February 2010 - British Land/media/Files/B/British-Land...1.0contents 1.1 Executive Summary 1.2...

carbon profile : ropemaker place

by Sturgis Associates LLPon the instruction of British Land Plc

February 2010

1.0 contents

1.1 Executive Summary1.2 Certificate1.3 Building Overview1.4 Carbon Profile overview1.5 Methodology1.6 Boundaries1.8 Comparisons2.0 Key Component Analysis2.1 Structure2.2 Facades2.3 Roof2.4 Central Plant3.0 Summary Carbon Profile3.1 Key to graphic representation3.2 Graphic representation3.3 Data3.5 Tenant / Landlord Profiles3.6 Summary future scenarios3.7 Future baseline3.8 Scenario 13.9 Scenario 24.1 Recommendations4.3 Conclusions

Appendix I DataAppendix II DrawingsAppendix III References

1.1 executive summary

On the instruction of British Land Plc

Sturgis Carbon Profiling LLP

Have carried out a detailed post completion Carbon Profile study of the buildingbased on information provided by the contractor - Mace and sustainabilityconsultants - dcarbon8.

The general finding of the study makes surprising reading to those notconversant with whole life costing approaches: The Carbon Profile forRopemaker shows that:

"over half of the building's CO2e impacts areattributable to embodied carbon"

In fact this figure, is proportionally much higher than the initial expectations ofthe study team as well. This is in part down to the success of the numerousoperational carbon emission reduction measures on the project, but it also doessuggest that for British Land to build on this success the next challenge theyshould face is the development of a coordinated approach to tackling embodiedcarbon emissions arising from the construction and maintenance of theirbuildings.

CO2 IMPACT

Carbon Profiling quantifies the Whole Life Carbon Efficiency of this particularbuilding.

It tells you how much carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere to enable theuse of a given space in one year, including the emissions that are emitted inuse and initial construction.

Compiled on the instruction of British Land Plc, by Sturgis Carbon Profiling LLP

The Study of the building based on information provided by the contractor - Mace and sustainability consultants -dcarbon8, Data from the University of Bath ICE index, BCIS and Defra guides to company reporting.

This Carbon Profile was complied in February 2010. Subsequent changes to buildings specification and fit out willrequire this Carbon Profile to be updated.

For additional information or help interpreting these figures please refer to:

Sturgis Carbon Profiling20 Perseverance WorksLondonE2 8DD

Tel: 0207 613 2500 E-mail: [email protected]

Signed .................................................. Date ............................

for and on behalf of Sturgis Carbon Profiling LLP

1.2 Certificate(remove page for inclusion in Building Manuel)

Carbon Profile CertificateRopemaker Place EC2Y

Carbon Profile

49.66KgCO2/msq/year

Embodied Carbon Efficiency

25.06KgCO2/msq/year

Building Emission Rate

24.60KgCO2/msq/year

ECE51%

BER49%

1.3 building overview

Ropemaker Place

Ropemaker Place is a 20 storey, 586,000 sq ft office development by British Land Plc locatedon Ropemaker Street on the boundary between the City of London and the London Boroughof Islington. It has recently just been completed in May 2009 and at present is fitted out toShell and Core.

Over the coming years the building will be sub let to different institutional occupiers the first ofwhich are Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities International plc.They will be taking 181,360sqft of the space in Jan 2010 and will fit out the floors for their useto Cat C specification from shell and core.

The building incorporates many sustainability features:

o Tilting facades - to reduce solar gainso Green roofo Rainwater harvestingo A Woodchip boilero Recycling and wasteo BREEAM Excellento CO2 emissions 15% lower than B-Regulationso All timber sourced from sustainable managed sourceso Solar Water Heatingo Electric Solar panelso 2008 Estates Gazette Green Building Award

Compatible

Carbon ProfilingIs a new generation of environmental assessment techniques for the Construction Industry.

Carbon Profiling quantifies the Whole Life Carbon Efficiency of buildings.

It tells you how much carbon dioxide has been put into the atmosphere to enable the use of a space.Critically, it evaluates the carbon used both to build and operate an asset over time.

This allows investors, owners and designers to make informed quantifiable environmental decisions,enabling for the first time the possibility of comparing and rating different buildings or constructionmethods or materials - in short it gives you the FACTS you need to do your job with environmentalresponsibility.

Further DetailAt the moment it is accepted practice to measure the operational carbon emissions of buildings.However this is only half the picture. Buildings also give rise to emissions from the construction anddelivery of their materials and their subsequent maintenance. For some buildings these EmbodiedCarbon emissions can be as much as 40% of the overall whole life carbon emissions of a building.

The measurement of a building's operational carbon usage is currently defined by the BuildingEmission Rate, or 'BER'. Carbon Profiling' measures the constructional or embodied carbon asEmbodied Carbon Efficiency or 'ECE' on a similar basis.

It is therefore possible to add the BER (performance) to the ECE (construction) to give a total annualcarbon cost of a building. This for the first time directly links the carbon performance of a building withhow it is made, to provide a total Carbon Profile of that building.

Ignoring embodied carbon seriously distorts the true picture of a building's carbon impact. CarbonProfiling now makes it possible to factor in this crucial missing link.

There are many outcomes of using Carbon Profiling, eg:

It will put increasing pressure on designers to design with longer life, carbon efficientcomponents.

The ability to quantify improved carbon choices in construction can (currently only inemerging economies) be translated directly into Carbon Credits, ie Cash.

Carbon Profiling will aid owners and occupiers to directly compare the overall carbon impactof different buildings or proposals and not just on usage alone.

It is possible to pinpoint redevelopment opportunities and develop “smart refurbishment”techniques so as to optimize a building's financial and environmental performance in the future.

1.4 carbon profiling overview

SturgisCarbonProfile

KgCO2/msq/year

TM

SturgisECEBER

sBEM

Carbon to make materials

Carbon to deliver

Carbon to assemble

Government Standard methodology required inPart L calculations

Carbon associated with demolitions

Life span( )K gCO 2/msq / ear

1.5 methodology

E mbod iedCarbonE mission s

Tenanted Areas

Landlord Areas

WORKS REQUIRING STATUTORY INVOLVEMENT WORKS NOT REQUIRINGSTATUTORY INVOLVEMENT

E X T E N T O F CA R B O N P R O FILE A N A LY S IS

Sh ell an d Core Cat A Cat Bfigures capable ofbeing pro-rata

figures capable ofbeing pro-rata Cat C

figures capable ofbeing pro-rata

R O P E M A K E R P L A CE

O cc pation alCarbonE mission s

Tenanted Areas

Landlord Areas

B P H O U SE N O R T H

E istin g B ild in g

Demolition

FoundationsSuperstructureFacadesRoofsStairs

FoundationsSuperstructureFacadesRoofsStairsCore PartitionsOther PartitionsCentral PlantPlant DistributionLiftsCommon Parts FinishesReception FinishesToilets FinishesDoorsSite Works

Nothing Raised FloorsFloor FinishesCeilingsCooling Distribution + UnitsHeating Distribution+ UnitsSite Works

Electrical DistributionPartitionsDoorsSite Works

In addition to A+Bto include Furniture and IT

As per CAT A

CoolingHeatingLighting

Nothing CoolingHeatingLighting

In addition toA+Bto include smallpower loads

In addition toA+Bto include smallpower loads

Unoccupied

E X T E N T

O cc pation alCarbonE mission s

E mbod iedCarbonE mission s

St rgis

CarbonP ro leT M

1.6 boundaries

EXTENT OF CARBON PROFILE ANALYSIS

Shell and Core Cat A Cat Bgures capable ofbeing pro-rata

gures capable ofbeing pro-rata Cat C gures capable of

being pro-rata

ROPEMAKER PLACEBP HOUSE NORTH

Existing Building

1.7 boundaries

F actorsA nal sis of emissions

from se andcon str ction

T akes acco nt ofh o lon g b ild ings

last

D egree ofncertaint

R elates to act alemissions bein g

created

A llo s q anti ablecomparison s of

b ild ings

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Y E S

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Y E S

HIGH

HIGH

MODERATE

LOW

MODERATE

LOW

LOW

LOW

LOW

LOW

LOW

M O D E R A T E

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Y E S

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

Y E S

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

*

*

**

***

***

**

***

**

****

Score

E mbod ied Carbon Footprin t

W hole L ife carbon anal sis

B ild ing E mission R ate

D ispla E nerg Certi cate

E nerg P erformance Certi cate

O cc pational Carbon Footprin t

Z ero Carbon B ild ing

Code for S stainable H omes

M erton R le

P art L Compliance

B R E E A M

Carbon P ro le

A ssessmentT ech n iq e

1.8 comparisonsThis table examines how a carbon profile performs relativeto other metrics and which assessment characteristics wereidentified as important in its development.

2.0 key components

structure central plant facades roof Completebuilding=+++ fit out+

landlord

tenant

2.1 structureItem Components Median Life Expectancy

Typical Minimum Maximum

1 Piles and Pile Caps 100 60 1202 Other (aggregates)3 Basement slabs & ground bearing slab 60 30 904 Basement frame (Column & Beams) 75 45 1005 Cores (sub structure) 75 50 1006 Basement walls 60 30 907 Cores, lift & escalator shafts, staircases 75 50 1008 Floor Slabs 60 40 1009 Main Building Frame (Columns & Beams)75 50 10010 Internal Structural Walls 75 50 100

1

2

7

3

4

8

8

9

7

weakest link

Source of data BICS Life Expectancy of Building Components

DetailFrameBuilding

The lifespan of the overall structure isdetermined by the reinforced slabs onprofiled metal decking - which is 60 years

2.2 facadesItem Components Median Life Expectancy


11 Double Glazed Units 15 10 20

12 Louvering 40 30 5713 Glazed Cladding Units -frames 40 30 5714 Glazed Cladding Units -insulation 40 30 5715 External doors 40 30 57


Building Extract

1

2

3

4

5

6

As the facade is an integrated unitized system, whenone component fails it gives rise to the whole systemneeding to be replaced - typically this may be thegaskets or the finish on the panels which go first

2.3 roofItem Components Median Life Expectancy


16 Roofinga) Insulation 42 30 57b) Primary roof finish 20 15 30c) Secondary roof finish 20 10 25

d) Flashings 20 10 25e) Green roof areas (30 30 30)f) Hard paved finishes 30 20 40

weakest link


Building Photographs of details

e)

f)

c)

d)

f)

Here the secondary roof finishes, which are felt areidentified as the weakest link. However their overallimpact in the ECE is extremely small due to thebuilding's small roof to net area ratio.

2.4 central plant

22

25

18-21


Building

17

17

17

17

27

Item Components Median Life Expectancy


17 Central Plant 20 10 27

18 Water Supply and distribution 40 25 5019 Space Heating & Cooling Systems 25 15 3020 Air Handling and ventilation 30 20 3521 Electricity Supply and Distribution 30 20 32

22 Transport (lifts, escalators) 25 20 40

23 Communications & IT 25 20 3024 Protection Systems 25 20 30

25 Drainage 50 32 6026 Gas and Fuel Installations 25 20 30

27 Renewables 20 10 27

weakest link

Most of the large embodied carbon elements arecapable of independent replacement ie AHU'sand boilers. The other linked componentsystems mostly fail, around the 25 year mark

3.0 Summary Carbon ProfileA Summary of the Carbon ProfileThe overall Carbon Profile of the building is 49.70 KgC02/msq/year, which is split into anECE of 25.1 KgC02/msq/year and a BER of 24.6 KgC02/msq/year. The impact of thedifferent emission sources is identified below, in the pie chart.

Notional Building 85 KgCO2/msq/year Ropemaker Place 49.70 KgCO2/msq/year

At first glance what is strikingly apparent is the overall size of Ropemaker's CarbonProfile in comparison with a notional building (notional defined in terms in The Part L2006 as using the 2002 standards as a baseline to measure reductions against). Herethe building is shown to be performing overall 63% less than its notional equivalent.What is also apparent is that the majority of these improvements are focussed on theoperational side of the Carbon Profile. So much so, that the embodied is now the moredominant part of the overall picture.

StructureCladding

Roof

ServicesLandlord fit outTenant fit out

Previous buildingOperational emissions

ECE51%

BER49%

Ropemaker's Carbon Profile is around 57%of an equivalent building, built 7 years ago.

3.1 visual interpretation of a carbon profile

Example structural systemItem Components Lifespan Embodied Carbon

1 Piles and Pile Caps 100 19722 Other (aggregates) 5593 Basement slabs & ground bearing slab 60 79254 Basement frame (Column & Beams) 75 11985 Cores (sub structure) 75 306 Basement walls 60 5877 Cores, lift & escalator shafts, staircases 75 8768 Floor Slabs 60 50739 Main Building Frame (Columns & Beams) 75 1127110 Internal Structural Walls 75 2698

Consider

TotalEmissions

Time(years)

ECE(Emissions per year)

WhereYears x KgCO2/year = Total Emissions

So conversely...Total EmissionsLifetime (years)ECE (KgCO2/year) =

Can be interpreted as

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

50100150200250

Lifespan (years)

To

tal

Em

issio

ns

/y

ea

r

300350400450500

1

23 4

5

6

78

9

10

But the linked system lifetime is determinedby the weakest link -The system should be viewed in combined form under that one lifetime

To

tal

Em

issio

ns

/y

ea

r

Crucially as the lifespan of thelinked system Items 1-10 isshorter than many of theindividual componentslifespans the Total Emissionsper year goes up

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

50100150200250

Lifespan (years)

300350400450500550600650

3.2 carbon profile

structure

plant

facades

(KgCO2/msq/year)

fit out

heating

lighting

cooling

(KgCO2/msq/year)

Em

bo

die

dC

arb

on

Eff

icie

ncy

Bu

ild

ing

Em

issio

nR

ate

Time

electricity

20 40 60 80 100 120

(years)

10

20

30

35

40

15

5

25

45

50

49.70CarbonProfile

roof

landlord

tenant

previous building

KgCO2/msq/year

Items 1-10

Items 11

Items 12-15

Items 16

Items 18-26

Items 41-42

Items 43-44

Items 29-33

3.3 Assessment table

CURRENT BUILDING ROPEMAKER PLACE

1 Piles & Pile Caps 8,278 1,437 366 169 1,972

2 Other (aggregates) 7,997 42 353 164 559

3 Basement slabs & ground bearing slab 25,963 6,247 1,147 531 7,925

4 Basement frames (Columns & Beams) 3,116 997 138 64 1,198

5 Cores, (sub structure) 97 24 4 2 30

6 Basement walls 2,282 440 101 47 587

Cores, lift & escalator shafts, staircases 1,954 750 86 40 876

8 Floor Slabs 20,916 3,721 924 428 5,073

9 Main Building Frame (Columns & Beams) 5,525 10,621 537 113 11,271

10 Internal Structural Walls 7,781 2,195 344 159 2,698 32,189 1,170.72 33,359.83 60 9.92

11 1,289 1,714 498 26 2,239 2,239 81.43 2,320.43 15 2.76

12 Louvring 68 90 1 1 93

13 Glazed Cladding Units (Frames) 494 4,813 191 10 5,014

14 Glazed Cladding Units (Insulation) 28 31 11 1 43

15 External Doors 28 39 0 1 40 5,190 188.76 5,378.84 40 2.40

16 Roofing 265 186 12 5 203 203 7.38 210.30 20 0.19

17 Central Plant 109 209 1 2 212 212 7.72 220.06 20 0.20

18 Water Supply & Distribution Systems 342 746 5 7 758

19 Space Heating & Cooling Systems 1 1 0 0 1

20 Air Handling & Ventilation Systems 180 345 2 4 351

21 Electricity Supply & Distribution Systems 9 62 0 0 63 1,173 42.65 1,215.26 25 0.87

22 Transports (Lifts, escalators) 222 424 3 5 432 432 15.71 447.70 25 0.32

23 Communications & IT 0 1 0 0 1

24 Protection Systems 74 141 1 2 144 145 5.26 149.89 25 0.11

25 Drainage 277 529 4 6 538

26 Gas & Fuel Installations 23 44 0 0 45 583 21.21 604.24 25 0.43

27 Renewables 2 21 0 0 21 21 0.76 21.75 20 0.02

Glazed Cladding Units (Glass)

7

Item DescriptionMass (tonnes)

Raw materialscarbon impacts

(tCO2e)

Delivery carbonimpacts (tCO2e)

Onsite activitiescarbon impacts

(tCO2e)

Cradle to Onsiteactivities impacts

(tCO2e)

SystemComponenttotals (tCO2e)

Proportion of

construction waste

(tCO2e)

System Component

totals inc. waste

(tCO2e)

System Component

Lifespan (years)

Component ECE

(kgCO2e/m2/year)

These tables calculate the Embodied Carbondata for each element, then combine it into itscomponent systems where it is then assesedagainst that systems lifespan

3.4 Assessment table

42

Item DescriptionMass (tonnes)

Raw materialscarbon impacts

(tCO2e)

Delivery carbonimpacts (tCO2e)

Onsite activitiescarbon impacts

(tCO2e)

Cradle to Onsiteactivities impacts

(tCO2e)

SystemComponenttotals (tCO2e)

Proportion of

construction waste

(tCO2e)

System Component

totals inc. waste

(tCO2e)

System Component

Lifespan (years)

Component ECE

(kgCO2e/m2/year)

28 Floor Finishes 105 47 1 2 50 50 1.83 52.06 10 0.09

29 Ceilings 37 47 1 1 48

30 Raised Floor 222 66 3 5 73

31 Glazed Walls 22 14 0 0 15

32 Partition Walls (non load bearing)/drylining 796 501 11 16 528

33 Joinery & Doors 146 90 2 3 95 759 27.61 786.75 25 0.56

34 Finishes 208 101 3 4 108 108 3.92 111.74 7 0.28

35 Toilet Finishes 311 201 4 6 212 212 7.71 219.83 20 0.20

36 Ceilings (cat B) 553 1,001 8 30 1,039

37 Raised Floors (Cat B) 1,624 986 22 89 1,098

38 Partition Walls (cat B) 699 426 10 38 474

39 Space Heating & Cooling Systems (Cat B) 47 233 1 3 236

40 Electricity Supply & Distribution Systems (Cat B) 12 53 0 1 53 2,901 105.49 158.97 25 0.11

41 Wall Finishes (Cat B) 0 25 0 0 25

Floor Finishes (cat B) 610 836 8 34 878 903 32.83 910.38 7 2.32

Construction waste 3,167 1,212 81 428 1,721

TOTALS 95,878 41,708 4,884 2,448 49,040 46,168.05 20.79

PREVIOUS BUILDING BP HOUSE NORTHArea Ropemaker 56020 msq

Built (apx) 1985Opportunity cost of building alternative works ierefurbishment/re-lease (time in years) 5 Remaining Value of Carbon Resource 14375.19 60 4.28

Demolished 2005 previous building

43CO2e in structural frame 16,558

Lifespan (from new) 99remaining value 12376

44CO2e in facades 1,885

Embodied Carbon Efficiency (kgCO2e/m2/year) 25.06

Lifespan (from new) 40

Building Emission Rate (kgCO2e/m2/year) 24.60

942.5Carbon Profile (kgCO2e/m2/year) 49.66

Mass of demolished material (tonnes) 53930Distance of skip journeys (Km)(estimate) 50CO2e from transport of demolished material 856

Demolition contract (months) apx 8CO2e from site woks during demolition 200

TOTAL 14375

remaining value

Here the carbon opportunity cost of theexisting building is calculated....

..... and here the ECE is combined withthe BER to give the Carbon Profile ofthe building in January 2010

Landlord Tenant SplitThe split between landlord and tenant depends on a number of different variables.Operational emissions are split 60% Tenant 40% Lanlord as per British Land's YorkPlace case study and embodied carbon impacts are atributable to the landlord ortenant who carries out the work giving rise to these emissions and who holds legalreponsibility for their mantainace and upkeep.

Partitioning the Carbon Profile in the fully occupied building

This data is based on the assumption of full occupancy. However should this not bethe case, the actual carbon emissions of the different areas in partial occupationwill be more carbon intensive. Some examples are shown below

Realized emission splits at different occupancy rates

At lower levels of occupancy the role that landlord's emissions play also becomemore important as illustrated in the changes in split ratios. Here more activeoperational activities should be employed such as restrictive lighting on unoccupiedlevels common parts etc.

3.5 Summary Tenant / Landlord split

Tenant Impacts16.22KgCO2/msq/year

Landlord Impacts32.47KgCO2/msq/year

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2040

6080

100

Landlord Impacts

Tenant Impacts

33%

67%

Occupancy Rate %RealizedEmissionsplits%

The tenant realized emissions,marginal impacts are greater(lower) at low (high) vacancyrates in the building

Due to a high proportion of embodiedcarbon emissions being due tolandlord activities the carbon profilelandlord tenant split is 68% : 32%

3.6 Summary future scenariosKey Observation affecting the future life of ropemaker place

Floor Slabs - Lifespan expectancy: median 60years (min 40, max 100) - This is theoverall determinant of the building's life. This forms 36% of the Building's ECE

Cladding Life - Lifespan expectancy: median 45 years (min 30, max 60)This forms 20% of the Building's ECE

Both of these systems will determine the majority of how the building's carbonprofile may decrease or increase over time. Combined they account for over 56%of the building's embodied carbon. Additionally they will have an enormous impacton the possible lease cycle combinations that the building may accommodate. Twofurther attributes of these systems make them especially important:

- Firstly their high degree of interdependence, i.e. each element within each ofthese systems is closely connected to the others and often may not be replacedindividually.

- Secondly the extent of their sunk carbon costs. In the case of the structure,around 95% of this has occurred and so will be very difficult to change in the future.Maximizing these resources is therefore of crucial importance.

Central Plant / Fitouts - Both of these component systems have a lesser degreeof interdependence of key items of carbon expenditures i.e. boilers may bereplaced independently of all distribution pipework, and works may proceed withminimal impact on tenants i.e. replacement does not require vacancy.

Baseline - no active carbon management

Leasing Targets (preferences given to longer leases initially)Long Term LeaseMedium Lease

A building reaches the end of its life when current cladding starts to fail, due to no additional measuresbeing undertaken to extend its life i.e. periodic seal checks and repairs, replacements and panel bracketinspections during refurb periods. If no additional measures are taken to enhance the structural frame life,it is likely a full reclad for an extra 5-10 lease period will not prove financially or economically viable. Thusthe building will be demolished 2050-2055

Scenario A - some active carbon management

Leasing Targets (preferences given to longer leases initially)Long term leaseLong term LeaseShort term Lease

Deterioration, obsolescence requirements2030-5 Medium refurb ( finishes, common parts upgrade, reception, central plant)2055-60 Minor refurb ( finishes, common parts upgrade, reception)2065-70 Demolition

Particular Building Fabric GoalsCladding maintained very well - Prolong design life by 10 years and gains up to 50-60 year lifespan. Thiswill avoid large carbon expenditures on new cladding in 40-50 years time for the benefit of a short 10 yearlease only. At the Medium refurbishment point in 2030's Longer life central plant (30-35 years) should bespecified to try to capture both preceding lease cycles.

Scenario B - active carbon management to maximize site resources.

Leasing Targets (preferences given to longer leases initially)Long term leaseLong term leaseLong term leaseLong term lease

Deterioration, obsolescence requirements2030-5 Medium refurb ( finishes, new common parts, reception, central plant)2055-60 Major refurb ( finishes, common parts upgrade, central plant, re-clad building)2075-85 Medium refurb ( finishes, new common parts, reception, central plant)2100-10 Demolition

Particular Building Fabric GoalsStructural frames - treat underside of galvanized trays forming part of floor slabs from underneath toextend lifespans'. At Major refurbishment point in 2055 carry out extensive repairs to frame to ensureadditional 50 years lifespan.

6100 TonnesCO2 destroyed end of life

Carbon ProfileSame

0-1000 TonnesCO2 destroyed end of life

Carbon ProfileReduces now + future

2-3000 TonnesCO2 destroyed end of life

Carbon ProfileReduces in future

3.7 future carbon profile

structure

plant

facades

(KgCO2/msq/year)

fit out

heating

lighting

cooling

(KgCO2/msq/year)

Em

bo

die

dC

arb

on

Eff

icie

ncy

Bu

ild

ing

Em

issio

nR

ate

Time

electricity

20 40 60 80 100 120

(years)

10

20

30

35

40

15

5

25

45

50

49.66CarbonProfile

roof

landlord

tenant

previous building

KgCO2/msq/year

Items 1-10

Items 11

Items 12-15

Items 16

Items 18-26

Items 41-42

Items 43-44

Items 29-33

No active Carbon Managementgives rise to: 6100 Tonnes ofCarbon Dioxide being destroyedat end of life

Baseline


structure

plant

facades

(KgCO2/msq/year)

fit out

heating

lighting

cooling

(KgCO2/msq/year)

Em

bo

die

dC

arb

on

Eff

icie

ncy

Bu

ild

ing

Em

issio

nR

ate

Time

electricity

20 40 60 80 100 120

(years)

10

20

30

35

40

15

5

25

45

50

45-47CarbonProfile

roof

landlord

tenant

previous building

KgCO2/msq/year

Items 1-10

Items 11

Items 12-15

Items 16

Items 18-26

Items 41-42

Items 43-44

Items 29-33

Active Carbon Manangement

Target- Facades- Periodic Plant replacement

2-3000 Tonnes of Carbon Dioxide beingdestroyed at end of life

- Carbon Profile Improves- Building lifespan shorter

Scenario 1

37-40CarbonProfile

KgCO2/msq/year


structure

plant

facades

(KgCO2/msq/year)

fit out

heating

lighting

cooling

(KgCO2/msq/year)

Em

bo

die

dC

arb

on

Eff

icie

ncy

Bu

ild

ing

Em

issio

nR

ate

Time

electricity

20 40 60 80 100

(years)

10

20

30

35

40

15

5

25

45

50

roof

landlord

tenant

previous building

Items 1-10

Items 11

Items 12-15

Items 16

Items 18-26

Items 41-42

Items 43-44

Items 29-33

Active Carbon Management

Target- Facades- Periodic Plant replacement- Extend life of Structure

0-1000 Tonnes of CarbonDioxide being destroyedat end of life

- Carbon Profile Improves

- Building Infestant longer

Scenario 2

22-24CarbonProfile

KgCO2/msq/year41-43CarbonProfile

KgCO2/msq/year

Items 1- 10

4.1 RecommendationsStructure

Surface protection tounderside of slabs

- Extend life span from 60-90 years

9.92Kg/msq/year 6.62Kg/msq/year

Surface protection tobolts and joints

Maintenanceof seals

- Extend life span from 40-55 years


Cleaning of claddingsurface finishes

Cladding

+ linked benefits

to other systems

+ linked benefitsto other systems

Maintenance ofcladding brackets

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Lifespan (years)

1

23 4

5

6

78

9

1050100150200250

To

tal

Em

issio

ns

/y

ea

r

300350400450500

Make floor slabs last longer by protectingthe steel trays undersides they are cast on.

Care to maintain/replace gaskets,periodically inspect cladding brackets andclean well externally to remove city residuesthat will degrade the finish

1

To

tal

Em

issio

ns

/y

ea

r

Lifespan (years)

50

100

150

200

250

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Floor slabs

Floor slabs

Gaskets

4.2 RecommendationsFurther Recommendations:

- Ensure operating emissions are in line with or underTarget Emission Rate figures

- Active management and assessment of BMS to achieveoptimum output

- Assessment of Bio-mass boilers in use.

- Integrate Embodied Carbon measurement and analysis withoccupier's fit out design teams early to allow full range ofproposals to be considered and best outcomes achieved.

- Monitor / document fit out in terms of embodied carbon, toenable an updated Carbon Profile once building is occupied.To allow the actual carbon emissions from the building to beidentified.

- Review active carbon management strategies and targetresources to improve long term building performance. Todeliver long term carbon value to building.

- Integrate asset management plans of building with futurecarbon value appraisal process.

Future tenant fitout - carpets

- Encourage use of Low carbon materials


Use of non syntheticcarpet with highrecycled content


Services

- Coordinate central plant replacementwith lease cycle's building future options


Future tenant fitout - services

- Encourage use of energy efficient coolinglighting and appropriate control mechanisms

Use non synthetic carpet finishes

To

tal

Em

issio

ns

/y

ea

r

Lifespan (years)

50

100

150

200

250

Floor Finishes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4.3 Conclusions

Conclusions - lessons learnt

- Ropemaker should act as a British Land benchmark ofWhole Life Carbon performance to which other projectscan be assessed in terms of overall emission reductions

- Targeting Embodied Carbon will be seen as a big priorityfor British land projects now that they are delivering suchhigh operational emission standards

- Carbon Profiling projects early in the design process willallow the most cost effective solutions to be identified.

- Reviewing other British Land buildings will allow theefficient allocation of operating expenditures / capitalimprovements across the portfolio to achieve maximumcarbon reductions.

- The future design of a Building's component should besynchronized to allow flexibility with the lease cycleallocations and the minimization of wasted financial andenvironmental resources.

Appendix I Data

Notes on Data

- The embodied carbon figures provided by dcarbon8

- SBEM analysis for Part L carried out by Arup Associates

- The raw materials carbon impacts were calculated using BathICE emission factors (uplifted to account for all Kyoto GHG)applied to quantities of materials provided by Mace for the mainbuilding parts. For smaller items, secondary data was used, i.e.inhouse data from past projects, benchmarks and basicassumptions.

- Since no data was available for delivery impacts, an averagedelivery distance of 50km was assumed for all items. Theemission factors used are those provided by the latest DEFRAguidelines for Company Reporting.

- The onsite activities impacts amount to 1825 tCO2e, based oninformation collected by Mace. For accounting purposes, theseimpacts were allocated to each building part based on anallocation by mass. Please note that this allocation does notnecessarily reflect the reality of energy consumption onsite.

- The construction waste data was provided by Mace. Theonsite activities carbon impacts for waste are those arising fromdisposal of the waste (either by recycling or landfilling). Thedistance to recycling or landfilling site was assumed to be 20km.For those items landfilled, methane generation was included inthe carbon impacts.

- BP House North. Various assumptions have been made due,to lack of exact data on this building - these are outlined as partof the spreadsheet assumptions. The only items to have anynominal carbon values have been taken to be the facades andthe structure of the building.

- Life span data is based on BICS data provided in The LifeExpectancy of Building Components directory.

Level Material Volume MassEmbodied Carbon (tCO2e)

(Cradle-to-gate)

Concrete RC 40/50 4,692 11,260 2,024

Steel reinforcement 150 1,173 2,166

Concrete RC 28/35 3,547 8,512 1,204

Steel reinforcement 114 887 1,638

Concrete RC 28/35 2,270 5,449 771

Steel reinforcement 73 568 1,048

Concrete RC 28/35 1,302 3,124 442

Steel reinforcement 42 325 601

Concrete RC 28/35 1,302 3,124 442


Concrete RC 28/35 1,302 3,124 442


Concrete RC 28/35 1,302 3,124 442


Concrete RC 28/35 1,190 2,857 404


Concrete RC 28/35 1,002 2,406 340


Concrete RC 28/35 933 2,240 317


Concrete RC 28/35 519 1,245 176


Concrete RC 28/35 419 1,006 142


Concrete RC 28/35 348 836 118


9,526 7,032

Glass 431 392

Aluminium 139 1,454

Insulation 9 12

Steel 14 27

1,885

Total 663,456 25,476

6th

7th

8th

9th

Facade

3rd

Foundations

Basement

Ground

1st

2nd

10th

4th

5th

Level Area (m2) Thickness (m) Total Volume (m3) Volume of concrete (m3)

Piles 245 18.00 4,410 4,273

Pile caps 720 0.60 432 419

Slab 3,809 0.60 2,285 2,214

Columns & cores 250 5.50 1,375 1,332

Slab 4,030 0.50 2,015 1,952

Columns & cores 80 4.10 328 318

Slab 3,480 0.30 1,044 1,012

Columns & cores 73 4.10 299 290

Slab 3,480 0.30 1,044 1,012

Columns & cores 73 4.10 299 290

Slab 3,480 0.30 1,044 1,012

Columns & cores 73 4.10 299 290

Slab 3,480 0.30 1,044 1,012

Columns & cores 73 4.10 299 290

Slab 3,152 0.30 946 916

Columns & cores 69 4.10 283 274

Slab 2,519 0.30 756 732

Columns & cores 68 4.10 279 270

Slab 2,309 0.30 693 671

Columns & cores 66 4.10 271 262

Slab 1,347 0.30 404 392

Columns & cores 32 4.10 131 127

Slab 1,018 0.30 305 296

Columns & cores 31 4.10 127 123

Slab 816 0.30 245 237

Columns & cores 28 4.10 115 111

Total GEA 332,920

9th

10th

Ground

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Basement

Foundations

7th

8th

Volume of reinforcement (m3)

137

13

71

43

63

10

32

9

32

9

32

9

32

9

29

9

23

9

22

8

13

4

9

4

8

4

Area (m2) Thickness Volume Mass 593

Glass 8,280 0.02 166 431

Aluminium 139

Insulation 9

Steel 14

Mass (tonnes)Raw materials carbon

iimpacts (tCO2ee)Delivery carbon iimpacts (tCO2ee)

Onsite activities carbon iimpacts (tCO2ee)

Cradle to Onsite aactivities impacts

(tCO22e)

Piles & Pile Caps 8,278 1,437 366 169 11,972Other foundations 7,997 42 353 164 5559Basement slabs & ground bearing slab 25,963 6,247 1,147 531 77,925Basement frames (Columns & Beams) 3,116 997 138 64 11,198Cores, lift & escalator shafts, staircases 97 24 4 2 330Basement walls 2,282 440 101 47 5587Cores, lift & escalator shafts, staircases 1,954 750 86 40 8876Floor Slabs 20,916 3,721 924 428 55,073Main Building Frame (Columns & Beams) 5,525 10,621 537 113 111,271Internal Structural Walls 7,781 2,195 344 159 32,189 22,698Roofing 265 186 12 5 2203External Doors 28 39 0 1 440Louvring 68 90 1 1 993Glazed Cladding Units (Frames) 494 4,813 191 10 55,014Glazed Cladding Units (Insulation) 28 31 11 1 443Glazed Cladding Units (Glass) 1,289 1,714 498 26 22,239Glazed Walls 22 14 0 0 115Renewables 2 21 0 0 221Central Plant 109 209 1 2 2212Water Supply & Distribution Systems 342 746 5 7 7758Air Handling & Ventilation Systems 180 345 2 4 3351Transports (Lifts, escalators) 222 424 3 5 4432Protection Systems 74 141 1 2 1144Drainage 277 529 4 6 5538Gas & Fuel Installations 23 44 0 0 445Toilets Finishes 311 201 4 6 2212Ceilings (Shell & Core) 37 47 1 1 448Floor Finishes (Shell & Core) 105 47 1 2 550Raised Floors (Shell & Core) 222 66 3 5 773Partition Walls (Shell & Core) 796 501 11 16 5528Finishes (Shell & Core) 208 101 3 4 1108Joinery & Doors 146 90 2 3 995Space Heating & Cooling Systems (Shell & Core) 1 1 0 0 11Electricity Supply & Distribution Systems (Shell & Core) 9 62 0 0 663Communications & IT (Shell & Core) 0 1 0 0 11Ceilings (cat B) 553 1,001 8 30 11,039Raised Floors (Cat B) 1,624 986 22 89 11,098Partition Walls (cat B) 699 426 10 38 4474Space Heating & Cooling Systems (Cat B) 47 233 1 3 2236Electricity Supply & Distribution Systems (Cat B) 12 53 0 1 553Wall Finishes (Cat B) 0 25 0 0 225Floor Finishes (cat B) 610 836 8 34 8878

Other Waste 3,167 1,212 81 428 11,721

Total 95,878 41,708 4,884 2,44849,040

449,040

Fit-Out (Cat B)

Foundations

Substructure

Superstructure

Fit-Out (Shell & CCore)

project Ropemaker Place - 39203

date 28 July 2008

from Arup Associates, Bee Choo Lloyd

to Islington Building Control, Bob Howitt

copy to Theresa Walters and Vaughan Melsom

Other via BIW

number of pages sent(including this one)

1+ 26

Memo File reference BC 109

Specific file reference 39203/6.02.02

Building ControlSubmission

Revised Part L Submission Strategy

Dear Bob

Following our meeting on 25 July 2008, please find below our revised Part L ComplianceReport as discussed. This report reflects the current plant and equipment used for the project.

We would seek your acceptance to this submission.

Regards

Bee Choo Lloyd

([email protected])

Arup Associates

��

Ropemaker Place

British Land

Part L2A (2006) Compliance Report

�

June 2008

Arup Associates Contents

�� iii�

1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1

2.0 Project Information ...............................................................................................2

3.0 Building Carbon Dioxide Emissions ...................................................................3

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

4.0 Thermal Performance of Building Fabric............................................................7

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

5.0 Air Permeability...................................................................................................10

6.0 Fixed Building Services......................................................................................10

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Appendix 1 - Software Output ..........................................................................................16

Appendix 2 – Chiller Performance Data ..........................................................................17

Arup Associates

�� 1�

�

�

1.0 Introduction

��

��

��

Criterion 1 – CO2 Emissions

��

Criterion 2 – Design Standards

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Criterion 3 – Limiting the Effects of Summer Solar Gains

��

�

�

�

Arup Associates

�� 2�

�

�

2.0 Project Information

PROJECT DETAILS

��

��

��

��

��

OWNER DETAILS

��

��

��

��

��

CERTIFIER DETAILS

��

��

��

��

��

CERTIFICATION TOOL

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

Arup Associates

�� 3�

�

�

3.0 Building Carbon Dioxide Emissions

3.1 Approach to Calculation

��Part L2��pacheSim��IES Virtual Environment��

��

��

��NCM Office��

Arup Associates

� � � �� 4�

�

�

3.2 Analysis Methodology

3.2.1 Thermal Simulation Model

� ��

� � ��

� �

Southwest Perspective - Actual Southwest Perspective - Notional�

� �

Northeast Perspective - Actual Northeast Perspective - Notional�

3.2.2 External Shading

� � � ��

�

Arup Associates

�� 5�

�

�

3.2.3 Climate Data

��

�

3.2.4 Occupancy Patterns and Internal Gains

��

Space Use NCM Building Type and Activity

��

��

��

��

��

�

Arup Associates

� � �� 6�

�

�

3.3 Building CO2 Emissions Summary

� ��

Building CO2 Emissions Summary � �

� � ��

��

� � � ��

� � ��

Building CO2 Emissions Rate (BER) as designed 24.6 KgCO2/m2.annum

� � �

�� Yes �

� � ��

�

Comparitive Carbon Dioxide Emissions

50.8

36.6

24.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Notional

Building Emissions

Target

Emissions Rate

Building

Emissions Rate

Kg

CO

2/

m2.

an

nu

m

�

� � ��

��

��

��

��

��

Arup Associates

� � �� 7�

�

�

4.0 Thermal Performance of Building Fabric

� ��

�

4.1 Solar Shading

� ��

�

4.2 External Glazing and Curtain Walls

� ��

� ��

� � � ��

� ��

��

Glazing and Curtain Wall U-ValueSummary

Maximumallowable

Building asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� �� OK

�� OK

�

Arup Associates

� � �� 8�

�

�

�

3D view of the Ropemaker Place Facade

�

�

�

�Performance of a Typical Façade Element�

Double Glazed Vision Panels

� ��

� ��

� ��

�

Glazed Insulated Spandrel Panels

� ��

� ��

� ��

Arup Associates

� � �� 9�

�

�

4.3 External Walls

External Wall U-Value SummaryMaximumallowable

Building asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� �� OK

�� OK

�

4.4 External Doors

External Doors U-Value SummaryMaximumallowable

Building asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� �� OK

�� OK

�

4.5 Ground and Exposed Floors

Ground and Exposed Floor U-ValueSummary

Maximumallowable

Building asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� �� OK

�� OK

�

4.6 Roof

Roof U-Value SummaryMaximumallowable

Building asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� �� OK

�� OK

�

4.7 Rooflights

Rooflight U-Value SummaryMaximumallowable

Building asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� �� OK

�� OK

�

�

Arup Associates

� � �� 10�

�

�

5.0 Air Permeability

� ��

� ��

�

Air Permeability SummaryMaximumallowable

Building asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� � � �� OK

�

6.0 Fixed Building Services

6.1 HVAC Overview

� � � ��

� � ��

�

6.2 Controls

� ��

� � � ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

Arup Associates

� � �� 11�

�

�

6.3 Metering

� � � � ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

� ��

�

6.4 Power Factor Correction

� ��

�

�

�

Arup Associates

� � �� 12�

�

�

6.5 Heating Plant

� ��

Heat Source Efficiency SummaryMinimumallowable

System asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� �� OK

� � � �� OK

� � ��

�

6.6 Domestic Hot Water Plant

� � � � � ��

DHW Efficiency SummaryMinimumallowable

System asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� � � � � � � �� OK

�

� ��

�

Arup Associates

� � �� 13�

�

�

6.7 Cooling Plant

� �� McQuay � � �� Non-domestic heating, cooling andventilation compliance guide.��

��

SEER 8.5

Part Load Output Input EER

Part Load Performance - McQuay WSC087 MAV57G

Condenser

Water Temp

Weighting

Factor

�

�

Cooling Efficiency SummaryMinimumallowable

System asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� � � �� OK

�

6.8 Air Handling Plant

� ��

�

Specific Fan Power SummaryMaximumallowable

System asdesigned

Compliancecheck

� �� OK

� � � �� OK

� � �� OK

�

6.9 Photovoltaic Panels

� ��

�

�

�

�

�

Arup Associates

� � �� 14�

�

�

6.10 Insulation of Pipes and Ducts

� �� Non-domestic heating, cooling and ventilation complianceguide.�

� �� Non-domestic heating, cooling and ventilation compliance guide.�

� � � �� Non-domestic heating, cooling and ventilationcompliance guide.�

�

6.11 Lighting

� ��

� ��

� � ��

� ��

�

Arup Associates

� � �� 15�

�

�

6.12 System Inputs

Fan Coils

�

Chilled Beams

�

�

Arup Associates

� � �� 16�

�

�

Appendix 1 - Software Output

� �� IES Virtual Environment�Part L2�� pacheSim� ��

�

�

"Apache" BRUKL Output DocumentCompliance with England and Wales Building

Regulations Part L

The format of this compliance document is in draft form as the final layout is still being checked by the Building Control Officers

"London" - As designedDate: Wed Jun 11 18:01:14 2008

PROJECT DETAILS

Project Name:"London"

Building Type:"NCM Office"

Building address:"Ropemaker Place"

City:"Islington"

Postcode:"EC2A 2EP"

OWNER DETAILS

Name:"London"

Telephone number:"The British Land Company Plc"

Address:"York House"

City:"45 Seymour Street"

Postcode:"W1H 7LX"

CERTIFIER DETAILS

Name:"London"

Telephone number:"Arup Associates"

Address:"Boston House"

City:"37 Fitzroy Square"

Postcode:"W1T 6EY"

CERTIFICATION TOOL

Calculation Engine:"Apache"

Calculation Engine (version):"5.8.2"

Interface to Calculation Engine:"IES Virtual Environment"

Interface to Calculation Engine (version):"5.8.2"

BRUKL Compliance Check (version):v2.0.c (MAY07)

Page 1 of 5BRUKL Output: "London"


Criterion 1 – Predicted CO2 emission from proposed building does not exceed thetarget

1.1 Calculated CO2 emission rate from notional building

50.77 KgCO2/m�.annum

1.2 Improvement factor

0.2

1.3 LZC benchmark

0.1

1.4 Target CO2 Emission Rate (TER)

36.56 KgCO2/ m�.annum

1.5 Building CO2 Emission Rate (BER)

24.55 KgCO2/ m�.annum

1.6 Are emissions from building less than or equal to the target?

(BER <= TER)

1.7 Are as built details the same as used in BER calculations?

Supporting documents in separate submission (Developer)

Criterion 2 – The performance of the building fabric and the building servicessystems should be no worse than the design limits

2a Building Fabric

2.1 Are the U-values better than the design limits?

“Better than design limits”

Element

Limitingareaweightedaverage U-values

[W/(m2 oK)]

Calculatedarea weightedU-values

[W/(m2 oK)]

Limitingindividualelement U-values

[W/(m2 oK)]

Calculatedindividualelement U-values

[W/(m2 oK)]

Surface wherethis maximumvalueoccurs***

TRMP0001:Surf



2.2 Is air permeability no greater than the worst acceptable standard?

“No greater than worst acceptable standard”

2b Fixed Building Services

2.3 Are all building services standards acceptable?

2.3a.1 Main system (FCU):

HVAC system is "Acceptable"

0.84 is the overall limiting efficiency for a single or a multiple boiler system.For a multiple boiler system the limiting efficiency for any individual boiler is 0.80

Wall* 0.35 0.35 0.7 0.35 [7]

Floor 0.25 0.25 0.7 0.25 PZ7S0000:Surf[0]

Roof 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.25 TRMP0000:Surf[0]

Windows**, roofwindows, androoflights

2.2 1.66 3.3 1.98 PZW10045:Surf[34]

Personnel doors 2.2 0 3 0No Personneldoors inbuilding

Vehicle access &similar largedoors

1.5 0 4 0No Vehicleaccess doors inbuilding

High usageentrance doors 6 0 6 0

No High usageentrance doorsin building

* Automatic U-value check by the tool does not apply to curtain walls whose limiting standards are similarto those for windows.** Display windows and similar glazing are not required to meet the standard given in this table.*** There might be more than one surface exceeding the limiting standards.

Air Permeability Worst acceptable standard This building

(Design value)m3/(h.m2) at 50 Pa 10 7.5

Efficiency Check Limiting Heat Source SeasonalEfficiency

This building

Heat source efficiency 0.84 0.9

Efficiency Check Limiting Cooling SeasonalEfficiency

This building

Cooling efficiency 3.4 8.5

Efficiency Check Limiting Specific Fan Power This buildingSFP 2.5 2.5



2.3a.2 Chilled Beams System:

HVAC system is "Acceptable"

0.84 is the overall limiting efficiency for a single or a multiple boiler system.For a multiple boiler system the limiting efficiency for any individual boiler is 0.80

2.4 Does fixed internal lighting comply with England and Wales Building Regulations Part L paragraphs 49 to 61?


2.5 Are energy meters installed in accordance with GIL65?


Criterion 3 – The spaces in the building without air-conditioning haveappropriate passive control measures to limit the effects of solargains

3.1 Method of showing compliance with England and Wales Building Regulations Part L in paragraph 64?


Criterion 4 – The performance of the building, as built, is consistent with theBER

4a Building Fabric

Efficiency Check Limiting Heat Source SeasonalEfficiency

This building

Heat source efficiency 0.84 0.9

Efficiency Check Limiting Cooling SeasonalEfficiency

This building

Cooling efficiency 3.4 8.5

Efficiency Check Limiting Specific Fan Power This buildingSFP 2.5 2.5



4.1 Have the key features of the design been included (or bettered) in practice?

Supporting documents in separate submission (Building control body)

4.2 Is the level of thermal bridging acceptable?


4.3 Has satisfactory documentary evidence of site inspection checks been produced?


4.4 Design air permeability

4b Commissioning of the Fixed Building Services

4.5 Has evidence been provided that demonstrates that the design air permeability has been achieved satisfactorily?


4.6 Has commissioning been completed satisfactorily?


4.7 Has evidence been provided that demonstrates that the ductwork is sufficiently airtight?


Criterion 5 – Providing information

5.1 Has a suitable building log-book been prepared?


Air Permeability Worst acceptable standard This building

(Design value)m3/(h.m2) at 50 Pa 10 7.5



Arup Associates

� � �� 17�

�

�

Appendix 2 – Chiller Performance Data

�

McQUAY CENTRIFUGAL CHILLER - TECHNICAL BREAKDOWN Date saved : April 2, 2008

(6)

Page 1

JOB NAME PERQEW REP. OFFICE Stewart CampbellJOB DESCRIPTION Ropemaker Place SALESMAN

CUSTOMER

MODEL NUMBER WSC087MAV57G/E3612-DE-2*A/C3012-CLYY-2*AYYY/R134-BAABMUNIT TAGGING 6 VERSION 4.51

COMPRESSOR DATA

Type / quantity-size Centrifugal / 1 - 087Capacity control VFD Refrigerant charge (kg) 712Refrigerant R134-a Oil cooler type Water cooled

EVAPORATOR DATA CONDENSER DATA

Flow (l/s) 79.60 Flow (l/s) 91.80LWT (ºC) 7.00 EWT (ºC) 29.40Number of passes 2 Number of passes 2Fouling factor 0.0176 Fouling factor 0.0440Tube material Cu Tube material CuTube wall thickness (mm) 0.635 Tube wall thickness (mm) 0.635Fluid type Water Fluid type WaterPercentage of fluid 100 Percentage of fluid 100

MOTOR / STARTER DATA

Unit voltage (V/Hz/P) 400 / 50 / 3 MCA (A) 710.9RLA (amps) per compressor 563 MOCP (A) 992.5Starter type VFD LRA (A) per compressor 5000Enclosure type NEMA 1 Model number VFD072YMWLocation Terminal mounted Approval listing ETL/ETLc LabelDisconnect type None Motor protection StandardControl circuit transformer Without taps Surge capacitor NoneAmmeter with selector switch None Ground fault NoVoltmeter with selector switch None Auxiliary control relay NonePhase / voltage protection Yes Indicator lights NoneLightening arrestors No P.F. correction (Kvar) InherentPower factor 0.822 Corrected power factor 0.96Shipped loose with bracket and cable kit No Inrush value 675.77

DESIGN PERFORMANCE

Evaporator CondenserCapacity

(kWt)

Power

(kW)

Performance

(COP)

RLA

(A)

IPLV\NPLV(COP)

75%load(COP)

50%load(COP)

25%load(COP)

PD(kPa)

T in(ºC)

PD(kPa)

T in(ºC)

2000.0 333.5 5.998 563 10.162 8.391 12.082 9.401 62.1 13.0 40.5 35.4

PART LOAD PERFORMANCE

Evaporator CondenserP# %load

request

Capacity

(kWt)

Inputpower(kW)

Perf

(COP)

RLA

(A)Flow(l/s)

T in(ºC)

T out(ºC)

PD(kPa)

Flow(l/s)

T in(ºC)

T out(ºC)

PD(kPa)

1 100.0 2000.0 342.2 5.844 576 79.6 13.0 7.0 62.1 91.8 30.0 36.0 40.4

2 75.0 1500.0 197.2 7.605 380 79.6 11.5 7.0 62.4 91.8 26.0 30.4 41.6

McQUAY CENTRIFUGAL CHILLER - TECHNICAL BREAKDOWN Date saved : April 2, 2008

(6)

Page 2

3 50.0 1000.0 103.2 9.685 269 79.6 10.0 7.0 62.7 91.8 22.0 24.8 42.9

4 25.0 500.0 52.5 9.526 215 79.6 8.5 7.0 63.0 91.8 18.0 19.4 44.3

SERVICE PERFORMANCE

Evaporator CondenserP#

Refrigcharge(kg)

LRAD

(A)PD capacity SH SC Temp

(ºC)Pressure(kpa)

Velocity(m/s)

Temp(ºC)

Pressure(kPa)

Velocity(m/s)

1 713 5000 1044 0.6 5.0 6.4 269.7 2.2 36.8 834.7 1.82 713 5000 1044 0.6 3.9 6.5 271.6 2.2 30.9 693.9 1.83 713 5000 1044 0.6 2.7 6.7 273.6 2.2 25.2 572.3 1.84 713 5000 1044 0.6 1.4 6.8 275.6 2.2 19.6 467.4 1.8

NOTES:

The ARI 50 hertz Certification Program covers models that:� are rated from 200 – 1000 tons (703 to 3517 kW cooling) at ARI Standard Rating Conditions� have voltages less than or equal to 5000 volts� are within the scope of the Application Rating Conditions of ARI Standard 550/590-2003� have a leaving chilled water temperature of 40 to 48 ºF (4.4 to 8.9 ºC)� have an entering condenser water temperature of 65 to 105 ºF (18.3 to 40.6 ºC)

The ARI Certification Program specifically excludes:� chillers below 200 tons (703 kW cooling) and above 1000 tons (3517 kW cooling)� chillers with voltages above 5000 volts� secondary coolant ratings other than water (e.g. glycol ratings)

Chiller performance is certified in accordance with the latest edition of ARI Standard 550/590-2003.Above RLA values are per compressor. kW values are total unit kW.

� WSC/WDC063, 079, 087, 100, 113, 126 models utilize water-cooled oil cooler as standard equipment� WSC/WDC050’s utilize a refrigerant-cooled oil cooler as standard equipment.

Project :

Title :

Scale :

Drawing No. :

Status :

Date :

Drawn by : Checked by :

© STURGIS ASSOCIATES LLP

A S O C ES TAI SSS T U R G I

STURGIS ASSOCIATES LLP20 Perseverance Works

Hackney Road London E2 8DD(T) +44 (0) 20 7613 2500(F) +44 (0) 20 7613 3455

[email protected] www.sturgis.co.uk

--

1:X @ A1 dd mm yy

--

/Revision :

Draft

0000 (XX)000

Drawing title here

Project Name here

1.-Do not scale this drawing. The Contractor is toverify all dimensions & conditions on site and reportany discrepencies to the Architect before proceeding.

2.- This drawing is to be read in conjunction with allrelevant project documentation.

3.- This drawing is subject to the approval of theappropriate Statutory Authorities.

DateDescriptionRev. Chck by

- - - -

CHIS WELL S T R E E T

RU

BSNIF

SY

TEE

RT

OO

M

EN

ALR

POR

REKAME

S

EERT

T

D

P

O

F

GENERA T ORS

SER V I C EY ARD

L O A D I N G

PLA TF ORMS

REC Y CLING

Z O N E

L O B B Y

L O B B Y

RET A I L

L O B B Y

M A I NENTRANCE

RECEPTION

SECURITY

BARRIERS

C O M P A C T O R

RET A I L RET A I L

kB

Se

ok

B05

2e

se

)

yt

uce

S

oh

Ssr

e

P O S T

ROOM

EDF

S W I T C H

ROOM

7 0 m

9m

A T RIUM

BA SE

24m

GARDENTERRA CE

GARDENTERRA CE

GARDEN TERRA CE

LIFTMO TO RROOM

GARDEN TERRA CE

GROUND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR EIGTH FLOOR

SECTION TWELTH FLOOR TWENTETH FLOOR

Appendix II Drawings

Project :

Title :

Scale :

Drawing No. :

Status :

Date :

Drawn by : Checked by :

© STURGIS ASSOCIATES LLP

A S O C ES TAI SSS T U R G I

STURGIS ASSOCIATES LLP20 Perseverance Works

Hackney Road London E2 8DD(T) +44 (0) 20 7613 2500(F) +44 (0) 20 7613 3455

[email protected] www.sturgis.co.uk

--

1:X @ A1 dd mm yy

--

/Revision :

Draft

0000 (XX)000

Drawing title here

Project Name here

1.-Do not scale this drawing. The Contractor is toverify all dimensions & conditions on site and reportany discrepencies to the Architect before proceeding.

2.- This drawing is to be read in conjunction with allrelevant project documentation.

3.- This drawing is subject to the approval of theappropriate Statutory Authorities.

DateDescriptionRev. Chck by

- - - -

10th Floor 9th Floor 8th Floor 7th Floor

5th Floor 1st-4th Floor Ground Floor Basement Floor

6th Floor

GEA 816msqSlab depth 0.3mSlab to Slab 4.1mVertical Structure 28msq





Pilling (indicative only)





GEA 0msqSlab depth 0mPile depth 18mPile areas 245msq

BP HOUSE NORTH

Appendix III References

BCIS, 2006. Life Expectancy of Building Components. 2nd ed. London: Connelly-Manton(Printing) Ltd.

Cole, R. J., Kernan, P. C., 1996. Life-Cycle Energy Use in Office Buildings. Building andEnvironment, vol. 31, no. 4. Oxford: Elsevier.

Crowther, P., 1999. Design for Disassembly to Recover Embodied Energy. In: The 16thInternational Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, 22-24 September 1999,Melbourne, Brisbane, Cairns.[Download] Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2846/

Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), 2007. Guidelines to Defra's GHGconversion factors for company reporting.[Download] (Updated Jun 2007)Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/conversion-factors.pdf.[Accessed 15 Dec 2009]

Department for Communities and Local Government, 2008. A technical manual for sBEM.Version 3.0.b [Download] (Updated 11 Dec 2007)Available at: http://www.ncm.bre.co.uk/news.jsp?id=156[Accessed 10 Dec 2009].

Hammond, G., Jones, C., 2006. Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 1.5a Beta[Request Download] (Updated 2006)Available at: http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/ [Accessed ? Nov 2008]

February 2010 - British Land/media/Files/B/British-Land...1.0contents 1.1 Executive Summary 1.2...

Documents

Transcript of February 2010 - British Land/media/Files/B/British-Land...1.0contents 1.1 Executive Summary 1.2...