Alexandria, VA Jack E. Nill III Construction Management Dr. Messner Senior Thesis Presentation Spring 2005 The Pennsylvania State University Episcopal

Alexandria, VA

Jack E. Nill III Construction

Management Dr. Messner

Senior Thesis Presentation Spring Senior Thesis Presentation Spring 20052005

The Pennsylvania State UniversityThe Pennsylvania State University

Episcopal High SchoolEpiscopal High SchoolNew Science FacilityNew Science Facility

Jack E. Nill IIIConstruction Management

Episcopal High School New Science FacilityEpiscopal High School New Science FacilityAlexandria, VAAlexandria, VA

Senior Thesis Spring 2005Penn State University

Presentation OutlinePresentation OutlineIntroductionIntroduction

Project BackgroundProject Background

Wall System Analysis and RedesignWall System Analysis and Redesign

Mechanical AnalysisMechanical Analysis

Storm Water Reclamation System AnalysisStorm Water Reclamation System Analysis

Conclusions & RecommendationsConclusions & Recommendations

QuestionsQuestions




IntroductionIntroduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

IntroductionIntroductionIntended Use:

As a laboratory and science teaching facility for Episcopal High School

Key Issues/Features:1. LEED Silver Rating2. Laboratory Fume Hoods require 100%

outside air3. Unique Storm Water Management system4. Architectural Rotunda to geographically tie

to Jefferson Memorial5. Four different types of Laboratories with in

the facility




Introduction

ProjectProject

BackgroundBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions


Project Cost: $9.1 Million Project Size: 43,000 SF, 2 Stories

Architecture: Red Brick Façade with Aluminum Paneling

Architectural Rotunda with Aluminum framed glazing

Greenhouse on south end

Project Start : August 2004Project Finish: May 2005




Introduction

ProjectProject


Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Project BackgroundProject BackgroundProject Team

Owner/Occupant: Episcopal High School

DesignArchitect: Graham Gund ArchitectsStructural Engineer: LeMessurier ConsultantsMEP Engineer: R.G. Vanderweil

Project ManagementGeneral Contractor: Forrester ConstructionCM: Advanced Project Management




Introduction

ProjectProject


Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Project BackgroundProject BackgroundRelevant Systems Background

Building Envelope: •Red Brick Veneer •Metal Stud Back-up•½” Sheathing•Typical Building Paper with continuous vapor barrier•Batt insulation•Gypsum Wall Board

Mechanical System: •Air cooled Rotary Chiller (194 Tons), •Split-System Air-Conditioning Unit System w/ VAV and CV boxes •Three Air Handling Units totaling 37450 cfm capacity




Introduction

ProjectProject


Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions





Introduction

ProjectProject


Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

LEED SummaryLEED SummaryLEED-NC Silver Rating (33-38 point)LEED-NC Silver Rating (33-38 point)

• EHS New Science Facility scheduled to obtain 33 EHS New Science Facility scheduled to obtain 33 pointspoints

Focus Areas:Focus Areas:

1.1. EA – Energy and Atmosphere EA – Energy and Atmosphere

(3 of 17 possible points and all Prerequisites (3 of 17 possible points and all Prerequisites met)met)

2.2. WE – Water Efficiency WE – Water Efficiency

(5 of 5 possible points and all Prerequisites (5 of 5 possible points and all Prerequisites met)met)

3.3. ID - Innovation and Design Process ID - Innovation and Design Process

(3 of 5 possible points)(3 of 5 possible points)




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemWall System

AnalysisAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Analysis I: Wall System Analysis and Analysis I: Wall System Analysis and RedesignRedesign

BackgroundBackground: :

•Up to 40% of energy consumed to heat or cool a building is due to Air infiltration.

GoalsGoals: :

•Implement a Zero Percent Air Infiltration System in order to lower the infiltration values of the wall system significantly, analyze the impacts of the new system, and determine the feasibility of the new system in green construction practices.




Introduction

ProjectBackground


AnalysisAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Analysis I: Wall System Analysis andAnalysis I: Wall System Analysis and

RedesignRedesign

Causes of Infiltration

1. The Stack Effect

2. Chimney’s

3. Wind

4. Forced Hot-Air Heating Systems




Introduction

ProjectBackground


AnalysisAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Advantages of Using an Air BarrierAdvantages of Using an Air Barrier

• Prevent premature deterioration of the building envelope

• Enhance thermal performance of the structure and save energy costs

• Improve comfort for the building occupants• Decreased moisture infiltration into wall cavity,

lowering probability of mold issues within the building envelope




Introduction

ProjectBackground


AnalysisAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Analysis I: Wall System Analysis and Analysis I: Wall System Analysis and RedesignRedesign

Design CriteriaDesign Criteria

• Air Barrier Product: Grace Perm-A-Barrier Air Barrier Product: Grace Perm-A-Barrier membrane in place of Building Paper and membrane in place of Building Paper and Continuous Vapor BarrierContinuous Vapor Barrier

• Grace Perm-A-Barrier Wall conditioner applied Grace Perm-A-Barrier Wall conditioner applied prior to self adhesive membraneprior to self adhesive membrane

• Membrane wrapped into window frames and Membrane wrapped into window frames and sealed by glazersealed by glazer

• Bituthene mastic used to seal all penetrations Bituthene mastic used to seal all penetrations

• Perm-A-Barrier Wall Flashing used and sealed to Perm-A-Barrier Wall Flashing used and sealed to membranemembrane




Introduction

ProjectBackground


AnalysisAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions Perm-A-Barrier Membrane

Bituthene Mastic PAB Wall Flashing




Introduction

ProjectBackground


AnalysisAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

CM Concerns and IssuesCM Concerns and Issues

• Quality of Construction!!!Quality of Construction!!!

• Coordination with other trades for the Coordination with other trades for the building envelopebuilding envelope

• Integration with the Roof and Foundation Integration with the Roof and Foundation wallwall

• Availability of MaterialsAvailability of Materials

• CostCost

• Schedule impactsSchedule impacts




Introduction

ProjectBackground


AnalysisAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Cost and Schedule Impacts of Perm-A-Cost and Schedule Impacts of Perm-A-BarrierBarrier

• Initially $33,558 more expensive ($1.41/SF more)Initially $33,558 more expensive ($1.41/SF more)

• Adds 7 days to the schedule but not on the critical Adds 7 days to the schedule but not on the critical pathpath




Introduction

ProjectBackground


AnalysisAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Infiltration ImpactsInfiltration Impacts

Infiltration

Value

Reduction on

Demand

Energy Savings

Energy Cost

Savings

Return on Investme

nt

4 e-6 cfm/sf .3716 W/SF8% Heating 6% Cooling

1%$1,180/year

30 + years




Introduction

ProjectBackground


AnalysisAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Conclusions and RecommendationsConclusions and Recommendations

EHS New Science Facility

• For this particular project an Air Barrier Wall System is not a feasible solution to a more efficient building envelope.

Industry

• In more extreme climates such as Canada, however, this type of system has proven to significantly reduce energy costs associated with heating the building.

• Annual cost savings of up to $6,000 have been seen by using similar Air Barrier systems to reduce air leakage.

• Could prove useful on other high performance/green projects in the future.




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalMechanical

AnalysisAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Analysis II: Mechanical AnalysisAnalysis II: Mechanical Analysis

Background:

•Fume Hoods in the laboratories and the recent adoption of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code (ICC) by the state of VA were driving factors in this analysis

•High performance Mechanical Systems can result in long term energy savings as well as cost savings to the owner

Goals:

•To maximize energy efficiency of the mechanical system by adding sustainable upgrades

•Determine the feasibility of such upgrades using DOE 2.2 cost modeling and based on ROI to the owner and CM issues encountered




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

Sustainable UpgradesSustainable Upgrades

• Variable air volume with variable frequency drives

• Heat Recovery on AHU 3

• Water Cooled Chiller vs. Air Cooled Chiller

• CO2 monitors




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

DOE 2.2 Energy Cost ModelingDOE 2.2 Energy Cost Modeling

What is DOE 2.2?

- Energy cost modeling software used in the industry to determine the energy costs of a building based on its components and location (Department Of Energy)

Assumptions:1) Electric Costs based on Virginia Electric and Power Company Schedules GS-3 with fuel charges of $0.01613/kWh2) Gas costs based on Washington Gas3) Two position hood control in both cases4) Chiller performance based on performance info provided from Trane5) Weather data averaged over 25 year records




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions


• Net Cost Savings of $.77/SF/Year• A 16% Energy Savings seen (1 LEED Point)




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions





Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions

CM ConcernsCM ConcernsUpgradeUpgrade CM Issue or ConcernCM Issue or Concern

VAV w/ VFD’s

1) Long lead time2) Special controls and wiring requiring specialty tradesmen3) Testing and Balancing4) User/Operator Training

Heat Recovery on AHU3

1) Longer lead time on equipment2) Slightly more space needed: both for the unit as well as

extra piping

Water Cooled Chiller

1) Increased coordination amongst trades due to increased components

2) More space required3) More installation time required4) Proper sealant of connections5) Delivery coordination with building enclosures to ensure it

fits into the building

CO2 Monitors

1) Long lead time2) Special controls and wiring requiring specialty tradesmen3) Testing and Balancing4) User/Operator Training




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

Conclusions


• The Sustainable Upgrades result in a $19,900/year savings which will pay for itself in <5 years

• Cost Savings to the owner will be seen after 5 years of operation

• Early Coordination and quality of construction is the key to mitigating CM concerns




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsSWR Systems

AnalysisAnalysis

Conclusions

Analysis III: Storm Water Reclamation Analysis III: Storm Water Reclamation SystemSystem

Background:

• In the United States approximately 340 billion gallons of water are withdrawn from the sources available per day.

• SWR Systems can reduce potable water usage on a project by up to 60% just by reusing rain water

• A recent survey indicated that 69% of industry members have not worked on a project with a SWR system.

Goals:

•To study Existing SWR systems and their issues impacting construction to better understand how to utilize such systems without incurring cost negating the benefits gained.




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

Conclusions

Analysis III: Storm Water Reclamation Analysis III: Storm Water Reclamation SystemSystem

What is a SWR system?

• A system that catches rain water runoff and stores it in a storage tank to be treated and reused in the building or irrigation system to reduce the amount of potable water required from the source

Case Studies

1. EHS New Science Facility

2. Chesapeake Bay Foundation Philip Merill Environmental Center

3. The PSU SALA Building




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

Conclusions

EHS New Science Facility SWR EHS New Science Facility SWR SchematicSchematic




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

Conclusions

Project/System Type

CM Concerns and Issues

EHS NSF Building

1. Extensive coordination with other trades to ensure rough-ins and connections are correct before backfilling.

2. Coordination with foundations systems to ensure pump vault is not in the way and is complete before slab on grade is poured.

3. Warranties from manufacturers are not compromised (for pumps and tanks). Is the pump submersible or does it require a conditioned space?

4. Surface above the tank is protected against heavy machinery (especially if close to the building footprint)

5. Delays will result in large schedule impacts since it is on the critical path.

CBFPMEC Building

1. Tanks are not in the way of construction2. Aesthetics of tanks is not compromised during installation3. Crane is onsite for placement of tanks4. Rough-ins are completed prior to installation of tanks5. Gravity lines have necessary drop to maintain flow6. Long lead times for tanks

PSU SALA Building

1. Tanks are not in the way of construction2. Rough-ins are completed and tested prior to tank installation

and backfill3. Gravity lines have necessary drop to maintain flow4. Significant lead time for tanks




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

Conclusions

System Advantages DisadvantagesEHS NSF

Building(Sub grade)

1. No site space required2. Aesthetically pleasing3. Freeze protected (if below

the frost line)4. Cheaper non aesthetic tanks

allowed

1. Pumps required to allocate water into the building

2. Intense sequencing and coordination issues for installation

3. Critical to the schedule of the project due to sub-grade components

4. Difficult to detect leaks

CBFPMEC Building

(above grade)

1. Pumps to allocate water eliminated (gravity)

2. Sequencing not critical (can install and just hook into rough-in)

3. Coordination with other trades is less critical due to easy access to tanks

4. Easy to detect leaks

1. Aesthetic concerns2. Exposed to the elements3. More space required4. Site Congestion5. Gravity lines take precedence

PSU SALA Building

(partially above grade)

1. Pumps to allocate water eliminated (gravity)

2. Aesthetically pleasing3. Sequencing not critical (can

install and just hook into rough-in)

4. Easy to detect leaks

1. Critical to coordination of trades (piping rough-in and control systems)

2. More Space Required3. Site Congestion4. Gravity lines take precedence




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

Conclusions

Analysis III: Storm Water Reclamation Analysis III: Storm Water Reclamation SystemsSystems

EHS New Science FacilityConcern/Issue Action Taken Other Possible Actions

1. The pump warranty was voided due to the pump vault not located in a conditioned space.

1. Relocate the pump vault to a conditioned space inside the building footprint

1. Prior to purchasing look into submersible pumps that would save money vs. moving the entire pump vault.

2. The soil above the tank could not have any heavy machinery or load on it after the tank was installed. The tank is located right in the construction path next to the building footprint

2. Early coordination of scheduling trades with heavy machinery prior to installation and backfill of tank

2. Cover area over tank with supports to transfer heavy loads to soil with proper bearing capacity.




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

Conclusions


Chesapeake Bay Foundation Philip Merill CenterConcern/IssueConcern/Issue Action TakenAction Taken Other Possible Other Possible

ActionsActions

1. The long lead time for the tanks to be manufactured

1. Tank connections and plumbing rough-in to point of quick connection when the tanks were delivered

1. Earlier involvement of the CM/GC with the design to realize this would be an issue

2. A crane with significant capacity was required to place the tanks on the roof significantly after the crane had left from the earlier phases.

2. Brought in another crane with capacity to lift tanks into place. This was costly and time consuming compared to earlier coordination of lifting capabilities. Primarily caused by unexpected long lead time.

2. Early sequencing coordination with the crane to ensure another crane will not need to be brought back on site. This can only be done by earlier purchasing of the tanks to coordinate delivery with availability of the crane on site.




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis


AnalysisAnalysis

Conclusions


PSU SALA BuildingConcern/Issue Action Taken Other Possible

Actions

1. Utility cost savings analysis did not warrant the implementation of this system for irrigation control

1. One tank and the irrigation system were eliminated and the other was left to still obtain one LEED credit for storm water management. One credit was lost however

1. Use a more passive system that does not require pumps for the irrigation system.

2. Better research on Penn States maintenance and irrigation procedures




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis

ConclusionsConclusions


• The Air Barrier Wall system does not work well for this project but may be explored for future uses with high performance/green buildings

• The upgraded mechanical system is an excellent way to cut energy usage and save energy costs in the long run

• The SWR systems are an extremely useful tool to reduce the use of potable water and protect out natural resources. They are still extremely new but with proper planning and coordination they can be implemented with minimal conflicts on projects.




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis


AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Thank you to:

• Penn State AE Faculty and Advisors

• Forrester Construction Company

• Graham Gund Architects

• R.G. Vanderweil Engineers (Mechanical Engineer)

• My Friends and Family




Introduction

ProjectBackground

Wall SystemAnalysis

MechanicalAnalysis

SWR SystemsAnalysis


? Questions ?? Questions ?

Documents

Alexandria, VA Jack E. Nill III Construction Management Dr. Messner Senior Thesis Presentation Spring 2005 The Pennsylvania State University Episcopal