 48 52 60 62 72 78 96

288 432 576 864 1152 1248 1440 1488 1728 1872 2304

Area of frame

160 184 208 256 304 320 352 360 400 424 496

28 40 52 64 76 100 82 28 67

Ratio of Pane to Sill

1.8 2.3 2.8 3.4 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.6 Higher is better

36 432 648 864 1296 1728 1872 2160 2232 2592 2808 3456

48 208 232 256 304 352 368 400 408 448 472 544

2.1 2.8 3.4 4.3 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.9 6.4

576 864 1152 1728 2304 2496 2880 2976 3456 3744 4608

60 256 280 304 352 400 416 448 456 496 520 592

2.3 3.1 3.8 4.9 5.8 6.0 6.4 6.5 7.0 7.2 7.8

720 1080 1440 2160 2880 3120 3600 3720 4320 4680 5760

63 304 328 352 400 448 464 496 504 544 568 640

2.4 3.3 4.1 5.4 6.4 6.7 7.3 7.4 7.9 8.2 9.0

756 1134 1512 2268 3024 3276 3780 3906 4536 4914 6048

72 316 340 364 412 460 476 508 516 556 580 652

2.4 3.3 4.2 5.5 6.6 6.9 7.4 7.6 8.2 8.5 9.3

864 1296 1728 2592 3456 3744 4320 4464 5184 5616 6912

78 352 376 400 448 496 512 544 552 592 616 688

2.5 3.4 4.3 5.8 7.0 7.3 7.9 8.1 8.8 9.1 10.0

936 1404 1872 2808 3744 4056 4680 4836 5616 6084 7488

96 376 400 424 472 520 536 568 576 616 640 712

2.5 3.5 4.4 5.9 7.2 7.6 8.2 8.4 9.1 9.5 10.5

1152 1728 2304 3456 4608 4992 5760 5952 6912 7488 9216

448 472 496 544 592 608 640 648 688 712 784

2.6 3.7 4.6 6.4 7.8 8.2 9.0 9.2 10.0 10.5 11.8

Appendix

Parapet Cap

Second floor.THM ( 13%)

2.1 Thermal Bridging Second floor.THM ( 13%)

37mm Gravel 1mm Waterproof Membrane 100mm XPS Rigid Insulation 18mm OSB Sheathing 250mm joist w/ Closed Cell Spray Insulation Vapour Barrier Therm Version 7.6.1.0 (1 of 1) 13mm Gypsum Board Therm Version 7.6.1.0 (1 of 1)

Wall Plan.THM ( 20%)

200mm Closed Cell Insulation 200mmx37mm Header 150mmx37mm Sole PlateLapped Siding 15mm Wood 15m Strapping 50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 15mm OSB Sheathing 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board 15mm Wood Lapped Siding 15m Strapping 50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 15mm OSB Sheathing 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

Second floor junction detail and therm

Parapet Cap

37mm Gravel 1mm Waterproof Membrane 100mm XPS Rigid Insulation 18mm OSB Sheathing 250mm joist w/ Closed Cell Spray Insulation Vapour Barrier 13mm Gypsum Board

Therm Version 7.6.1.0 (1 of 1)

15mm Wood Lapped Siding 15mm Wood Lapped Siding 15m Strapping 15mInsulation Strapping 50mm XPS Rigid 50mm XPS Rigid Insulation 1mm Waterproof Membrane 1mm Waterproof Membrane 15mm OSB Sheathing 15mm OSB Sheathing 150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour Barrier150mm Closed Cell Insulation Vapour 13mm Gypsum BoardBarrier 13mm Gypsum Board

Typical wall plan detail and therm

*Note that the values of the therm files regarding the second floor junction and typical wall plan seem far to good to be true. The fault is unknown, but attempts have been made to model the walls as realistic as possible.

related processes. It does not measure or account for operational energy. It is intended to be used to quantitatively compare different types of building materials and assemblies, not their effects on energy use or efficiency.

Appendix

This tool helps you determine the extended environmental effects of the materials used in your building based on eight impact categories: 1. Fossil Fuel Consumption The estimated amount of fossil fuel energy used in the extraction, processing, transportation, construction, and disposal of each material. Measured in megajoules (MJ). 2. Global Warming Potential The estimated amount of greenhouse gases created. Measured in mass units of carbon dioxide equivalents.

3.1 Athena analysis

3. Acidification Potential The estimated amount of acid-forming chemicals created. Measured in moles of hydron (H+) equivalents. 4. Human Health Criteria The estimated amount of airborne particles that can lead to asthma, bronchitis, acute pulmonary disease, etc. Measured in mass units of 10 micron particulate matter. (The US EPA changed the HH equivalency units from the old 2.5 PM equivalents in 2012) 5. Aquatic Eutrophication Potential The estimated amount of water-nutrifying substances that can lead to the proliferation of photosynthetic aquatic species. Measured in mass units of Nitrogen equivalents. 6. Ozone Depletion Potential The estimated amount of ozone-depleting substances (CFC's, HFC's, and halons) created. Measured in mass units of CFC-11 equivalents.

Version 1.21 Toronto ASHRAE climate zone 6 EcoCalculator for residential dwellings including detached, semi-detached and row houses. All data derived from the Athena® Impact Estimator for Buildings

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the process of accounting for the impacts of a product, material, or process based on the effects of obtaining the raw materials from which it is made, the processes through which those raw materials go to become usable products, the assembly of those products into a structure, the maintenance and operations required to maintain those products, the effects of disposing the product after its useable life, and the transportation impacts that arise between each of those phases. Please bear in mind that this calculator measures the environmental effects of building materials and their related processes. It does not measure or account for operational energy. It is intended to be used to quantitatively compare different types of building materials and assemblies, not their effects on energy use or efficiency. This tool helps you determine the extended environmental effects of the materials used in your building based on eight impact categories: 1. Fossil Fuel Consumption The estimated amount of fossil fuel energy used in the extraction, processing, transportation, construction, and disposal of each material. Measured in megajoules (MJ). 2. Global Warming Potential The estimated amount of greenhouse gases created. Measured in mass units of carbon dioxide equivalents. 3. Acidification Potential The estimated amount of acid-forming chemicals created. Measured in moles of hydron (H+) equivalents. 4. Human Health Criteria The estimated amount of airborne particles that can lead to asthma, bronchitis, acute pulmonary disease, etc. Measured in mass units of 10 micron particulate matter. (The US EPA changed the HH equivalency units from the old 2.5 PM equivalents in 2012) 5. Aquatic Eutrophication Potential The estimated amount of water-nutrifying substances that can lead to the proliferation of photosynthetic aquatic species. Measured in mass units of Nitrogen equivalents. 6. Ozone Depletion Potential The estimated amount of ozone-depleting substances (CFC's, HFC's, and halons) created. Measured in mass units of CFC-11 equivalents. 7. Smog Potential The estimated amount of chemicals that could produce photochemical smog and ground-level ozone when exposed to sunlight. Measured in mass units of ozone equivalents. (The US EPA changed the smog equivalency units from the old nitrogen oxide equivalents in 2012)

7. Smog Potential The estimated amount of chemicals that could produce photochemical smog and ground-level ozone when exposed to sunlight. Measured in mass units of ozone equivalents. (The US EPA changed the smog equivalency units from the old nitrogen oxide equivalents in 2012) Impact categories 2 through 7 are based on the US EPA's TRACI (Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts) life cycle inventory assessment methods. Note: Starting with version 4.2 of the Impact Estimator for Buildings (August 2012), Weighted Resource Use has been discontinued as a summary measure, and has also therefore been discontinued in EcoCalculator To use the calculator: 1. Click on the desired assembly type tab (e.g.Columns & Beams, Exterior Walls, etc.) at the bottom of this spreadsheet. 2. In the yellow column, enter the amount of square footage of each type of assembly that you are planning to use in your building. 3. Please refer to the pop-up diagrams for clarification on how to calculate the areas of each assembly. Also, hover your cursor over any cells with a red triangle for further clarification. 4. Please refer to the Summary tab to see how the structures contribute to the overall impacts. Results: The table at the top of each tab shows the impacts incurred by each assembly type, as well as the total impacts for the entire building. The Summary tab shows the impacts of each assembly type and the total for the entire building. It also shows the percentage that each assembly type contributes to the total in numerical and graphic form.

We welcome your comments and suggestions. Please send us your feedback if you run into problems. Click here for EcoCalculator tech support website

All source data in this tool was derived using the Athena® Impact Estimator for Buildings, v4.2.0140, developed by the Athena® Sustainable Materials Institute. Please see their website (www.athenaSMI.org) for more information regarding the Athena® Impact Estimator for Buildings, Life Cycle Analysis and Carbon Footprint consultation services, and for other versions of the Athena® EcoCalculator.

Appendix 3.2 Athena: Foundation and Footings

TOTAL IMPACTS BY BUILDING COMPONENT

FOUNDATIONS & FOOTINGS WHOLE BUILDING TOTAL

A. FOUNDATIONS & FOOTINGS (other assembly tabs at bottom of spreadsheet)

Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) TOTAL

Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) TOTAL

GWP (tonnes CO2eq) TOTAL

83,010 758,977

9 52

1,992 19,074

Eutrophication Potential (g N eq) TOTAL

HH Criteria (kg PM10 eq) TOTAL

40 530

2,070 20,183

Ozone Depletion Potential (mg CFC-11 eq) TOTAL

71 137

Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) TOTAL

530 2,968

IN THE YELLOW CELLS BELOW, ENTER THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT EACH ASSEMBLY USES IN YOUR BUILDING ASSEMBLY TYPE

FOUNDATION ENVELOPE

Square footage

Percentage of total

Fossil Fuel Consumption per ft2 (MJ)

Global Warming Potential per ft2 (kg CO2 eq)

Acidification Potential per ft2 (moles of H+ eq)

HH Criteria per ft2 (g PM10 eq)

Eutrophication Potential per ft2 (mg N eq)

Ozone Depletion Potential per ft2 (mg CFC-11 eq)

Smog Potential per ft2 (g O3 eq)

FOUNDATION WALL

8" Cast-in-Place

Vapor Barrier

0.0

44.57

4.91

1.13

22.89

1,274.11

0.03

294.50

8" Concrete Block

Vapor Barrier

0.0

40.21

4.22

1.15

15.95

913.55

0.03

205.45

8" Cast-in-Place

52.24

5.23

1.18

22.88

1,377.46

0.05

318.21

8" Concrete Block

47.88

4.55

1.19

15.94

1,016.90

0.04

229.16

100%

20.21

2.38

0.55

11.37

387.89

0.01

142.14

100%

1,812.05

202.10

46.05

940.09

54,557.65

1.22

12,072.30

R15 Polyisocyanurate Foam Continuous Insulation Vapor Barrier R15 Polyisocyanurate Foam Continuous Insulation Vapor Barrier

TOTAL FOUNDATION WALL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOUNDATION SLAB

4" Poured Concrete slab

1,041.0 0.0 1,041.0 Square footage

1,022.0

TOTAL FOUNDATION SLAB SQUARE FOOTAGE

FOOTING (Note: Please enter volume of concrete in cubic yards)

Poured Concrete footing FOOTING TOTAL VOLUME (CUBIC YARDS OF CONCRETE) Note: Pier and beam foundations can be modeled in the Columns and Beams tab.

100%

1,022.0 Concrete volume (yd3) 4.4 4.4

C. INTERMEDIATE FLOORS IN THE YELLOW CELLS BELOW, ENTER THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT EACH ASSEMBLY USES IN YOUR BUILDING INTERIOR OR CRAWL SPACE CEILING

FLOOR STRUCTURE

Average across all intermediate floor assemblies:

1/2" Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking Steel Stud 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 16" o.c. Plywood 1/2" Wood I Joist w/ Plywood Decking 1/2" Steel Joist w/ OSB Decking 1/2" Steel Joist w/ Plywood decking Steel Stud 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 16" o.c. Plywood 1/2" Wood Joist w/ OSB Decking 1/2" Wood Joist w/ Plywood decking 1/2" Wood Truss w/ OSB Decking Steel Stud 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 16" o.c. Plywood 1/2" Wood Truss w/ Plywood Decking

Appendix 1

28 2 3 4

29 5 6

Square footage

Cedar Bevel SidingCoats Latex Paint Gypsum Board,2

R9 XPS Continuous Insulation R13 Cavity Insulation Gypsum Board,2 Coats Latex Paint Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier Gypsum Board,2 Coats LatexLatex PaintPaint 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats

Gypsum Board,2 Coats Latex Paint Exterior Insulated Finishing System R13 Cavity Insulation

Gypsum Board,2 Coats Latex Paint Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Gypsum Board,2 Coats LatexLatex PaintPaint

3.3 Athena: Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls 7

30 8 9

31 10

Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking

R30 Cavity Insulation VaporNatural BarrierStone Cladding

R9 XPS Continuous Insulation R13 Cavity Insulation Steel Stud 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 16" o.c. Plywood R30 Cavity Vapor Insulation Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier Wood I Joist w/ Plywood Decking Vapor1/2" Barrier Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

2x6 STUD w/Decking SHEATHING 11WOOD Steel JoistWALL w/ OSB

Fiber Cement Siding Gypsum Board,2 Coats Latex Paint R9 XPS Continuous Insulation R13 Cavity Insulation Gypsum Board,2 Coats Latex Paint Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

Wood Stud 2x6 16" o.c. OSB Steel Joist w/ Plywood decking

C. INTERMEDIATE FLOORS IN13 THEWood YELLOW CELLS BELOW, ENTER 33 Wood Studw/ 2x6 16" o.c. OSB Joist OSB Decking FLOOR STRUCTURE

14 Plywood decking 34 Wood WoodJoist Studw/ 2x6 16" o.c. OSB Average across all intermediate floor assemblies: 1 15 2 35

Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking Wood Truss w/ OSB Decking Wood Joist 2x6 w/ Plywood WoodIStud 16" o.c.Decking OSB

3 16 4

Steel Joist w/ OSB Decking Wood Truss w/ Plywood Decking Steel Joist w/ Plywood decking Wood Stud 2x6 16" o.c. OSB Wood Joist I Joistw/w/OSB OSBDecking Decking Wood

R19 Cavity Insulation R12 Continuous Insulation Brick Cladding w/ 1" Air Space VaporClay Barrier R20 Cavity Insulation R19 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier R12 Continuous Insulation 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint Vapor Barrier

R30 Cavity Insulation Vinyl Siding 1/2" Gypsum Board,2 Coats Latex Paint Vapor Barrier R20 Cavity Insulation

Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier

1/2" Gypsum Board,2 Coats Latex Paint 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint R30 Cavity Insulation Cedar Bevel SidingCoats Latex Paint 1/2" Gypsum Board,2 Vapor Barrier

D. EXTERIOR WALLS

45 1

20 21 70 46 22 2 23 24 47

Wood I Joist w/ Plywood Decking Vapor Barrier Wood Stud 2x6 16" o.c. Plywood VaporBrick Barrier + Weather Clay Cladding w/ 1" Resistant Air Space Barrier Fiber Cement Siding Steel Joist w/ OSB Decking Barrier 3-1/2" Structural Insulated Panel (R19) VaporR15 1/2" Gypsum Board 2 Continuous Concrete Block 1/2" XPS Gypsum Board + +Insulation 2 Coats Coats Latex Latex Paint Paint Steel Joist w/ Plywood decking Vapor1/2" Barrier Gypsum Fiber Cement Board Siding+ 2 Coats Latex Paint

HH Criteria per ft (g PM10 eq)

Eutrophication Potential per ft2 (mg N eq)

Ozone Depletion 2 Potential per ft (mg CFC-11 eq)

Smog Potential per ft (g O3 eq)

44.74

2.97

0.78

13.59

1,687.22

0.00

108.00

21.94

0.98

0.37

12.88

587.60

0.00

69.95

0.0

19.32

0.85

0.32

11.13

495.35

0.00

0.0

46.00

97.02

5.79

2.89

0.70

1.54

13.43

26.16 1,728.51

2,567.46

0.00

0.0

43.36

2.75

0.65

11.68

1,636.19

0.00

0.0

21.40

0.96

0.38

12.51

585.63

0.00

0.0

18.78

105.80

5.47

0.83

0.33

1.45

10.76

55.60

493.39

2,422.90

0.00

0.0

23.99

1.27

0.44

12.88

701.42

0.00

0.0

21.37

1.14

0.39

11.13

609.18

0.00

0.0

86.25

Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) TOTAL

0.0

97.50

INTERMEDIATE FLOORS WHOLE BUILDING 0.0

0 758,977

0.0

94.86

0.0

21.94

0.0 0.0

46.00

0.0 1,905.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,905.0 0.0

0.0

120.03

12.04 21.40 9.42 18.78 36.10 23.99 33.46

0.0 0.0

11.49 21.37

0.0 100%

8.88 14.09 88.87 11.47

0.0 0.0

86.25

0.0 0.0

97.50

0.0

6.68

108.74

88.58

7.69

0 52 6.55

2.97 6.12 0.98

2.89

91.42 99.11 112.89 88.50 90.16 109.96 114.43 87.24 106.55 111.51

80.18 86.39 234,672 758,977 120.54

0.60 0.96 0.47 0.83 2.51 1.27 2.37 0.58 1.14 0.45 0.89 6.28 0.76 6.14

6.68

6.55

Square footage

0.0 0.0 0.0

2,120.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% 0.0 2,120.0 0.0 0.0

8.05

0 19,074 1.56

1.99

28.66

3,538.61

26.91

3,446.36 Eutrophication Potential 40.58 (g N eq) TOTAL

HH Criteria (kg PM10 eq) 2.06 TOTAL

19.42

2.69

34.97

0 530 17.67

43.35

3,540.08 0 20,183

35.28 3,447.76

2,925.13

2,625.85

0.00 Ozone Depletion Potential TOTAL

2,745.79

0.00 0 137 0.00

83.50

240.58

80.83 0.01

88.56 85.89

228.00

89.75 0.02

0.00

2,988.84 (mg CFC-11 eq)

67.29

87.09

308.76

160.43 0.00

157.77

Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) 0.02 TOTAL

296.70 269.70

201.30

0.01

0 2,968 198.63

296.92

5.33

0.78 1.52 0.37

3.37 28.29 2

Eutrophication 44.65 3,536.64 Potential per ft2 (mg N eq)

13.59 26.54

1,687.22 3,444.40 33.35 587.60

HH Criteria per ft (g PM10 eq)

1.43

1.63 0.32 5.62

5.57 5.45 5.92 5.40 6.66 5.75 7.48 6.49 7.94 7.31

12.88

Ozone Depletion 5,246.61 0.11 179.032 0.00 Smog Potential per ft 2 Potential per ft (g O3 eq) (mg CFC-11 eq)

2,594.72

28.66 11.13

3,652.43 495.35

13.43

30.90 1,728.51

1.58 0.65

26.92 11.68

3,560.19 1,636.19

0.25 0.38 0.20 0.33 0.58 0.44 0.53

4.16 1.53 12.51 2.41 10.76 1.92 4.71 12.88 2.97 1.64 3.79 11.13 1.47 2.05

419.13 32.63 585.63 326.88 493.39 29.18 1,560.04 701.42 1,467.72 62.47 417.16 609.18 30.91 324.92

0.33 1.56 0.28

4.17 2.03 28.66 2.42 1.58

532.95 41.44 3,538.61 440.71 60.75

2,521.50

1.51

1.98 26.91

3,446.36 49.82

2,706.63

1.97

19.42

39.72 3,540.08 33.81

2,893.21 2,668.36

1.92 17.67

48.11 3,447.76

2,593.93

0.70

0.26 0.39 0.21

1.61

1.56

1.98

2.65

0.00 0.00 0.00

108.00 176.37 0.00 69.95

0.00 2,638.34

2,648.24 2,525.64 2,634.20 2,535.54 3,005.91

0.00

83.50 177.57 80.83

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

51.81 0.00 88.56 49.15 85.89 0.04 65.36 89.75 62.69 0.01 70.42 87.09 0.00 67.75

0.00

213.51

180.23 67.29 0.04

0.00 0.00

0.00

387.00

186.29

228.92 177.07 271.13 219.70

0.00 0.00 0.00

71.61 0.02 160.43 68.95 0.01

261.91

0.00

0.00 157.77

285.04

0.00

0.02 0.01

201.30

0.00 198.63

297.09

287.87 294.84 275.82

Eutrophication 3.32 43.18 5,169.18 HH Criteria GWP 10.24 4.48 Acidification Potential 1.62 25.40 1,493.61 Potential (kg PM10 eq) (moles of H+ eq) (tonnes CO2eq) 6.26 TOTAL 1.57 TOTAL 28.29 TOTAL 3,536.64(g N eq) TOTAL

Ozone Depletion 0.11 384.92 Smog Potential 249.36 Potential 0.03 (kg O3 eq) (mg CFC-11 eq) 0.00 179.03TOTAL TOTAL

6.12

0.00

0.0 THAT 0.0 EACH ASSEMBLY USES90.92 IN YOUR99.85 BUILDING 0.0 60.02 6.57

0.0

1.61

6.43 2.75

146.91 Fossil Fuel 77.79 Consumption (MJ) 88.32 TOTAL

Percentage of total

1.51

Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) 6.81 TOTAL

6.57 0.85 102.04

94.86

0.0 0.0 EXTERIOR WALLS 0.0WHOLE BUILDING TOTAL 85.71 0.0

1.56

149.10 10.36Potential Global Warming 6.26 Acidification 1.57 Potential per ft2 per ft2 (kg CO2 eq) (moles of H+ eq)

0.0

TOTAL IMPACTS BY

2.04

0.00

YOUR BUILDING

0.0

0.0 BUILDING COMPONENT

6.14

GWP (tonnes CO2eq) 106.08 TOTAL

88.30 43.36 0.0

6.88

6.28

90.92 19.32 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

95.77

88.87

TOTAL IMPACTS BY BUILDING COMPONENT

0.0 Natural Stone Cladding R20 Cavity Insulation Wood w/ OSB Decking Barrier 3-1/2" Structural Insulated Panel (R19) VaporMetal 0.0 WoodJoist Stud 2x6 16" o.c. Plywood Cladding 1/2" + 2 Coats LatexBarrier Paint VaporGypsum Barrier Board + Weather Resistant XPS Continuous VaporR15 Barrier Wood JoistBlock w/ Plywood decking Concrete 1,905.0 1/2" Gypsum Board +Insulation 2 Coats Latex Paint 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint Wood Truss w/ OSB Decking VaporNatural BarrierStone Cladding 0.0 TOTAL EXTERIOR WALL SQUARE FOOTAGE R20 Cavity Insulation Coat Stucco Over Porous Surface Wood Plywood Decking Vapor2Barrier WoodTruss Stud w/ 2x6 16" o.c. Plywood 0.0 Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier R15 XPS Continuous Insulation Concrete Block TOTAL FOOTAGE 1,905.0 1/2" Gypsum Gypsum Board SQUARE +2 2 Coats Coats Latex Latex Paint 1/2" Board + Paint

Vinyl Siding Note: 2x6 WOOD STUD WALL w/ SHEATHING 4 R15 XPS Continuous Insulation Concrete Floors 1-8Block represent floors with finished, uninsulated interior ceilings.w/ Clay Brick Cladding 1" Air Space 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint R20 Cavity Floors 9-24 represent unfinished floors over crawl spaces, andInsulation the vapor barrier is used 48 Wood Stud 2x6 24" o.c. OSB Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier as ground cover. Cedar Bevel Siding 1/2" XPS Gypsum Board +Insulation 2 Coats Latex Paint Floors 9-16 are insulated and should be used in conjunction with uninsulated foundation 5 R15 Continuous Concrete Block Metal Cladding 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint walls in the Foundations & Footings tab. R20 Cavity Insulation are uninsulated and should be used in conjunction with insulated foundation Floors 17-24 49 Wood Stud 2x6 24" o.c. OSB Exterior Insulated Finishing System Barrier Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant

Acidification Potential per ft2 (moles of H+ eq)

Global Warming Potential per ft2 (kg CO2 eq)

0.0

Metal Cladding R20 Cavity Insulation R30 Cavity Insulation THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT EACH ASSEMBLY USES IN Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier VaporVapor Barrier 0.0 Fossil Fuel88.32 0.0 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint Percentage of INTERIOR OR Square footage Consumption per ft2 3 CoatCRAWL Stucco Over Metal Mesh total SPACE CEILING R30 Cavity Insulation (MJ) R20 Cavity Insulation VaporVapor Barrier Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier 44.74 0.0 85.71 0.0 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats 1/2" Gypsum Board,2 Coats LatexLatex PaintPaint

R20 Cavity Insulation 36 1/2" Board,2 Coats Latex Paint Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier 17 Vinyl Siding VaporGypsum Barrier 5 1/2" Cavity Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint R20 Insulation 18 Joist 2x6 w/ Plywood VaporGypsum Barrier Board,2 Coats Latex Paint 59 Wood WoodIStud 24" o.c.Decking Plywood 1/2" Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Exterior Insulated Finishing SystemBarrier 6 Wood Joist w/ Plywood decking 19 Steel Joist w/ OSB Decking Vapor1/2" Barrier Gypsum Board + 2 Coats R20 Cavity Insulation 1/2" Gypsum Board,2 Coats LatexLatex PaintPaint 37 WoodTruss Stud w/ 2x6 16"Decking o.c. OSB 7 Wood OSB Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier Bevel Siding 20 Steel Joist w/ Plywood decking VaporCedar Barrier 1/2" Cavity Gypsum Board + 2 Coats 1/2" Gypsum Board,2 Coats LatexLatex PaintPaint R20 Insulation 8 60 WoodTruss Studw/ 2x6 24" o.c. Plywood Wood w/ Plywood Decking 21 Joist OSB Decking VaporVapor Barrier Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier Fiber Cement Siding 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint R20 Cavity Insulation 22 Plywood decking Vapor Barrier 38 Wood WoodJoist Studw/ 2x6 16" o.c. OSB R30 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant 9 Exterior Insulated Finishing SystemBarrier Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking 23 Wood Truss w/ OSB Decking Vapor1/2" Barrier Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint R20 Cavity Insulation 61 Wood WoodTruss Stud w/ 2x6 24" o.c. Plywood 24 Plywood Decking VaporVapor Barrier Barrier Weather Resistant Barrier Natural Stone + Cladding R30 Cavity Insulation 1/2" Gypsum Board SQUARE + 2 Coats Latex Paint R20 Cavity Insulation TOTAL FOOTAGE 10 Joist 2x6 w/ Plywood 39 Wood WoodIStud 16" o.c.Decking OSB VaporFiber Barrier Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier Cement Siding 1/2" Cavity Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint R20 Insulation 62 Wood Note: Stud 2x6 24" o.c. Plywood R19 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier + Weather Clay Brick Cladding w/ 1" Resistant Air Space Barrier 11 Steel Joist OSB Decking R12 Continuous Insulation Floors 1-8w/ represent floors with finished, uninsulated interior ceilings. 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint R20 Cavity Insulation 40 Floors Wood Stud 2x6 16" o.c. Plywood Vaporspaces, Barrier 9-24 represent unfinished floors over crawl and the vapor barrier is used Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier Natural Stone Cladding as ground cover. R19 Cavity Insulation 1/2" Cavity Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint R20 Insulation 63 Floors Wood Stud 2x6 24" o.c. Plywood 9-16 insulated and should be usedR12 in conjunction with uninsulated foundation 12 Steel Joist w/ are Plywood decking Continuous Insulation Vapor Barrier + Weather Resistant Barrier Metal Cladding Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint walls in the Foundations & Footings tab. R20 Cavity Insulation Vapor1/2" Barrier 41 Wood Stud 2x6 16" o.c. Plywood Barrier +with Weather Resistant Barrier conjunction insulated foundation Floors 17-24 are uninsulated and should be used inVapor Insulation 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint walls inJoist the w/ Foundations & Footings tab. (SIP) R30 Cavity WOOD STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANEL 13 BASED Wood OSB Decking Vapor3Barrier Coat Stucco Over Metal Mesh Clay Brick Cladding w/ 1" Air Space R20 Cavity Insulation 64 Structural Insulated Panel (R19) 42 3-1/2" Wood Stud 2x6 16" o.c. Plywood 1/2" + 2 Coats LatexBarrier Paint VaporGypsum Barrier Board + Weather Resistant R30 Cavity Insulation 14 Wood Joist w/ Plywood decking 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint VaporMetal Barrier Cladding 65 3-1/2" Structural Insulated Panel (R19) VinylGypsum Siding Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint 1/2" R20 Cavity Insulation R30 Cavity Insulation 43 Wood Stud 2x6 16" o.c. Plywood 15 Wood Truss w/ OSB Decking Vapor + Weather Barrier 3 Coat Barrier Metal Resistant Mesh Vapor BarrierStucco Over Structural Insulated Panel (R19)THE IN66 THE3-1/2" YELLOW CELLS BELOW, ENTER AMOUNT SQUARE FOOTAGE 1/2" GypsumOF Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint Cedar Bevel Siding R30 Cavity Insulation Vinyl Siding R20 Cavity Insulation 16 Truss w/ Plywood Decking 67 Wood 3-1/2" Structural Insulated Panel (R19) WALL TYPE WALL ENVELOPE 44 Wood Stud 2x6 16" o.c. Plywood Gypsum + 2 Coats LatexBarrier Paint Vapor1/2" Barrier Vapor Barrier Board + Weather Resistant 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint Cedar Bevel Siding 17 Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking Vapor Barrier Average across exterior wall assemblies: 68 3-1/2" Structural Insulated Panel (R19) Exterior Insulated Finishing System 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint 8" 18 CONCRETE BLOCK R20 Cavity Insulation

19 69

Fossil Fuel Consumption per ft2 (MJ)

Percentage of total

5.53 5.21 12 52 7.83 5.50 2.80

1.52

1.63

2.16 1.39 3,394 19,074 26.54 2.84

22.38 31.88 129 3,444.40 530 31.75

1,155.66 2,517.29 5,420 20,183 3,656.48

1.94 28.66 0.90

29.43 3,652.43 20.45

2,560.91 1,004.58

0.00

0.01 0.00 11 137 176.37 0.11

275.60 211.43 570 2,968 365.68

0.04 180.23 0.00

184.21 192.18

Fossil Fuel Consumption per ft2 73.48 88.30 (MJ)

Acidification Potential Eutrophication Global Warming HH Criteria per ft2 Potential per ft2 per ft2 Potential per ft2 (g PM10 eq)18.00 1.45 (kg CO2 eq) 3.09 1.58 (moles of H+ eq) (mg N 1,048.20 eq) 6.43 26.92 3,560.19

Ozone Depletion Smog Potential per ft2 Potential per ft2 (g O3 eq)164.96 0.04 (mg CFC-11 eq) 0.00 177.57

12.04

0.60

0.00

9.42 100% 36.10

33.46 11.49 8.88 14.09

89.23 107.40 110.65 62.86 110.69 61.60 114.22 85.87 87.97 154.58

11.47

0.47 2.51 2.37 0.58 0.45 0.89

5.45 7.19 8.31 3.04

5.80 4.13 9.56 4.95 6.54 11.87

0.76

0.25 0.20 0.58 0.53 0.26 0.21 0.33

1.49 2.17 2.54 1.01

1.60 1.50 3.17 1.45 1.99 3.85

0.28

4.16 2.41 4.71 2.97 3.79 2.05 4.17

31.16 38.75 419.13 40.04 19.73 326.88

2,570.80 2,636.75 1,981.94 1,058.10

1,560.04 61.00 28.54 1,467.72 34.16

2,556.76 1,415.77 1,719.94

417.16 36.92 39.97 324.92 43.53 532.95

1,116.49 2,928.48 4,220.76

2.42

440.71

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.03 51.81 0.05 0.00 49.15

226.84 327.05 440.96 207.59

0.01 65.36 0.02 0.03 62.69

269.05 275.77 470.55

70.42 0.00 0.02 67.75 0.14 71.61

263.71 295.01 560.63

0.00

68.95

112.24 78.11

7.36 6.23

1.94 1.74

48.35 30.95

2,629.19 1,410.76

0.00 0.03

282.96 359.89

105.34

6.76

2.04

40.34

2,953.57

0.02

262.56

0.0

107.51

7.13

2.46

29.78

1,612.49

0.06

359.92

0.0

108.01

8.00

2.67

35.04

2,710.53

0.01

289.78

0.0

96.90

7.08

2.01

31.51

1,622.38

0.03

402.55

Appendix 3.4 Athena: Windows and Interior Walls

TOTAL IMPACTS BY BUILDING COMPONENT

Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) TOTAL

WINDOWS WHOLE BUILDING TOTAL

E. WINDOWS

GWP (tonnes CO2eq) TOTAL

146,291 758,977

Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) TOTAL

14 52

Eutrophication Potential (g N eq) TOTAL

HH Criteria (kg PM10 eq) TOTAL

9,371 19,074

275 530

Ozone Depletion Potential (mg CFC-11 eq) TOTAL

3,775 20,183

Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) TOTAL

52 137

1,395 2,968

IN THE YELLOW CELLS BELOW, ENTER THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT EACH ASSEMBLY USES IN YOUR BUILDING FRAME TYPE

DOUBLE GLAZING TYPE

Percentage of total

Fossil Fuel 2 Consumption per ft (MJ)

Global Warming Potential per ft2 (kg CO2 eq)

Acidification Potential 2 per ft (moles of H+ eq)

HH Criteria per ft (g PM10 eq)

Ozone Depletion Potential per ft2 (mg CFC-11 eq)

Eutrophication 2 Potential per ft (mg N eq)

Smog Potential per ft (g O3 eq)

465.00

40.80

29.67

643.45

9,806.11

0.23

3,509.15

Low E, Argon Filled

0.0

774.94

65.39

55.77

844.88

12,813.81

0.36

5,320.30

Vinyl-clad Wood - Operable

Low E, Argon Filled

0.0

322.53

29.85

19.78

556.84

7,936.37

0.15

2,849.49

Vinyl - Operable Wood - Operable

Low E, Argon Filled Low E, Argon Filled

0.0 452.0

438.86 323.65

36.66 31.29

22.42 20.73

564.41 607.67

10,122.78 8,351.49

0.28 0.11

2,779.60 3,087.20

TOTAL WINDOW SQUARE FOOTAGE

452.0

Average across all window types: Aluminum - Operable 1

2 3 4

Square footage

Note: Sliding glass door areas should be input as windows on this page

100%

TOTAL IMPACTS BY BUILDING COMPONENT

INTERIOR WALLS WHOLE BUILDING TOTAL

F. INTERIOR WALLS

Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) TOTAL

Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) TOTAL

GWP (tonnes CO2eq) TOTAL

2,602 758,977

0 52

Eutrophication Potential (g N eq) TOTAL

HH Criteria (kg PM10 eq) TOTAL

35 19,074

2 530

47 20,183

Ozone Depletion Potential (mg CFC-11 eq) TOTAL

0 137

Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) TOTAL

6 2,968

IN THE YELLOW CELLS BELOW, ENTER THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT EACH ASSEMBLY USES IN YOUR BUILDING ASSEMBLY TYPE (16" o.c. walls modelled as Load Bearing, 24" o.c. as Non Load bearing)

WALL ENVELOPE (applied to both sides of the asembly)

Square footage Percentage of total

Global Warming Potential per ft2 (kg CO2 eq)

Acidification Potential per ft2 (moles of H+ eq)

HH Criteria per ft2 (g PM10 eq)

Eutrophication Potential per ft2 (mg N eq)

Ozone Depletion Potential per ft2 (mg CFC-11 eq)

Smog Potential per ft2 (g O3 eq)

33.87

1.94

0.57

21.21

712.79

0.01

88.30

0.0

33.25

1.64

0.44

18.39

866.17

0.00

51.68

0.0

27.75

1.22

0.36

18.00

609.37

0.00

44.51

23.87

0.93

0.32

18.19

430.24

0.00

54.29

23.31

0.89

0.31

18.00

403.30

0.00

48.87

61.17

5.01

1.40

33.46

1,254.84

0.03

242.17

Average across interior walls: 1

Steel Stud 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 16" o.c.

1/2" Gypsum Board, 2 Coats Latex Paint

Steel Stud 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 24" o.c.

1/2" Gypsum Board, 2 Coats Latex Paint

Wood Stud 2 x 4 16" o.c.

1/2" Gypsum Board, 2 Coats Latex Paint

109.0

Wood Stud 2 x 4 24" o.c.

1/2" Gypsum Board, 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

Concrete Block

1/2" Gypsum Board, 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

TOTAL INTERIOR WALL SQUARE FOOTAGE

Fossil Fuel Consumption per ft2 (MJ)

109.0

100%

Appendix 3.5 Athena: Roofs

TOTAL IMPACTS BY BUILDING COMPONENT

ROOF WHOLE BUILDING

G. ROOFS

Fossil Fuel Consumption (MJ) TOTAL

Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq) TOTAL

GWP (tonnes CO2eq) TOTAL

292,402 758,977

17 52

4,282 19,074

Eutrophication Potential (g N eq) TOTAL

HH Criteria (kg PM10 eq) TOTAL

85 530

8,870 20,183

Ozone Depletion Potential (mg CFC-11 eq) TOTAL

3 137

Smog Potential (kg O3 eq) TOTAL

466 2,968

IN THE YELLOW CELLS BELOW, ENTER THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT EACH ASSEMBLY USES IN YOUR BUILDING ROOF TYPE

ROOF ENVELOPE

Square footage

Percentage of total

Average across all roof types: WOOD I-JOIST

Fossil Fuel Consumption per ft2 (MJ)

Global Warming Potential per ft2 (kg CO2 eq)

Acidification Potential per ft2 (moles of H+ eq)

HH Criteria per ft (g PM10 eq)

Eutrophication Potential per ft2 (mg N eq)

Ozone Depletion 2 Potential per ft (mg CFC-11 eq)

Smog Potential per ft (g O3 eq)

195.98 196.24

11.75 11.71

3.09 3.10

54.77 56.74

5,861.66 5,821.72

0.01 0.01

313.35 311.00

Wood I Joist w/ Plywood Decking

Clay Tile R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

205.88

13.73

3.95

62.28

5,665.41

0.00

301.34

Wood I Joist w/ Plywood Decking

Asphalt Shingles, Fiberglass Felt based, 20 year R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

192.78

10.80

2.74

54.15

5,589.60

0.00

305.43

Wood I Joist w/ Plywood Decking

Asphalt Shingles, Fiberglass Felt based, 30 year R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

1,593.0

183.55

10.66

2.69

53.27

5,568.26

0.00

292.76

Wood I Joist w/ Plywood Decking

Asphalt Shingles, Organic Felt based, 20 year R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

207.90

11.09

2.83

55.54

5,599.17

0.00

309.43

Wood I Joist w/ Plywood Decking

Asphalt Shingles, Organic Felt based, 30 year R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

191.32

10.82

2.74

53.98

5,567.66

0.00

291.28

Wood I Joist w/ Plywood Decking

Metal Roofing R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

189.69

12.82

3.51

57.04

6,718.81

0.05

359.39

Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking

Clay Tile R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

207.98

13.83

3.99

63.68

5,739.21

0.00

303.47

Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking

Asphalt Shingles, Fiberglass Felt based, 20 year R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

194.88

10.91

2.78

55.55

5,663.40

0.00

307.56

Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking

Asphalt Shingles, Fiberglass Felt based, 30 year R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

185.65

10.77

2.73

54.67

5,642.06

0.00

294.89

Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking

Asphalt Shingles, Organic Felt based, 20 year R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

210.00

11.20

2.88

56.94

5,672.97

0.00

311.56

Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking

Asphalt Shingles, Organic Felt based, 30 year R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

193.42

10.93

2.78

55.38

5,641.45

0.00

293.41

Wood I Joist w/ OSB Decking

Metal Roofing R49 Cavity Insulation Vapor Barrier 1/2" Gypsum Board + 2 Coats Latex Paint

0.0

191.78

12.93

3.55

58.43

6,792.61

0.05

361.52

220.27

13.61

3.42

57.29

6,962.54

0.01

324.55

STEEL JOIST

100%