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