Portfolio 2022

PORTFOLIO XI YI AIA, LEED AP (ND, BD+C), WELL AP, CEEQUAL Master of Architecture in Urban Design, Harvard University https://www.linkedin.com/in/xi-yi-1857704b

CO 2

CH 4

N 2O

HFCs

PFCs

SF 6

NF 3

Scope 1

Scope 2

DIRECT

INDIRECT

OFFSET ALL HISTORICAL SCOPE 1 AND 2 EMISSIONS

Purchased goods and services

Emissions from upstream leased properties

Production of capital goods

Emissions from employee commuting

Fuel and energy related activities Transportation of goods used by LinkedIn

INDIRECT GHG emissions from fuel used directly by LinkedIn: Transportation and Distribution Natural gas, diesel generators Emissions from onsite composting plant

Emissions from business travel Emissions from solid waste management

Upstream activities

CARBON NEUTRAL SCOPE 1, 2 AND 3

Scope 3

Scope 3

INDIRECT

GHG emissions from purchased electricity

Gasoline / diesel in company owned vehicles

Reporting company

Investment

Franchises

Processing of solc product Use of sold product

Emissions from downstream leased properties End-of-life treatment of sold products

Downstream activities

2030 2050

LINKEDIN MIDDLEFIELD CAMPUS CARBON ACTION PLAN | NET ZERO CARBON BUILDING DESIGN Project scope: carbon zero action plan, building life cycle carbon assessment, concept design, structural system analysis and selection, materials research, certification schemes recommendation, etc 2020.04-2021.06

PROJECT OVERVIEW

AS+GG was commissioned by LinkedIn to develop a Carbon Action Plan (CAP) on their newly designed office building loca Mountain View, CA. The goal of the project was to provide recommendations on whether, and if yes, how the building may lifecycle carbon neutrality across Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 2030, in alignment with LinkedIn’s corporate sustainability

The primary focuses of the CAP were placed on materials optimization (level 1 intervention as we called it in the CAP) and systems optimization (level 2 intervention). Major construction materials - structural steel, concrete, aluminum, and glass w studied to find the lowest embodied carbon products available on the market. Different structural systems were tested to co the differences in embodied carbon between steel frame, concrete frame, and wood & steel hybrid system. LCAs were perf on each of these options to compare and inform the best solution.

The CAP eventually led to a re-design commission in 2021, where building massing, orientation, facade design and MEP s were added to the study. Through close collaboration with structural and MEP consultants, the new design was able to offs operational carbon and all its upfront embodied carbon through onsite renewable energy within 9 years timeframe.

As a core member of the team, I was responsible for structuring the Carbon Action Plan, collaborating with structural engin concrete frame options, performing life cycle assessment on over 20 study options, and developing the life cycle carbon da for our new design.

THREE LEVELS OF INTERVENTION BUILDING LIFE-CYCLE STAGE

Level 1 Intervention

Level 2 Intervention

Level 3 Intervention

A1 - A3

A4 - A5

B1-B5

B6-B7

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

MAINTENANCE & REPLACEMENT

Low carbon materials Biogenic carbon storage

Local manufacture

Fit-out selection Low GWP refrigerant

Purchased renewable Energy

Design for disassemb

Building System Optimization • Structural system • Building enclosure • MEP

Construction means and methods

Machine learned predictive maintenance

Energy / Water Use Optimization • MEP • Building enclosure • Geothermal energy piles Building Efficiency Optimization • Usable space carbon footprint Other Operational Reduction • Building automation • Demand response • On-site renewable energy

Design for disassemb

OPERATIONAL ENERGY & WATER USE

Building re-design, Site re-design, Design for Flexibility

C1

END

ated in achieve y goals.

d building were ompare formed

systems set its

neers on ashboard

LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT MATERIAL BOUNDARIES Material boundaries include all major components of the construction. MEP systems and on site photovoltaic panels were not included in the CAP studies, however were added into the LCA in the later re-design stage.

Interior Partitions

Exterior Wall Components Included

Materials Included

Components Included

Materials Included

Curtain Wall Panels

Glazing

Interior GWB Walls

Gypsum board

Storefront System

Aluminum Mullions

Interior Shafts

Aluminum studs

Precast Panels

Aluminum Panels

Interior Storefront

Ceramic Tile

Shading Fins

Insulation

Roof planters

Insulation Cement Plaster

Precast Concrete

Excluded

Shaft liners

Embed Plates

Glazing

Fin Additional Support

Aluminum Mullions Precast Concrete

Gaskets or Sealants

Excluded

Exterior doors

Tenant fitout (inc. toilet rooms and furniture) Building systems (equipment and distribution) Interior doors Elevator cabs

1 - C4

D OF LIFE

r end of life bly and reuse

r end of life bly and reuse

Above Grade Structure Foundations

Components Included

Materials Included

Columns

Concrete

Beams

Steel

Components Included

Materials Included

Slab on Grade

Concrete

Slabs

Steel Rebar

Grade beams

Steel Rebar

BRBF (diagonal bracing)

Fireproofing

Piles

Roof Parapet

Metal Deck

Excluded

Excluded

Infrastructure requirements (pipes, telecommunications, etc)

Stairs

BASELINE LIFE CYCLE CARBON ASSESSMENT USING ONECLICK LCA

A whole building life cycle carbon assessment was performed on the original design and the results were used as the reduc Material data were taken from the project’s specifications and quantities were taken from the Revit model. Operational data from the project’s LEED energy report.

Oneclick LCA was used to perform the LCA.

Above Grade Structure

50.2% Steel and Other Metals

76%

Building Initial Carbon Emission

Exterior Wall

Foundation Interior Other

24%

Operational Carbon Emission

Gas

Electricity

PV Offset

14.6% 8.6% 2.7%

Concrete Glass Other

2.8% 21.2%

2023 - 2030

ction baseline. a was obtained

29.5%

Structural Steel

14.9%

Ready-Mix Concrete (above grade)

10.5%

Aluminum

6.6% 5.3% 3.3% 2.9%

Ready-Mix Concrete (foundation) Other Metal Glass Rebar Other

-3.4%

PV Offset

EMBODIED CARBON REDUCTION STRATEGIES - MATERIAL AND STRUCTURAL IMPROVE

10 concrete frame structural system options were studied and assessed. LCA input parameters are listed in the below table Similar studies were performed for steel frame structural options and wood-steel hybrid structural options.

CON01

CON01BP

CON02

CON02BP

CON03

BASELINE CONCRETE BLDG 10'' 6,000 psi PT Slab

CON01 + BLUE PLANET

IMPROVED CONCRETE, REBAR AND ALUMINIUM

CON02 + BLUE PLANET

CON02 + HS CO AND HS STEEL -

CON01

SYMBOL TYPICAL BAY DIMENSIONS

CON01BP

CON02

CON02BP

CON0

36' x 30'

36’ x 30’

36' x 30'

36’ x 30’

36' x 30'

Columns: 24” x 24” 6000psi NWC Slabs: 10” PT 6000psi NWC

Columns: 24” x 24” 6000psi NWC Slabs: 10” PT 6000psi NWC

Columns: 24” x 24” 6000psi NWC Slabs: 10” PT 6000psi NWC

Columns: 24” x 24” 6000psi NWC Slabs: 10” PT 6000psi NWC

Columns: 24” x 2 NWC with HS (assumes 20 quant reducti Slabs: 8.5” PT 10000psi N

CORE & LATERAL SYSTEM

Concrete Cores Assumes 430' of total core wall length, at 24" thick with 6000psi concrete

Concrete Cores Assumes 430’ of total core wall length, at 24” thick with 6000psi concrete

Concrete Cores Assumes 430’ of total core wall length, at 24” thick with 6000psi concrete

Concrete Cores Assumes 430’ of total core wall length, at 24” thick with 6000psi concrete

Concrete Cores Assumes 430’ of t wall length, at 21. with 6000psi conc rebar (assumes 2 quant reduction)

FOUNDATION IMPACTS

Piles: 60% Increase to baseline quantities Pile Caps: 40% Increase to baseline quantities Grade Beams: As per current design from Forell/Elsesser

Piles: 60% Increase to baseline quantities Pile Caps: 40% Increase to baseline quantities Grade Beams: As per current design from Forell/Elsesser

Piles: 60% Increase to baseline quantities Pile Caps: 40% Increase to baseline quantities Grade Beams: As per current design from Forell/Elsesser

Piles: 60% Increase to baseline quantities Pile Caps: 40% Increase to baseline quantities Grade Beams: As per current design from Forell/Elsesser

Piles: 35% Increa baseline quan Pile Caps: 20% I baseline quan Grade Beams: A current desig Forell/Elsess

12' - 10"

12’ - 10”

12' - 10"

12’ - 10”

12' - 8.5"

8.33% Decrease

8.33% Decrease

8.33% Decrease

8.33% Decrease

9.2% Decrease

As per current design from Studios Mullions: Aluminum Mullions Glazing System: SNX 62/27 Spandrel: Insulated Shadow Box with IGU front panel Precast Panels: As per current design from Studios

As per current design from Studios Mullions: Aluminum Mullions Glazing System: SNX 62/27 Spandrel: Insulated Shadow Box with IGU front panel Precast Panels: As per current design from Studios

As per current design from Studios Mullions: Aluminum Mullions Glazing System: SNX 62/27 Spandrel: Insulated Shadow Box with IGU front panel Precast Panels: As per current design from Studios

As per current design from Studios Mullions: Aluminum Mullions Glazing System: SNX 62/27 Spandrel: Insulated Shadow Box with IGU front panel Precast Panels: As per current design from Studios

As per current de from Studios Mullions: Aluminum Mu Glazing System: Spandrel: Insulat Box with IGU Precast Panels: current design Studios

TYPICAL BAY STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

TYPICAL FLOOR ASSUMED FLOORTO-FLOOR HEIGHT FACACE AREA

FAÇADE SYSTEM

EMENT

e.

ONCRETE - 8.5''

03

CON03BP

CON04

CON04BP

CON05

CON05BP

CON03 + BLUE PLANET

CON02 + LW CONCRETE SLAB + HS CORE - 9''

CON04 + BLUE PLANET

CON02 + IMPROVED FAÇADE

CON05 + BLUE PLANET

CON03BP

CON04

CON04BP

CON05

CON05BP

36' x 30'

36' x 30'

36' x 30'

36' x 30'

36' x 30'

Columns: 24” x 24” 6000psi NWC with HS Rebar (assumes 20% rebar quant reduction) Slabs: 8.5” PT 10000psi NWC

Columns: 24” x 24” 6000psi NWC with HS Rebar (assumes 20% rebar quant reduction) Slabs: 9” PT 4000psi LWC

Columns: 24” x 24” 6000psi NWC with HS Rebar (assumes 20% rebar quant reduction) Slabs: 9” PT 4000psi LWC

Columns: 24” x 24” 6000psi NWC Slabs: 10” PT 6000psi NWC

Columns: 24” x 24” 6000psi NWC Slabs: 10” PT 6000psi NWC

total core .5” thick crete & HS 25% rebar

Concrete Cores Assumes 430’ of total core wall length, at 21.5” thick with 6000psi concrete & HS rebar (assumes 25% rebar quant reduction)

Concrete Cores Assumes 430’ of total core wall length, at 21.5” thick with 6000psi concrete & HS rebar (assumes 25% rebar quant reduction)

Concrete Cores Assumes 430’ of total core wall length, at 21.5” thick with 6000psi concrete & HS rebar (assumes 25% rebar quant reduction)

Concrete Cores Assumes 430’ of total core wall length, at 24” thick with 6000psi concrete

Concrete Cores Assumes 430’ of total core wall length, at 24” thick with 6000psi concrete

ase to ntities Increase to ntities As per gn from ser

Piles: 35% Increase to baseline quantities Pile Caps: 20% Increase to baseline quantities Grade Beams: As per current design from Forell/Elsesser

Piles: 35% Increase to baseline quantities Pile Caps: 20% Increase to baseline quantities Grade Beams: As per current design from Forell/Elsesser

Piles: 35% Increase to baseline quantities Pile Caps: 20% Increase to baseline quantities Grade Beams: As per current design from Forell/Elsesser

Piles: 60% Increase to baseline quantities Pile Caps: 40% Increase to baseline quantities Grade Beams: As per current design from Forell/Elsesser

Piles: 60% Increase to baseline quantities Pile Caps: 40% Increase to baseline quantities Grade Beams: As per current design from Forell/Elsesser

12' - 8.5"

12' - 9"

12' - 9"

12’ - 10”

12’ - 10”

9.2% Decrease

8.9% Decrease

8.9% Decrease

8.33% Decrease

8.33% Decrease

As per current design from Studios Mullions: Aluminum Mullions Glazing System: SNX 62/27 Spandrel: Insulated Shadow Box with IGU front panel Precast Panels: As per current design from Studios

As per current design from Studios Mullions: Aluminum Mullions Glazing System: SNX 62/27 Spandrel: Insulated Shadow Box with IGU front panel Precast Panels: As per current design from Studios

As per current design from Studios Mullions: Aluminum Mullions Glazing System: SNX 62/27 Spandrel: Insulated Shadow Box with IGU front panel Precast Panels: As per current design from Studios

Mullions: Wood Mullions Glazing System: SNX 51/23 w/ Argon Spandrel: Omit Shadow Box & Replace with 100% Translucent Fritt Glazing Precast Panels: As per current design from Studios

Mullions: Wood Mullions Glazing System: SNX 51/23 w/ Argon Spandrel: Omit Shadow Box & Replace with 100% Translucent Fritt Glazing Precast Panels: As per current design from Studios

24” 6000psi S Rebar 0% rebar ion)

NWC

esign

ullions : SNX 62/27 ted Shadow front panel As per n from

EXAMPLE PAGE OF LCA COMPARISON BETWEEN BASELINE AND STUDIED SCHEMES

SUMMARY

REDUCTION FROM BASELINE*

Option with industrial average materials (concrete, rebar and aluminum).

Option ID

Lifecycle Carbon Emission (kgCO2e)

Percentage Improvement Against Baseline

CON01

11,300,542

-0.3%

STUDY OUTPUT

Aluminum

-2.9% -0.2%

lbs

Ready-Mix Concrete (foundation)

REBAR AND PT STRANDS

3,500,388

lbs

Other Metals

TOTAL CONCRETE

18,704

yd3

yd3

FLOOR SLAB CONCRETE (6000 PSI)

10,406

yd3

COLUMN AND CORE WALL CONCRETE (6000 PSI)

3,215

yd3

EMBODIED CARBON BENCHMARK (A1-A4, B4-B5, C1-C4)

kgCO2e/m2

+207.7%

Ready-Mix Concrete (above grade)

3,500,388

FOUNDATION CONCRETE 5,083 (3500 PSI)

-85.1%

Structural Steel

TOTAL STEEL

-6.5% +290.3%

Glass Rebar

*Please note that the sankey diagram for this option is not the same scale as the rest of the options. The diagram has be scaled by 60%.

LIFECYCLE STAGES

ILFI Zero Carbon Certification Threshold: 500 kgCO2e/m2

90.8%

A1-A3 A4

414

STL01

1%

A5

4.4%

C3-C4

3.9%

EMBODIED CARBON BREAKDOWN BY MATERIAL

CON01

Above Grade Structure

Concrete

Exterior Wall Metal

Foundation

Glass Other

Interior Others

Ready-Mix Concrete (above grade) Ready-Mix Concrete (foundation) Structural Steel

Rebar Glass Aluminum

MATERIAL EMBODIED CARBON BENCHMARK CONCRETE FOUNDATION

REBAR 3001-4000 psi 28-day strength NRMCA industryaverage normal strength concrete (kgCO2e/m3)

Worst

Average

Worst Best

261.62 SLAB

Average

Worst Best

6000 psi 28-day strength California industryaverage normal strength concrete (kgCO2e/m3)

Worst

Average 487.88

Best

(kgCO2e/kg)

487.88 COLUMN AND CORE WALL

Average 0.89

ALUMINUM PVDF-coated aluminum curtain wall extrusion

6000 psi 28-day strength California industryaverage normal strength concrete (kgCO2e/m3)

Worst

Rebar from Bakersfield/Benicia/Stockton mill (CA) (kgCO2e/kg)

Best

16.8

Average

Best

FACADE IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES - SHOEBOX STUDIES (EUI, DAYLIGHT AND EMBOD

Shoebox studies testing varies facade improvement options through the comparison of Energy Use Intensity (EUI), daylight, view and embodied carbon.

BASELINE TEST Panel A: Shadowbox U-Value 0.23 btu/sf.h.F Panel B: Vision Glass U-Value 0.325 btu/sf.h.F SHGC 0.27 VLT 0.62 Panel C: Vision Glass U-Value 0.297 btu/sf.h.F SHGC 0.27 VLT 0.62

0

17

33

50

67

83

100

Annual Daylight Map

*Aluminum mullion u-value 1.00 btu/sf.h.F Typical Unitized Panel 10’ x 14’

Annual Glare

TEST 1: WOOD MULLION

Baseline’s aluminum mullions are replaced with wood mullions Panel A: Shadowbox U-Value 0.173 btu/sf.h.F Panel B: Vision Glass U-Value 0.285 btu/sf.h.F SHGC 0.27 VLT 0.62

Building 6, Level 4

Panel C: Vision Glass U-Value 0.271 btu/sf.h.F SHGC 0.27 VLT 0.62

0

17

33

50

67

83

100

Annual Daylight Map

*Wood mullion u-value 0.40 btu/sf.h.F Typical Unitized Panel 10’ x 14’

Shoebox Floor Plan 39.5 ft. x 90 ft. (3,557 sf area)

Tot 7y 30 *Va Annual Glare

DIED CARBON COMPARISON)

0

TEST 8: 100% FRIT

Divide the panel into 2, and use 100% frit for Panel A

276 kg CO2/sq.m of facade Embodied Carbon

EUI

39.17

Cooling 8,347.89 Heating 3,090.77 Lighting 3,836.57 *Cooling, heating, lighting values in kWh

54%

Panel A: Frit U-Value 0.272 btu/sf.h.F SHGC 0.10 VLT 0.12

218 kg CO2/sq.m of facade

Panel B: Vision Glass U-Value 0.297 btu/sf.h.F SHGC 0.27 VLT 0.62

Cooling 7,784.15 Heating 3,069.68 Lighting 4,137.50 *Cooling, heating, lighting values in kWh 1.71% better

*Aluminum mullion u-value 1.00 btu/sf.h.F

Percent of Time, Closed Blinds Daylight Autonomy without blinds 60% with blinds 28%

Embodied Carbon 21.01% better

EUI

0

17

33

50

67

83

100

Annual Daylight Map

32.6%

Percent of Time, Closed Blinds 40.07% better Daylight Autonomy without blinds 54% with blinds 34%

Typical Unitized Panel 10’ x 14’ Total Lifecycle Carbon 7 years 98.441.40 30 years 315,789.44 *Values in kg CO2

38.49

Total Lifecycle Carbon 7 years 90,338.79 30 years 303,360.80 *Values in kg CO2

8.2% better 3.9% better

Annual Glare

TEST 9: 50% WINDOW-TO-WALL RATIO WITH ALTERNATE GLASS - SNX 51/23

Variation of Test 7, replacing baseline vision glass with SNX 51/23

169 kg CO2/sq.m of facade EUI

Embodied Carbon 0.72% better

Panel B: SNX 51/23 U-Value 0.297 btu/sf.h.F SHGC 0.23 VL T 0.51

39.34

Cooling 8,633.53 Heating 2,746.71 Lighting 3,844.77 *Cooling, heating, lighting values in kWh 0.44% worse

EUI

*Aluminum mullion u-value 1.00 btu/sf.h.F 0

17

33

50

67

83

Annual Daylight Map

54%

Percent of Time, Closed Blinds Daylight Autonomy without blinds 60% with blinds 28%

tal Lifecycle Carbon years 86,326.90 years 305,004.00 alues in kg CO2

272 kg CO2/sq.m of facade

Panel A: Shadowbox U-Value 0.142 btu/sf.h.F

Embodied Carbon 38.8% better

Typical Unitized Panel 10’ x 14’

100

15.5%

Percent of Time, Closed Blinds 71.5% better Daylight Autonomy without blinds 41% with blinds 33%

Total Lifecycle Carbon 7 years 97,458.89 30 years 313,116.40 *Values in kg CO2

12.3% better 3.4% better

Annual Glare

38.79

Cooling 7,816.45 Heating 3,212.49 Lighting 4,316.51 *Cooling, heating, lighting values in kWh 0.71% better

1.0% better 0.8% better

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STEEL

CONCRETE

BLUE PLANET

BASELINE

STL01

STL02

STL02BP

STL03

Sequestration from Blue Planet

STL03BP

CON01

CON01BP

CON02

CON02BP

CON03

CON03BP

Sequestration from Wood Option ID

Building Recommendations LCA results of all study options are listed here for compaison.

CON02 with 100% blue planet aggregation (BPA) utilization was deemed as the preferred solution. If a wood mullion system is desirable, CON05 with maximum aggregate replacement can also achieve even greater carbon negativity.

Conservative altitude was taken towards wood-steel hybrid options with concerns on the reliability of carbon accounting of timber materials.

With all that in mind, carbon neutrality by 2030 is unlikely with the current design scheme, without the use of blue planet aggregation. However concrete frame CON02 would still be the most reliable and lowest carbon solution for the studied building.

D STEEL

STL01

Baseline, as per Specifications

STL02

Improved Materials (Steel, Concrete, Re

STL02BP STL03 STL03BP

STL02 + Blue Planet Aggregate

STL02 + Improved Facade (Wood Mullio STL03 + Blue Planet Aggregate CONCRETE

CON01 CON01BP CON02 CON02BP CON03 CON03BP CON04 CON04BP CON05 CON05BP

Baseline w 10’’ PT Slabs CON01 + Blue Planet Aggregate

Improved Materials (Concrete, Rebar an CON02 + Blue Planet Aggregate

CON02 + High Strength Concrete w 8.5’ CON03 + Blue Planet Aggregate

CON02 + Light Weight Concrete w 9’’ PT CON04 + Blue Planet Aggregate

CON02 + Improved Facade (Wood Mulli CON05 + Blue Planet Aggregate HYBRID

HYB01

Upturned Steel Beam with CLT Panel Flo

HYB02

Upturned Glulam Beam with CLT PanelF

HYB03

HYB02 + Improved Facade (Wood Mullio

HYB03BP

HYB03 + Blue Planet Aggregate

10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000

BLUE PLANET

4,000,000

CON04BP

CON05

CON05BP

Description

ebar and Aluminum)

ons and Fins, Omit Shadow Box for Fritted Glass)

nd Aluminum) w 10’’ PT Slabs

’’ PT Slabs

T Slabs

ions and Fins, Omit Shadow Box for Fritted Glass)

HYB01

HYB02

HYB03

HYB03BP

BLUE PLANET

CON04

2,000,000

Lifecycle Carbon Emissions (kgCO2e)

12,000,000

HYBRID

0

Embodied Carbon (kgCO2e)

Sequestered CO2 (kgCO2e)

Net Emissions (kgCO2e)

Percentage Improvement

11,261,446

-

11,261,446

-

6,393,849

-

6,393,849

43.2%

6,393,849

-1,157,596

5,236,253

53.5%

6,390,162

-156,009

6,234,153

44.6%

6,390,162

-1,313,605

5,076,557

54.9%

11,300,542

-

11,300,542

-0.3%

11,300,542

-5,394,027

5,906,515

47.6%

4,951,473

-

4,951,473

56.0%

4,951,473

-5,394,027

-442,554

103.9%

6,199,681

-

6,199,681

44.9%

6,199,681

-4,715,058

1,484,623

86.8%

6,372,296

-

6,372,296

43.4%

6,372,296

-2,322,826

4,049,470

64.0%

4,930,557

-142,149

4,788,408

57.5%

4,930,557

-5,536,176

-605,619

105.4%

oor Slabs

6,059,163

-2,486,691

3,572,472

68.3%

Floor Slabs

6,056,195

-5,542,767

513,428

95.4%

ons and Fins, Omit Shadow Box for Fritted Glass)

6,050,335

-5,701,614

348,721

96.9%

6,050,335

-7,497,825

-1,447,490

112.9%

PROJECT LIFE CYCLE CARBON DASHBOARD

The conclusion in the Carbon Action Plan ultimately led to a round of new design effort in 2021. The new design is a synthe optimized building shape and orientation for daylight and natural ventilation; maximized onsite PV generation; minimized em selection; and a combination of indoor and outdoor spaces that foster biophilic design.

To help the client better understand the new design scheme’s carbon impacts, I developed an interactive 3D dashboard thr Grasshopper. Semantic and PowerBi. The dashboard visualizes the total embodied carbon, annual operational carbon and design and allows users to select different study boundaries and to isolate building elements to see their respective carbon

Grasshopper + OneClick LCA Rhino + Semantic

rough the integration of Oneclick LCA, Rhino, d renewable energy associated with the new n footprints.

PowerBI

esis of various sustainable design principles: mbodied carbon through structural and material

Workflow

AL WASL PLAZA, OFFICES AND HOTELS Project scope: construction site supervision, sustainability management and delivery (Sustainability goals and KPIs, LEED and CEEQUAL certifications) 2018.03-2020.03

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Al Wasl complex is positioned at the center of the Expo 2020 Dubai Campus, and is composed of three office buildings, two hotels and a central public plaza covered by a 65m radius trellis shading structure.

Being the symbol of the Dubai World Expo 2020 Event and later the center piece of the legacy mixed-used neighborhood, the project targeted LEED v4 Gold for all its five building components and CEEQUAL Excellent for both the plaza and the shading structure.

Besides the green certifications, the project was also required to follow a set of campus wide sustainability KPIs.

Hotel E

Selected as a member of the supervision team, I was responsible for managing and delivering the project’s sustainability strategies, KPIs and certifications.

O

GFA: Office buildings: 3 x 14,000 m2 Hotel buildings: 2 x 22,000 m2

Office A

Hotel F

Office B

Plaza and Shading Structure

Office C

PROJECT DELIVERY - LEED CERTIFICATIONS, CEEQUAL CERTIFICATIONS AND PROJEC

LEED

EXPO DUBAI 2020 AL WASL PARCEL A

EXPO DUBAI 2020 AL WASL PARCEL B

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

LEED v4 BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: CORE AND SHELL DEVELOPMENT

LEED v4 BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: CORE AND SHELL DEVELOPMENT

LEED v4 BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: CORE AND SHELL DEVELOPMENT

May 2021

May 2021

May 2021

EXPO DUBAI 2020 AL WASL PARCEL F

EXPO DUBAI 2020 AL WASL PARCEL C

EXPO DUBAI 2020 AL WASL PARCEL E

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

LEED v4 BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: CORE AND SHELL DEVELOPMENT

LEED v4 BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: CORE AND SHELL DEVELOPMENT

September 2021

August 2021

CEEQUAL Sustainability Assessment, Rating and Awards Scheme for Civil Engineering, Infrastructure, Landscaping and the Public Realm

CEEQUAL

Sustainability Assessment, Rating and Awards Scheme for Civil Engineering, Infrastructure, Landscaping and the Public Realm

Institution of Civil Engineers

Expo 2020 Dubai Al Wasl Plaza Sustainability Performance Assessment

CEEQUAL

Expo 2020 Dubai

Whole Team Award

Whole Team Award

Sustainability Performance Rating: Excellent (93.6%)

Sustainability Performance Rating: Excellent (91.6%)

Assessed using CEEQUAL Version 5 for Projects, 2012

Assessed using CEEQUAL Version 5 for Projects, 2012

Achieved by:

Achieved by: Expo 2020 Dubai

Client Programme Management Consultant

Jacobs-Mace Joint Venture

Supervision Consultant

Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture

Contractor

Laing O’Rourke

President Institution of Civil Engineers

Institution of Civil Engineers

Al Wasl Plaza Trellis & Steelwork Sustainability Performance Assessment

Assessors

Xi Yi and Chris Drew, AS+GG

Verifier

Mark Barrett, Independent Sustainability Advisor

Date

April 2021, Following an Interim Client and Outline Design Award in September 2018

On behalf of BRE Global Ltd

Expo 2020 Dubai

Client Programme Management Consultant

Jacobs-Mace Joint Venture

Supervision Consultant

Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture

Contractor

Cimolai & Rimond Middle East Contracting

President Institution of Civil Engineers

Assessors

Xi Yi and Chris Drew, AS+GG

Verifier

Mark Barrett, Independent Sustainability Advisor

Date

April 2021, Following an Interim Client and Outline Design Award in September 2018

On behalf of BRE Global Ltd

CT KPIS

ACHIEVEMENTS

•

The Al Wasl office buildings eventually achieved LEED PLATINUM CERTIFICATIONS, with LEED Gold level building budget.

•

The offices use 74-79% LESS ENERGY from the grid than typical Dubai office buildings.

•

The offices produce 118-119% OF THEIR OWN ELECTRICITY through photovoltaics.

•

The offices save a total of ALMOST 1,000 TONS OF CO2 annually.

•

The office buildings will use 73% LESS POTABLE WATER than a typical building.

•

The offices are THE FIRST buildings in Dubai to use 100% treated greywater, condensate and rainwater for toilet flushing.

•

Through materials selection EMBODIED CARBON WAS REDUCED BY 32%.

10 Revision 6

PROJECT MANAGEMENT - MANAGEMENT PLAN AND KPI REPORTING Key Performance Indicators Tracking

Contractor Super

Aspects, Objectives, KPIs and Targets - Sustainability - Project XXX Aspect

Objective

Energy

Reduce energy consumption Produce clean energy

Water

Reduce water consumption

Reuse water to minimise potable water consumption Materials Waste Ecology, Biodiversity and Site Public Realm

Sustainability Awareness

Value Generation

Minimise depletion of natural resources Promote use of sustainable materials in terms of environmental, social and economic impact

Key Performance Indicator

Target

Actual

Buildings: outperform ASHRAE90.1 External lighting: outperform IECC Landscape feature lighting: outperform IECC On-site renewable energy production Buildings: compared to DEWA Smart controls Leak detection on external networks Maximum public realm water consumption (L/m²/day): - Public parks - Streetscapes - Remaining landscape in aggregate TSE/Grey for non-potable uses Condensate collection above 350kW cooling load Materials in permanent construction retained for Legacy Temporary construction reuse/redeployment/recycling

20% 20% 50% 25% 25% 100% 90%

37% 89% 50% 29% 66% 100% 100%

10 7 4 100% 80% 90% 75%

6.662464986 L/m2/day 2.631314567 100% 100% 98% 100%

90%

96%

Target Zero 85% 85% 50% 5-No 0 75% 60% 70% 100% 75%

0 88% 88% N/A 42 0 N/A 74% 80% 100% 75%

Compliance with Sustainable Material Guidelines

Waste segregation non-compliances Waste segregation into different streams Construction Waste Diversion Rate Percentage of native/adaptive plants Protect and enhance the ecological value of the Minimum number of native/adaptive species site and promote local species Number of pest species Souk pathway shading at 13:00 on equinox Create people-centric, accessible and comfortable Open space shading at 13:00 on equinox spaces Compliance with heat island minimisation strategies Smart meter coverage Enable those involved in Expo, both Delivery and Sustainability features linked to educational collaterals Participation, to understand and contribute to Sustainability awareness strategy or display for publicly accessible responsible use of resources buildings/pavilions Communicate progress and achievements in Contribute data to programme-wide sustainability reporting sustainability through transparent reporting Reduce waste to landfill

Demonstrate added value through sustainability certification of both horizontal and vertical infrastructure

Achieve LEED®/CEEQUAL/Rating as appropriate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Gold / Excellent

Parcels ABCLEED Platinum; Parcels EF LEED Gold; CEEQUAL Excellent

Commentary

Sustainabilit

CEEQUAL: Excellent Al Wasl Trellis (93.6%) Al Wasl Plaza (91.6%)

Stakeholders Responsibility Matrix

Contractor Repo

C Pr

S/n

1

C

2

H

3

H

1 of 1

Total

rvision 70504-PLN-S343095-SU-000001(3)

ty Management Plan

Al Wasl Plaza Main Contractor Sustainability Management Plan Sustainability 70504-PLN-S343095-SU-000001 Revision 3

10087-PLN-S340000-SU-000001 (3)

Prepared for

Bureau Expo Dubai 2020

Prepared for

Bureau Expo Dubai 2020

8 July 2019

5 December 2017 Company Address: Laing O’Rourke Middle East Holdings PO Box 25948, Al Shola Building Deira, Dubai, UAE Tel +971 (0) 4 2949944

Expo 2020 Al Wasl Trellis Steel Work Sustainability Management Plan

Issue Date: 10/11/2019 Issued By: Cimolai & Rimond Middle East Contracting LLC Document No.: 70505-PLN-S343089-SU-000001(5)

orting

Summary of Energy Savings

Client : roject :

Expo2020 Al Wasl Plaza-Trellis Structure

Hours of operation : Cost / KWH AED. :

Wattage of Fixtures

Wattage With Ballast Loss

Total No. of Fixtures

per day per unit

Details of New Fixtures

Details of Existing Fixtures

Type of Fixtures

24 0.20

Total Wattage Watts

No. of Unit per day KWH

Electricity Cost per day AED.

Electricity Cost per year AEDs.

Type of Fixtures

Total Wattage Watts

Wattage of Fixtures

No. of Unit per day KWH

Electricity Cost per day AED.

Electricity Cost per year AEDs.

CFL 2 X 36

72

82.8

118

9,770

234.49

46.90

19,697.13

LED Downlight

40

4,720

113.28

22.66

9,515.52

Metal Halide(Floo d Light)

2000

2300

20

46,000

1,104.00

220.80

92,736.00

LED Flood Light

600

12,000

288.00

57.60

24,192.00

Metal Halide(Floo d Light)

1000

1150

32

36,800

883.20

176.64

74,188.80

LED Flood Light

200

6,400

153.60

30.72

12,902.40

92,570

2,221.69

444.34

186,621.93

23,120 Total KWH(sep2019)

554.88

110.98

46,609.92

170

Total KWH(sep2019)

933,109.63

Direct Savings on cost of electricity AED :

140,012.01 Per Year

Total Total Total Total

186,621.93 3,000.00 189,621.93 143,012.01

Cost of Product yearly Electricity costs for Existing Fixtures : yearly maintenance costs for Existing Fixtures Operational Cost Including Lamp Replacment Savings Including Maintanance AED

Pay back period

LED Downlight LED Floodlight

233,049.60

Unit Rate 125 165.11

Qty 118 32

Total Cost - AED 14,750.00 5,283.52

23.00 Total Investment on Product

0.14 Years Energy Saving

75.02

20,033.52

ENVELOPE THERMAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW Identified thermal bridges and advised on improvement strategies.

Initial submittal

Improvement

Initial submittal

Improvement

RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM Worked closely with MEP subcontractors and the reclaimed water treatment supplier to obtain municipality approval and delivered the on-site reclaimed water system. The offices are the first buildings to use 100% treated greywater, condensate and rainwater for toilet flushing.

Alternative Water Supply Calculation

Toilet Flushing Water Balance ‐ Parcel C Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Average monthly condensate Collection (m )*

0.00

2.00

19.90

15.00

31.00

68.60

90.00

86.40

87.90

55.40

49.30

8.90

514.40

less 10% Ultra‐filtration adjustment TDS concentration

0.00 50

1.80 50

17.91 50

13.50 50

27.90 50

61.74 50

81.00 50

77.76 50

79.11 50

49.86 50

44.37 50

8.01 50

462.96

Monthly grey water recovery (m 3) from LEED** less 10% Ultra‐filtration adjustment TDS concentration

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

69.7 62.7 500

836.1 752.4

Average monthly preciptation 1983‐2015 (mm) Collectible surface area (m 2)

14.10 1507

15.20 1507

18.40 1507

5.90 1507

2.10 1507

0.00 1507

0.90 1507

0.90 1507

0.90 1507

0.20 1507

3.10 1507

18.10 1507

79.80

Theoretical Volume (m 3)***

21.2

22.9

27.7

8.9

3.2

0.0

1.4

1.4

1.4

0.3

4.7

27.3

120.3

collectable volume (TV*0.5) (m 3)

less 10% Ultra‐filtration adjustment TDS concentration

10.6 9.6 50

11.5 10.3 50

13.9 12.5 50

4.4 4.0 50

1.6 1.4 50

0.0 0.0 50

0.7 0.6 50

0.7 0.6 50

0.7 0.6 50

0.2 0.1 50

2.3 2.1 50

13.6 12.3 50

60.1 54.1

Monthly TSE Make‐up required (m 3) before UF adjustment

61.1 1047

58.2 1047

37.9 1047

52.2 1047

39.1 1047

3.1 1047

0.0 1047

0.0 1047

0.0 1047

16.1 1047

20.1 1047

49.2 1047

337.0

Total Recycled Monthly WC Flushing demand from LEED (m 3)**

127.2 127.2

127.2 127.2

127.2 127.2

127.2 127.2

127.2 127.2

127.2 127.2

144.3 127.2

141.1 127.2

142.4 127.2

127.2 127.2

127.2 127.2

127.2 127.2

1572.8 1526.7

TDS level TDS Limit Potable Water Top Up Needed?

702 750 NO

683 750 NO

539 750 NO

640 750 NO

548 750 NO

294 750 NO

246 750 NO

250 750 NO

248 750 NO

386 750 NO

413 750 NO

618 750 NO

127.2

127.2

127.2

127.2

127.2

127.2

127.2

127.2

127.2

127.2

127.2

127.2

3

TOTAL RECLAIMED WATER SUPPLIED

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Annual Totals

1526.7

*Numbers from Hoare Lea. **Numbers based on the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) occupancy and indoor water use assumptions. ***Estimated by AS+GG Disclaimer: These tables are developed to check compliance with the Al Wasl project KPIs. AS+GG does not take responsibility for the accuracy of the numbers pertaining to the sizing of the reclaimed water treatment system. The sizing and capacity of the system should be confirmed by the public health consultant, Hoare Lea.

The wastewater treatment plant has been designed on the monthly water summary as produced below:

REPLY TO CONSULTANT COMMENTS Culligan Reclaimed Water Treatment System

PROJECT Expo 2020 Al Wasl Plaza – Parcels A, B and C

Average monthly condensate Collection (m 3)* TDS concentration Monthly grey water recovery (m 3) from LEED** TDS concentration Average monthly preciptation 1983-2015 (mm) Collectible surface area (m2) Theoretical Volume (m3)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Annual Totals

0.00 50 69.7 500 14.10 1505 21.2

2.00 50 69.7 500 15.20 1505 22.9

19.90 50 69.7 500 18.40 1505 27.7

15.00 50 69.7 500 5.90 1505 8.9

31.00 50 69.7 500 2.10 1505 3.2

68.60 50 69.7 500 0.00 1505 0.0

90.00 50 69.7 500 0.90 1505 1.4

86.40 50 69.7 500 0.90 1505 1.4

87.90 50 69.7 500 0.90 1505 1.4

55.40 50 69.7 500 0.20 1505 0.3

49.30 50 69.7 500 3.10 1505 4.7

8.90 50 69.7 500 18.10 1505 27.2

514.40

pH @ 25˚C

79.80

Total Dissolved Solids

120.1

Total Suspended Solids

60.0

Turbidity

10.6 50 72.3

11.4 50 74.9

13.8 50 93.1

4.4 50 80.3

1.6 50 92.1

0.0 50 124.5

0.7 50 144.4

0.7 50 141.1

0.7 50 142.5

0.2 50 112.8

2.3 50 109.2

13.6 50 83.0

1270.1

Monthly WC Flushing demand from LEED (m 3)**

127.3

127.3

127.3

127.3

127.3

127.3

127.3

127.3

127.3

127.3

127.3

127.3

1528.0

92.1

112.8

109.2

83.0

1224.1

72.3

74.9

93.1

80.3

124.5

127.3

127.3

127.3

%of flushing demand met by recycled water + rainwater

57%

59%

73%

63%

72%

98%

113%

111%

112%

89%

86%

65%

83%

Monthly Make-up required (m3) TDS concentration

55.03 1500

52.48 1500

34.20 1500

47.08 1500

35.25 1500

2.83 1500

0.00 1500

0.00 1500

0.00 1500

14.58 1500

18.11 1500

44.31 1500

303.87

TDS level without potable water make up TDS Limit Max. TSE

898 750 42.3

869 750 42.2

661 750 34.2

808 750 42.0

673 750 35.3

304 750 2.8

246 750 0.0

250 750 0.0

248 750 0.0

438 750 14.6

478 750 18.1

776 750 41.9

TSE Percentage

33%

33%

27%

33%

28%

2%

0%

0%

0%

11%

14%

33%

Potable Water Needed (m 3) Potable Water Needed (%)

12.8 10%

10.3 8%

0.0 0%

5.1 4%

0.0 0%

0.0 0%

0.0 0%

0.0 0%

0.0 0%

0.0 0%

0.0 0%

2.4 2%

30.55 2%

Flow (m3/hr)

Flow (m3/day)

BOD (ppm)

TDS (ppm)

TSS (ppm)

pH

TSE

0.60

1.76

10

1500

10

8

Grey Water

0.78

2.3

50

500

50

8

Condensate Rain Water (Filtered) Domestic Filter Backwash Water Resultant Wastewater

0

0

0

50

0

6

0.12

0.35

0

50

10

7

0

0

0

250

50

8

1.5

4.41*

30.1

863.4

30.9

7.9

Reply to Consultant Comments: Culligan Grey Water Treatment System Project: Al Wasl Plaza – Dubai

≤ 5 ppm ≤ 5 NTU

Free Residual Chlorine

Drain Water:

≥ 0.5 ppm

Volume m3/day 0.7

BOD (ppm) 100

TDS (ppm) 865

7-8

TSS (ppm) 500

UF Reject

0.6

50

865

4-9

100

ACF Backwash waste

0.3

10

865

7-8

10

Resultant Drain Water DM Discharge Limits

1.8

64 1000

865 3000

6-8 6-10

258 500

m³/hr

m³/hr m³

m³/hr

M³/HR

Rev

Date

Description

Drawn

Checked

Approved

TO DRAIN

CULLIGAN INTERNATIONAL (EMIRATES) LLC P O Box 37728, Dubai, UAE - Tel. +9714 803 9900, Fax +9714 880 6087 Project Name Drawing Title

Sheet size & Scale.

Drawing No.

Sheet No.

Date Rev.

pH

System Details: Unit

Details

Raw wastewater flow rate

Parameters

m3/h

1.5

UF permeate water flow rate

m3/h

1.3

No. of streams

UF recovery

1

%

90

m3/h

1.3

Notes: 1. Any changes in the feed water parameters would mean a change in the system design.

Accordingly, Culligan reserves the right to change the system.

2. The Grey Water should not contain Kitchen Wastewater, or Pantry Wastewater, Dishwash water, Laundry.

Reply to Consultant Comments: Culligan Grey Water Treatment System Project: Al Wasl Plaza – Dubai

m³

m³/hr

≤ 900 ppm

Treated Water Flow Rate (After ACF)

Note: WC flushing water demand of 127.3 m3/month considered as per monthly water summary.

Potable water can be added to achieve TDS of ≤ 750ppm and TSE water required can further be reduced.

Reply to Consultant Comments: Culligan Condensate Water Treatment System Project: Al Wasl Plaza – Dubai

Treated Water 7–8

MGF Backwash waste

Raw Wastewater Quality (Worst Case Scenario when condensate is not available): Source of Water

Parameters

836.7

collectable volume (TV*0.5) (m 3) TDS concentration Total Recycled (less 10% Ultra-filtration adjustment) (m 3)

Monthly Recycled water supplied

Treated Water Quality for WC Flushing use:

RAINWATER MANAGEMENT CAPACITY CALCULATION Performed rainwater management capacity calculation, taking into consideration of climate change factors.

AL WASL PLAZA - STORM WATER CALCULATION Project Name: Al Wasl Parcel G Date: 11/02/2020 REFERENCE STANDARDS DM Standards:

Expo 2020 Climate Modelling Analysis Report (IGCI):

CALCULATION

Event

DM CODE

CONSULTANT REPORT (2050 model)

1 IN 50 YEAR 0.5 HOUR 1 IN 50 YEAR 1 HOUR 1 IN 50 YEAR 6 HOUR 1 IN 50 YEAR 24 HOUR 1 IN 100 YEAR 24 HOUR 1 IN 50 YEAR 10 min 1 IN 50 YEAR 1 HOUR 1 IN 50 YEAR 6 HOUR 1 IN 50 YEAR 24 HOUR 1 IN 100 YEAR 24 HOUR

Return period

Area (m2)

30 minute 1 hr 6 hr 24 hr 24 hr 10 minute 1 hr 6 hr 24 hr 24 hr

5,520 5,520 5,520 5,520 5,520 5,520 5,520 5,520 5,520 5,520

Rainfall Intensity (mm/hr) 66.8 46.4 12.9 4.8 5.5 156.6 57.4 15.7 5.1 5.9

Rainfall Intensity (m/s) 0.00002 0.00001 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 0.00002 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

Runoff Coefficient 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

CONCLUSION The current stormwater drainage scheme and the a�enua�on tank can handle 1 in 100 year 24 hour storm event based on DM code and EXPO 2020 Consultant Report 2050 Predic�on.

Total rain Runoff rate Permi�ed Discharge rate event volume (l/s) Discharge (l/s) to storage (l/s) (m3) 92 331,862 70 22.2 64 115,258 70 -6.0 18 64,038 70 -52.2 7 575,891 70 -63.3 8 653,391 70 -62.4 216 777,989 70 146.1 79 47,527 70 9.2 22 77,749 70 -48.4 7 612,058 70 -62.9 8 701,482 70 -61.9

Current A�anua�on Capacity (m3) 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

EXTRA STORAGE NEEDED (m3) -31 -82 -165 -185 -183 192 -54 -158 -184 -182

IS THE CURRENT DESIGN CAPABLE OF DEALING THE EVENT? YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES

PROJECT GHG EMISSION OFFSET CALCULATION Calculated the project’s greenhouse gas emission offset through onsite renewable energy sources.

ENERGY MODEL OUTPUT ANNUAL ENERGY (kWh/yr) 1,377,200.0 1,346,000.0 1,332,200.0

PARCEL A B C

Data taken from the IEA CO₂ EMISSIONS FROM FUEL COMBUSTION REPORT (2017 edition) gCO2/per kWh 2005 Data 848 2010 Data 601 2014 Data 607 2015 Data 568

PARCEL A ‐ BREAKDOWN Energy Source Electricity Natural Gas District Cooling TOTAL On‐Site Renewable

PARCEL B ‐ BREAKDOWN Energy Source Electricity Natural Gas District Cooling TOTAL On‐Site Renewable

PARCEL C ‐ BREAKDOWN Energy Source Electricity Natural Gas District Cooling TOTAL On‐Site Renewable

Unit kWh therm kWh

Annual Energy Consumption

kWh

558,402.0

Unit kWh therm kWh

Annual Energy Consumption

kWh

529,932.0

Unit kWh therm kWh

Annual Energy Consumption

kWh

528,208.0

816,650.1 1.8 560,520.0

804,331.6 4.3 541,580.4

774,479.8 6.0 557,500.5

CO2 eT ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (kgCO2/yr) 782,262.6 764,549.6 756,664.7

kgCO2/per kWh

ON‐SITE PV GENERATION ANNUAL RENEWABLE ENERGY (kWh/yr) 558,402.0 529,932.0 528,208.0

CO2 eR ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OFFSET (kgCO2/yr) 317,172.3 301,001.4 300,022.1

% GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THROUGH RENEWABLES 40.55% 39.37% 39.65%

0.848 0.601 0.607 0.568

816,650.1 52.7 560,520.0 1377222.8

804,331.6 126.0 541,580.4 1346038.0

774,479.8 175.8 557,500.5 1332156.1

ANNUAL CARBON (kgCO2/yr) CO2eCoeffi (kgCO2/kWh) 0.568 16.642 0.568 0.57

ANNUAL CARBON (kgCO2/yr) CO2eCoeffi (kgCO2/kWh) 0.568 16.642 0.568 0.57

ANNUAL CARBON (kgCO2/yr) CO2eCoeffi (kgCO2/kWh) 0.568 16.642 0.568 0.57

463857.3 30.0 318375.4 782262.6 317172.3

456860.3 71.6 307617.7 764549.6 301001.4

439904.5 99.9 316660.3 756664.7 300022.1

%

40.55%

%

39.37%

%

39.65%

EMPLOYEE PARKING: 225 TOTAL

VAN ENTRY

GREEN BUFFER

VAN STAGING

VAN LOADING

BUILDING EMPLOYEE ENTRY & EXIT

VAN PARKING: 700 TOTAL

GREEN BUFFER

TRUCK UNLOADING

DETENTION BASIN GREEN BUFFER VAN ENTRY

GREEN BUFFER TRUCK ENTRY & EXIT VAN EXIT

BUS STOP

As the transportation, distribution and logistics industry (TDL) expands its footprint in Chicago, these facilities will be more commonly interfacing with residential, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods. To ensure that future TDL facilities take measures that minimize the impact on nearby residents and include tangible public amenities and sustainability features while simultaneously allowing for efficient operations, DPD is proposing a new design guidelines for future TDL projects.

Commissioned by DPD, a series of site plan re-design exercises were carried out following the draft guidelines to quantify the social and sustainable benefits of the guidelines.

FULFILLMENT CENTER SITE PLAN STUDY Project scope: site plan evaluation against Chicago’s draft TDL design guidelines developed by Department of Planning and Development, site plan re-design 2021.09-2021.10

BUILDING FRONTAGE

Chicago DPD Standards: Buildings should be oriented towards primary street frontages to screen parking and loading ar ly residential, setbacks are required. Street frontages along/adjacent to commercial areas should have active street fronta

Amazon Site Plan

Proposed Site Plan

N

N

BUILDING

BU

Building oriented towards side streets that are predominately residential.

√ √

Building oriented towards primary street

Building oriented facing north-south redu

reas. For primary street frontages that are predominateages.

Optional Scheme with Commercial Frontage N

UILDING

BUILDING

COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE

(W Division St).

uces operation energy demand.

√ √ √

Building oriented towards primary street (W Division St).

Building oriented facing north-south reduces operation energy demand.

Active street frontages provided at primary street (W Division St).

LANDSCAPE BUFFER

Chicago DPD Standards: Within the required public way setback a landscape buffer is required and features such as ber aged. Projects should be able to demonstrate how their landscape plans actively mitigate air pollution through performativ

Amazon Site Plan

Proposed Site Plan

N

N

BUILDING

26’ 100’

GREEN BUFFER

BU 300’ DETENTION BASIN 21’

GREEN BUFFER

√

Primary street (W. Division) landscape buffer: 21’ wide green buffer; a detention basin between the warehouse building and W. Division street.

√

Side-street (N. Kostner) landscape buffer: 26’ wide green buffer.

*Landscape design of buffers does not include stormwater management features.

√

Primary street (W. Division) landscape bu

√

Side-street (N. Kostner) landscape buffer active/public accessible open spaces and such as bioswale and permeable paving

rms, bio-swales and dense tree plantings are encourve landscapes.

Optional Scheme with Commercial Frontage N

50’

50’

GREEN BUFFER

GREEN BUFFER

70’

70’

GREEN BUFFER

GREEN BUFFER

160’

UILDING

95’ 21’

160’

BUILDING

COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE

GREEN BUFFER

117’ 43’

GREEN BUFFER

uffer: 21’ wide green buffer.

√

r: 50’-70’ wide green buffer with d stormwater management features pedestrian path.

Primary street (W. Division) landscape buffer: 43’ wide green buffer or commercial frontage.

√

Side-street (N. Kostner) landscape buffer: 50’-70’ wide green buffer with active/public accessible open spaces and stormwater management features such as bioswale and permeable paving pedestrian path.

PUBLIC AMENITIES

Chicago DPD Standards: The facility will include publicly-accessible amenities such as landscaped open space, wetland recreational amenities and other natural features meant to be enjoyed on foot or bicycle.

Amazon Site Plan

Proposed Site Plan

N

N

BUILDING

OPEN SPACE

BU

OPEN SPACE

The green buffers to the east and south of the side count as 23,400 square feet of open space that is publicly accessible. The area is 2.2% of the site area.

No publicly accessible amenities.

O S

89,000 square feet of open space that is 8.3% of the site area.

√

The open space to the east side will inco amenities including walking path, benche recreational amenities and other natural

ds, walking paths, benches, shade structures, active

Optional Scheme with Commercial Frontage N

OPEN SPACE

OPEN SPACE

OPEN SPACE

OPEN SPACE

UILDING

BUILDING

COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE

OPEN SPACE

s publicly accessible. The area is

orporate publicly accessible es, shade structures, active features.

OPEN SPACE

88,000 square feet of open space that is publicly accessible. The area is 8.2% of the site area.

√

The open space to the east side will incorporate publicly accessible amenities including walking path, benches, shade structures, active recreational amenities and other natural features.

SOLAR PANEL

Chicago DPD Standards: If a facility is over 100,000 square feet a minimum of 50% of the roof area must have solar pan and/or community solar in Environmental Justice Communities, as identified in the City of Chicago Air Quality and Health R

Amazon Site Plan N

Proposed Site Plan N

PARKING WIT

ROOF BU

PARKING WIT

None shown in the plan.

√

Does not support Amazons sustainability goals (100% renewable energy by 2025 and net zero carbon by 2040)

Cover the building roof with PV panels (1 electricity/yr.

√

Supports Amazons sustainability goals (1 and net zero carbon by 2040)

nel coverage within 5 years, with a commitment to solar Report, within one year.

Optional Scheme with Commercial Frontage N

ROOF PV AREA

PARKING WITH PV CANOPY

UILDING F PV AREA

PARKING WITH PV CANOPY

PARKING WITH PV CANOPY

TH PV CANOPY

PARKING WITH PV CANOPY

TH PV CANOPY

ROOF PV AREA

110,500 SF) can generate 2.7GWh

√

Cover the building roof with PV panels (110,500 SF) can generate 2.7GWh electricity/yr.

100% renewable energy by 2025

√

Supports Amazons sustainability goals (100% renewable energy by 2025 and net zero carbon by 2040)

STORMWATER DETENTION

Chicago DPD Standards: One surface stormwater feature, such as a bio-swale, must be part of the overall stormwater m ability Development Policy will apply for all on-site stormwater detention.

Amazon Site Plan

Proposed Site Plan

N

N

BIOSWALE + UND INFILTRATION C

UNDERGROUND DETENTION BASIN AT EMPLOYEE PARKING

STORMWATER STORA AT BASEMENT

DETENTION BASIN

Underground detention basin under the employee parking area (5.05 ac-ft).

At grade detention basin in the southeast corner of the site (2.53 ac-ft).

PERMEABLE PAV

√

SUDS systems will be utilized to manage •

Van parking area will incorporate bio underground infiltration chamber ben surfaces.

•

Employee parking area will have per

•

Bioswale will be incorporated into gr

•

Rainwater storage tanks will be prov roof for treatment and reuse in toilet infiltration chambers.

No management strategies shown in the rest of the site.

management system. Additionally, the Chicago Sustain-

DERGROUND CHAMBER

AGE TANK

Optional Scheme with Commercial Frontage N

BIOSWALE + UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION CHAMBER

BIOSWALE

BIOSWALE

STORMWATER STORAGE TANK AT BASEMENT

BIOSWALE

VING

e 1hr 1:100 yr storm event on site:

BIOSWALE

BIOSWALE

PERMEABLE PAVING BIOSWALE

√

SUDS systems will be utilized to manage 1hr 1:100 yr storm event on site:

oswale at the median and neath the impermeable parking

•

Van parking area will incorporate bioswale at the median and underground infiltration chamber beneath the impermeable parking surfaces.

rmeable paving.

•

Employee parking area will have permeable pavings.

reen spaces.

•

Bioswale will be incorporated into green spaces.

vided to collect rainwater from the t flushing. Excess will be diverted to

•

Stormwater storage tanks will be provided at grade or in the basement to manage the rainfall on building roof.

OTHER STUDIES AND ANALYSES

Selected building performance and carbon related studies and analysis from various projects

DAYLIGHT IMPROVEMENT - LIGHTSHELF LOCATION AND SIZE OPTIMIZATION Use Gelapagos to select optimum lightshelf height and depth on 8 different window orientations.

Software: Rhino, GH Gelapagos , Climate Studio

EMBODIED CARBON BENCHMARKING Benchmark study comparing project embodied carbon against the three supertall towers in Pudong Shanghhai.

Software: OneClick LCA

TOTAL EMBODIED CARBON:

536,700 tonCO2e TOTAL EMBODIED CARBON:

423,700 tonCO2e

8.87 million tree seedlings grown for 10 years

EMBODIED CARBON REDUCTION AGAINST JINMAO

TOTAL EMBODIED CARBON:

-53%

7 million tree seedlings grown for 10 years

295,250 tonCO2e

UNIT EMBODIED CARBON REDUCTION AGAINST JINMAO

-62%

4.88 million tree seedlings grown for 10 years

TOTAL EMBODIED C

138,800 tonC

Shanghai Tower Shanghai World Financial Center Jin Mao Tower

EMBODIED CARBON

1018 kgCO2e/m

2

1994

EMBODIED CARBON

1081 kgCO2e/m

2

2003

EMBODIED CARBON

895 kgCO2e/m

2

2016

EMBODIED CARBON

381 kgCO2e/m 2022

Material Quantity Take-off

CARBON:

CO2e

N

m2 2030 PEAK

2060 NEUTAL

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND CALCULATIONS Parcel level and public realm level stormwater management strategies, and capacity calculations based on local IDF curve.

Stormwater Management Strategies - Parcel INFILTRATION Infiltration

INTENSIVE GREEN ROOF WITH 1M SOIL DEPTH

CONVEYANCE Conveyance

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

BLUE ROOF WITH RAINWATER STORAGE GEOCELLS DEPTH 200MM

BLUE ROOF WITH RAINWATER STORAGE GEOCELLS DEPTH 175MM

PAVER & PEDESTAL SYSTEM

Evapotranspiration

BLUE ROOF WITH RAINWATER STORAGE GEOCELLS DEPTH 175MM

RUNOFF Runoff

BLUE ROOF GEOCELL WATER STORAGE

BlueRoof SWB Geocells

Drain

STRUCTURE

Curb cut intake

ROOF DRAIN WITH FLOW RESTRICTOR

Product Data Sheet

Cistern

BLUE ROOF DETAIL

VEGETATION

SOIL (1000MM DEPTH) DRAINAGE MAT WATERPROOFING

PERMEABLE INTERLOCK CONCRETE PAVERS ON TOP OF 1M DEPTH OF SOIL

STRUCTURE

INTENSIVE GREEN ROOFS ABOVE PARKING BASEMENT WITH MIN 1M SOIL DEPTH

UNDERGROUND STORMWATER ATTENUATION TANK 2MX4MX4M

BLUE ROOF GEOCELL

STORMWATER DRAIN

ROOF

UPPER COURT

JAMAICA NATIONAL HEROES DISTRICT ‐ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

PARCEL #

SWB Geocells provide attenuation as part of a Blue Roof system that is designed to manage and control incident rainfall at a rate in line with the SuDS strategy or attenuation for a development.

PARCEL AREA

ROOF AREA

m2

m2

TOTAL RAINFALL VOLUME

ROOF: 65% WITH 175MM DEPTH BLUE ROOF SYSTEM

UPPERCOURT: 40% WITH 200MM DEPTH BLUE ROOF SYSTEM

m3

m3

m3

POTENTIAL MIX OF USES

UPPERCOURT: 50% WITH INTENSIVE GREEN ROOF WITH 1 m SOIL DEPTH

LOWERCOURT: 50% WITH INTENSIVE GREEN ROOF WITH 1 m SOIL DEPTH

LOWERCOURT: 70% WITH PICP ABOVE 1 m SOIL DEPTH

m3

GOVERNMENT OFFICE, AMENITY RETAIL, SERVICES

8,627

4,614

843.3

472

103

49

53

35

GOVERNMENT OFFICE, AMENITY RETAIL, SERVICES

11,675

6,955

1,141

712

352

167

9

6

GOVERNMENT OFFICE, AMENITY RETAIL, SERVICES

18,523

9,974

1,811

1,021

391

186

27

18

GOVERNMENT OFFICE, AMENITY RETAIL, SERVICES

15,243

7,335

1,490

751

229

109

97

65

GOVERNMENT OFFICE, AMENITY RETAIL, SERVICES

20,806

14,494

2,034

1,484

370

176

24

16

GOVERNMENT OFFICE, AMENITY RETAIL, SERVICES

12,300

7,231

1,202

740

111

53

72

48

‐

‐

HOTEL, CONFERENCE, RETAIL

24,094

11,745

2,355

1,202

160

76

100

67

9

RETAIL , COMMERCIAL OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL

21,112

13,223

2,064

1,354

64

31

44

29

PLAZA ‐ ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

OPEN SPACE

16

413

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

9,597

1,434

983

237

112

37

25

11,027

6,630

1,078

679

285

136

‐ 9

‐ 6

18,124

9,841

1,772

1,007

356

169

68

46

8,152

1,289.4

835

323

153

3,670

359

‐

‐

‐

6,925

4,573

677

468

153

73

5

3

COMMERCIAL OFFICE, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL

10,187

6,172

996

632

108

51

52

34

5,169

2,166

505

222

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

SUBTOTAL PROGRAM AREA

%

L/S 27.9 26.4

64

98.9%

41.9

96

86.3%

56.7

32

97.9%

47.1

32

84.0%

53.3

100.0%

17.1

96

90.9%

59.7

64

96.6%

47.8

32 ‐ 96

100.0%

9.6

94.1%

33.2

97.4%

25.0

93.5%

41.0

99.7%

29.8

187982.4349

COMMERCIAL OFFICE, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL

GREEN (CEMETERY)

PARCEL DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT

97.6%

‐

OPEN SPACE

COMMERCIAL OFFICE, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL

PERCENTAGE MANAGED ONSITE

88.1%

64 ‐

‐

14,667

COMMERCIAL OFFICE, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL

4,221

‐

GOVERNMENT OFFICE, MUSEUM, CULTURAL, AMENITY RETAIL, SERVICES GOVERNMENT OFFICE, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, AMENITY RETAIL, SERVICES

13

739

GOVERNMENT OFFICE, MUSEUM, CULTURAL, AMENITY RETAIL, SERVICES

SUBTOTAL PROGRAM AREA

14 15

7,561

LOWERCOURT: ATTENUATION TANK

m3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10 11 12

ORANGE STREET

LOWER COURT

13,192

10,870 39142.96

1,062 23262.85

TOTAL PROJECT AREA

ASSUMPTIONS 1. Assuming Parcel 7, Parcel 9, Parcel 13 and Parcel 16 have open space with no basement. Run‐off coefficient 0.2.

2. Assuming 65% of the roof area being blue roof. Geocell 175 mm depth, 90% void.

3. Assuming 40% of the uppercourt area being blue roof. Geocell 200 mm depth, 90% void.

4. The intensity data is collected from the NMIA which differs from the rainfall intensity inland. A factor of 1.13 is added (ref. Jamaica Extreme Rainfall Isohyetal Map) * AREA FROM RHINO MODEL

11 ‐

8 ‐

62 ‐

41 ‐

32 ‐

100.0%

8.3

‐

97.9%

15.7

90.3%

26.7

81.2%

26.3

100.0%

24.6

64 96 ‐

Stormwater Management Strategies - public realm INFILTRATION Infiltration

CONVEYANCE Conveyance

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION Evapotranspiration

RUNOFF Runoff

Drain

Curb cut intake

PERVIOUS PAVEMENT Cistern

CURB CUTS

PERMEABLE PAVERS TREE PIT SILVA CELL

SIDEWALK PLANTER STRIP

JAMAICA NATIONAL HEROES DISTRICT ‐ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STREET # NATIONAL HEROES CRICLE ORANGE STREET DEVON AVE TORRINGTON RD GEFFARD PL ROSEDALE AVE LORD ELGIN REGENT ST HITCHEN ST SARAH ST NORTH AVE SLIPE PEN RD GT GEORGE ST CALABAR RD NEW NORTH ST CONNOLLEY ROAD

STREET TYPE PARK FACING STREET PRIMARY STREET COLLECTOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET SECONDARY STREET COLLECTOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET SECONDARY STREET SECONDARY STREET COLLECTOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET COLLECTOR STREET LOCAL STREET

ASSUMPTIONS 1. Assuming 50% TREE PIT/PLANTER AND 50% SEATING AREA 2. Assuming 1 layer SILVA CELL FRAME 400MM EACH, 92% VOID. 3. Assuming tree pit planter water holding capacity of 100mm depth

TOTAL RAINFALL VOLUME PER 100M LENGTH

WIDTH

m

33.0 27.5 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 20.5 21.0 21.0 15.5

m3

322.6 268.8 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 205.3 200.4 205.3 205.3 151.5

MANAGEMENT ABILITY PER 100M LENGTH PLANTER/TREE PIT

BETWEEN PLANTER/TREE PIT

PEDESTRIAN WITH 400MM SIILVA CELL

MANAGED ONSITE

PERCENTAGE MANAGED ONSITE

DISCHARGE RATE

m3

m3

m3

m3

%

L/S

20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6 73.6

368.0 220.8 239.2 147.2 147.2 147.2 147.2 147.2 147.2 147.2 147.2 147.2 184.0 147.2 239.2 147.2

461.6 314.4 332.8 240.8 240.8 240.8 240.8 240.8 240.8 240.8 240.8 240.8 277.6 240.8 332.8 240.8

143.1% 117.0% 162.1% 117.3% 117.3% 117.3% 117.3% 117.3% 117.3% 117.3% 117.3% 117.3% 138.5% 117.3% 162.1% 158.9%

7.5 6.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.8 3.5