mercersburg academy – center for the arts
Post on 09-Jan-2016
25 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Mercersburg Academy –
Center for the Arts
Brad Cordek2005
Senior Thesis
Construction Management Option
Brad Cordek
2
A little about myself …
• 5th year MAE/BAE• Construction
Management Option• Graduate in December
2005• James G. Davis
Construction
Brad Cordek
3
Presentation Outline
• Project Team• MACA Building Statistics• Owner• Curtainwall Background• Overall Thesis Goals• Analysis I – Trends in CW
Design & Construction• Analysis II – CW
Constructability
• Analysis III – Daylighting Study of the CW
• Analysis IV – Heat Transmission Study of the CW
• Project-wide effects of recommendations
• Questions
Brad Cordek
4
Project Team
• Owner – Mercersburg Academy
• GC – Davis Construction
• Architect – Polshek Architects
Brad Cordek
5
MACA Building Statistics• Located in
Mercersburg, PA• Home to Mercersburg
Academy’s Music & Theater Departments
• Total project cost of $21.76 million
• 4 Stories• 66,500 square feet
Brad Cordek
6
Owner
• 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
Brad Cordek
7
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
Brad Cordek
8
Curtainwall Background
• CW Cost = $1,294,563– Material = $61 / SF– Labor = $29 / SF– Total = $91 / SF
• 12 week schedule– 3 weeks per elevation
Brad Cordek
9
Overall Thesis Goals
• Make recommendations to Mercersburg concerning the CW system
• Educate– Owners– Project Managers– Myself
• Create a curtainwall reference
Brad Cordek
10
I – Trends in CW Design & Construction
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
Brad Cordek
11
I – Trends in CW Design & Construction
Analysis I Process• Research & building industry survey to gather
information• Formulate solutions to critical issuesAnalysis I Goal• Improve design & construction process for CW
projects– Summary chart of key issues & respective solutions– Implementation on MACA and other CW projects
Brad Cordek
12
I – Trends in CW Design & Construction
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
Brad Cordek
13
I – Trends in CW Design & Construction
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
Brad Cordek
14
I – Trends in CW Design & Construction
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
Brad Cordek
15
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
Brad Cordek
16
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
Brad Cordek
17
II – CW Constructability
Total SF Curtainwall = 16,864
System Total Cost Material / SF Labor / SFSchedule
(weeks)Construction
Process
Teak & Mahogany $ 1,294,563
$ 61
$ 30 12 Rigid
Aluminum $ 1,011,840 $
45 $
15 5 Flexible
Comparison Table
Brad Cordek
18
II – CW Constructability
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
Brad Cordek
19
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
Brad Cordek
20
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
Brad Cordek
21
III – Daylighting Study of the CW
AGI Tests Daylight Night
3:00 PM 3:00 PM 12:00 AM
CW Arrangement Lights No 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
Brad Cordek
22
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
Brad Cordek
23
III – Daylighting Study of the CW
Lighting Energy Cost Summary
Annual KWh $ per KWh Yearly Cost
Implementing BOTH Proposals 429392 $ 0.05 $ 21,470
ANNUAL SAVINGS $ 1,524
SAVINGS IN 20 YEARS $ 30,480
Cost of Proposed Changes $ 5,661
7% SAVINGS
Brad Cordek
24
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
Brad Cordek
25
IV – Heat Transmission Study of the CW
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
Brad Cordek
26
IV – Heat Transmission Study of the CW
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
Brad Cordek
27
IV – Heat Transmission Study of the CW
• 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
Brad Cordek
28
IV – Heat Transmission Study of the CW
• HAP analysis • Mechanical Energy impact
Glazing Unit
Cost Sum of Total
of CurtainwallPeak
CFM Coil Load
Default $ 1,294,563 515 10.9 MBH
Viracon Low-E
$ 1,320,455 485 10.3 MBH
System KWhAnnual Energy
Cost
Default Glazing 637180 $
31,859
Viracon Low-E Glazing 598914
$ 29,629
Viracon SAVINGS $ 2,230
7% SAVINGS
Brad Cordek
29
IV – Heat Transmission Study of the CW
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
Glazing Unit
Cost Annual
of Curtainwall Energy Costs
Default $ 1,294,563 $ 31,859
Viracon Low-E $ 1,320,455 $ 29,629
Switch to Viracon
Difference $25,890 $2,230
Payback 10
Years
Brad Cordek
30
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
Brad Cordek
31
Questions ?• Thanks to:
– Penn State University• Dr. Riley & the CM Faculty• Dr. Mistrick
– James G. Davis Construction• Ted Holt• Bill Moyer• George Robinson
– Mercersburg Academy– Polshek Architects– My friends & family– Fellow 5th years Jason Borowski, Pat Dempsey,
& Ben Mitten
Brad Cordek
33
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.”
Brad Cordek
34
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 1893. Currently the campus has a large collection of historical buildings and old growth trees, both of which will need protection from construction activities.
Brad Cordek
35
Building Envelope
• 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.
Brad Cordek
36
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.
Brad Cordek
37
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).
Brad Cordek
38
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
Brad Cordek
39
Lighting
Added outdoor lights (17 total) 100 W flood lights Surface mounted $333 per light
Material and installation
Brad Cordek
40
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.
Brad Cordek
41
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.
Brad Cordek
42
I – Trends in CW Design & ConstructionSurvey Responses
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
#3A -C
#4 -A/B
#5 - C
#6 - A
#7 - A
#8 - A
#9 - A
#10 -A
#11 -A
#12 -A
Top Answer
Per
cen
t A
nsw
ers
Brad Cordek
43
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.
Brad Cordek
44
II – CW Constructability
• 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.
Brad Cordek
45
III – Daylighting Study of the CW
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
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
Lobby & Outdoor Patio Floor Plans
Brad Cordek
48
Default T&M – No Lights
Aluminum – No Lights
Default T&M – Outdoor Lights Added
Brad Cordek
51
Surface Current T&M Glazing Viracon Low-E Glazing
Outside 10 10
Outer Film 12.5 12.4
Glazing 60.0 60.5
Inside 70.0 70.0
Increase in
Temperature
Across 47.5 48.1
Glazing
Energy Cost Summary
Lighting ArrangementAnnual
KWh $ per KWh Yearly Cost
Current Scheme 459872 $ 0.05
$ 22,994
Proposed Changes
Add outdoor fixtures
Energy impact $372
Cost $5,661
Turn off lobby lights during
daytime hours
Energy impact $1,896
Cost NA
Proposed Scheme 429392 $ 0.05
$ 21,470
ANNUAL SAVINGS $ 1,524
SAVINGS IN 20 YEARS $ 30,480
Cost of Proposed Changes
$ 5,661
Brad Cordek
53
Comparison of Curtainwall Costs
Curtainwall System Glazing Cost
Teak & Mahogany
Original Viracon $ 1,294,563
Low-E Viracon $ 1,320,455
Mahogany
Original Viracon $ 1,165,107
Aluminum
Original Viracon $ 1,011,840
Low-E Viracon $ 1,032,077
T&M w/ Outdoor Lights
Low-E Viracon $ 1,326,116
Alum. w/ Outdoor Lights
Low-E Viracon $ 1,037,738
Brad Cordek
54
Keeps you warmer in the winter U-Value
Keeps you cooler in the summerSolar Heat Gain
Coefficient
Reduces UV energy and allows visible light
Transmittance
IV – Heat Transmission Study of the CW
Brad Cordek
55
IV – Heat Transmission Study of the CW
Default Glazing Properties
Glass Type
% of Visible Solar Winter Shading
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
top related