mercersburg academy – center for the arts · • 7 fan coil units. • 2 chilled and hot water...
Post on 16-Mar-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Mercersburg Academy – Center for the Arts
Brad Cordek Construction Management Spring 2005 Senior Thesis
Brad Cordek CM Option
http://www.arche.psu.edu/thesis/2005/bjc191/
Project Overview - Dates of Construction: Dec. 2004—May 2006 Project Size: Approx. 66,500 square feet Cost Information: GMP contract—$21.8 million Project Delivery: Design-Bid-Build
Project Team - Owner: Mercersburg Academy General Contractor: James G. Davis Construction Architect: Polshek Partnership Architects L.L.P. Structural Engineer: Severud Associates MEP Engineer: Thomas Polise Consulting Engineer, P.C. Civil Engineer: RHS Engineering, Inc. Geotechnical Engineer: Geoconcepts Engineering, Inc.
Building Description - • The Center for the Arts has some very unique interior
space layouts such as recital/dance studios, set design/prep/construction areas, orchestra/ensemble practice areas, and a 600 seat auditorium complete with full stage, sound/lighting systems, and a 12,000 pound or-chestra lift.
• All of these areas possess the most exquisite high-end finish and millwork.
• Exterior wise, MACA’s skin is a combination of stone, glass and metal panels, with balconies surrounding the building on three sides.
• The Center for the Arts also has an attached two-story performing theater constructed as a “stone cylinder.”
Structural - • Foundation composed of spread footings (1.5-2.5 tons
per square foot rock bearing). MACA Site has lime-stone pockets, which can cause sink holes to develop.
• Mezzanine, Ground, Second, and Upper Balcony floors composed of steel framing system with 5.5” NWC slabs on metal decking.
• Low Roof floor composed of steel framing system with 3” metal rook decking.
• Catwalk and High Roof areas composed of steel fram-ing system with 5.5” NWC slabs on metal decking.
Electrical - • Incoming service at 5 KV. Comes into 1500 KVA trans-
former (4160 V primary - 480/277 V secondary). • Switchboards: Main A, Main MDP-M, Theater DP-
TA, Theater DP-TB, Emergency Distribution.
Lighting - • Recessed compact fluorescent—faculty, offices, class-
rooms. • Pendant mounted fluorescent—dance studios. • Recessed round fluorescent—corridors, theater.
Mechanical - • 8 supply and return fans (varies from 35,000—3,500
CFM’s). • 7 fan coil units. • 2 chilled and hot water centrifugal pumps. • 1 exhaust and toilet exhaust fan. • 1 heat exchanger.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
1
Table of Contents Executive Summary Credits & Acknowledgements Introduction Project Information Design Cost Evaluation Existing Conditions Site Plan Project Team Owner Profile Contracts Curtainwall Description Analysis I – Trends in Curtainwall Design & Construction Executive Summary Overview Industry Survey Survey Overview Survey Results Key Industry Issues & Solutions Conclusion Analysis II – Curtainwall Constructability Executive Summary
Overview Teak & Mahogany Curtainwall System Cost & Schedule Installation
Alternate Aluminum Curtainwall System Cost & Schedule Installation
Conclusion
4-5 6
7-8
9-13 9-10 10-11
12 13
13-15 14
15-16
17-18
19-29 19 20
21-28 21
22-26 26-28
29
30-36 30 31
32-33 32 33
34-35 34 35 36
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
2
Analysis III – Daylighting Study of the Curtainwall Executive Summary Overview 3-D AutoCAD Model AGI 32 Lighting Software Curtainwall Daylighting Studies Introduction Results Costs Energy Analysis Conclusion Analysis IV – Heat Transmission Study of the Curtainwall Executive Summary Overview Viracon Low-E Glazing Thermal Gradient HAP Mechanical Load Simulation Energy Analysis Conclusion Conclusions References
37-49 37
38-39 39
39-40 41-45 41-42 42-44
45 46-47 48-49
50-58
50 51-52
52 53
54-57 57 58
59-60 61
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
3
Appendices: Appendix A Building Costs Site Plan Appendix B Survey Survey Results Appendix C Curtainwall Costs Teak & Mahogany Schedule Aluminum Schedule Appendix D AGI 32 Outputs – Renderings & FC Distributions Lighting Energy Calculations Appendix E HAP Outputs Thermal Gradient Calculations Mechanical Energy Calculations
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 4 -
Executive Summary
This thesis deals primarily with the construction of Mercersburg Academy – Center for the Arts.
It was compiled to meet the 5th year requirements of the Architectural Engineering Construction
Management program. Since the curtainwall construction has not begun yet, the overall goal of
the research and studies is to give the owner, Mercersburg Academy, alternate proposals
concerning the current teak and mahogany curtainwall.
In order to evaluate these analyses properly, it is important to attain a comprehensive background
of the project. Since the thesis revolves mainly around the curtainwall, it is also important to
have an in-depth knowledge of the curtainwall system. Furthermore, the project constraints, such
as the owner’s ideals and values, must be identified. This is accomplished at the beginning of the
report in the project information and curtainwall description sections. The remaining four
sections deal solely with the separate analyses performed on MACA’s curtainwall.
The building industry is currently faced with many issues concerning the design and construction
of curtainwalls. Through research and a survey, these challenges will be unearthed, and brought
to the surface. Solutions will be compiled in order to educate the owner on the possible
challenges they could be facing. In the end, Mercersburg Academy will have the issues, and their
respective solutions, presented to them in a summary chart for implementation of the Center for
the Arts.
Curtainwalls are frequently on the critical path in a CPM schedule. They usually precede the
milestone activity of building enclosure. The current teak and mahogany curtainwall, in the
Center for the Arts, is compared to an alternate aluminum system in this study. Final
recommendations, on what curtainwall system to use, will be made based on the constructability
criteria of schedule length, material cost, and installation cost.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 5 -
With the majority of the MACA façade composed of glazing units, daylighting becomes an
important tool in achieving properly illuminated spaces for safety, and also cutting electrical
costs. To begin, lighting studies are performed on varying curtainwall arrangements to achieve
the best performing curtainwall system. From the analyses, proposals for altering the lighting
scheme will be formulated. These proposals will be evaluated based on cost and energy savings.
Final recommendations, based on the results of the tests, will be made to the owner on which
curtainwall system and lighting proposals to implement on the building.
When over 90% of the façade of a building is composed of glazing units, heat loss becomes a top
concern. To ensure that the top performing glazing units are employed in the design, a
comparison of the default and Viracon Low-E glazing units will be conducted through a thermal
gradient and HAP analysis. The energy impacts of the separate glass units will also be
investigated. Final recommendations, on which glazing unit to use, will be made based on the
criteria of cost, performance, and energy savings.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 6 -
Credits & Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people for their support with my thesis:
Penn State University
o Dr. Riley and the CM Faculty
o Dr. Mistrick
James G. Davis Construction
o Ted Holt
o Bill Moyer
o George Robinson
Mercersburg Academy
Polshek Architects
Fellow 5th year students Ben Mitten, Jason Borowski and Pat Dempsey
My friends and family
Dan Cordek for proofreading
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 7 -
Introduction
This thesis is an in-depth study of an actual project, Mercersburg Academy – Center for the Arts
(MACA), to be constructed on the Mercersburg Campus in Mercersburg, PA. The work is a
culmination of a 6 month study of the project, including 4 separate analyses. The goal of the
thesis is to be able to make recommendations to the owner concerning the curtainwall system
based on the studies performed.
The first components of the thesis focus directly on some basic project criteria such as project
information and team layout. The project information section includes design overview, cost
evaluations, existing conditions and a site plan. On the other hand, the team arrangement focuses
in on an owner profile, contracts and contractor selection.
After the basic project criteria, the focus gets switched to the curtainwall. Given that almost the
entire thesis is based on the curtainwall in some way, the reader must have some basic knowledge
of the curtainwall system. This is accomplished through a detailed portrayal of the teak &
mahogany curtainwall itself. Basic background information on the curtainwall such as costs,
descriptions and illustrations are included to aid in the process.
Once there exists some understanding of the project basics and curtainwall system, the studies of
the curtainwall design and constructability can begin. The first two studies, industry curtainwall
trends and curtainwall constructability, are the depth analyses related to construction
management. They look at how curtainwalls are currently perceived in the building industry,
while also touching upon the schedule and constructability impacts of switching to an alternate
system.
The report now shifts from the construction studies to the final two breadth studies. These studies
are based on the lighting and mechanical design of the curtainwall system. The lighting analysis,
curtainwall daylighting study, looks at the lighting impacts of switching curtainwall components.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 8 -
Similarly, the mechanical analysis, curtainwall heat transmission, compares the heat transfer
impacts of the default glazing against those of a “low-e” glazing.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 9 -
Project Information
Design
• Architecture (Design and Functional Components) – The Center for the Arts has some
very unique interior space layouts such as recital/dance studios, set
design/prep/construction areas, orchestra/ensemble practice areas, and a 600 seat
auditorium complete with full stage, sound/lighting systems, and a 12,000 pound
orchestra lift. All of these areas possess the most exquisite high-end finish and millwork.
Exterior-wise, MACA’s skin is a combination of stone, glass and metal panels, with
balconies surrounding the building on three sides. The Center for the Arts also has an
attached two-story performing theater constructed as a “stone cylinder.”
• Zoning and Historical – The zoning for the Center for the Arts could be best classified
as an academic campus. Mercersburg Academy was founded in 1893. Currently the
campus has a large collection of historical buildings and old growth trees, both of which
will need protection from construction activities.
• Building Envelope – The vast majority of the Ground and Second Floor façade is
composed of a teak and mahogany window-wall system, while the high roof skin, on the
other hand, consists mainly of zinc, copper, and aluminum wall panels. Lastly, on the
lower level North, South and West elevations, there exists a Pennsylvania Limestone
façade.
• Electrical – The system consists of a 5 KV feed, stepped down by a 1500 KVA
transformer. The main switchboard is a 277/480 V – 3 phase – 4 wire 3000 amp bus. A
230 KW emergency generator provides back-up power.
• Lighting – The main theater is equipped with a 50 watt MR 16 recessed halogen
adjustable accent light, while the drama/sculpture/drawing/painting classrooms are
equipped with a 90 watt PAR 38 halogen adjustable accent lights (on tracks).
• Mechanical – The mechanical room is located on the Lower Level floor on the North
side of the building. An all air, VAV system is employed in the Center for the Arts. It
distributes air through aluminum ductwork.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 10 -
• Structural – MACA has a combination of diagonal bracing and lateral moment
connections as its bracing system. Every floor, except the SOG, is composed of a 5.5”
NWC 18-gauge composite slab on metal deck. The only CIP concrete on the job is the
spread footings, floor slabs, and a two-story architecturally exposed concrete exterior
foundation wall on the South, East and North sides of the building.
Cost Evaluation
• Actual Building Construction Cost and Costs per square foot (*Not including land costs,
site work, permitting, general conditions etc.):
o $16.29 million
o $245/s.f.
• Total Project Costs and Costs per square foot:
o $21.76 million
o $344.85/s.f.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 11 -
• Major Building Systems Costs and Costs per square foot (*See Appendix A for a
complete listing of building costs by trade):
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
StructuralSystem
MechanicalSystem
ElectricalSystem
TheaterPerformance
Building System Costs
o Structural System
$1.76 million
$26.56/s.f.
o Mechanical System
$2.82 million
$42.41/s.f.
o Electrical System
$1.78 million
$26.87/s.f.
o Theater Performance Equipment
$1.64 million
$24.73/s.f.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 12 -
Existing Conditions
Some local conditions exist which can influence the project. In South-central Pennsylvania,
where Mercersburg is located, there is no distinct preferred method of construction, although steel
buildings are the typical structural system. Labor-wise, MACA is primarily a non-union job,
matching the local labor force for the most part. Parking regulations also exist on the site because
of the lack of parking space. Only the superintendent and foreman of subcontractors will be
allowed parking directly on site. It will be the responsibility of each subs foreman to bus the
remaining laborers onto the site from a parking lot one mile away.
In the Geo-technical Report, it was concluded that the proposed building may be supported on
spread footings placed on natural soils, bedrock, or new compacted fill. Limestone bedrock,
disintegrated limestone, natural lean clay and silt soils, or new compacted fill should be
encountered at normal spread footing depths. Interestingly, subsurface conditions on the site are
known to contain limestone pockets, which are a red flag indicator of possible sink holes. To
ensure that these sink holes are not present underneath the footings, an air track probe will be
conducted at each footing location. Finally, a permanent under-floor sub-drainage system,
including sumps and pumps, will be necessary to maintain ground water levels below the lowest
level.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 13 -
Site Plan
At first glance the site plan, located in Appendix A, shows a typical site without any space issues.
It is only after gathering further information that you discover that the Mercersburg site is
severely sloping from East to West. This slope makes it difficult to located trailers, storage
spaces or any other temporary utilities. Adding to this problem is Mercersburg Academy’s
insistence that the trailers and other construction utilities be situated in such a way that they can
not be seen from the mall area.
Considering these issues, the trailers and other equipment were hidden from sight by lining the
East temporary fencing with a fabric covering. The sloping site and the fabric covering hid all
views of these temporary utilities.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 14 -
Project Team
Owner Profile
It is important to point out that Mercersburg Academy is not the typical building owner. While
typical owners are concerned primarily with schedule and cost, Mercersburg’s driving factor is
quality. The Center for the Arts, located on Mercersburg Campus, is a private high school in
South-central Pennsylvania. This facility is being constructed to replace the old, out-dated
existing Boone Hall, which was home to the theater and musical departments at Mercersburg.
Even with the high cost expectations, Mercersburg Academy will have no problem funding the
project as they have many private sources of funds available from school alumni. Mercersburg
expects a very high quality of finishes, which primarily accounts for the increased costs. Overall
building quality and safety both carry high expectations with Mercersburg as they do with any
owner. Mercersburg Academy keeps their campus facilities, buildings, and landscaping
immaculate.
Since there are no phased occupancy requirements with the building, sequencing will not be an
issue; the building will be occupied upon final building completion. There are a few keys to
completing the project to the owner’s satisfaction. Mercersburg expects a high quality, on time
Center for the Arts. They want the construction to occur safely and the jobsite to be as less of an
eyesore to the scenic campus as possible.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 15 -
Contracts
The project organization chart is above. The Center for the Arts project has a very typical and
straightforward structure. All contracts between all parties, except for Davis – Mercersburg
Academy, are lump sum. The contract that Davis holds with Mercersburg, on the other hand, is a
standard AIA guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract. One interesting fact about the team
structure is that Davis deals primarily with JFW, the owner’s representative. This relationship
with JFW in the middle can disrupt communication lines between Davis and Mercersburg
Academy.
Owner – Mercersburg Academy Debbie Rutherford
Owners Rep – JFW Project Management James Wilson
Architect – Polshek Partnership Charles Brainerd
GC – James G. Davis Construction Ted Holt
Engineers – Structural: Severud Associates MEP: Thomas Polise Consulting Eng. Civil: RHS Eng. Geotech: GeoConcepts Eng.
Acous. Consultant – Acoustic Dimensions
Theater Consultant – Theater Projects Consultants
GMP LS
LS LS
LS
Contract Legend: LS – Lump Sum GMP – Guaranteed Maximum Price
Concrete – Poole Anderson
Steel – Superior Steel
Theater Equipment – Secoa
MEP – W.G. Tomko
Electric – B&B
Wood Windows – Duratherm/G&T
LS w/ each separate Sub
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 16 -
Davis Construction won MACA based on two presentations centered on a preliminary budget and
GC Fee. The preliminary budget and GC Fee were based off of design documents and a
preliminary schedule respectively.
Davis bonds subcontractors with the following characteristics: contracts greater than $100,000,
any subs dealing with water or hazardous materials, and any unfamiliar subs. With MACA
located out of Davis Construction’s usual geographic area, Davis will run into a lot of
subcontractors that fall into the category of being unfamiliar, meaning that these subs must be
bonded to guarantee that their work will be completed. All subcontractors will be required to
carry their own insurance, while Mercersburg Academy will be carrying builders risk insurance
for the project.
The contract types and delivery system proved to be satisfactory for all team members involved
in the project. There proved to be no special contractual requirements, so lump sum contracts
were basically the default. Mercersburg Academy especially benefited from the delivery system,
as they were more familiar with the traditional approach from previous projects, and they wanted
to keep the bids competitive.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 17 -
Curtainwall Description
The curtainwall on the Center for the Arts is a very unique, custom teak and mahogany design by
Duratherm Windows. This layout, which gracefully stretches three stories high, is located on
every one of its elevations. With over 90% of the curtainwall area composed of glazing units, it
opens up the inside of MACA to huge amounts of daylighting. Below are some curtainwall facts
and images.
• Custom built by Duratherm
• Teak and mahogany curtainwall system
• Wooden frames composed of teak on the
outside and mahogany on the inside
• Window units composed of insulated 1”
tempered, fritted and annealed glazing
o Low iron glass units for clearer views
o Tempered U-Value = 0.29
o Fritted U-Value = 0.30
• Typical panel
o 32 panels
o 527 square feet each
o 91% glazing units
o 9% teak and mahogany
• 16,864 square feet of curtainwall
• Total cost = $1,294,563
o Material cost per S.F. = $61
o Material and labor cost per S.F. = $90
• 12 week schedule
o One building face at a time
o 3 weeks per elevation
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 18 -
Constructing the curtainwall should be a repetitious activity, as each of the panels is identical.
Below is an elevation of one of the 32 typical curtainwall panels showing the location of the three
separate glass units.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 19 -
Analysis I – Trends in Curtainwall Design & Construction
Executive Summary
Currently in the building industry, there are many issues facing architects, contractors,
subcontractors and suppliers concerning curtainwall system design and construction. A general
lack of knowledge concerning curtainwalls is also present. The Center for the Arts incorporates a
top of the line, high-end teak and mahogany curtainwall system into its design. This type of
system, composing the majority of the façade, will require intense coordination efforts from both
the design and construction ends.
With this in mind, research will be conducted into the curtainwall trends currently facing the
building industry. A survey of key building industry personnel will aid in gathering this
information. From this survey, solutions to curtainwall issues will be developed for
implementation on the curtainwall in MACA.
The goal of this research is:
To bring light on the issues most likely to cause problems in the design and construction
of the curtainwall, and formulate solutions for implementation on the Center for the Arts.
The owner, Mercersburg Academy, will be furnished with a summary of the current curtainwall
challenges, along with possible solutions for solving them. They will then have the opportunity
to decide which issues are appropriate for implementation on MACA.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 20 -
Overview
In an industry where owners are striving for
“faster and cheaper”, sometimes quality gets put
on the back burner. Facades in the building
industry are becoming more and more complex as
architectural styles evolve. This is definitely the
case with the teak and mahogany curtainwall in
the Center for the Arts. It seems as though the
architects are replicating the interior theme of the
building in the curtainwall design. Curtainwalls,
themselves, are becoming more complicated while
the coordination efforts from the construction industry are lacking behind. The uniqueness of the
wooden curtainwall also brings with it increased possibilities for errors. The quality expectations,
from Mercersburg Academy, for the teak and mahogany curtainwall are extremely high, as they
value quality over cost and schedule.
In turn, façade construction has a huge impact on the overall building schedule. Often, 100%
enclosure is required to proceed with interior activities such as drywall and woodwork, so
achieving building enclosure at the earliest possible date is crucial. Any kind of delays from poor
coordination can effect the completion date of a project. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate
current curtainwall issues and implement their solutions on MACA.
This analysis will evaluate the issues currently facing the building industry concerning
curtainwalls, and formulate solutions to these problems. A combination of research and an
industry survey will help to gather the problems facing the building industry. Finally, the
solutions will be compiled into a summary table for the owner to decide which ones should be
applied and implemented on the Center for the Arts.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 21 -
Industry Survey
Survey Overview
This survey was created to aid in the discovery of the current issues facing the building industry
concerning the design and construction of curtainwalls. With a little light shed on these
problems, solutions to them can be formed. In turn, these solutions can be implemented on the
Center for the Arts, avoiding possible conflicts and allowing for smooth construction.
The survey consisted of 12 questions sectioned off into the following categories (a copy of the
survey can be found in Appendix B):
Problems & Challenges – designed to determine which challenges the building industry is
currently facing concerning curtainwalls
New Technologies & Strategies – designed to determine ways to alleviate the current
curtainwall issues in the building industry
Wooden Curtainwalls – designed to gather information on the current perceptions of
wooden curtainwall systems
Additional Comments – designed to provide space for any additional comments from
respondents
The survey began with some general questions about number of curtainwall projects, job title, and
building industry tenure. These questions allowed us to understand where our input was coming
from. The survey then progressed through 12 questions in the above categories, finishing with
the “Additional Comments” section. This particular section proved to be the most intriguing, as
the respondents wrote some insightful comments in this section.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 22 -
Survey Results
Even though the survey only had 10 respondents, I still managed to acquire a diverse population
by both tenure and job title. Below are pie graphs depicting the answers to the first 4 general
questions:
Question #1 - # CW Projects Involved
(1-5)(5-50)
(Over 50)
Question #1 - Building Industry Profession
PMArchitect
CW Sub
Years in Building Industry
(Less than 5)
(6-10)
(10-25)
(Over 25)
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 23 -
#3B - Most Common CW Issue
Leaks and scheduleCoordinationStructural bearingCaulking
It was important to attain views from all the building industry positions involved in the design
and construction of curtainwalls. Sometimes the best ideas can come from the most unlikely
people.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 24 -
The remainder of the questions is where the important information comes from. A complete bar
graph of all respondents can be found in Appendix B. Shown below is an abbreviated, summary
bar graph showing the top answers to the remaining questions:
Survey Responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
#3A -C
#4 -A/B
#5 - C
#6 - A
#7 - A
#8 - A
#9 - A
#10 -B
#11 -A
#12 -A
Top Answer
Per
cent
Ans
wer
s
It can be seen that a few questions in the “New Technologies & Strategies” and “Wooden
Curtainwall” sections, towards the end, got a unanimous response. These questions and their
responses were:
#7
o Holding curtainwall coordination meetings for all subs, somewhat like MEP
coordination meetings, would reduce field conflicts
A.) Agree
#10
o Wooden curtainwall systems are increasing in popularity amongst building
owners.
B.) Disagree
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 25 -
#12
o Subcontractors certified to install wooden curtainwall systems are much rarer
than those to install aluminum curtainwall systems.
A.) Agree
The “Additional Comments” section also provides some interesting feedback on the curtainwall
issues in the building industry today. Below are some of the insightful comments taken from the
survey responses:
Project Manager of 20 years stated – “The problem is that not enough architects know
how to develop detailed contract drawings during the design phase. Detailed review of
the shop drawings by contractors is also necessary in achieving smooth construction of
curtainwalls.”
Project Manager of 25 years stated – “Wooden curtainwall systems should be treated as a
pure custom system with final detailing developed with the input of the contractor. A
suggestion for the team arrangements would be to have the curtainwall subs bid the work
on design development drawings, and require the bidder to submit pricing and completed
drawings.”
Architect of 29 years stated – “Aluminum and mixed curtainwall systems have been an
integral component to our successful design work, an honest expression maximizing
natural daylight, views, and interior functions.”
Project Manager of 5 years stated – “Curtainwalls are almost always design-build
systems because the manufacturer is responsible for the engineered drawings.
Architectural drawings really only show design intent.”
Curtainwall Subcontractor of 31 years stated – “Curtainwalls are like cars. Standard
systems, with a relatively short life span, and custom systems designed to last 40 to 50
years with little or no maintenance. The more that you spend the better in terms of
performance and longevity. The building size also distinguishes the requirements of the
curtain wall system.”
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 26 -
Project Manager of 23 years stated – “Curtainwalls are a large part of most base building
projects and are integral with the timely completion of jobs. It is imperative that they are
bought and submittals are completed early to alleviate schedule issues. Structural issues
must also be worked out early in the project.”
These questions, their respective responses and the additional comments provide an excellent
starting spot for investigating the challenges the building industry is currently facing with
curtainwall design and construction.
Key Industry Issues & Solutions
Although the feedback from the survey touches on a broad range of topics, common themes can
still be extrapolated. These issues and their possible solutions are listed below:
Poor team coordination and communication
o Some ambiguity exists with the team arrangements of curtainwall subcontractors,
as evident by the responses to Question #5. There seems to be no typical team
arrangement, which opens the door to possible communication issues with team
members. A solution to this problem is to have a typical team arrangement.
From the “Additional Comments” section above, there is strong sentiment to
employ a design-build approach for curtainwall subcontractors, having the sub
submit not only a bid, but also completed design drawings. The design-build
approach decreases the lines of communication, increasing the overall quality of
team coordination.
o The responses to Question #8, referring to rewarding subcontractors for
completing their work on-time, reflects another solution to poor team
coordination and communication. It is important, though, that the reward only be
issued if the subcontractor has completed his work on-time and solved their
problems on their own. This cuts back on the amount of RFI’s and change orders
that need to be submitted, which saves the contractor both time and money.
Presence of field conflicts
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 27 -
o Question #7, along with feedback from the “Additional Comments” section,
provides a unanimous solution to this problem – holding coordination meetings.
Not only does everyone agree to hold the meetings, but they also stress that they
should occur early in the project. These meetings would be quite similar to the
MEP coordination meetings, where every trade involved in the construction of
the curtainwall must attend. It should be noted, though, that getting full
participation from the subcontractors is sometimes difficult. Therefore it is
crucial to take a subs past participation in coordination meetings into account
when bidding work.
o Question #9, although not unanimous, strongly agrees that the construction of
curtainwall mock-ups would be extremely helpful and should always be done.
Although this type of activity takes time and costs money, these costs are nothing
when you compare them to the lost time and money experienced on-site when
subcontractors run into problems during construction. Building a mock-up
allows for constructability and coordination issues to be solved in a “mock-up”
scenario, as compared to the actual construction scenario. An issue with the
mock-ups is curtainwall project size. If you don’t have that much curtainwall to
install, is it still feasible to construct the mock-up?
o Another solution to the presence of field conflicts lies in the timely completion of
submittals. Submittals aid in cutting down on-site problems by thoroughly
reviewing drawings and specifications prior to construction. Therefore, it is
imperative that planning for submittals take place to ensure an early start date.
Since construction industry personnel are sometimes slow to respond to
submittals, the contractor must have a complete and up to date submittal log.
Curtainwall leaks
o One of the primary questions to the survey indicated that leaks were one of the
top concerns with curtainwall systems. Leaks surface when curtainwalls are
improperly assembled and caulked. Sometimes confusion exists as to which
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 28 -
trade is responsible for activities like caulking the joints. A solution to this
would lie in better planning techniques, such as the curtainwall coordination
meetings suggested earlier. Separate subcontractors could iron out their
problems at these meetings, ensuring that each sub knew what work they were
responsible for.
Curtainwall schedule problems
o Schedule problems also came about from the curtainwall concerns question.
Curtainwalls are usually on the critical path. Their construction must transpire
before the key milestone activity of building enclosure can occur. Two solutions
work together to alleviate this problem. First, an initial, accurate schedule must
be in place at the beginning of a project. It is crucial for this schedule to be
effectively communicated to all curtainwall trades. After the schedule come the
curtainwall coordination meetings. It’s beginning to surface exactly why these
meetings are important to the success of a curtainwall.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 29 -
Conclusions
The key issues concerning curtainwall systems were discovered by investigating the current
tensions in the building industry. Through careful research, solutions were formulated for these
curtainwall challenges. Below is a summary table of key issues and their respective solutions:
Summary of Key Industry Issues for Curtainwalls Key Issue Solution Comments Poor team communication & coordination
Design-build team arrangement Sub submitting bid & completed drawings
Sub reward Complete work on-time and solve own issues Presence of field conflicts CW coordination meetings All subs involved must attend
CW mock-up Time/money for mock-up nothing compared to lost time
Accurate submittal log Must begin at an early date
Curtainwall leaks CW coordination meetings Subs discuss which activities they are responsible for
Curtainwall schedule problems Accurate schedule Must be effectively communicated
CW coordination meetings Subs discuss schedule
The table above will serve as a reference tool to the owner, Mercersburg Academy. From this
table, they will obtain a brief background to the issues associated with the design and construction
of curtainwalls in general. Mercersburg will be able to evaluate the key issues for applicability
on the curtainwall construction at the Center for the Arts. Finally, once key issues have been
determined, the owner will have a starting point as to the solutions to execute to decipher the
challenges related to curtainwall construction.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 30 -
Analysis II – Curtainwall Constructability
Executive Summary
Construction of the curtainwall is almost always a critical path activity on the CPM schedule.
How this activity fits into and interacts with the rest of the schedule can be of utmost importance.
Because completing the curtainwall usually coincides with building enclosure, which allows for
the start of interior activities, it is important to have both a swift and coordinated schedule.
Enclosure of a building is almost always a milestone activity, signifying the start of interior
trades. Any delays in the curtainwall work, since curtainwalls are likely on the critical path, are
clearly evident in the schedule. The domino effect takes place, impacting the start date for the
interior work. Therefore a brief and coordinated schedule will allow for alleviation of field
problems and a quicker start for the interior trades.
With this in mind, the curtainwall system for this project will be analyzed based on schedule and
material/installation costs. This will be compared to an identical analysis of an alternate
aluminum system. Changes will be made based on constructability and cost criteria.
The goal of this research is:
To compare the current teak and mahogany curtainwall to an identical aluminum
alternate based on the constructability criteria of: schedule length, material costs, and
installation costs.
o Make recommendations on which curtainwall system is appropriate to the owner
based on schedule length, material costs and installation costs.
In the end, the owner will be able to select the system which fits into their overall interests. They
will consider which system is best for both the project and their campus-wide vision for
Mercersburg Academy.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 31 -
Overview
On this project, there exists a custom-built, teak and mahogany curtainwall system. It is evident,
from the rendering below, that this system covers the majority of the building’s four elevations.
The fact that it is made up of wood,
instead of the typical aluminum frames,
makes the curtainwall very unique.
Also, since it is a custom-built wood
system, finding certified installers
proved quite difficult compared with
finding installers for an aluminum
system.
The current teak and mahogany system
is composed of 32 typical panels, with a single panel’s dimensions at 20 feet wide by 28 feet tall.
The glazing unit’s sizes range from 0.75 square feet to 45 square feet (see Curtainwall
Description on page 14-15). Schedule-wise, the teak and mahogany curtainwall has a total
schedule length of 12 weeks, allowing 3 weeks per elevation. The construction of each elevation
proceeds concurrently, with no overlapping.
In accordance with the specifications, the curtainwall will have teak wood on the outside
components with mahogany wood on the inside components. The contrast of the lighter
mahogany to the teak is quite appealing. The glazing, on the other hand, is composed of three
different types of glass: fritted, tempered, and annealed.
This analysis will evaluate the effectiveness of the current curtainwall system’s
cost/constructability, and compare it to its aluminum alternate based on the same criteria.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 32 -
Teak & Mahogany Curtainwall System
Cost & Schedule
The computer program, Microsoft Project, was used by Davis Construction to develop a schedule
for the current wooden curtainwall system. The specifications for the curtainwall singled out
Duratherm Windows as the designer/installer, allowing for little flexibility in finding competitive
pricing on the system. Duratherm and Davis arrived at the following cost and constructability
information:
Total Costs = $ 1,294,563
o Material Costs = $ 61 per square foot
o Installation Costs = $ 30 per square foot
12 week installation time
Building enclosure on 10/3/2005
The cost and schedule values both come in higher because of the uniqueness of the teak and
mahogany system. Wooden systems are a rarity because of their construction length, higher
costs, and difficulty in finding certified installers. Mercersburg Academy, which favors quality
over cost and schedule, insisted on this system because of its elegant, high-end finish.
As far as costs are concerned, wooden curtainwall designers/installers, such as Duratherm, can be
competitive at the material end. Piece by piece, the cost of the actual wooden curtainwall system
is quite comparable to an aluminum alternate system. But, the aluminum designers/installers win
the cost and time battle when it comes to the installation of their system. They can install their
system in one-third the time, and at nearly half the cost of a comparable wooden curtainwall
system.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 33 -
Installation
The installation process for the teak and mahogany system is listed below:
1. Shim sill level and space equally at bottom.
2. Check unit for location and shim jambs at bottom center.
3. Check unit head for plumb and shim jambs at top center.
4. Check for square, adjusting accordingly.
5. Install fasteners at four corners.
6. Shim adjacent to intermediate anchor point and install fasteners.
7. Re-check for square.
8. Install matching wood plugs.
9. Install backer rod and sealant at exterior joints.
10. Attach exterior trim with stainless steel fasteners.
The custom-built, teak and mahogany curtainwall is constructed one glazing unit at a time, with
the process being repeated until the entire curtainwall has been built. This kind of construction
leaves little flexibility as it follows a rigid installation practice. Each step depends on the
previous one being completed, allowing no chance at achieving a better sequence through
overlapping processes. When looking at the process above, it becomes evident how the wooden
curtainwall system came to have such a lengthy schedule and high installation costs.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 34 -
Alternate Aluminum Curtainwall System
Cost & Schedule
Limited changes were made to the teak and mahogany curtainwall. Theoretically, the wooden
framing of the curtainwall was switched to aluminum. To make sure apples are compared to
apples, no changes were made to the glazing units. Aluminum subcontractors verified that this
variety of design would work in aluminum, assuming there is a connection at half height, which
there is. Below is the cost and schedule time of switching to the aluminum system:
Total Costs = $ 1,011,840
o Material Costs = $ 45 per square foot
o Installation Costs = $ 15 per square foot
5 week installation time
Building enclosure on 8/11/2005
Both cost (22 % savings) and schedule (58 % savings) come in significantly lower than with the
teak ad mahogany system. This is mainly attributable to more certified subcontractors leading to
more competitive bids.
As described above in the “Teak and Mahogany” section, cost savings in switching to an
aluminum curtainwall system are most evident in the 50 % savings in installation costs. There
was a moderate 23 % savings in material costs, which is somewhat significant, but is still only
half the savings from installation costs. Couple the 50 % savings in installation costs and the 58
% savings in schedule time, and the aluminum curtainwall system looks quite attractive.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 35 -
Installation
The installation process for the aluminum system is listed below:
1. Building layout – clip installation.
2. Erect vertical sticks.
3. Install horizontal frames.
4. Prep system for glass.
5. Install glass.
6. Install exterior covers and sills.
7. Install interior covers and sills.
8. Perimeter caulking.
The installation process for the aluminum system wins another battle over the teak and mahogany
system. While the original system was quite rigid in its installation procedure, the aluminum
method is more adaptable to performing some activities concurrently. Since the installation is not
on a per unit basis, activities do not have to occur one, right after the other. Also making some of
the tasks easier is the fact that aluminum pieces are very light weight when compared to an entire
teak and mahogany unit. Considering all of the installation criteria, the aluminum curtainwall
system is much better than the current teak and mahogany system.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 36 -
Conclusion
Curtainwall Constructability Comparison Total SF Curtainwall = 16,864
System Total Cost Material / SF Labor / SF Schedule (weeks)
Construction Process
Teak & Mahogany
$ 1,294,563
$ 61
$ 30 12 Rigid
Aluminum $
1,011,840 $
45 $
15 5 Flexible
Through a careful approach, the constructability qualities of the two separate curtainwalls, shown
above, can be analyzed and reviewed to determine the appropriateness of the systems to the
owner. Although the significant cost and schedule savings realized by switching to the aluminum
curtainwall are important to Mercersburg Academy, they also need to remember their views on
quality and high-end finishes. Since the construction of the Center for the Arts is not pressed for
time or costs, the schedule and cost savings are not enough to convince Mercersburg Academy to
switch curtainwall systems.
It is concluded that the switch to an aluminum curtainwall system, which is not as high quality,
would compromise the campus-wide vision for Mercersburg Academy.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 37 -
Analysis III – Daylighting Study of the Curtainwall
Executive Summary
Daylighting, in a building like MACA, can be an enormously important tool in ensuring proper
illuminance for safety and cutting electrical costs. Over 90 % of the curtainwall façade panels are
composed of some type of glazing, creating an excellent opportunity to take advantage of the
daylighting abilities.
With this in mind, the curtainwall system will be analyzed for its ability to properly illuminate
surfaces in the lobby and outdoor patio areas, for safety, while also cutting energy costs. The
alternate curtainwalls, which will be compared to the original curtainwall, will vary by different
glazing units and frames. Changes to the system will be based on safety, energy savings and cost.
The goals of this research are:
To conduct lighting analyses on the effects that different curtainwall components have on
achieving a safely lit lobby and outdoor patio.
o Make recommendations on which system is appropriate to the owner based on
safety and costs.
To develop and analyze energy saving theories stemming from the lighting analyses.
o Make recommendations to the owner on which ideas should be implemented
based on cost and energy costs.
With the proper information available, Mercersburg Academy can make informed decisions,
which meet both their project and campus-wide visions.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 38 -
Overview
With a building the size of the Center for the Arts (66,500 s.f.), energy costs can be very high for
the owner. Some lights need to be running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to ensure that surfaces
possess enough footcandles to be considered safe. The daylighting effectiveness of the
curtainwall can be adjusted through switching curtainwall components such as frames and glazing
units.
The current teak and mahogany curtainwall (see
Curtainwall Description on page 14-15) is composed of
the following types of glazing:
58 % fritted glazing
28% tempered glazing
5% annealed glazing
As far as glazing is concerned, this study will
concentrate on changing the fritted and tempered
glazing units only. The annealed units, which are
negligent, compromise only 5 % of the curtainwall and
also serve an architectural purpose.
Multiple curtainwall combinations have been tested in
an attempt to achieve the curtainwall with the lowest
cost and top daylighting characteristics. Each curtainwall is modeled with a lobby space attached
to it. The combinations will be analyzed to ensure that proper illuminance is reaching the lobby
space. The groupings are as follows:
Original teak and mahogany curtainwall
o Original windows
o Viracon Low-E windows w/ argon gas
o Addition of outdoor lighting
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 39 -
All mahogany curtainwall
o Original windows
Aluminum curtainwall
o Original windows
o Viracon Low-E windows w/ argon gas
o Addition of outdoor lighting
This analysis will evaluate the daylighting properties, cost, energy savings and proper
illuminance, of each of the curtainwall arrangements listed above using AGI 32 lighting software.
The information will be compiled into a summary chart for the owners use.
3D AutoCAD Model
The initial step in constructing models for the lighting software, AGI 32, is to first build a 3D
model of the space in AutoCAD 2005. The space for analysis is a typical section of the North
lobby, with the North-facing façade composed of a curtainwall. Using the 3D commands and the
x-y-z coordinates, a 3D model of the space is constructed as a wire frame. After this, the
components of the 3D model must be oriented correctly and defined as objects. The model is
now ready for importing into AGI 32. In order for AGI 32 to recognize the file, you must save
your 3D model as an AutoCAD 2000 LT file extension.
AGI 32 Lighting Software
This software allows daylighting studies to be run on a 3D model to determine the amount of
footcandles reaching certain spaces. Once you have finished your 3D model in AutoCAD 2005, it
must be imported into AGI 32. Upon importing it, the surfaces will have to be defined by giving
them reflectance/transmittance and color/texture values. Now the model is ready for calculation
points and lighting fixtures to be added. Once they have been added, the model is ready for
renderings. Prior to performing each rendering calculation, the daylighting study parameters,
such as time, location, lighting conditions, and sky conditions, must be defined for each separate
study.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 40 -
Upon completion of each daylighting study, the output will be:
A rendering
Footcandle distributions on all floor spaces with calculation points
Text files with data from the study
These files will allow for easy comparison of the performances of each curtainwall system.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 41 -
Curtainwall Daylighting Studies
Introduction
To attain the curtainwall with the lowest cost and top daylighting characteristics, multiple lighting
studies of the curtainwall system were performed in AGI 32. Each of the studies varied in some
way from the other. The variables in the studies were:
Glazing type
Frame type
Lighting conditions
Daylight or night
By managing these variables, it allows for the curtainwall model to be subjected to various
lighting scenarios. In effect, this results in these numerous combinations being tested to strive for
a curtainwall blend with the best characteristics.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 42 -
It is vital for an owner to have multiple options when considering changing a system. Sometimes
what seems best to the designer does not always meet the owner’s selective criteria. The
following table shows the details of every curtainwall arrangement that was tested in AGI 32:
AGI 32 Curtainwall Lighting Studies Daylight Night
3:00 PM
3:00 PM
12:00 AM
CW Arrangement LightsNo
Lights Lights Teak & Mahogany Original Viracon X X X Low-E Viracon X Add Outdoor Lights X Mahogany Original Viracon X X X Low-E Viracon Add Outdoor Lights Aluminum Original Viracon X X X Low-E Viracon X Add Outdoor Lights X
It can be seen that quite thorough analyses are performed on each of the curtainwall systems.
Also noted should be that each and every study is performed at the same three separate times.
This keeps the curtainwall studies consistent for appropriate comparison between them.
Results
When running lighting analyses, your output for each study is a rendering, data file, and
footcandle distribution layout. The renderings are easily comparable, but with the data file and
the footcandle distribution, it can get confusing. The following table aims to simplify the facts by
summarizing the results of every study conducted. It accomplishes this by giving a footcandle
value for a certain predetermined location. This location remains consistent for every layout and
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 43 -
study, allowing for comparison. Taking an average would defeat the purpose, as lighting values
can fluctuate drastically right by a window as compared to by the wall.
AGI 32 Curtainwall Lighting Studies Surface Location of FC Value* Outside Concrete 5 feet in from the center of the curtainwall Painted Hardwood 5 feet in from the center of the wall 2nd Floor Walkway 3 feet in from the center of the wall
* Note - Average taken of two typical
layout Footcandle Values CW Arrangement Outside Concrete
Painted Hardwood
2nd Floor Walkway
Teak & Mahogany Original Viracon 3:00 PM Lights 183 106 88 3:00 PM NL 180 55 33 Night Lights 3 52 54 Low-E Viracon 3:00 PM NL 194 49 34 Night Lights 3 52 53 Mahogany Original Viracon 3:00 PM Lights 183 106 89 3:00 PM NL 181 55 34 Night Lights 3 52 55 Aluminum
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 44 -
Original Viracon 3:00 PM Lights 202 106 85 3:00 PM NL 199 55 33 Night Lights 3 52 56 Low-E Viracon 3:00 PM NL 198 49 30 Night Lights 3 52 55 Outdoor Lights Low-E Viracon Teak & Mahogany 9 55 54 Aluminum 10 55 55
**Since there are many renderings and footcandle distribution images, they have been located in
Appendix D for further review.**
To ensure that the curtainwall arrangements allow for a safe, well-lit lobby and outdoor patio
area, the following table shows the required footcandle values for surfaces from the IES
Handbook:
IES Handbook **Center for the Arts falls under the "Educational Facilities" heading **Lobby falls under Illuminance Category "A" below
Type of Activity Illuminance
Category FootcandlesReference Workplane
Public spaces with dark surroundings A (2-5) General lighting
All of the spaces in the summary table above meet the 2-5 footcandle requirements.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 45 -
Costs
Listed below are the costs of each of the curtainwall arrangements analyzed above:
Comparison of Curtainwall Costs Curtainwall System Glazing Cost Teak & Mahogany
Original Viracon
$ 1,294,563
Low-E Viracon $ 1,359,291
Mahogany
Original Viracon
$ 1,165,107
Aluminum Original Viracon
$ 1,011,840
Low-E Viracon $ 1,062,432
T&M w/ Outdoor Lights
Low-E Viracon $ 1,364,952
Alum. w/ Outdoor Lights
Low-E Viracon $ 1,068,093
Solely considering cost criteria, the aluminum curtainwall arrangement is the cheapest. Adding
the Viracon Low-E glazing to any curtainwall arrangement results in a 5% increase in overall
costs.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 46 -
Energy Analysis
Although the daylighting study failed to achieve important breakthroughs on the lighting side of
things, we still must consider the energy impacts from the proposed lighting theories. The top
thing the owners need to know is the costs associated with the changes.
This energy study is composed of a simple comparison between energy costs for different
scenarios. To simplify the analysis, only energy costs resulting from lighting will be considered.
This figure will exclude any special stage lighting for the theater area.
To begin, we’ll start with the default lighting scheme at the Center for the Arts. The complete
energy calculations can be found in Appendix D. A summary table is below:
Default Lighting
Lighting Arrangement Annual KWh $ per KWh Yearly Cost
Current Scheme 459872 $ 0.05
$ 22,994
As seen above, the current lighting arrangement has Mercersburg Academy annually paying
almost $23,000 in lighting energy costs alone. This figure does not include any other components
of the building that draw electricity. It is clear that lighting costs are a significant long term
expenditure for the owner.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 47 -
From the daylighting analysis, proposed changes to the lighting system itself surfaced because of
either safety concerns or costs savings. These changes are below:
Energy Cost Summary
Lighting Arrangement Annual KWh
$ per KWh Yearly Cost
Current Scheme 459872 $ 0.05
$ 22,994
Proposed Changes Add outdoor fixtures Energy impact $372 Cost $5,661 Turn off lobby lights during daytime hours Energy impact $1,896 Cost NA
Proposed Scheme 429392 $ 0.05
$ 21,470
ANNUAL SAVINGS $ 1,524
SAVINGS IN 20 YEARS $ 30,480
Cost of Proposed Changes $ 5,661
Even though the first proposed change of adding outdoor lights for safety increased the annual
energy costs, there was still enough savings on the lobby lights to save $ 1,524 in the end. This is
a considerable amount of money when you consider the fact that you have to pay this amount
annually. The savings on the annual energy costs will pay for the addition of the outdoor lights, $
5,661, in less than 5 years.
In the end, as far as energy costs are concerned, the proposed changes make a lot of sense. The
end product is a safer outdoor area at night, with double the footcandles, and a $ 1,500 plus
savings in annual energy costs.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 48 -
Conclusion
When reviewing the footcandle table shown above and comparing the categories consistently, it
becomes evident that switching frame type and/or glazing units has a minimal effect on the
footcandle values reaching the respective surfaces. On the other hand, though, review of the
curtainwall costs, shown below, has switching to the aluminum curtainwall saving 22% of the
costs from the teak and mahogany curtainwall with the same glazing.
Summary Cost Table Curtainwall System Glazing Cost T&M w/ Outdoor Lights
Low-E Viracon $ 1,364,952
Alum. w/ Outdoor Lights
Low-E Viracon $ 1,068,093
SAVINGS $ 296,859
22%
Based on the cost criteria alone, it seems like a great move to switch from teak and mahogany to
aluminum curtainwall. A $297,000 savings is quite substantial. But, Mercersburg Academy is
interested in high quality, which usually brings with it high costs. In the end, it is recommended
that the original teak and mahogany curtainwall, and its glazing units, remain in the design for the
Center for the Arts, because it meets the demands of the owner.
On the other hand, the proposed changes for the energy analysis, listed below, compromise a
substantial annual savings, which pay themselves off in less than 5 years. The savings over the
next 20 years totals more than $30,000. Implementing the below changes would be strongly
suggested.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 49 -
Energy Comparison Changes Proposed Changes Cost Energy Impact Add outdoor fixtures $5,661 $372 Turn off lobby lights during day $0 $1,896
TOTAL $5,661 $1,524 Payback Period Less than 5 years
Project-wide effects of implementing the lighting changes above:
Adding outdoor fixtures is an additional task to add to the lighting subcontractor’s
schedule. Although adding 17 extra fixtures are not going to take that much longer.
Coordination between the lighting, electrical and roofing subcontractors to ensure proper
assembly of outdoor fixtures.
Consultation with the lighting designer as to any problems experienced with turning the
lobby lights off during the daytime hours.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 50 -
Analysis IV – Heat Transmission Study of the Curtainwall
Executive Summary
Trivial issues, such as curtainwall composition, can have an enormous impact on energy costs for
a building. Since the majority of the building is enclosed by the curtainwall, its glazing unit’s
insulating properties are an extremely important tool in preventing energy loss.
With this in mind, this analysis will be composed of two main studies: a HAP analysis to study
the effects of the curtainwall glazing on mechanical loads and a thermal gradient to study the heat
transmission properties of the curtainwall. In the end, a mechanical energy cost impact will be
constructed for the separate systems. Changes to parts of the system will be made based on cost
and performance of glass types.
The goal of this research is:
To perform a thermal gradient and HAP analysis in the comparison the original glazing in
the teak and mahogany curtainwall to a Viracon Low-E alternate glazing.
o Make recommendations on which glazing is appropriate to the owner based on
cost and heat transfer performance, along with an energy analysis.
Mercersburg Academy will have to consider both the initial costs along with the energy impacts
when deciding whether or not to switch systems.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 51 -
Overview
With 91% of the 16,864 square feet of curtainwall on the Center for the Arts composed of glazing
units, the potential for heat loss is quite significant. Having the best performing glass insulation-
wise is of utmost importance. Below is a figure explaining the three most vital energy properties
of glazing units:
Low-E Performance Properties * Taken from PPG Website
Keeps you warmer in the winter U-Value
Keeps you cooler in the summer Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
Reduces UV energy and allows visible light Transmittance
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 52 -
The current curtainwall arrangements glazing units have the following insulation values:
Default Glazing Properties
% of Visible Solar Winter Shading Glass Type Typical CW Transmittance Transmittance U-Value Coefficient
Annealed 5% 0.73 0.37 0.299 0.45 Tempered 28% 0.73 0.37 0.299 0.45 Fritted 58% 0.46 0.23 0.29 0.31
This analysis will evaluate the insulation properties, listed above, of the curtainwall system
arrangements using the following criteria: HAP analysis, thermal gradient, and energy impact.
Since the annealed and tempered units are negligible and serve an architectural purpose, only the
fritted units will be changed. The end product will consist of a comparison between the current
system and the new Viracon system.
Viracon Low-E Glazing
This mechanical analysis will only analyze one separate alternative fritted glazing unit. Upon
researching the current curtainwall glass in the Center for the Arts, it was discovered that the
insulation properties of the glazing units were already very good (U-Value = 0.29). It was
difficult to find glazing units with a lower U-Value than 0.29. The best possible unit found was
the following Low-E Viracon glass:
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 53 -
Thermal Gradient
Thermal gradients focus solely on the insulation properties of the wall section being analyzed.
They show what rate the temperature increases going from the outside to inside of the wall
section. In this study, the current glazing units in the teak and mahogany curtainwall will be
compared to the Viracon Low-E glass units. The wooden curtainwall frames will stay unchanged
in the study. The following table summarizes the heat transmission performances of the two
glazing units:
Temperature Increase Through Glazing
Surface Current T&M Glazing Viracon Low-E Glazing Outside 10 10
Outer Film 18.8 19.0 Glazing 34.8 34.2 Inside 70.0 70.0
Increase in
Temperature Across 16.0 15.2 Glazing
Since the thermal gradient analysis is primarily focusing on the properties of the glazing units, the
most important increase in temperature, across the glazing unit, is listed in the table above. Both
glass units have a similar increase in temperature, approximately 16°F, across their respective
glazing.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 54 -
HAP Mechanical Load Simulation
This analysis focuses in on cutting energy costs by attaining the top performing system. It
continues with the HAP (Hourly Analysis Program) analysis to study the effects of the
curtainwall glazing on the mechanical loads. This computer program easily allows separate
studies to be run based on changes to the curtainwall glazing units.
Below are the two sections of the lobby shell that will remain constant across the studies:
1. 9” built-up roofing
2. 3” metal decking
3. 2.5’ air space
4. 1” ceiling panels
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 55 -
1. 5/8 “ gypsum wall board
2. vapor barrier
3. 5/8 “ gypsum wall board
4. 6” rigid insulation
5. 1/2 “ gypsum sheathing (metal studs)
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 56 -
While the interior wall and roof sections remain constant over the studies, the curtainwall
composition will change from the default glazing to the Viracon Low-E glazing units for
comparison between the systems. Below are the sections of both curtainwall arrangements:
1. CW glass unit
a. Default MACA glazing
b. New Viracon Low-E glazing
The following table summarizes the results of the two analyses, showing the effects of the glazing
type on the lobby’s required mechanical load and the cost of the entire curtainwall:
Summary of HAP Analyses Cost Sum of Total
Glazing Unit of Curtainwall Peak CFM Coil Load
Default $
1,294,563 515 10.9 MBH Viracon Low-E
$ 1,359,291 485 10.3 MBH
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 57 -
It can be seen that switching to the Viracon Low-E glazing units results in a 6 % savings in
required mechanical load on the lobby area. On the other hand, this also corresponds to a cost
increase of approximately $65,000.
Energy Analysis
While the HAP analysis provided some insightful feedback on the effects of different curtainwall
glazing on the required mechanical loads in the lobby, it is important to take the research a step
farther by looking into the energy impacts. To put the two studies in a context most
understandable to owners, an energy cost impact will be compiled. This estimate is based on the
energy consumed by the supply and return fans at MACA. It shows the amount of money saved
or lost annually, on mechanical energy costs, when switching systems. Complete energy
calculations can be found in Appendix E. Below is a summary table of the energy findings:
Comparison of T&M CW Glass Units System KWh Annual Energy Cost Default Glazing 2637180 $ 131,859 Viracon Low-E Glazing 2478949 $ 123,947
Viracon SAVINGS $ 7,912
Solely considering the energy impacts, switching to the Viracon Low-E glazing units would save
6 %, almost $8,000, in annual electrical costs when compared to the original glazing units.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 58 -
Conclusion
Through the thermal gradient, HAP analysis and energy study, the performance characteristics of
the default and Viracon Low-E glazing units can be compared. While the thermal gradient did
not produce any breakthroughs, the HAP and energy analyses provided significant feedback.
Below is a comparison table for the two glazing units:
Comparison of Glazing Units Cost Annual
Glazing Unit of Curtainwall Energy Costs Default $ 1,294,563 $ 131,859 Viracon Low-E $ 1,359,291 $ 123,947
Switch to Viracon
Difference $64,728 $7,912
Payback 8.2 Years
The table above shows the impacts of switching to the Low-E Viracon glazing units. Although
the initial costs of switching the glazing units is nearly $65,000, the annual mechanical energy
savings allows for a payback period of just over 8 years. When dealing with glazing units,
anytime that there can be a substantial savings on the energy side, coupled with a payback of less
than 10 years, the switch should be made. It is recommended that the original glass units in the
teak and mahogany design be substituted with the Viracon Low-E glass units.
The owner, Mercersburg Academy, can review the comparison chart above to decide if switching
glazing units meets their overall campus vision.
Project-wide effects of switching the glazing units:
The original glazing units were a Viracon brand, so the switch to the Viracon Low-E
glazing units will have no effect on the installation times and overall schedule.
On the same lines as above, the new Viracon Low-E glazing units can be installed by the
same subcontractors as the default glazing units.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 59 -
Conclusion
Mercersburg Academy – Center for the Arts was a very unique project, considering that the
owner was aiming for quality and not cost. The different analyses performed provided an array
of insightful conclusions.
The first two analyses are both from the construction management viewpoint.
Developing solutions to the current issues facing the building industry today, concerning
curtainwall systems, is an important step in striving for smooth and quick curtainwall
construction. Holding curtainwall coordination meetings and constructing curtainwall mock-ups
were just some of the solutions that surfaced from the building industry survey. The end product
of this study was a summary of the curtainwall issues, and their respective solutions, which aims
to educate the owner about curtainwall challenges on their project.
A comparison of the current teak and mahogany curtainwall to an alternate aluminum system,
using the criteria of schedule length, material costs, and installation costs, shows that the
aluminum system is winning the battle hands down. This system’s installation, which lends itself
to activity overlapping, is both cheaper and quicker. Yet, the final suggestion, which takes into
account the owners values, recommends keeping the more expensive teak and mahogany system.
The final two studies are respectively lighting and mechanical analyses.
Daylighting can be an important tool in achieving properly illuminated surfaces and cutting
energy costs. The initial lighting study in this analysis provided no groundbreaking changes to
the curtainwall. The footcandle values over every surface remained constant through the
numerous curtainwall arrangements. When considering the costs of switching curtainwall
arrangements, the aluminum system, as it did in the prior studies, came in cheapest. On the other
hand, the lighting proposals on the energy side proved worthwhile. Adding the outdoor fixtures,
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 60 -
and turning off the lobby lights during the day led to substantial energy savings. The final
recommendation for this analysis suggests keeping the current teak and mahogany curtainwall,
while implementing the proposed lighting proposals.
In a building with as much glazing as the Center for the Arts has, the performance of glass units
can be the key in preventing energy loss. The initial thermal gradient study showed that each of
the glazing units had similar temperature increases across the glass. On the other hand, the HAP
analysis showed an energy savings when switching to the Viracon Low-E glazing, which also had
a short payback period. The final recommendation for this analysis, based on cost, performance,
and energy costs, proposes switching to the Viracon Low-E glazing units.
Brad Cordek – Mercersburg Academy – CM Senior Thesis Center for the Arts ________________________________________________________________________
- 61 -
References
Brookes, Alan. The Building Envelop & Connections. New York, NY. Architectural Press, 1996. Budd, Ira. Emittsburg Glass Interview. February 17, 2005. Cornellier, Vic. TSI Telephone Interview. February 15, 2005. Rea, Mark S. IES Lighting Handbook. New York, NY. IES of North America, 1993. Holt, Ted. “MACA Project” tholt@davisconstruction.com. January 10, 2005. McQuiston, Faye. Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning. New York, NY. John Wiley & Sons, 2000. Mistrick, Richard. Lighting Interview. February 15, 2005. Moyer, Bill. Davis Construction Interview. December 12, 2004. Nashed, Fred. Exterior Wall Design. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill, 1996. Partridge, Chuck. Duratherm Windows Telephone Interview. February 8, 2005. Quirion, Brian. Duratherm Windows Telephone Interview. February 9, 2005. Reece, Jason. “Design Build Façade Contractor.” PSUAE Senior Thesis Website. “Solar Control Low-E Glass.” PPG Residential Glass. http://www.ppg.com/gls_residential/share/hom_solow.htm Sweet, Jeff. Viracon Telephone Interview. March 16, 2005. Whalen, Jesse. “Façade Coordination.” PSUAE Senior Thesis Website. Zhou, Y.S. The Design of Curtainwalls, Aluminum Windows, Glass Walls, Skylights, and Canopies. Hong Kong. Wilson Curtainwall Consultant, 2002.
Appendix A – Building Costs
Building Costs
$-
$500
,000
$1,00
0,000
$1,50
0,000
$2,00
0,000
$2,50
0,000
$3,00
0,000
$3,50
0,000
SurveyingDemolitionEarthwork
Site UtilitiesAsphalt & Paving
Site ConcreteFencing
LandscapingConcrete
MasonrySteel
Misc. MetalsCarpentryWoodwork
WaterproofingPerimeter Soffit
FireproofJoint Sealers
DFHWoodenGlazingDrywall
TileFlooring
Acoustical WallPaintVDP
Toilet PartitionsLouversSignage
FE & LockersTheater
ProjectionWindow
Fixed SeatingHM Abatement
ElevatorsWheelchair Lifts
Mech. & PlumbingFire Protection
Electrical
Trad
e
Cost
Appendix A – Site Plan
Appendix B – Industry Survey ________________________________________________________________________ Background – This section is designed to gather background information about survey participants. 1.) Place an “X” in the box below that corresponds to your industry profession and specify the
number of projects involving curtainwalls that you have worked on.
# projects
Industry Profession
Architect Project Manager Curtainwall Subcontractor Other –
2.) Please indicate tenure in the building industry _____________. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Problems & Challenges – This section is designed to determine which curtainwall challenges the building industry is currently facing. 3A.) What percentage of past curtainwall projects have been problematic?
a) more than 75% b) between 25% and 75% c) less than 25% d) none
3B.) The most common issue with these projects is _________________________________. 4.) Curtainwall systems are on the critical path in the CPM schedule _____ of the time.
a) 100% b) more than 50% c) less than 50% d) never
______________________________________________________________________________________ New Technologies & Strategies – This section is designed to come up with ways to alleviate the current curtainwall issues facing the building industry. 5.) The most common team arrangement for curtainwall subcontractors is:
a) build with 1 sub b) build with multiple subs c) design-build with 1 sub d) design-build with multiple subs
6.) Requiring a curtainwall sub to not only submit a bid for the work, but also complete the
curtainwall drawings would:
a) help constructability issues a lot b) not make any difference c) be detrimental to constructability
7.) Holding curtainwall coordination meetings for all involved subs, somewhat like MEP coordination meetings, would reduce field conflicts.
a) agree b) disagree
8.) Rewarding curtainwall subcontractors with team incentive clauses for solving their own conflicts
and completing their work ahead of schedule would be beneficial to a project’s success.
a) agree b) disagree
9.) Typically, constructing a mock-up of a curtainwall system would:
a) be highly effective in pinpointing future on-site issues and should always be done b) have no advantages for the construction of the curtain-wall c) be a disadvantage in the time and resources that it would consume
______________________________________________________________________________________ Wooden Curtainwalls – This section is designed to gather information on the current building industry perspective on wooden curtainwall systems. 10.) Wooden curtainwall systems are increasing in popularity amongst building owners.
a) agree b) disagree
11.) Wooden window-wall systems, such as teak and mahogany, present durability issues when
compared to another curtainwall system (i.e. aluminum).
a) agree b) disagree
12.) Subcontractors certified to install wooden curtainwall systems are much rarer than those that
install aluminum systems.
a) agree b) disagree
______________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments – You are encouraged to make any additional comments concerning curtainwalls. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for participating in my senior thesis research. Surveys can be emailed or mailed to: Brad Cordek bjc191@psu.edu
Appendix B – Survey Results
Question #1 - # CW Projects Involved
(1-5)
(5-50)
(Over 50)
Question #1 - Building Industry Profession
PM
ArchitectCW Sub
Years in Building Industry
(Less than 5)
(6-10)
(10-25)
(Over 25)
#3B - Most Common CW Issue
Leaks and scheduleCoordinationStructural bearingCaulking
Survey Responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
#3A -C
#4 -A/B
#5 - C
#6 - A
#7 - A
#8 - A
#9 - A
#10 -B
#11 -A
#12 -A
Top Answer
Per
cent
Ans
wer
s
A B C D#3A
#4#5
#6#7
#8#9
#10#11#12
0%10%20%30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Survey Results #3A#4#5#6#7#8#9#10#11#12
Appendix C – Curtainwall Costs Curtainwall Constructability Comparison Total SF Curtainwall = 16,864
System Total Cost Material / SF Labor / SF Schedule (weeks)
Construction Process
Teak & Mahogany
$ 1,294,563
$ 61
$ 30 12 Rigid
Aluminum $
1,011,840 $
45 $
15 5 Flexible Appendix C – Teak & Mahogany Schedule Appendix C – Aluminum Schedule
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 General Contractor Selection 4 wks Fri 4/16/04 Thu 5/13/04
2 Design Packages 9.4 wks Wed 5/26/04 Mon 8/2/04
3 Budget, Bid & Establish Project GMP 15.8 wks Fri 6/4/04 Fri 9/24/04
4 Release Major Subcontractors 0 wks Mon 9/20/04 Mon 9/20/04
5 Submit / Approve / Release Key Materials 36.4 wks Wed 8/25/04 Fri 5/13/05
6
7 CONSTRUCTION 90.1 wks Mon 9/20/04 Thu 6/29/06
8 NTP 0 days Fri 10/1/04 Fri 10/1/04
9 Initial Siteworks & Demolition 10 wks Mon 9/20/04 Tue 11/30/04
10 Footings & Elevator Pit 3 wks Wed 12/1/04 Tue 12/21/04
11 Underslab MEP 2 wks Wed 12/15/04 Thu 12/30/04
12 Concrete floor slabs 12 wks Fri 12/31/04 Fri 3/25/05
13 Steel Superstructure & Metal Decking 11.5 wks Thu 1/20/05 Mon 4/11/05
14 Building Structure Complete 0 days Thu 4/28/05 Thu 4/28/05
15 Teak & Mahogany Curtainwall 12 wks Thu 4/28/05 Fri 7/22/05
16 Roofing & Porch 10 wks Mon 7/25/05 Mon 10/3/05
17 Building Envelope Complete 0 days Mon 10/3/05 Mon 10/3/05
18 Lower Level / Studio Theater / Lower Orchestra Pit MEP Rough-In & Millwork 44.5 wks Thu 5/19/05 Wed 4/5/06
19 Ground Floor / Main Theater / Stage MEP Rough-In & Millwork 43 wks Fri 6/3/05 Fri 4/7/06
20 2nd Floor / Lower Balcony MEP Rough-In & Millwork 34 wks Fri 6/17/05 Fri 2/17/06
21 3rd Floor / Upper Balcony / Catwalk / Gridiron MEP Rough-In & Millwork 40.5 wks Fri 7/1/05 Wed 4/19/06
22 System Start Up & Testing 2 wks Wed 4/5/06 Tue 4/18/06
23 Complete Siteworks - Utilites/Hardscape/Infrasctructure 30 wks Mon 6/6/05 Mon 1/9/06
24 Commissioning, Weather Delay, Final Inspections 10 wks Wed 4/19/06 Wed 6/28/06
25 Project Substantial Completion 0 days Thu 6/29/06 Thu 6/29/06
General Contractor Selection
Design Packages
Budget, Bid & Establish Project GMP
9/20 Release Major Subcontractors
Submit / Approve / Release Key Materials
CONSTRUC
10/1 NTP
Initial Siteworks & Demolition
Footings & Elevator Pit
Underslab MEP
Concrete floor slabs
Steel Superstructure & Metal Decking
4/28 Building Structure Complete
Teak & Mahogany Curtainwall
Roofing & Porch
10/3 Building Envelope Complete
Lower Level / Studio The
Ground Floor / Main The
2nd Floor / Lower Balcony ME
3rd Floor / Upper Balc
System Start Up & Tes
Complete Siteworks - Utilites/Hard
Commissioni
6/29 Project Subs
Mar Apr a Jun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul AugSep Oct2004 2005 2006
Mercersburg Academy Center for the Arts Construction Schedule
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 General Contractor Selection 4 wks Fri 4/16/04 Thu 5/13/04
2 Design Packages 9.4 wks Wed 5/26/04 Mon 8/2/04
3 Budget, Bid & Establish Project GMP 15.8 wks Fri 6/4/04 Fri 9/24/04
4 Release Major Subcontractors 0 wks Mon 9/20/04 Mon 9/20/04
5 Submit / Approve / Release Key Materials 36.4 wks Wed 8/25/04 Fri 5/13/05
6
7 CONSTRUCTION 90.1 wks Mon 9/20/04 Thu 6/29/06
8 NTP 0 days Fri 10/1/04 Fri 10/1/04
9 Initial Siteworks & Demolition 10 wks Mon 9/20/04 Tue 11/30/04
10 Footings & Elevator Pit 3 wks Wed 12/1/04 Tue 12/21/04
11 Underslab MEP 2 wks Wed 12/15/04 Thu 12/30/04
12 Concrete floor slabs 12 wks Fri 12/31/04 Fri 3/25/05
13 Steel Superstructure & Metal Decking 11.5 wks Thu 1/20/05 Mon 4/11/05
14 Building Structure Complete 0 days Thu 4/28/05 Thu 4/28/05
15 Aluminum Curtainwall 5 wks Thu 4/28/05 Thu 6/2/05
16 Roofing & Porch 10 wks Thu 6/2/05 Thu 8/11/05
17 Building Envelope Complete 0 days Thu 8/11/05 Thu 8/11/05
18 Lower Level / Studio Theater / Lower Orchestra Pit MEP Rough-In & Millwork 44.5 wks Thu 5/19/05 Wed 4/5/06
19 Ground Floor / Main Theater / Stage MEP Rough-In & Millwork 43 wks Fri 6/3/05 Fri 4/7/06
20 2nd Floor / Lower Balcony MEP Rough-In & Millwork 34 wks Fri 6/17/05 Fri 2/17/06
21 3rd Floor / Upper Balcony / Catwalk / Gridiron MEP Rough-In & Millwork 40.5 wks Fri 7/1/05 Wed 4/19/06
22 System Start Up & Testing 2 wks Wed 4/5/06 Tue 4/18/06
23 Complete Siteworks - Utilites/Hardscape/Infrasctructure 30 wks Mon 6/6/05 Mon 1/9/06
24 Commissioning, Weather Delay, Final Inspections 10 wks Wed 4/19/06 Wed 6/28/06
25 Project Substantial Completion 0 days Thu 6/29/06 Thu 6/29/06
General Contractor Selection
Design Packages
Budget, Bid & Establish Project GMP
9/20 Release Major Subcontractors
Submit / Approve / Release Key Materials
CONSTRUC
10/1 NTP
Initial Siteworks & Demolition
Footings & Elevator Pit
Underslab MEP
Concrete floor slabs
Steel Superstructure & Metal Decking
4/28 Building Structure Complete
Aluminum Curtainwall
Roofing & Porch
8/11 Building Envelope Complete
Lower Level / Studio The
Ground Floor / Main The
2nd Floor / Lower Balcony ME
3rd Floor / Upper Balc
System Start Up & Tes
Complete Siteworks - Utilites/Hard
Commissioni
6/29 Project Subs
Mar Apr a Jun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec Jan e Mar Apr a Jun Jul AugSep Oct2004 2005 2006
Mercersburg Academy Center for the Arts Construction Schedule
Appendix D - AGI 32 Outputs – Renderings & FC Distributions
AGI 32 Curtainwall Lighting Studies Surface Location of FC Value* Outisde Concrete 5 feet in from the center of the curtainwall Painted Hardwood 5 feet in from the center of the wall 2nd Floor Walkway 3 feet in from the center of the wall
* Note - Average taken of two typical
layout Footcandle Values
CW Arrangement Outside Concrete Painted Hardwood
2nd Floor Walkway
Teak & Mahogany Original Viracon 3:00 PM Lights 183 106 88 3:00 PM NL 180 55 33 Night Lights 3 52 54 Low-E Viracon 3:00 PM NL 194 49 34 Night Lights 3 52 53 Mahogany Original Viracon 3:00 PM Lights 183 106 89 3:00 PM NL 181 55 34 Night Lights 3 52 55 Aluminum Original Viracon 3:00 PM Lights 202 106 85 3:00 PM NL 199 55 33 Night Lights 3 52 56 Low-E Viracon 3:00 PM NL 198 49 30 Night Lights 3 52 55 Outdoor Lights Low-E Viracon Teak & Mahogany 9 55 54 Aluminum 10 55 55
Default Teak & Mahogany 3:00 PM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Default Teak & Mahogany 3:00 PM No Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Default Teak & Mahogany 12:00 AM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
All Mahogany 3:00 PM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
All Mahogany 3:00 PM No Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
All Mahogany 12:00 AM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Aluminum 3:00 PM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Aluminum 3:00 PM No Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Aluminum 12:00 AM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Teak & Mahogany with VIRACON Windows 3:00 PM No Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Teak & Mahogany with VIRACON Windows 12:00 AM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Aluminum with VIRACON Windows 3:00 PM No Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Aluminum with VIRACON Windows 12:00 AM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
OUTDOOR LIGHTS on Teak & Mahogany Default CW 12:00 AM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood
OUTDOOR LIGHTS on Aluminum CW 12:00 AM Lights Rendering
Footcandle Distributions 2nd Floor Walkway
Concrete & Painted Hardwood Floor
Appendix D – Lighting Energy Calculations
Energy Cost Summary
Lighting Arrangement Annual KWh $ per KWh Yearly Cost
Current Scheme 459872 $ 0.05
$ 22,994
Proposed Changes Add outdoor fixtures Energy impact $372 Cost $5,661 Turn off lobby lights during daytime hours Energy impact $1,896 Cost NA
Proposed Scheme 429392 $ 0.05
$ 21,470
ANNUAL SAVINGS $ 1,524
SAVINGS IN 20 YEARS $ 30,480
Cost of Proposed Changes $ 5,661
Current Lighting Scheme
MACA Lighting Wattage Calculations * Excludes Theater Lighting Current Scheme
Fixture Watts per Fixture #
Fixtures Hours Operation per Day Total Wattage per Year AL - 1 50 46 12 10046400 AM - 1 70 16 12 4892160 AP - 1 50 21 24 9172800 AP - 2 90 30 24 23587200 AP - 5 375 10 24 32760000 BA - 1 42 3 12 550368 BF - 1 42 46 12 8438976 BF - 2 26 32 12 3634176 CF - 1 64 30 12 8386560 CF - 2 64 6 12 1677312
CF - 2A 64 5 12 1397760 DC - 1 80 62 12 21665280 DC - 2 80 38 12 13278720 DF - 1 42 101 24 37058112
DF - 1A 42 78 24 28619136 DF - 2 32 17 24 4752384 DF - 3 39 6 24 2044224
DF - 3A 39 6 24 2044224 DF - 4 36 6 12 943488 DF - 5 13 4 12 227136 DL - 1 50 77 12 16816800 DM - 1 70 15 12 4586400 PA - 1 90 18 12 7076160 PF - 1 108 19 12 8963136 PF - 2 96 51 12 21385728 PF - 3 162 68 12 48117888 PP - LLW 32 8 12 1118208
RF - 2 39 56 12 9539712 SF 32 4 12 559104
TP - C 32 72 12 10063872 UA - 1 100 25 12 10920000 UF - 1 108 22 12 10378368 W - 4 32 29 12 4053504 WL - 1 32 8 12 1118208 XST - 1 18 7 24 1100736 XST - 2 3 17 24 445536 YY - 1A 225 45 24 88452000
Annual Wh 459871776 Annual KWh 459872 Cost per KWh $ 0.05
Annual Lighting Bill $
22,993.59
Proposed Scheme
MACA Lighting Wattage Calculations * Excludes Theater Lighting Proposed Scheme - Outdoor Light Addition, No Lobby Lights During Daytime
Fixture Watts per Fixture #
Fixtures Hours Operation per Day Total Wattage per Year AL - 1 50 46 12 10046400 AM - 1 70 16 0 0 AP - 1 50 21 24 9172800 AP - 2 90 18 24 14152320 AP - 5 375 10 24 32760000 BA - 1 42 3 12 550368 BF - 1 42 46 12 8438976 BF - 2 26 32 12 3634176 CF - 1 64 30 12 8386560 CF - 2 64 6 12 1677312
CF - 2A 64 5 12 1397760 DC - 1 80 62 12 21665280 DC - 2 80 38 12 13278720 DF - 1 42 101 24 37058112
DF - 1A 42 78 24 28619136 DF - 2 32 17 24 4752384 DF - 3 39 6 24 2044224
DF - 3A 39 6 24 2044224 DF - 4 36 6 12 943488 DF - 5 13 4 12 227136 DL - 1 50 77 12 16816800 DM - 1 70 15 12 4586400
Outdoor 100 17 12 7425600 PA - 1 90 18 12 7076160 PF - 1 108 19 12 8963136 PF - 2 96 51 12 21385728 PF - 3 162 68 12 48117888 PP - LLW 32 8 12 1118208
RF - 2 39 56 12 9539712 SF 32 4 12 559104
TP - C 32 72 12 10063872 UA - 1 100 25 12 10920000 UF - 1 108 22 12 10378368 W - 4 32 29 12 4053504 WL - 1 32 8 12 1118208 XST - 1 18 7 24 1100736 XST - 2 3 17 24 445536
YY - 1A 225 33 24 64864800 Annual Wh 429383136 Annual KWh 429383 Cost per KWh $ 0.05
Annual Lighting Bill $
21,469.16
Typical Lighting Bill $
22,993.59 SAVINGS $1,524.43
Appendix E – HAP Outputs Default T&M Curtainwall Layout
T&M Curtainwall w/ Viracon Low-E Glazing
Appendix E – Thermal Gradient Calculations TEAK & MAHOGANY CURTAINWALL SYSTEM Default Windows Varying Middle Layers Coefficient of Transmission - U-Values
Space R (HR-SF-
F/BTU) 1" Fritted Glass 3.45 1" Annealed Glass 3.34 Wood 1.6 Averaging Middle Layer U-Values U avg = 0.33(U annealed) + 0.58(U fritted) + 0.09(U wood) U avg = 3.247 R avg = 0.308 Overall CW Composition Coefficient of Transmission - U-Values
Space R (HR-SF-
F/BTU) Outside - 15 mph wind 0.17 Average Middle Value 0.308 Inside 0.68 Total R-Value 1.158
Total U-Value 0.864 U = 1/R
Thermal Gradient Calculations Tx = To + (Ti - To)(Sum Ro-x/Sum Ro-i) Ti = 70 To = 10 Ti - To = 60 Sum Ro-I = 1.158 Surface Sum Ro-x Tx 0 to 1 0.170 18.8 1 to 2 0.478 34.8 2 to 3 1.158 70.0
TEAK & MAHOGANY CURTAINWALL SYSTEM Viracon Low-E Glazing Varying Middle Layers Coefficient of Transmission - U-Values
Space R (HR-SF-
F/BTU) 1" Fritted Glass 3.45 1" Annealed Glass 4 Wood 1.6 Averaging Middle Layer U-Values U avg = 0.33(U annealed) + 0.58(U fritted) + 0.09(U wood) U avg = 3.465 R avg = 0.289 Overall CW Composition Coefficient of Transmission - U-Values
Space R (HR-SF-
F/BTU) Outside - 15 mph wind 0.17 Average Middle Value 0.289 Inside 0.68 Total R-Value 1.139
Total U-Value 0.878 U = 1/R
Thermal Gradient Calculations Tx = To + (Ti - To)(Sum Ro-x/Sum Ro-i) Ti = 70 To = 10 Ti - To = 60 Sum Ro-I = 1.139 Surface Sum Ro-x Tx 0 to 1 0.170 19.0 1 to 2 0.459 34.2 2 to 3 1.139 70.0
Temperature Increase Through Glazing
Surface Current T&M Glazing Viracon Low-E Glazing Outside 10 10
Outer Film 18.8 19.0 Glazing 34.8 34.2 Inside 70.0 70.0
Increase in
Temperature Across 16.0 15.2 Glazing
Current Teak & Mahogany Glazing 80 75
70
65 70 60 55
°F 50 45 40 35
30 34.8 25 20 18.8 15 10 10 5 0 Outdoors Glazing Indoors
Temperature Increase Through Glazing
Surface Current T&M Glazing Viracon Low-E Glazing Outside 10 10
Outer Film 18.8 19.0 Glazing 34.8 34.2 Inside 70.0 70.0
Increase in
Temperature Across 16.0 15.2 Glazing
Viracon Low-E Glazing 80 75
70
65 70 60 55
°F 50 45 40 35
30 34.2 25 20 19 15 10 10 5 0 Outdoors Glazing Indoors
Appendix E – Mechanical Energy Calculations
MACA Mechanical Wattage Calculations * Includes Supply & Return Fans Only Typical Mechanical Layout
Supply & Return Fans CFM Current -
I Voltage -
V Power - P=IV Hours On per Day Annual Wattage-hr S -1 35000 250 460 115000 9 376740000 S -2 10000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -3 10000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -4 15400 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -5 16500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -6 3500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -7 5000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -8 3500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 1 35000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 2 10000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 3 10000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 4 15400 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 5 16500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 6 3500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 7 5000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 8 3500 100 460 46000 9 150696000
Total Wattage-hr 2637180000 Total KWh 2637180
Cost per KWh $ 0.05
Total Annual
Electrical
Costs from Mechanical
$ 131,859
MACA Mechanical Wattage Calculations * Includes Supply & Return Fans Only Viracon Low-E Glazing Units
Supply & Return Fans CFM Current -
I Voltage -
V Power - P=IV Hours On per Day Annual Wattage-hr S -1 35000 250 460 115000 9 376740000 S -2 10000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -3 10000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -4 15400 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -5 16500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -6 3500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -7 5000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 S -8 3500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 1 35000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 2 10000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 3 10000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 4 15400 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 5 16500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 6 3500 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 7 5000 100 460 46000 9 150696000 R - 8 3500 100 460 46000 9 150696000
Total Wattage-hr 2637180000 Total KWh 2637180
Cost per KWh $ 0.05
Total Annual
Electrical
Costs from Mechanical
$ 131,859
SAVINGS for Viracon 6%
New Annual Electrical
Costs from Mechanical
$ 123,947
Money Saved Annually
$ 7,912
top related