Feasibility Study FINAL-1

161 Louis-Pasteur Private
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
UNIVERSITY CENTRE DESIGN
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Feasibility Study

161 Louis-Pasteur Private
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
December 3, 2014
Neil Patrick Smith
CEO, APENN Structural and Architectural Consultants Ltd.
Dr. Alaa Abdulridha, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Dr. Majid Mohammadian, Ph.D., P.Eng.
University of Ottawa
75 Laurier Ave E
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
Dear Professors,
It is with great pleasure that APENN presents this feasibility study for the new University
Centre on the University of Ottawa campus.
This study analyzes three alternative designs by way of a decision matrix that incorporates
multiple design criteria. In the end, the new University centre will be located between the
Simard building and the Residential Complex, on the site currently occupied by the parking
lot. The building’s structural system will consist of concrete shear walls, and a living wall
will be the centre point of the building’s lobby. It will strive for a platinum LEED
designation.
We hope that this will exceed your expectations. Feel free to contact us with any questions
you may have.
Sincerely,
_____________________________________________
Neil Patrick Smith, CEO, APENN
_______________________
Date
Enclosed: University Centre Project Feasibility Study
CC: Dr. Alaa Abdulridha, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Dr. Majid Mohammadian, Ph.D., P.Eng.

University Centre Design - Feasibility Study
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This feasibility study presents three distinct design alternatives for a new University Centre
for the University of Ottawa, and selects the preferred alternative based on a weighted
decision matrix; it proceeds to introduce a preliminary building envelope design along with
several selected design criteria. This report presents a unique design concept that aims to
reinvigorate the University of Ottawa campus with an architectural gem that will instil pride
among community members at the University of Ottawa, and throughout the city of Ottawa.
In addition, this University Centre will stand as a pinnacle of green building design and will
hold a Platinum LEED designation.
This University Centre will be designed by a team of experienced structural engineers; each
engineer having over twenty years’ experience in the field of structural engineering. At
APENN Structural and Architectural Consultants, we will work diligently on the
architectural and structural design of the new University Centre.

II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary ..................................................................................................................................................I
Table of Contents.....................................................................................................................................................II
List of Figures...........................................................................................................................................................IV
List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................................IV
1 – Problem Identification ....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 – Current University Centre Background...........................................................................................1
1.2 – Goals...............................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 – Scope..............................................................................................................................................................2
1.4 – Constraints...................................................................................................................................................2
1.4.1 - Location.................................................................................................................................................2
1.4.2 - Population............................................................................................................................................3
1.5 – Selection Criteria.......................................................................................................................................3
2 – Preliminary Design...........................................................................................................................................4
2.1 – Building Location Alternatives............................................................................................................4
2.2 – Structural Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................6
2.3 – Indoor Garden Design Alternatives...................................................................................................8
3 – Low Environmental Impact and High Efficiency Alternatives.....................................................10
4 – Comparison of design alternatives..........................................................................................................12
4.1 - Selection Criteria.....................................................................................................................................12
4.1.1 - Cost..........................................................................................................................................................2
4.1.2 - Functionality .......................................................................................................................................3
4.1.3 - Durability..............................................................................................................................................5
4.1.4 - Disturbance..........................................................................................................................................5
4.1.5 - Ease of construction.........................................................................................................................6
4.1.6 - Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................8
4.1.7 - Accessibility based on location....................................................................................................9
4.1.8 - Construction Time ............................................................................................................................9
4.1.9 - Certainty.............................................................................................................................................11
4.2 - Decision matrix........................................................................................................................................12
5 – Selected Alternative ......................................................................................................................................13
5.1 – Preliminary Architectural Layout...................................................................................................13
5.2 – Building Material....................................................................................................................................13
5.3 – Specialized Building Material ...........................................................................................................13

III
5.4 – Predicted Project Cost..........................................................................................................................14
6 – Project Plan.......................................................................................................................................................19
6.1 – Project Breakdown Structure...........................................................................................................19
6.2 – Project schedule: PERT Analysis .....................................................................................................21
7 – Design Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................................22
8 – Structural Analysis Program......................................................................................................................22
9 – Preliminary Building Envelope Design..................................................................................................23
10 – References ......................................................................................................................................................25
Appendix 1- Decision Matrix.................................................................................................................................i
Appendix 2 – PERT Analysis for Duration Estimate ..................................................................................ii
Appendix 3 – Project Timeline............................................................................................................................v
Appendix 4 – Network Diagram....................................................................................................................... vi
Appendix 5 – Resources Allocation and Cost Estimates........................................................................vii
Appendix 6 - LEED Point Details.......................................................................................................................ix
Sustainable Sites – 26 possible points...................................................................................................ix
Water Efficiency – 10 possible points ....................................................................................................x
Energy and Atmosphere – 35 possible points....................................................................................xi
Materials and Resources – 14 possible points................................................................................xiii
Indoor Environmental Quality – 15 possible points ....................................................................xiv
Innovation in Design – 6 possible points ..........................................................................................xvi
Regional Priority – 4 possible points..................................................................................................xvi
Appendix 7 – RSMeans data............................................................................................................................xvii
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................xx

IV
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Proposed Location Alternatives......................................................................................................4
Figure 2 - Aerial view #1....................................................................................................................................23
Figure 3 - Aerial view #2....................................................................................................................................23
Figure 4 - View from lower roof......................................................................................................................24
Figure 5 - Front view............................................................................................................................................24
Figure 6: Project Timeline.....................................................................................................................................v
Figure 7: Network Diagram................................................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Point Division.......................................................................................................................................11
Table 2 - Performance rating............................................................................................................................12
Table 3 - Alternatives abbreviations ................................................................................................................2
Table 4 - Weighted criteria................................................................................................................................12
Table 5 - Current university centre dimensions.......................................................................................14
Table 6 - University centre division...............................................................................................................15
Table 7 - Total area with 25% expansion....................................................................................................15
Table 8 - University centre cost by area.......................................................................................................16
Table 9 - Cost estimate comparison...............................................................................................................17
Table 10 - Project breakdown..........................................................................................................................19
Table 11 - Project breakdown tasks ..............................................................................................................20
Table 12: Critical Tasks.......................................................................................................................................21
Table 13: Team Resources Breakdown........................................................................................................22
Table 14 - Decision matrix.....................................................................................................................................i
Table 15: PERT Analysis........................................................................................................................................ii
Table 16: Resources Allocation and Cost Breakdown............................................................................vii
Table 17 - Optimize energy performance point breakdown............................................................... xii
Table 18 - On-site renewable energy point breakdown........................................................................ xii

1
1 – PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
This document proposes a new building for the University of Ottawa which will replace the
current university centre, also known as UCU. As part of this building proposal, a feasibility
study was performed and the best alternatives were determined.
1.1 – CURRENT UNIVERSITY CENTRE BACKGROUND
The University of Ottawa currently has a University Centre on campus: the Jock Turcot
University Centre. Built in 1973, it is located at 85 University Private between Morisset
library and Montpetit Hall. It is a primarily concrete structure in a brutalist style, similar to
many other campus buildings in the area. It houses some retail outlets including a
convenience store, the university’s Bookstore, a food court, the Alumni Auditorium, a small
open presentation area, a pub, and some office space. The building encapsulates a gross
square meter area of 15,732 while the net usable square meter area is of 9,314. The
construction costs of the UCU exceeded $6 million.
1.2 – GOALS
This project aims to design a world-class landmark university centre for the University of
Ottawa. This building will be the heart of the University, and must therefore aspire to more
than the practical requirements demanded of it – though it must certainly be practical. It
will be a symbol of the University, defining it for decades to come, and reflecting the values
and the very identity of the institution. Prospective students and donors will ask themselves
if the University of Ottawa is an institution they want to associate themselves with, and this
building should be worth more than a thousand words resoundingly in its favour.
First and foremost, the building must be practical; it must function properly and efficiently
as a university centre. Failure to reach this goal will have the obvious consequence of having
a building that doesn’t work very well. On a symbolic level, the consequences are even more
severe however, as the entire university will share in the image of excess and ineptitude.
The building must be sustainable. In the year 2014 there is no excuse to ignore the
environmental impacts of new building development. Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) is the dominant green building design designation in North
America, and this building will strive for the highest certification level – platinum. As
attending university is an investment in the student’s future, so too should the university be
mindful of investing in the future of our society.
The building must be accessible. This concept extends beyond the obvious accessibility
issues facing people with disabilities. The University Centre should be accessible in the
same way that access to higher learning should be accessible. Most entrances of the existing
building are preceded by steps or are far from the nearest road, making this building

2
difficult to access for those with mobility issues, and this will be avoided in the design of the
new university centre.
The building will be aesthetically pleasing. Aesthetics are more than a superficial add-on, as
the physical design of the building will leave an impression upon interaction; the goal is to
get people engaged with this building.
1.3 – SCOPE
As required by the client, the new University Centre's main structural system shall consist of
reinforced concrete construction. In addition, the client requires the content of the building
to include large office spaces, a retail area occupying the ground floor, a main food court, a
presentation stage and theatre, and a suitably sized underground parking. In keeping with
the University of Ottawa's dedication to being a leader in sustainability, a platinum LEED
designation will be achieved for this building.
Existing services offered in the UCU will require space in the new University Centre. A total
of eleven SFUO services, include but are not limited to: Bike Co-op, Food Bank, Women’s
Resource Centre, Pride Centre, and Sustainable Development Centre will be required. In
addition, the University Bookstore, Food Court, and Career Services are required. Existing
UCU floor plans will be brought in and analyzed to assure no university service is left
without adequate space.
Based on the past and expected growth of the student population, the new university centre
should take into account the current gross floor area of the UCU and expand upon that area
using the difference between the population growth at the time of construction and the
current growth factor. Also, current UCU facilities with overcrowding and overuse should be
expanded, in addition to the expansion due to current growth factor. A major source of
overcrowding and overuse is seen in the current use of the food courts.
1.4 – CONSTRAINTS
The constraints of the proposed building are summarised in the following sub-sections.
1.4.1 - LOCATION
City of Ottawa By-Law Zone for the University of Ottawa location labels the area enclosing
the three building alternatives as "I2A[347] F(3.0)". This designation labels the area as a
"Major Institutional Zone" with an "Exception Zone" and with a "Floor Space Indices". It
must be noted that the University of Ottawa has been given a special zoning designations by
the City of Ottawa. This special designation limits retail stores to a gross floor area of 2,000
square meters but expands upon the floor space index. The Exception Zone designates a
minimal lot area of 3,500 square meters. Additional zoning provisions concerning accessory
structures, uncovered, or unenclosed features, and setback requirements must be met.

3
Designation "F" has the effect of limiting the gross floor area that may be built on the zoned
area. The building must meet By-Law zoning requirements to be approved for construction
by the City of Ottawa.
The latest National Building Code of Canada and the Ontario Building Code will be respected
in all aspects of architectural and structural design.
1.4.2 - POPULATION
The University of Ottawa has had a considerable student population growth over the past
decade. The undergraduate student population in 2009 was 32,630 students and this
number increased to over 40,000 students in 2014. Any new development on the campus
must reflect the growing student body of the university.
1.5 – SELECTION CRITERIA
Selection of the right alternative for the University of Ottawa will depend on a careful
balance of overall project cost, construction timetable, building design, efficacy versus
safety versus durability, environmental impact, and building features. All selection criteria
will be analyzed in this Feasibility Report.
It is also important to mention that the right alternative should minimize the inconvenience
to the student's education and university experience during and after the construction
process.

4
2 – PRELIMINARY DESIGN
The design options to be considered are summarized below.
2.1 – BUILDING LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
Two locations within the University of Ottawa campus are considered for the proposed
University Centre project. Within those two different locations, three buildings alternatives
will also be examined.
The first location is the current position of the “University Centre Universitaire”, as seen in
Figure 1.
FIGURE 1: PROPOSED LOCATION ALTERNATIVES

5
Option 1: New building on Current University Centre Location
The current University Centre will be demolished and a new building will be constructed in
its place that will meet Platinum LEED standards and will accommodate the current
university population.
Advantages:
 Ideal central location based on university layout;
 Inter-building connection to the Morisset Library and sports facilities;
 Freedom of design creativity;
 Incorporation of more sustainable development to reduce carbon footprint;
 Possibility of expanding vertically.
Disadvantages:
 High cost of demolishing the current building;
 Structure cannot expand beyond its current footprint;
 Displacement of students and current facilities during construction at a high cost.
Option 2: Expansion of Existing University Centre
The second alternative is to retrofit and expand the current UCU building to include more
high performance energy saving strategies. The existing structure has 4.5 floors and its total
height varies from 10 to 13 m.
Advantages:
 Ideal central location based on university layout;
 Inter-building connection to the Morisset Library and sports facilities;
 Possibility of expanding vertically;
 Significantly lower demolition cost;
 Lower operational cost due to better efficiency;
 Fewer structural components to build.
Disadvantages:
 Existing layout restricts expansion design;
 Reconfiguration of existing floor plan;
 Construction of underground parking lot presents extreme challenges;
 Existing structural integrity uncertain.

6
Option 3: New Building Using Parking Location
A new building will be constructed between the Simard building and the Residential
Complex, within the current location of the parking lot “K”, as seen in Figure 1.
Advantages:
 Creation of a new landmark for the University through an aesthetically pleasing
design;
 Freedom of design creativity with minimal constraints;
 Incorporation of more sustainable development to reduce carbon footprint;
 No demolition required;
 Possibility of building an underground passageway to Morisset building;
 Possibility of inter-building connection to neighbouring residential building;
 Current University Centre services operational during construction;
 Location suitable for public display.
Disadvantages:
 Temporary removal of existing parking lot “K”.
2.2 – STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
The client requires the building to be designed out of reinforced concrete. To satisfy load
capacity and earthquake requirements, three structural alternatives will be considered for
the proposed building. All three of these options will be considered for the chosen location,
regardless if the design requires a new building or an addition, as all three can be built as
stand-alone structures, attached structures, or superimposed to an existing building.
Pre-stressed elements such as slabs and beams will be considered in the design process to
allow greater spans between columns, which will be an asset to the creation of large open
spaces for common areas and stores.
Option 1: Concrete Moment Frames
The concrete moment frame building will consist of reinforced concrete beams and columns
where lateral forces are resisted by the concrete moment frames that develop their stiffness
through stiff frame connections. The structure will be cast in-place since it requires the
beams and columns connections to be cast in one piece.
Advantages:
 Slabs can be cast on site or transported by truck and placed by crane during
construction.

7
Disadvantages:
 Greater size of columns and beams in order to resist bending moments;
 Greater amounts of materials required, especially reinforcing steel;
 Medium non-movable obstacles in the floor plan such as columns;
 Higher density of columns since beam span cannot be long.
Option 2: Concrete Shear Wall Building
The concrete shear wall building will consist of walls of certain lengths that resist lateral
loads by shear resistance through their height. Columns will only be required for vertical
support of slabs and other beam components since the building is braced against lateral
load through the shear walls. The shear wall will be cast in-place and the columns and slabs
will be poured afterwards.
Advantages:
 Lower density of columns since no moment beams are present;
 Permits large open areas in the floor plan;
 Opens the door to architectural creativity since the outside walls are not frames.
Disadvantages:
 Large non-movable walls in the floor plan that can block sunlight and limits line of
sight.
Option 3: Concrete Frame with Infill Masonry Shear Walls
The concrete frames building with infill masonry shear walls will be made of reinforced
concrete frames, with beams and columns resembling those of the moment frames but with
smaller dimensions, that will include shear walls made out of masonry. These shear walls
will be erected at key places to stiffen the building against lateral loads in the same way a
concrete shear wall would, but the masonry shear wall will be built between frame
elements.
Advantages:
 Smaller size of columns and beams since bending moments are lower;
 Smaller amounts of materials required, especially reinforcing steel.

8
Disadvantages:
 The masonry shear walls will have to be erected before too many floors are built
above to avoid damage in the event of an earthquake during construction, since the
frames will not have enough moment resistance to resist lateral loads;
 Large non-movable walls in the floor plan that can block sunlight and limits line of
sight.
2.3 – INDOOR GARDEN DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Indoor gardens are becoming a trend in universities. They have been shown to increase
positive attitude, as well as relieve stress in students, therefore will be incorporated in the
University Centre design. Below are the two design alternatives for an indoor garden that
will be evaluated.
Option 1: Living Wall
The living wall is a new technology becoming a trend in Canadian universities. It consists of
living plants in a vertical arrangement affixed to a wall which encapsulates the soil and
water thus creates a beautiful mural. Many styles are provided by NedLaw Living Walls, and
are at the client’s disposal.
Advantages
 Aesthetically pleasing;
 Cleanses the air;
 Acts as a humidifier;
 Helps regulate building temperature.
Disadvantages
 Consumes large amounts of water;
 Emits greenhouse gases;
 Needs sufficient amount of sunlight or artificial lighting.
Option 2: ZFarming
“ZFarming”, also known as Zero-Acreage Farming, is a relatively new method used to
produce agriculture in dense urban areas. This type of farming is done outside of buildings,
such as on a green rooftop or inside rooftop greenhouses, or indoors, such as indoor
gardens. The main goal of this process is to have sustainable food production, educational
and social commitment, as well as to improve urban qualities. Considering project
limitations and the diversity of the Canadian climate, an indoor garden or rooftop
greenhouse are the two possible options.

9
Advantages
 No location-specific requirements;
 Creates fresh and local products, eliminates food transportation fees, and food does
not perish as fast;
 Gardens fed by rain water and compost.
Disadvantages
 Restricted to growing leafy foods, therefore the University Food Services cannot rely
fully on this method;
 Higher initial investment.

10
3 – LOW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND HIGH EFFICIENCY
ALTERNATIVES
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is an internationally recognized
designation which is granted to buildings that meet acceptable levels of green, sustainable,
and efficient design. It “covers such areas as water and energy efficiency, using recycled and
salvaged building materials, durability, and improving the indoor environment for
employees.”1 It is not the only such designation, but it is the most widely used in North
America.
The LEED designation is a point-based system in which points are awarded for meeting
specific sustainable criteria. The number of points acquired by a project determines if the
project will achieve LEED designation, and what level of designation it will be awarded. The
maximum number of base points available is 100. The rating system employed for this
project also has 10 additional points available - for Regional Priority initiatives, and
Innovation in Design.
There are four levels of certification which may be achieved in LEED: certified (40-49
points), silver (50-59 points), gold (60-79 points), and platinum (80+ points). Since 2005,
the federal government of Canada has insisted that all new federal buildings achieve a gold
LEED designation. The City of Ottawa requires all new buildings with a gross floor area
greater than 500 m2 to achieve at least a silver LEED rating. Among recent buildings on
campus, the Faculty of Social Sciences building achieved a gold LEED designation, and the
Research Centre achieved a silver LEED designation. Due to the prominence and symbolic
significance of the University Centre, a platinum designation will be achieved.
Many different projects, and even people, can seek LEED designation, and to accommodate
the variety of factors that need to be addressed, LEED is broken down into five rating
systems: Building Design and Construction, Interior Design and Construction, Building
Operations and Maintenance, Neighbourhood Development, and Homes. The Building
Design and Construction designation is appropriate for this project, and can be further
specified into the LEED Canada New Construction and Major Renovation 2009 category.
LEED has been refined over the years with updated versions of the designation. LEED v4 is
the most recent and stringent edition, however, registration to have a LEED project
designated using LEED v2009 has been extended until October 31, 2016. For this reason,
LEED v2009 has been used for this project.
It is not appropriate to firmly state which points will be attempted at this time due to the
iterative nature of the design process. Rather the points can loosely be divided into
Achieved (through site selection), Achievable, and Unachievable; some points are achievable
but beyond the scope of the building design.
1 David, R. (2015)

11
TABLE 1 - POINT DIVISION
Achieved Achievable Unachievable Beyond Scope
12 Points 77 Points 11 Points 10 Points
Out of 110 Points - 80 for Platinum
The location is well-suited to score well in the location and transportation category since
the site is located in a dense urban area and very close to convenient transit options. It will
also achieve a point for the sensitive land category, since the land has been previously
developed. Similarly, it will score well in the surrounding density and diverse uses category,
and the access to quality transit category.
Bicycle storage will be included in order to achieve the bicycle facilities point. This will also
necessitate a bicycle access route to nearby Laurier Street, which has bicycle lanes.
The underground parking included in the building will be enough to achieve the reduced
parking footprint point. Designating 5% of parking spaces for green vehicles in the parking
lot and installing charging stations in 2% of parking spaces will allow the building to
achieve a point in the green vehicles category. Limiting the parking capacity to the
minimum required by City of Ottawa bylaws will achieve another point.
Water meters and energy meters will be installed to monitor their respective use. In this
manner, potential leaks can be identified and fixed, and reduction of utility use can be
monitored and rewarded.
Designing a useable green roof with native vegetation will be a prominent building feature
and contribute to the achievement of several LEED points in water efficiency, heat island
effect, and stormwater design.
The use of on-site renewable energy and an indoor garden will also be prominent building
features contributing to the achievement of several LEED points.
There are many other opportunities for sustainable design which will be examined and
considered throughout the design process, keeping in mind the overall goal of achieving 80+
points for the platinum LEED designation. Please see Appendix 5 for the details of each
point as it pertains to this project. The "LEED Canada For New Construction and Major
Renovations 2009" rating system was consulted for each item, and additional references are
as noted.

12
4 – COMPARISON OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
4.1 - SELECTION CRITERIA
Preliminary research exploring a simplified cost estimate for the project alternatives and
structural considerations for the new University have been done. This information is used in
determining which alternative is the best.
The preferred alternative will be chosen based on the list of criteria. These decision
components are broken down into two sections: required criteria and weighted criteria. The
required criteria must be achieved while the scores for the weighted criteria can be found in
the list below.
The required criteria are:
 LEED designation
 Client requests
 Capacity
The weighted criteria are:
 Cost
 Functionality
 Durability
 Disturbance
 Ease of Construction
 Aesthetics
 Accessibility based on location
 Construction Time
 Certainty
Table 2 - performance rating
Performance
Perfect 10
Excellent 9
Very Good 8
Good 7
Satisfactory 6
Adequate 5
Tolerable 4
Poor 3
Very Poor 2
Inadequate 1
Non-Existent 0

2
Please note that for the following sections, each alternative has been abbreviated:
TABLE 3 - ALTERNATIVES ABBREVIATIONS
Location Alternation Abbreviation
New building on Current University Centre Location L1
Expansion of Existing University Centre L2
New Building Using Parking Lot Location L3
Concrete Moment Frames C1
Concrete Shear Wall Building C2
Concrete Frame with Infill Masonry Shear Walls C3
Living Wall G1
ZFarming G2
4.1.1 - COST
Cost was given a weighted criterion of 1 out of 5. As requested by the client, the emphasis of
this project is not on cost but instead aesthetics and functionality. This building will be a
landmark building for the university, regardless of cost.
Location Alternatives:
L1 - 8/10
L2 - 6/10
L3 - 10/10
As part of the cost estimate research, M. Brad Banks, Project Superintendent for PCL
Constructors Canada Inc, as well as M. Danny Vaughan, from Novatech Engineering were
consulted.
In term of cost, alternative L2 is estimated be the most expensive option. As Mr. Banks
stated, the only reason a client would consider refurbishing an existing structure is if this
structure is a heritage building. For the current UCU center, he also predicted that the cost
of renovating an existing structure is 1.5 time more expensive than the actual cost of
building a new structure. He also pointed out that since this structure was built in the 1970,
a seismic reinforcement upgrade will be needed since there has been amendments in the

3
NBCC in regard to seismic activity. Since the UCU is not a heritage building and the cost
associated to incorporating an indoor parking area in an existing building will be too high,
conclusions are made that this option is not a viable solution.
As for alternative L1, Mr. Banks has predicted that a budget of 2.5 M should be provided for
asbestos removal since older buildings are subject to asbestos contamination. If
contaminates are found, there will also be a cost associated to producing a designated
substance report which cost around 100 000$. He also mentioned that, considering the size
of the UCU building, there should be a 2.5 M demolition cost in regards to removing the
existing concrete structure.
Incorporating all these considerations, it has been determined that L3 is the best option
because the construction of a new University Centre on L3 will not incur the extra costs that
alternatives L1 and L2 will.
Structural Alternative:
C1 – 0/10
C2 – 0/10
C3 – 0/10
These alternatives do not have any noticeable differences that will impact the cost of the
project since they require approximately the same amount of material and labour; therefore
all alternatives obtain a score of 0.
Indoor Garden:
G1 – 0/10
G2 – 0/10
The cost is extremely variable for these projects, there is no set price. The prices are
addressed case by case. Furthermore, it is assumed that the cost for both options will come
down to being similar prices.
4.1.2 - FUNCTIONALITY
Functionality is defined as the quality of having practical use. Each alternative will be
evaluated on this basis. This weighted criterion was given a weight of 2 out of 5 because
even though functionality is very important for a university building, the client requests an
aesthetically marvellous landmark building.

4
L1 – 10/10
L2 – 7/10
L3 – 10/10
In this section, alternatives L1 and L3 are given the highest score since functional design can
be directly incorporated into a newly built structure. Both locations offer the option of
building an interior underground parking area, as requested by the client. This option will
allow more on-campus indoor parking spaces available for the rising population of students,
professors and employees attending the University of Ottawa. Alternative L2 is given the
lowest score considering that functionality needs to be re-designed and integrated into an
existing building. Furthermore, the possibility of incorporating an interior underground
parking area under an existing building might not be the best feasible option.
C1 – 6/10
C2 – 9/10
C3 – 9/10
The functionality of these structural alternatives is based on the interference created in
gathering areas of the building and the negative effect of blocking sunlight. Both C2 and C3
alternatives have shear wall components that block sunlight. However, these walls can be
placed near the center of the building, minimising the impact of this disturbance. C1
requires deeper beams and thicker columns; therefore this alternative will gradually block
sunlight, making it comparable to the other two alternatives. In terms of interference, the
span between columns is more restricted with the C1 option compared to C2 and C3 since
these two alternatives do not require large beams between the columns. To conclude, C2
and C3 both obtain a score of 9, while C1 obtains a score of 6 due to its limited spans that
will impact gathering areas.
Indoor Garden:
G1 – 8/10
G2 – 6/10
These values were given for G1 and G2, because both of these alternatives provide
functionality to the building, but one a little more than the other. G2, the ZFarming,
demonstrates productivity by creating food for the facility to sale and/or make meals.
Unfortunately it is only limited to leafy foods, therefore will not be able to sustain for the
entire productivity, and outside resources will be necessary. The G1, Living Wall, is

5
functional by cleansing the air of the building, reducing the amount of energy consumed. It
also acts as a natural humidifier.
4.1.3 - DURABILITY
The new University Centre must be able to withstand the harsh Ottawa conditions as well as
the constant and aggressive use by the University students and facility. In this regard, each
alternative will be evaluated.
L1 – 0/10
L2 – 0/10
L3 – 0/10
The impact of durability has no direct effect on the location alternatives. Therefore, these
options will receive no score.
C1 – 0/10
C2 – 0/10
C3 – 0/10
These alternatives do not have any noticeable differences that will impact durability;
therefore all alternatives obtain a score of 0.
Indoor Garden:
G1 – 7/10
G2 – 6/10
For durability of the plants, Ottawa winters are a concern. For ZFarming, the roof garden is
out of the question unless a greenhouse is built. With a greenhouse the temperature will
need be controlled all year long. The living wall will be inside therefore not affected by the
exterior climate. The challenge will be to give it the perfect amount of artificial sunlight,
combined with enough water. Some issues have been found, but quickly fixed as the
technology advances.
4.1.4 - DISTURBANCE
The construction of the project and the activity surrounding it will affect the quality of the
student’s university experience. This disturbance should be minimized in order to maintain

6
the quality of education currently set by the university. This weighted criterion is of high
importance and thus was given a weight of 4 out of 5.
The score for each alternative is seen below:
L1 – 6/10
L2 – 7/10
L3 – 5/10
The construction process of alternative L1 will entail demolition of the existing university
center as well the erection a new infrastructure. These processes will undoubtedly prolong
the on-campus construction activity, therefore having a direct impact on by the students
attending this university. As for option L2, remodelling the existing structure as well as
adding two extra floors will render this building useable for parts of the construction phase.
Finally, option L3 will have disturbance issues considering its proximity of the neighbouring
residential complex. The students living in the complex will be subjected to a continuous
activity during the construction phase.
C1 – 0/10
C2 – 0/10
C3 – 0/10
These alternatives do not have any noticeable differences that will impact the amount of
disturbance since they will generate approximately the same amount of disturbance;
therefore all alternatives obtain a score of 0.
Indoor Garden:
G1 – 0/10
G2 – 0/10
The indoor garden alternatives have no effect on the disturbance.
4.1.5 - EASE OF CONSTRUCTION
An important factor for this project, the selected alternative will be chosen based on how
easy it is to construct the buildings. One of the main considerations for this weighted
criterion is if demolition, in whole or part, is required or not.

7
L1 – 6/10
L2 – 7/10
L3 – 9/10
Alternative L3 is most favourable in regards to ease of construction since the only
demolition required is the removal of the existing asphalt parking lot. In addition,
construction scheduling will need to be coordinated with the current LRT development
project. Option L1 must consider the demolition of the existing building as well the
construction of a new superstructure. As for option L2, this entails a total remodel of the
existing structure. For this alternative, construction scheduling needs to be flexible in the
event of unforeseeable renovation complications.
C1 – 6/10
C2 – 10/10
C3 – 10/10
Ease of construction for structural alternatives can be determined by comparing the
erection methods required to cast these alternatives. The C1 alternative requires overhead
beams to be cast between columns, adding a challenge for the support of the forms, as well
as requiring additional time for curing before the slabs are positioned or poured. The C2
and C3 alternatives can easily be constructed since slabs can be positioned or poured as
soon as the column forms are stripped, and only requires conventional formwork than is
positioned between floors. Shear walls are also easy to erect since they can be poured along
the columns for the C2 alternative, or assembled while the floors above are poured for the
C3 alternative since they are masonry infill. These considerations allow a score of 10 for
both the C2 and C3 options, but a 6 for the C1 option.
Indoor Garden:
G1 – 6/10
G2 – 8/10
The G2 option can be constructed almost anywhere, making the planning phase very easy. It
can be added into a new or existing building. To insert the G1 option into an existing
building would prove to be more challenging. The wall would have to be smaller or
intensive rebuilding of exiting walls would be required. The living wall will need a more
complex design.

8
4.1.6 - AESTHETICS
As requested by the client, this new University Centre will be a landmark for the University.
Each alternative will not only be evaluated on the potential aesthetics but potential
exposure to the University community and city community. Since this particular criterion is
the ultimate goal of the client, an aesthetics weight of 5 out of 5 was given.
L1 – 9/10
L2 – 8/10
L3 – 10/10
Freedom in design creativity is best utilized by L1 and L3 since both these options will
require constructing a newly designed structure. In addition, alternative L3 offers an
optimal location for public exposure. As for alternative L2, the existing structural skeletal
system will certainly restrict some aspect of the architect’s design creativity.
C1 – 7/10
C2 – 10/10
C3 – 4/10
Aesthetics of these structural alternatives can be based on their visual impact. The C3
alternative has slender columns, but has infill masonry shear walls, which greatly impacts
the potential modern look of the building, and have to be painted. The C2 alternative also
has slender columns, but concrete has a modern look and does not have to be painted. The
C1 alternative has beams and voluminous columns, which greatly impacts the visual aspect.
Therefore, the C1 alternative obtains a score of 7 due to its bulky columns and beams, the
C2 alternatives obtains a score of 10 since it meets expectations, and the C3 alternative
obtains a score of 4 due to the masonry components that do not look modern.
Indoor Garden:
G1 – 10/10
G2 – 6/10
The living wall is without a doubt a beautiful masterpiece. It gives a modern style, as well as
a little piece of nature in an urban location. The ZFarming is more of an agricultural aspect,
then aesthetic. It is less attractive to look at then a majestic garden.

9
4.1.7 - ACCESSIBILITY BASED ON LOCATION
The new University Centre will be the heart of the University of Ottawa. For this reason,
each alternative will be scored on its accessibility by the university students and faculty, as
well as its visual accessibility by the community.
L1 – 10/10
L2 – 8/10
L3 – 10/10
Since options L1 and L3 will be fitted with a newly designed structure, these alternatives
will offer more design flexibility in term of accessibility. The possibility of completely
incorporating the New Accessibility Amendments to Ontario’s Building Code within these
two locations will be evaluated. As for option L2, this option offers limits in terms of
refurbishing the existing building to provide a higher standard of accessibility to the
university students and faculty.
C1 – 0/10
C2 – 0/10
C3 – 0/10
These alternatives benefits do not change with location; therefore all alternatives obtain a
score of 0.
Indoor Garden:
G1 – 10/10
G2 – 6/10
Option G1 will be a centerpiece viewed by all who access the building. It won’t be hidden,
and be accessible by all. Option G2 will most likely be located in a greenhouse, or in a
designated room, not as accessible to public as option G1 would be.
4.1.8 - CONSTRUCTION TIME
The time it takes to complete the construction of the new University Centre is important
and ties into the disturbance criteria seen previously. Each alternative score will take into
consideration the length of time each alternative will take to construct. This weighted
criterion was given an overall weight of 3 out of 5. Even though it is important to complete

10
the construction as quickly as possible so to minimize the disturbance to the university
campus, this goal of this project is to construction the new University landmark and this will
take time.
L1 – 7/10
L2 – 8/10
L3 – 9/10
Initial estimates foresee that option L1 will have longer construction period since this
alternative will require additional time for demolition of the existing university center as
well as the time to erect a new landmark for the university. Alternative L2 must have a more
flexible construction time since this would be dependent on the current structural integrity
of the building. Option L3 would require the least construction time since this location
considers a minimal allocated demolition time of the existing parking area as well as the
erection time of a newly build superstructure.
C1 – 6/10
C2 – 10/10
C3 – 10/10
Construction time is greatly influenced by the amount of consecutive components that have
to be formed on each floor. The C1 option requires columns, beams, and slabs for a total of 3
components that cannot be built simultaneously. The C2 option requires columns and slabs
for a total of 2 components, since the shear wall can be built independently and will not
require additional time. The C3 option requires columns and slabs for a total of 2
components, since the masonry shear walls can also be erected independently and does not
require additional time. Therefore, the C2 and C3 alternatives both obtain a score of 10, but
the C1 option obtains a score of 6.
Indoor Garden:
G1 – 0/10
G2 – 0/10
It cannot be proven that one option will take longer than the other since both options are
specifically designed for the type and size of the project.

11
4.1.9 - CERTAINTY
Certainty is an important factor to be considered for each alternative. It is necessary to
evaluate the risk involved in the construction of each alternative. Risk could surround the
existing conditions of a site, structural integrity of a construction method or lifetime of an
indoor centerpiece.
L1 – 10/10
L2 – 9/10
L3 – 8/10
In terms of risk assessment, alternative L1 poses the least uncertainty since this location
already houses an existing structure. Option L2 will need to consider the current structural
integrity of the existing building. Due to the age of the building, there is great uncertainty in
its condition. In addition, in any old building, asbestos contamination will most likely be
encountered during the refurbishment phase. As for alternative L3, a geotechnical
investigation might reveal that the soil is contaminated and remediation the existing soil
will be required.
C1 – 10/10
C2 – 10/10
C3 – 9/10
Structural integrity of option C1 and C2 do not differ, but the C3 alternative may pose a
certain risk since the masonry shear walls can show cracks under tension, and show
reduced capacity if these tension cracks occur. Therefore both C1 and C2 obtain a score of
10, and C3 obtains a score of 9 since the tension crack risk can be minimised with regular
inspection.
Indoor Garden:
G1 – 7/10
G2 – 6/10
Both options come with the uncertainty that the plants will not survive. The ZFarming is a
newer technology, still undergoing modifications, while the living wall has been tested and
updated throughout the years, making it more reliable.

12
4.2 - DECISION MATRIX
As seen in the table below, a weight has been assigned for each criterion as discussed is the
above section, “Selection Criterion”.
TABLE 4 - WEIGHTED CRITERIA
Weighted Criteria (1 out of 5)
Cost 1
Functionality 3
Durability 2
Disturbance 4
Ease of Construction 2
Aesthetics 5
Accessibility based on location 3
Construction Time 3
Certainty 4
Using these weighted values, a decision matrix was created to determine the best
alternatives. It was determined that the best alternatives are as follows:
 L3: new building using the parking lot;
 C2: concrete shear wall building;
 G1: living wall.
This decision matrix can be seen in Appendix – 1.

13
5 – SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
5.1 – PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT
The new University Centre building will consist of five floors. The main floor will be an open
and continuously flowing space with 20 foot ceiling allowing for the inclusion of the
enlarged main food court, living wall, presentation stage and theatre, and the University of
Ottawa bookstore. Adequate space will be allotted to student study and mingling space.
The basement level will allow access to the underground parking and space for building
operations centres and maintenance rooms.
The floors above the main floor will consist of a combination of offices for SFUO services
and university operations offices. Several large classrooms will also be included on these
levels.
Covered inter-building connection will be established to surrounding buildings.
5.2 – BUILDING MATERIAL
In order to achieve an open and continuously flowing space on the main floor, concrete
shear walls will be employed. In addition to providing large, open spaces, large amounts of
sunlight will need to allowed entrance into the core of the building to sustain the living wall.
Thus large portions of the exterior of the building will consist of a glass façade, supported
by a steel frame, reaching the top of the building.
5.3 – SPECIALIZED BUILDING MATERIAL
LEED suggests several specialized materials for use in a LEED certified building. For the
construction of the new University the following LEED suggestions will be met:
 Green roof (native vegetation)
 Solar panels
 salvaged, refurbished, or reused materials for a total of 10% of the cost of materials
 1/2 pre-consumer recycled content + all post-consumer recycled content = 20%
material by cost
 30% local materials: manufacturing site is within 800 km of site. Raw materials are
within 800 km of manufacturing site.
 2.5% rapidly renewable materials by cost. Such as: bamboo, wool, cotton insulation,
agrifibre, linoleum, wheatboard, strawboard, and cork.
 50% of all wood will be Forest Stewardship Council Certified wood
 Adhesives, sealants, and paints on the interior of the building will comply with LEED
requirements for volatile organic compounds.

14
 Carpet and carpet cushion will meet the requirements of the Carpet and Rug
Institute Green Label program2.
5.4 – PREDICTED PROJECT COST
Four methods are available to predict the project cost. The first method is to use RSMeans
square foot cost data with the original UCU areas (the RSMeans data is presented in
Appendix 7). The next two involve comparing to the cost of similar buildings, which are the
current UCU cost and FSS building cost. The third involves a general estimate figure
suggested by a contractor.
Cost estimate 1: Using RSMeans
Based on the current UCU’s dimensions and RSMeans, the cost estimate is calculated below.
TABLE 5 - CURRENT UNIVERSITY CENTRE DIMENSIONS
Current UCU dimension (GMS: Gross meter square)
Level 0 5088.37
Level 00 3684.51
Level 1 2988.81
Level 2 2282.83
Level 3 1687.56
Total 15732.08
*From Provided Plans “UCU Bldg008 SpaceReportbyFloor Oct2014
2 Canadian Green Building Council (2010)

15
The main space use was then divided into sections.
TABLE 6 - UNIVERSITY CENTRE DIVISION
Level Usage % of total use Area Rs Means comparable Explanation
Level 0 Bookstore 40 2035.348 Library
Closest to
support books
Bento Sushi 10 508.837 Fast food Similar usage
Corner store 10 508.837 Convenience store Similar usage
Photo store 10 508.837 Retail Similar usage
Auditorium 20 1017.674 Auditorium Similar usage
Club space 10 508.837 Club social Similar usage
Level 00 Print center 25 921.1275 Post office
Closest to
paper work
Storage 50 1842.255 Warehouse self storage Similar usage
Office 25 921.1275 Office 1 floor Similar usage
Level 1 Cafeteria 50 1494.405 Fast food Similar usage
Restaurant 40 1195.524 Restaurant Similar usage
Service center 10 298.881 Post office
Closest to
paper work
Level 2 Tim Horton’s 10 228.283 Fast food Similar usage
Bar 30 684.849 Restaurant Similar usage
Club space 60 1369.698 Club, social Similar usage
Level 3 Office space 100 1687.56 Office 1 floor Similar usage
To consider student growth impact, the eating area is given a 25% expansion, as well as
classroom area dedication is increased. This gave totals shown below:
TABLE 7 - TOTAL AREA WITH 25% EXPANSION
RS Means definition Total area in m2
Total area in ft2
Library (green) 2035.348 21908.28
Store, convenience 508.837 5477.071
Store, retail 508.837 5477.071
Auditorium 1017.674 10954.14
Warehouse (green) 1842.255 19829.85
Post office 1220.0085 13132.05
Restaurant, fast food 2789.406 30024.89
Restaurant (green) 1880.373 20240.15
Club, social 1878.535 20220.36
Office, 1 storey (green) 2608.6875 28079.65
College, Classroom 2-3 stories (green) 1687.56 18164.73
Garage, underground parking 3500 37,673.65

16
To compensate for the green building, all items that are not “green” will be added a 15%
cost increase. This gives costs of:
TABLE 8 - UNIVERSITY CENTRE COST BY AREA
RS Means definition Total area in m2
Total area in ft2
Cost
Library (green) 2035.348 21908.28 $ 4,255,000.00
Store, convenience 508.837 5477.071 $ 827,425.00
Store, retail 508.837 5477.071 $ 1,010,850.00
Auditorium 1017.674 10954.14 $ 2,416,725.00
Warehouse (green) 1842.255 19829.85 $ 2,752,000.00
Post office 1220.0085 13132.05 $ 2,171,775.00
Restaurant, fast food 2789.406 30024.89 $ 7,641,750.00
Restaurant (green) 1880.373 20240.15 $ 4,978,000.00
Club, social 1878.535 20220.36 $ 3,755,900.00
Office, 1 storey (green) 2608.6875 28079.65 $ 4,970,500.00
College, Classroom 2-3
stories (green) 1687.56 18164.73 $ 4,387,500.00
Garage, underground
parking 3500 37,673.65 $ 4,244,650.00
Total 21477.52 231181.90 $ 43,412,075.00
This method of estimation is fairly inaccurate since it incorporates square foot cost
estimations of many 1 to 2 story buildings. Some assumed values were also chosen when no
cost data was available for the desired structural system.
Cost estimate 2: From existing University Centre cost.
The existing UCU cost 6 million dollars in 1973. Using a size factor and a time index, the cost
of the new University Centre can be related to the cost of the existing one.
The cost in 1973 for the UCU was $6M for a building of 15,732.08 m². The new building will
have a gross area of approximately 21,477.52 m². This relates to 17,977.52 m² of floor area
and 3,500 m² of underground parking space.
Therefore, the cost of a 21,447.52 m² building in 1973 is estimated using the ratio of the
two areas, which is 1.36, and by multiplying by the total cost of the building for a total of
$8.20 M.
The historical cost index for 1973 is 18.6 and the index for 2014 is 100, therefore, the
building will cost 5.38 times more in 2014 than in 1973. The $8.20 M building in 1973 will
now cost $44.08 M.

17
By adding 15% to the cost to account for expenses related to achieving LEED designation,
the new University Centre is estimated to cost $50.70 M.
However, this method of estimation has major sources of error. The current University
Centre building does not have the same type of structure and the difference in materials
may affect the estimate.
Cost estimate 3: From Faculty of Social Sciences building.
The existing FSS building cost $112.5 M in 2012 and has a gross area of 25,499 m². The
estimate of the new University Centre can be calculated in the same manner than the
previous estimate.
The ratio of the areas is 0.84, and the estimated cost for the new University Centre in 2012
is $94.76 M. The cost index for 2012 is 96.0, therefore this building would cost $98.71 M in
2014. There is no need of adding 15% to account for LEED related upgrades since the FSS
building is LEED gold certified and the estimate is based on this basis.
This method of estimation is fairly accurate since the new University Centre has similar
features than the FSS building that is being compared. Both buildings use a shear wall and
columns design and will have glass curtains. They both incorporate gathering areas, stores,
and classrooms, therefore they are really similar in nature.
Cost estimate 4: From contractor estimate.
A general figure provided by a PCL contractor states that a 500,000 ft² new building of this
type of function costs $160 M on average in 2014. This relates to an area of 46,468 m²
The ratio of the area of the new University Centre to this figure is 0.46, which leads to an
estimated cost of $73.85 M. With consideration for LEED related improvements, the
building will cost an estimated $84.93 M.
This method of estimation is fairly accurate since the initial figure provided relates
specifically to buildings of this type of structural systems, and is not corrected for time,
which reduces the possibility of error.
Comparison
The four cost estimates are condensed below.
TABLE 9 - COST ESTIMATE COMPARISON
Type Cost estimate ($M)
RSMeans square foot cost data 43.41
Similar building comparison (UCU) 50.70
Similar building comparison (FSS) 98.71
Contractor estimate comparison 84.93

18
Since the type of design of the building differs from RSMeans estimate and the current
University Centre, the first two cost estimates are considered optimistic. Using the two most
precise estimates, the proposed building is estimated to cost $91.82 M which is the average
of the two.

19
6 – PROJECT PLAN
6.1 – PROJECT BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
The project breakdown structure is based on a two-level model which is composed of 7
sections in the first level. The desired level of detail is considered to be the most detailed
level that includes tasks that have durations of at least 1 hour; otherwise the tasks will have
shorter durations than the base units of the schedule. Since this is a design project, the
sections are chosen based on main requirements and steps of the project. Below are the
sections of the first level of detail with the description of their tasks and objectives.
TABLE 10 - PROJECT BREAKDOWN
Section Description
Initial Meetings Meetings required to start the project
Feasibility Tasks required to complete the feasibility report and
present it to the client
Architectural Design Tasks required to design the architectural aspect of the
building
Structural Design Tasks required to design the structural aspect of the
building
Geotechnical Design Tasks required to design the geotechnical aspect of the
building
Technical Drawings Tasks required to complete technical drawings and
specifications
Final Design Tasks required to revise, implement changes, approve, and
deliver the project to the client
Within each section, many tasks are required to complete the goal of the section. These
tasks are defined as the second level of detail. Other levels of detail are not required since all
tasks of the second level of detail have durations that fit the desired level, and an additional
level of detail will have tasks of a shorter duration than 1 hour.
All tasks are summarized in the table below, with their respective sections.

20
TABLE 11 - PROJECT BREAKDOWN TASKS
First level of detail Second level of detail
Initial Meetings
Preliminary Meeting With Client
Internal Meeting
Feasibility
Site Investigations
Analyse Site Investigations
Analyse Location Alternatives
Selection of Location Alternatives
Analyse Structural Alternatives
Structural Systems Selection
Analyse Green and Sustainable Alternatives
Green and Sustainable Alternatives
Selection
Preparation of Decision Matrix
Selection of Design Alternatives
Preparation of Feasibility Report
Presentation of Feasibility Report
Architectural Design
Preliminary Sketches
Floor Plan Design
Building Facade and Exterior Design
Landscape Design
Final Design
Structural Design
Load Analysis
Preliminary Design
Optimisation of Design
Geotechnical Design
Preliminary Design
Optimisation of Design
Technical Drawings
Architectural Drawings
Structural Drawings
Foundation Drawings
Landscape Drawings
Final Design
Revision of Drawings
Client Meeting and Presentation of Plans
Implementation of Design Changes
Second Revision of Drawings
Approval of Final Drawings
Deliverance of Final Drawings
The complete list of tasks, including their schedule and network, are presented in Appendix
X, Y, and Z respectively. These are based on the tasks and PERT analysis presented in the
Project Proposal published in November 2014.

21
6.2 – PROJECT SCHEDULE: PERT ANALYSIS
The design timeline of the intended project can be found in Appendix 2. This timeline is
constructed using PERT analysis results. Careful considerations will be made to respect
these intended timelines.
The critical path is the list of the tasks that will affect the project’s duration if their
respective duration is not followed. The critical path is as follows:
TABLE 12: CRITICAL TASKS
Task Name
Site Investigations
Analyse Site Investigations
Selection of Location Alternatives
Preparation of Decision Matrix
Selection of Design Alternatives
Preparation of Feasibility Report
Presentation of Feasibility Report
Preliminary Sketches
Floor Plan Design
Final Design
Load Analysis
Preliminary Design
Architectural Drawings
Revision of Drawings
Client Meeting and Presentation of Plans
Implementation of Design Changes
Second Revision of Drawings
Approval of Final Drawings
Deliverance of Final Drawings
The project is estimated to be completed in 78 working days but will not exceed 92 working
days, based on a 95% confidence analysis. The network diagram can be found in Appendix
3.
The project has started November 10th 2014 and will be completed on or before June 5th
2015. However, the estimated completion date is April 3rd 2015. See Appendix 2 for the
complete schedule.
Up to date, the design is on schedule to deliver the feasibility report and presentation on
December 3rd, 2014.

22
7 – DESIGN COST ESTIMATES
APENN resources will be divided in 6 teams for the design of the proposed University
Centre. Their characteristics are presented below.
TABLE 13: TEAM RESOURCES BREAKDOWN
Team
Number of
members
Average billing rate
($/hr)
Total billing rate
($/hr)
Structural 6 130 780
Geotechnical 5 130 650
Architectural 4 100 400
Drafting 6 95 570
Field Technicians 4 95 380
Secretaries 3 45 135
Project Manager 1 230 230
The table in Appendix 4 presents the resources allocation and their respective cost
estimates for the different types of services during the design process. The total design cost
estimate is $719,733 for the proposed building.
8 – STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM
As requested by the client, SAP2000 will be employed for the structural design of the new
University Centre. SAP2000 is a powerful, user-friendly software that allows the user to
employ templates for simpler structural designs, such as the one for the new University
Centre. In addition to these advantages, SAP2000 also provides elaborate instruction on-
line to users.

23
9 – PRELIMINARY BUILDING ENVELOPE DESIGN
The building envelope was conceived with practical, environmental, and aesthetic
considerations in mind. The top roof is crowned with a mechanical room covered on the
south side with solar panels. The three lower roofs are accessible and showcase native
vegetation, walking and seating areas. An awning covers the main entranceway and shelters
bicycle storage from inclement weather. The building features glass facings, allowing
natural light to filter to the occupants within.
FIGURE 2 - AERIAL VIEW #1
FIGURE 3 - AERIAL VIEW #2

24
FIGURE 4 - VIEW FROM LOWER ROOF
FIGURE 5 - FRONT VIEW

25
10 – REFERENCES
Adam, J., and Tremblay, A. (2014). "Reviving the living wall." University of Ottawa Gazette, .
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2000). "Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings." Rep. No. FEMA-356, Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Canada Green Building Council (2010). “LEED Canada For New Construction and Major
Renovations 2009.”
Canada Green Building Council. (2013). “Regional Priority Credits: LEED Canada for New
Construction and Major Renovations (NS) 2009.”
City of Ottawa. (2008). "Zoning By-Law 2008-250 Consolidation." City of Ottawa, Ottawa,
Ontario.
City of Ottawa. (2014). "Intrepreting Zoning Information (Sec. 29-
46)." http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/laws-licenses-and-permits/laws/city-ottawa-zoning-
law/zoning-law-2008-250-consolidation--1 (October 26, 2014).
David, R. (2015). "Government of Canada Adopts New Environmental Standards For
Buildings." Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa.
Doxey, J. (2009). "The Impact of Interior Plants in University Classrooms on Student Course
Performance and on Student Perceptions of the Course and Instructor. " Hortscience,44(2),
384-391.
geoOttawa. (2014). "Zoning." http://maps.ottawa.ca/geoottawa/ (October 26, 2014).
Haselbach, L. (2008). Engineering Guide to LEED-New Construction - Sustainable
Construction for Engineers. New York McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mueller, T. (2014). "2013 LEED Canada Buildings in Review." SAB Magazine, .
Natarajan, M., Rahimi, M., Sen, S., Mackenzie, N., and Imanbayev, Y. (2014). "Living wall
systems: evaluating life-cycle energy, water and carbon impacts " Urban Ecosystems, .
Nedlaw Living Walls. (2014). http://www.nedlawlivingwalls.com/ (October 26, 2014).
RSMeans Online. (2014). "Square Foot Estimator."
http://rsmeansonline.com/SquareFootEstimate/Index/RefreshPage (November 26, 2014).

26
RS, M. C. "RSMeans green building cost data." RSMeans Green Building Cost Data.; RS Means
Green Building Cost Data, .
Thomaier, S., Specht, K., Henckel, D., Dierich, A., Siebert, R., Freisinger, U., and Sawicka, M.
(2014). "Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-
Acreage Farming (ZFarming) " Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 1-12.
U.S. Green Building Council. (2014). "LEED." http://www.usgbc.org/leed (11/05, 2014).
University of Ottawa. (2014). "SPACE INVENTORY by
BUILDING." http://www.facilities.uottawa.ca/en/facts (10/04, 2014).

i
APPENDIX 1- DECISION MATRIX
TABLE 14 - DECISION MATRIX
Cost Funct. Durab. Disturb.
Ease of
Construction
Aesthetics Access.
Construction
Time
Certainty
w1
=
0.04
w2
=
0.11
w3
=
0.07
w4
=
0.15 w5= 0.07
w6
=
0.19
w7
=
0.11 w8= 0.11
w9
=
0.15 Σw = 1.0
Alternati
ve
p1
w1p
1
p2
w2p
2
p3
w3p
3
p4
w4p
4
p5 w5p5 p6
w6p
6
p7
w7p
7
p8 w8p8 p9
w9p
9
WP =
Σwp
wp =
WP/ΣWP
L1 8 0.30 10 1.11 0 0.00 6 0.89 6 0.44 9 1.67 10 1.11 7 0.78 10 1.48 7.78 0.34
L2 6 0.22 7 0.78 0 0.00 7 1.04 7 0.52 8 1.48 8 0.89 8 0.89 9 1.33 7.15 0.31
L3 10 0.37 10 1.11 0 0.00 5 0.74 9 0.67 10 1.85 10 1.11 9 1.00 8 1.19 8.04 0.35
ΣWP
=
22.96
C1 0 0.00 6 0.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 0.44 7 1.30 0 0.00 6 0.67 10 1.48 4.56 0.29
C2 0 0.00 9 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 0.74 10 1.85 0 0.00 10 1.11 10 1.48 6.19 0.39
C3 0 0.00 9 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 0.74 4 0.74 0 0.00 10 1.11 9 1.33 4.93 0.31
ΣWP
=
15.67
G1 0 0.00 8 0.89 7 0.52 0 0.00 6 0.44 10 1.85 10 1.11 0 0.00 7 1.04 5.85 0.57
G2 0 0.00 6 0.67 6 0.44 0 0.00 8 0.59 6 1.11 6 0.67 0 0.00 6 0.89 4.37 0.43
ΣWP
=
10.22

ii
APPENDIX 2 – PERT ANALYSIS FOR DURATION ESTIMATE
To calculate the project duration and cost, the following table was created. This assumes 8
working hours per day, 5 working days per week, and design office closure after the
feasibility presentation until January 12, 2015.
TABLE 15: PERT ANALYSIS
Task#
Description
Precedence
Optimistic,to(hrs)
Mode,tm(hrs)
Pessimistic,tp(hrs)
Mean(hrs)
Variance(hrs)
EarliestStart(Date)
LatestStart(Date
TotalSlack(hrs)
1 Project
2 Initial Meetings
3 Preliminary Meeting With
Client
2 2 3 2.2 0.03 10/11/14 24/11/14 84.01
4 Internal Meeting 3 3 5 6 4.8 0.25 10/11/14 24/11/14 84.01
5 Feasibility
6 Site Investigations 100 105 120 106.7 11.11 10/11/14 10/11/14 0
7 Analyse Site Investigations 4
6
2 2 3 2.2 0.03 27/11/14 27/11/14 0
8 Analyse Location
Alternatives
4 15 18 20 17.8 0.69 10/11/14 25/11/14 84.01
9 Selection of Location
Alternatives
8
7
2 2 3 2.2 0.03 27/11/14 27/11/14 0
10 Analyse Structural
Alternatives
4 13 15 16 14.8 0.25 10/11/14 25/11/14 87.18
11 Structural Systems
Selection
10 2 2 2 2.0 0.00 12/11/14 27/11/14 87.18
12 Analyse Green and
Sustainable Alternatives
4 7 8 8 7.8 0.03 10/11/14 26/11/14 95.01
13 Green and Sustainable
Alternatives Selection
12 1 1 2 1.2 0.03 11/11/14 27/11/14 95.01
14 Preparation of Decision
Matrix
9
11
13
6 8 12 8.3 1.00 27/11/14 27/11/14 0
15 Selection of Design
Alternatives
14 6 6 8 6.3 0.11 28/11/14 28/11/14 0
16 Preparation of Feasibility
Report
15 16 16 18 16.3 0.11 01/12/14 01/12/14 0
17 Presentation of Feasibility
Report
16 2 2 2 2.0 0.00 03/12/14 03/12/14 0
18 Architectural Design
19 Preliminary Sketches 15 45 48 58 49.2 4.69 12/01/15 12/01/15 0
20 Floor Plan Design 19 50 55 57 54.5 1.36 20/01/15 20/01/15 0

iii
Task#
Description
Precedence
Optimistic,to(hrs)
Mode,tm(hrs)
Pessimistic,tp(hrs)
Mean(hrs)
Variance(hrs)
EarliestStart(Date)
LatestStart(Date
TotalSlack(hrs)
21 Building Facade and
Exterior Design
20 15 20 22 19.5 1.36 28/01/15 13/02/15 93.33
22 Landscape Design 21 10 12 15 12.2 0.69 02/02/15 25/02/15 136.99
23 Final Design 22
26
29
30 45 50 43.3 11.11 27/02/15 27/02/15 0
24 Structural Design
25 Load Analysis 20 102 110 135 112.8 30.25 28/01/15 28/01/15 0
26 Preliminary Design 21
25
50 55 65 55.8 6.25 18/02/15 18/02/15 0
27 Optimisation of Design 26 25 26 29 26.3 0.44 27/02/15 03/03/15 18.33
28 Geotechnical Design
29 Preliminary Design 20 60 64 70 64.3 2.78 28/01/15 17/02/15 104.33
30 Optimisation of Design 29
26
3 4 6 4.2 0.25 27/02/15 06/03/15 46.33
31 Technical Drawings
32 Architectural Drawings 23 18 19 20 19.0 0.11 06/03/15 06/03/15 0
33 Structural Drawings 27 15 18 19 17.7 0.44 04/03/15 06/03/15 18.33
34 Foundation Drawings 30 10 12 13 11.8 0.25 27/02/15 09/03/15 46.33
35 Landscape Drawings 22 2 3 3 2.8 0.03 03/02/15 10/03/15 196.49
36 Final Design
37 Revision of Drawings 32
33
34
35
52 58 60 57.3 1.78 10/03/15 10/03/15 0
38 Client Meeting and
Presentation of Plans
37 10 12 13 11.8 0.25 19/03/15 19/03/15 0
39 Implementation of Design
Changes
38 42 45 48 45.0 1.00 23/03/15 23/03/15 0
40 Second Revision of
Drawings
39 20 22 25 22.2 0.69 31/03/15 31/03/15 0
41 Approval of Final Drawings 40 7 7 9 7.3 0.11 02/04/15 02/04/15 0
42 Deliverance of Final
Drawings
41 2 2 3 2.2 0.03 03/04/15 03/04/15 0

iv
Using the Beta distribution, the expected (mean) duration time of each task is calculated
using the following equation,
𝑡 𝑒 =
2𝑡 𝑚 +
𝑡 𝑜 + 𝑡 𝑝
2
3
=
𝑡0 + 4𝑡 𝑚 + 𝑡 𝑝
6
The expected (mean) duration for each task is used to identify the total slack time and the
critical path of the project.
Once the critical path is found, the variance for each critical point is found using the
equation,
𝜎2
= (
𝑡 𝑝 − 𝑡 𝑜
6
)
2
This value can then help determine the critical path standard deviation with the equation,
𝜎 = √∑ 𝜎𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
2
Then using the standard variable table, a value can be found for 95% confidence,
𝑧 =
𝑇 − 𝑇𝑒
𝜎
1.65 =
𝑇 − 78
8.36839
𝑇 = 91.81 ≈ 92 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠

v
APPENDIX 3 – PROJECT TIMELINE
FIGURE 6: PROJECT TIMELINE

vi
APPENDIX 4 – NETWORK DIAGRAM
FIGURE 7: NETWORK DIAGRAM

vii
APPENDIX 5 – RESOURCES ALLOCATION AND COST
ESTIMATES
TABLE 16: RESOURCES ALLOCATION AND COST BREAKDOWN
Type of work
Engineering Plans
Field
Tests
Office
Structural
Geotechnical
Architectural
Drafting
Field
Technicians
Secretaries
Project
Manager
Description of task Mean
(hrs)
Total billing rate ($/hr)
780 650 400 570 380 135 230
Initial Meetings
Preliminary Meeting With Client 2.2 1690 1408 867 293 498
Internal Meeting 4.8 3770 3142 1933 653 1112
Feasibility
Site Investigations 106.7 40533
Analyse Site Investigations 2.2 1408 498
Analyse Location Alternatives 17.8 2408 4102
Selection of Location Alternatives 2.2 498
Analyse Structural Alternatives 14.8 11570 3412
Structural Systems Selection 2.0 1560 460
Analyse Green and Sustainable
Alternatives
7.8 1802
Green and Sustainable Alternatives
Selection
1.2 268
Preparation of Decision Matrix 8.3 1125 1917
Selection of Design Alternatives 6.3 855 1457
Preparation of Feasibility Report 16.3 2205
Presentation of Feasibility Report 2.0 1560 1300 800 270 460
Architectural Design
Preliminary Sketches 49.2 19667
Floor Plan Design 54.5 21800
Building Facade and Exterior Design 19.5 7800
Landscape Design 12.2 4867
Final Design 43.3 17333 9967
Structural Design
Load Analysis 112.8 88010
Preliminary Design 55.8 43550
Optimisation of Design 26.3 20540 6057
Geotechnical Design
Preliminary Design 64.3 41817

viii
Type of work
Engineering Plans
Field
Tests
Office
Structural
Geotechnical
Architectural
Drafting
Field
Technicians
Secretaries
Project
Manager
Description of task Mean
(hrs)
Total billing rate ($/hr)
780 650 400 570 380 135 230
Optimisation of Design 4.2 2708 958
Technical Drawings
Architectural Drawings 19.0 10830
Structural Drawings 17.7 10070
Foundation Drawings 11.8 6745
Landscape Drawings 2.8 1615
Final Design
Revision of Drawings 57.3 44720 37267 32680 13187
Client Meeting and Presentation of
Plans
11.8 9230 7692 2722
Implementation of Design Changes 45.0 35100 29250 18000 10350
Second Revision of Drawings 22.2 17290 14408 12635 5098
Approval of Final Drawings 7.3 5720 4767 2933 1687
Deliverance of Final Drawings 2.2 1690 1408 1235 498
Totals 286000 146575 96000 75810 40533 7808 67007

ix
APPENDIX 6 - LEED POINT DETAILS
The "LEED Canada For New Construction and Major Renovations 2009" rating system was
consulted for each item, and additional references are as noted.
SUSTAINABLE SITES – 26 POSSIBLE POINTS
SSp1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required
This is a LEED prerequisite and has no associated extra costs since local codes usually cover
the requirements.
SSc1 Site Selection 1 Point
The selected site meets the requirements for this point with no extra costs.
SSc2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 3–5 Points
The selected site meets the requirements for all 5 points.
SSc3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 Point
The selected site is not a brownfield site, and therefore cannot achieve this point.
SSc4.1 Alternative Transportation – Public Transportation Access 3–6 Points
The selected site achieves all six points.
SSc4.2 Alternative Transportation – Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 Point
Provide secure and covered bicycle racks within 200 yards of a building entrance for 5% of
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) occupants and 5% of peak Transient Users.
Provide shower and changing facilities in the building for 0.5% of FTE occupants.
SSc4.3 Alt. Transportation – Low-Emitting & Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3 Points
Provide electric refuelling stations for 3% of the total vehicle parking capacity of the site.
SSc4.4 Alternative Transportation – Parking Capacity 2 Points
As per Ottawa bylaws, the minimum parking capacity for a Post-Secondary Educational
Institution is 0.75 per 100 m2 of gross floor area. In order to achieve these points, the
minimum must not be exceeded, and preferred parking must be provided for carpools or
vanpools for 5% of parking spaces3.
3 City of Ottawa (2008)

x
SSc5.1 Site Development – Protect or Restore Habitat 1 Point
Using native or adapted vegetation, restore the greater of: 50% of the site area excluding
the building footprint, or 20% of the total site area. The roof surface may be included in this
calculation.
SSc5.2 Site Development – Maximize Open Space 1 Point
25% of the site area must either be either vegetated or pedestrian-oriented hardscape.
SSc6.1 Stormwater Design: Quantity Control 1 Point
Implement a stormwater management plan that results in a 25% decrease in the rate and
volume of stormwater runoff from the 2-year 24-hour design storms.
Vegetated roofs, pervious paving, and reuse of stormwater for non-potable uses are
potential strategies to incorporate.
SSc6.2 Stormwater Design: Quality Control 1 Point
Collect and treat 90% of the annual rainfall such that 80% of total suspended solids are
removed.
SSc7.1 Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof 1 Point
This point can be achieved with a green roof and underground parking. Otherwise heat
island-friendly techniques must be used on 50% of the site hardscape.
SSc7.2 Heat Island Effect: Roof 1 Point
Use high Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) materials for at least 75% of the roof surface, or
install a vegetated roof for at least 50% of the roof surface. A weighted average of the two
conditions can also be applied.
SSc8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 Point
Provide occupant-sensing luminaires which last no more than 30 minutes between the
hours of 11 pm and 5 am.
Light exterior areas only as required for safety and comfort. Ensure that no more than 5%
of fixture light is emitted at an angle of 90 degrees of higher from nadir (straight down).
WATER EFFICIENCY – 10 POSSIBLE POINTS
Wep1 Water use reduction Required
Use low-flow fixtures to achieve a water use reduction of 20% below baseline levels. Install
a water meter for potable water.

xi
Wec1 Water efficient landscaping 2–4 Points
2 Points can be achieved by reducing the use of potable water for landscaping by 50%.
4 Points can be achieved by reducing the use of potable water for landscaping by 100%.
Possible sources of water are: captured rainwater, recycled greywater, recycled
wastewater, or non-potable water conveyed by a public agency.
Wec2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 Points
Reduce potable water use by 50% below baseline levels. This can be achieved through a
combination of low-flow fixtures, and using non-potable sources of water.
OR
Treat 50% of rainwater to tertiary levels on-site.
Wec3 Water Use Reduction 2–4 Points
Reduce water consumption below baseline levels – 2 points for a 30% reduction; 3 points
for a 35% reduction; 4 points for a 40% reduction.
ENERGY AND ATMOSPHERE – 35 POSSIBLE POINTS
EAp1 Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy SystemsRequired
Properly commission the building energy systems. This is achievable, but irrelevant to the
design.
EAp2 Minimum Energy Performance Required
Demonstrate a 23% cost improvement compared to a reference building performance
rating.
EAp3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required
No CFC-based refrigerants. This is legislated.
EAc1 Optimize Energy Performance 1–19 Points
Each point will be awarded for achieving a certain % cost improvement as compared to the
reference building performance, as follows:

xii
TABLE 17 - OPTIMIZE ENERGY PERFORMANCE POINT BREAKDOWN
Cost reduction Points
25% 1
27% 2
28% 3
30% 4
32% 5
33% 6
35% 7
37% 8
39% 9
40% 10
42% 11
44% 12
45% 13
47% 14
49% 15
50% 16
52% 17
54% 18
56% 19
EAc2 On-Site Renewable Energy 1–7 Points
Points are awarded for attaining a certain percentage of renewable energy in the building,
as follows:
TABLE 18 - ON-SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY POINT BREAKDOWN
% Renewable Energy Points
1% 1
3% 2
5% 3
7% 4
9% 5
11% 6
13% 7

xiii
EAc3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 Points
These points can be achieved through proper commissioning processes. This is achievable,
but irrelevant to the design.
EAc4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 Points
Install HVAC equipment such that Lifecycle Direct Global Warming Potential + (Lifecycle
Ozone Depletion Potential) x 105 <= 100
EAc5 Measurement and Verification 3 Points
Monitor the energy use for a period of 1 year, and present a plan for correction if the energy
goals are not achieved. This is achievable, but irrelevant to the design.
EAc6 Green Power 2 Points
Provide 35% of the building's electricity from renewable sources for at least 2 years, based
on consumption not cost.
MATERIALS AND RESOURCES – 14 POSSIBLE POINTS
MRp1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Required
Provide a dedicated area for the collection and storage of recycling materials.
MRc1.1 Building Reuse: Maintain Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 1–3 Points
These credits are unattainable, as there is no current building to reuse.
MRc1.2 Building Reuse: Maintain Interior Non-Structural Elements 1 Point
These credits are unattainable, as there is no current building to reuse.
MRc2 Construction Waste Management 1–2 Points
These points are achievable, but would be the construction manager's responsibility to
achieve.
MRc3 Materials Reuse 1–2 Points
Use 5% or 10% salvaged, refurbished, or reused materials by cost for 1 or 2 points,
respectively.
MRc4 Recycled Content 1–2 Points

xiv
Use materials that contain recycled content such that the sum of all post-consumer recycled
content and 1/2 the pre-consumer content constitutes 10% or 20% of the total value of the
materials in the project.
MRc5 Regional Materials 1–2 Points
Use regional materials for 20% or 30% of the building materials by weight for 1 or 2 points,
respectively.
The raw materials must be within 800 km of the manufacturing site, and the manufacturing
site must be within 800 km of the construction site to be considered regional materials.
MRc6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 Point
Use rapidly renewable materials for 2.5% of the value of building materials. Bamboo, wool,
cotton insulation, agrifibre, wheatboard, strawboard, and cork are all considered rapidly
renewable materials.
MRc7 Certified Wood 1 Point
50% of the wood (by cost) should be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY – 15 POSSIBLE POINTS
IEQp1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Required
Meet the ASHRAE standard for indoor air quality.
IEQp2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required
Prohibit smoking in and near the building. This is achievable, but irrelevant to the design.
IEQc1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 Point
Constantly monitor the ventilation and CO2 levels in the building using sensors.
IEQc2 Increased Ventilation 1 Point
Increase outdoor air ventilation rates by 30% above minimum.
IEQc3.1 Constr. Indoor Air Quality Mgmt. Plan: During Construction 1 Point
This point is achievable, but irrelevant to the design.
IEQc3.2 Constr. Indoor Air Quality Mgmt. Plan: Before Occupancy 1 Point
This point is achievable, but irrelevant to the design.
IEQc4.1 Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives and Sealants 1 Point

xv
Adhesives and sealants must be low emitters of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).
IEQc4.2 Low-Emitting Materials: Paints and Coatings 1 Point
Paints and coatings must be low emitters of VOC.
IEQc4.3 Low-Emitting Materials: Flooring Systems 1 Point
All flooring must be low emitters of VOC. Carpet and carpet cushion must meet the
requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label Program.
IEQc4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood and Agrifibre Products 1 Point
Composite wood and agrifibre products must not contain added urea-formaldehyde resins.
IEQc5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 1 Point
Main entrances need 3m systems at entrances to collect dirt. Grates, grills, and slotted
systems must account for the first metre, and mats may be used for the remainder so long
as a weekly cleaning contract is engaged. Entrances to the parking garage can use 3m mats.
The parking garage, and copy/printing area must be ventilated such that negative pressure
is achieved with respect to adjacent spaces. These spaces must have self-closing doors and
either a hard-lid ceiling or deck-to-deck partitions.
IEQc6.1 Controllability of System: Lighting 1 Point
In individual spaces such as offices, provide individual lighting controls. In group spaces
provide lighting controls that comply with ASHRAE standards.
IEQc6.2 Controllability of System: Thermal Comfort 1 Point
In individual spaces, provide individual comfort controls. In group spaces, provide comfort
controls.
IEQc7.1 Thermal Comfort: Design 1 Point
Meet ASHRAE standards for HVAC design.
IEQc7.2 Thermal Comfort: Verification 1 Point
This point is achievable, but irrelevant to the design process.
IEQc8.1 Daylight and Views: Daylight 1 Point
Demonstrate that 75% of regularly occupied spaces have access to daylight.
IEQc8.2 Daylight and Views: Views 1 Point

xvi
Demonstrate a direct line of sight to the outdoor environment for 90% of all regularly
occupied areas.
INNOVATION IN DESIGN – 6 POSSIBLE POINTS
IDc1 Innovation in Design 1–5 Points
Up to three points can be earned by achieving an exemplary performance in another
category – one for each instance.
The remaining two points, or the full five points can be earned by achieving a measurable
environmental performance using a strategy not addressed in any of the above points.
IDc2 LEED Accredited Professional 1 Point
A LEED Accredited Professional (AP) must be a principal participant of the project team.
This point is not achievable.
REGIONAL PRIORITY – 4 POSSIBLE POINTS
RPc1 Durable Building 1 Point
Demonstrate that the predicted service life exceeds the design service life.
RPc2 Regional Priority Credit4 1–3 Points
Achieve up to three of the following credits, deemed priorities in urban Ontario, and
propose those credits as regional priority credits:
SSc2 – Development Density and Community Connectivity
SSc6.1 – Stormwater Control: Quantity Control
SSc7.1 – Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof
SSc7.2 – Heat Island Effect: Roof
WEc3 – Water Use Reduction (>=35%)
EAc1 – Optimize Energy Performance (MNECB >=40% or ASHRAE >=30%)
4 Canada Green Building Council (2014)

xvii
APPENDIX 7 – RSMEANS DATA

xviii
*Multiply by 6 to get 30,000 ft
*Multiply by 4 to get 20,000 ft

xix

xx
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the Executive Director of Faculities, Claudio Brun del Re for
providing this group with plans to the existing UCU centre.
In addition, we would like to thanks Dr. Mohammadian, Dr. Martin-Perez, and Dr.
Abdulridha for their guidance.
Special thanks should also be accorded to M. Brad Banks, Project Superintendent for PCL
Constructors Canada Inc, as well as M. Danny Vaughan, from Novatech Engineering for their
time and expertise.

Feasibility Study FINAL-1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Feasibility Study FINAL-1

Similar to Feasibility Study FINAL-1 (20)

Feasibility Study FINAL-1