A little about myself

Transcription

1 Mercersburg Academy Center for the Arts 2005 Senior Thesis Management Option 5 th year MAE/BAE Management Option Graduate in December 2005 James G. Davis A little about myself 2 Presentation Outline Project Team Project Team MACA Building Statistics Owner Curtainwall Background Overall Thesis Goals Analysis I Trends in CW Design & Analysis II CW Constructability Analysis III Daylighting Analysis IV Heat Transmission Study of the CW Project-wide effects of recommendations Questions Owner Mercersburg Academy GC Davis Architect Polshek Architects 3 4 1

2 MACA Building Statistics Owner Located in Mercersburg, PA Home to Mercersburg Academy s Music & Theater Departments Total project cost of million 4 Stories 66,500 square feet Mercersburg Academy Not the typical owner Owner favors quality over schedule & cost No strict schedule for MACA Plenty of funding from wealthy alumni HS Boarding Tuition 34,700 / year 5 6 Curtainwall Background Teak & mahogany CW system Wooden, custom built by Duratherm Windows Present on all building elevations 16,864 square feet of CW 32 typical panels 30 feet tall CW Cost = 1,294,563 Material = 61 / SF Labor = 29 / SF Total = 91 / SF 12 week schedule 3 weeks per elevation Curtainwall Background 7 8 2

3 Overall Thesis Goals Make recommendations to Mercersburg concerning the CW system Educate Owners Project Managers Myself Create a curtainwall reference 9 I Trends in CW Design & Background Many issues presently troubling the building industry concerning the design and construction of curtainwall systems General lack of knowledge Unique T&M curtainwall system will require intense coordination efforts from design and construction ends 10 I Trends in CW Design & Analysis I Process Research & building industry survey to gather information Formulate solutions to critical issues Analysis I Goal Improve design & construction process for CW projects Summary chart of key issues & respective solutions Implementation on MACA and other CW projects 11 I Trends in CW Design & Questions with unanimous responses #7 Holding CW coordination meetings for all subs, somewhat like MEP meetings, would reduce field conflicts Agree #12 Subs certified to install wooden CW systems are much rarer than those that install aluminum CW systems Agree 12 3

4 Key Issue Poor team communication & coordination Presence of field conflicts Curtainwall leaks Curtainwall schedule problems I Trends in CW Design & Solution Design-build team arrangement Sub reward CW coordination meetings CW mock-up Accurate submittal log CW coordination meetings Accurate schedule Comments Sub submitting bid & completed drawings Complete work on-time and solve own issues All subs involved must attend Time/money for mock-up nothing compared to lost time Must begin at an early date Subs discuss which activities they are responsible for Must be effectively communicated I Trends in CW Design & Conclusion CW coordination meetings are an important tool in combating CW issues The previous summary chart will serve as a reference tool to educate Mercersburg Academy and other building industry personnel CW coordination meetings Subs discuss schedule II CW Constructability Background CW construction is frequently on the critical path in a CPM schedule Must fit into & interact well with the rest of the schedule Completion of the CW signifies the building enclosure Allows for the start of interior trades 15 II CW Constructability Analysis II Process Analyze & compare the T&M and aluminum CW systems based on schedule & material/installation costs Analysis II Goal Provide Mercersburg Academy with comparison chart 16 4

5 II CW Constructability II CW Constructability Total SF Curtainwall = 16,864 System Teak & Mahogany Aluminum Total Cost 1,294,563 1,011,840 Material / SF Comparison Table Labor / SF Schedule (weeks) 12 5 Process Rigid Flexible Conclusion The aluminum CW system outperforms the T&M CW in every aspect on the previous chart, except for one: Mercersburg's value of quality over schedule and cost The final recommendation is to keep the current T&M CW system III Daylighting Study of the CW Background Over 90% of the curtainwall façade is composed of glazing units Daylighting is an important tool for achieving safely illuminated spaces and cutting energy costs III Daylighting Study of the CW Analysis III Process Daylighting study of various CW arrangements safely illuminate lobby & outdoor patio areas cut energy costs Analysis III Goals Achieve safely illuminated lobby & outdoor patio Save on annual lighting energy costs

6 AGI Tests CW Arrangement Teak & Mahogany Add Outdoor Lights Mahogany Add Outdoor Lights Aluminum Add Outdoor Lights III Daylighting Study of the CW 3:00 PM Lights 21 Daylight 3:00 PM No Lights Night 12:00 AM Lights III Daylighting Study of the CW Two proposed changes to the lighting system surfaced during the daylighting study: Add outdoor fixtures on patio area Cost = 5,661 Lighting Energy Impact = Adds 372 annually DOUBLES FC value on outdoor patio at night Turn off lobby lights during the day* Cost = Nothing Lighting Energy Impact = Saves 1,896 annually *Assumes lights are going to be running during the day 22 Lighting Energy Cost Summary Implementing BOTH Proposals ANNUAL SAVINGS SAVINGS IN 20 YEARS Cost of Proposed Changes III Daylighting Study of the CW Annual KWh % SAVINGS 23 per KWh 0.05 Yearly Cost 21,470 1,524 30,480 5,661 III Daylighting Study of the CW Conclusion Changing frame/glazing type has no effect on the daylighting abilities of a CW system Keep the T&M CW system The final recommendation is to implement the changes to the lighting system Safer outdoor patio area Saves over 1,500 in annual lighting energy costs Payback period of 5 years 24 6

7 IV Heat Transmission Background CW composition can have enormous implications on energy costs for a building Majority of MACA façade composed of T&M CW The T&M CW on MACA becomes an important tool in preventing heat loss IV Heat Transmission Analysis IV Process HAP analysis & thermal gradient to determine effect CW glazing has on mechanical loads & heat transmission Energy costs from the mechanical system Changes based on cost & performance of glazing types Analysis IV Goal To determine if the switch to Viracon Low-E glazing should be made IV Heat Transmission Thermal gradient study was performed for the original T&M CW system with the following glazing types Default glazing units U-value of 0.29 Viracon Low-E glazing U-value of 0.25 Following increases in temperature across the glazing were obtained Default glazing = 47.5 F Viracon Low-E glazing = 48.1 F 27 HAP analysis Glazing Unit Default Viracon Low- E Cost of Curtainwall 1,294,563 1,320,4 IV Heat Transmission Sum of Peak CFM Total Coil Load 10.9 MBH 10.3 MBH 28 Mechanical Energy impact System Default Glazing Viracon Low-E Glazing Viracon SAVINGS KWh % SAVINGS Annual Energy Cost 31,859 29,629 2,230 7

8 Conclusion Though the thermal gradient produced no useful results, the HAP analysis provided excellent feedback The final recommendation is to switch to the Viracon Low-E glazing units Annual mechanical energy savings of 2,300 Payback period of 10 years Higher quality, better performing system IV Heat Transmission 29 Glazing Unit Default Viracon Low-E Switch to Viracon Difference Payback Cost of Curtainwall 1,294,563 1,320,4 25,890 Annual Energy Costs 31,859 29,629 2, Years Project-wide Effects of Recommendations Analysis I Summary chart Analysis II Keep T&M CW Analysis III Adding outdoor fixtures & turning off lobby lights during the day Outdoor fixtures additional task for lighting sub Coordination between lighting, electrical & roofing sub Analysis IV Switch to the Viracon Low-E glazing units Both glazing units are from Viracon No extra schedule time required Installation can be done by same sub as before 30 Questions? Thanks to: Penn State University Dr. Riley & the CM Faculty Dr. Mistrick James G. Davis Ted Holt Bill Moyer George Robinson Mercersburg Academy Polshek Architects My friends & family Fellow 5 th years Jason Borowski, Pat Dempsey, & Ben Mitten 31 8

9 Architecture 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 & Historical Zoning and Historical The zoning for the Center for the Arts could be best classified as an academic campus. Mercersburg Academy was founded in 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 Building Envelope The vast majority of the Ground and Second Floor façade is composed of a teak and mahogany windowwall 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 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

10 Lighting 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). Lighting Lobby area lighting AM-1: Recessed PAR30 metal halide adjustable accent light 39/70 watts Were eventually turned off during the day AP-2: Track mounted PAR38 halogen adjustable accent light 90 watts YY-1A: Recessed one circuit track 75 watts per linear foot Lighting Added outdoor lights (17 total) 100 W flood lights Surface mounted 333 per light Material and installation Mechanical 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

11 Structural 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. Percent Answers 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% #3A - C I Trends in CW Design & #4 - A/B #5 - C Survey Responses #6 - A #7 - A #8 - A Top Answer #9 - A #10 - A #11 - A #12 - A II CW Constructability II CW Constructability T&M CW Installation Process: Shim sill level and space equally at bottom. Check unit for location and shim jambs at bottom center. Check unit head for plumb and shim jambs at top center. Check for square, adjusting accordingly. Install fasteners at four corners. Shim adjacent to intermediate anchor point and install fasteners. Re-check for square. Install matching wood plugs. Install backer rod and sealant at exterior joints. Attach exterior trim with stainless steel fasteners. Aluminum CW Installation Process: Building layout clip installation. Erect vertical sticks. Install horizontal frames. Prep system for glass. Install glass. Install exterior covers and sills. Install interior covers and sills. Perimeter caulking

12 III Daylighting Study of the CW CW Arrangement Teak & Mahogany Outside Concrete Footcandle Values Painted Hardwood 2nd Floor Walkway 3:00 PM Lights :00 PM NL Night Lights AGI 32 Curtainwall Lighting Studies 3:00 PM NL Night Lights Mahogany Surface Location of FC Value* 3:00 PM Lights Outside Concrete 5 feet in from the center of the curtainwall 3:00 PM NL Painted Hardwood 5 feet in from the center of the wall Night Lights nd Floor Walkway 3 feet in from the center of the wall Aluminum * Note - Average taken of two 3:00 PM Lights typical layout 3:00 PM NL Night Lights :00 PM NL Night Lights Outdoor Lights Teak & Mahogany Aluminum Lobby & Outdoor Patio Floor Plans Default T&M No Lights 48 12

13 Aluminum No Lights Default T&M Outdoor Lights Added Energy Cost Summary Lighting Arrangement Annual KWh per KWh Yearly Cost Surface Outside Current T&M Glazing 10 Viracon Low-E Glazing 10 Current Scheme Proposed Changes Add outdoor fixtures ,994 Outer Film Energy impact Cost 5, Glazing Inside Turn off lobby lights during daytime hours Energy impact 1,896 Cost NA Increase in Proposed Scheme ,470 Temperature ANNUAL SAVINGS 1,524 Across Glazing SAVINGS IN 20 YEARS Cost of Proposed Changes 30,480 5,661 13

14 Comparison of Curtainwall Costs IV Heat Transmission Curtainwall System Teak & Mahogany Glazing Cost 1,294,563 Keeps you warmer in the winter U-Value 1,320,4 Mahogany 1,165,107 Aluminum 1,011,840 Keeps you cooler in the summer Solar Heat Gain Coefficient 1,032,077 T&M w/ Outdoor Lights 1,326,116 Alum. w/ Outdoor Lights 1,037,738 Reduces UV energy and allows visible light Transmittance IV Heat Transmission Default Glazing Properties % of Visible Solar Winter Shading Glass Type Typical CW Transmittance Transmittance U-Value Coefficient Annealed 5% Tempered 28% Fritted 58%