Mercersburg Academy – Center for the Arts

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Low-E Viracon

Add Outdoor Lights

Aluminum


Low-E Viracon X

Add Outdoor Lights X

Brad Cordek

22


• 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


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


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


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


• 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


• 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


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


• 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


• 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


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


Mahogany

Original Viracon

3:00 PM Lights 183 106 89

3:00 PM NL 181 55 34


Aluminum

Original Viracon

3:00 PM Lights 202 106 85

3:00 PM NL 199 55 33


Low-E Viracon

3:00 PM NL 198 49 30


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


Aluminum



T&M w/ Outdoor Lights


Alum. w/ Outdoor Lights


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


Brad Cordek

55


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

Mercersburg Academy – Center for the Arts

Documents