Mercersburg Academy – Center for the Arts · • 7 fan coil units. • 2 chilled and hot water centrifugal pumps. ... This thesis deals primarily with the construction of Mercersburg

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


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


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


- 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.


- 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.


- 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


- 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.


- 8 -

Similarly, the mechanical analysis, curtainwall heat transmission, compares the heat transfer

impacts of the default glazing against those of a “low-e” glazing.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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


- 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.


- 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


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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)


- 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.


- 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


- 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.”


- 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


- 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


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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


- 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


- 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.


- 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


T&M w/ Outdoor Lights


Alum. w/ Outdoor Lights


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.


- 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.


- 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


$ 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.


- 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


Alum. w/ Outdoor Lights


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.


- 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.


- 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.


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.


- 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


- 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:


- 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.


- 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


- 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)


- 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


- 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.


- 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.


- 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,


- 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.


- 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” [email protected]. 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.


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.


11.) Wooden window-wall systems, such as teak and mahogany, present durability issues when

compared to another curtainwall system (i.e. aluminum).


12.) Subcontractors certified to install wooden curtainwall systems are much rarer than those that

install aluminum systems.


______________________________________________________________________________________ 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 [email protected]

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



Default Teak & Mahogany 12:00 AM Lights Rendering



All Mahogany 3:00 PM Lights Rendering



All Mahogany 3:00 PM No Lights Rendering



All Mahogany 12:00 AM Lights Rendering



Aluminum 3:00 PM Lights Rendering



Aluminum 3:00 PM No Lights Rendering



Aluminum 12:00 AM Lights Rendering



Teak & Mahogany with VIRACON Windows 3:00 PM No Lights Rendering



Teak & Mahogany with VIRACON Windows 12:00 AM Lights Rendering



Aluminum with VIRACON Windows 3:00 PM No Lights Rendering



Aluminum with VIRACON Windows 12:00 AM Lights Rendering



OUTDOOR LIGHTS on Teak & Mahogany Default CW 12:00 AM Lights Rendering


Concrete & Painted Hardwood

OUTDOOR LIGHTS on Aluminum CW 12:00 AM Lights Rendering



Appendix D – Lighting Energy Calculations

Energy Cost Summary

Lighting Arrangement Annual KWh $ per KWh Yearly Cost


$ 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




Increase in


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




Increase in


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


$ 131,859

SAVINGS for Viracon 6%

New Annual Electrical


$ 123,947

Money Saved Annually

$ 7,912

Documents

Mercersburg Academy – Center for the Arts · • 7 fan coil units. • 2 chilled and hot water centrifugal pumps. ... This thesis deals primarily with the construction of Mercersburg