STEPHEN DAFOE An upgrade to the building envelope and mechanical systems of this 1960s-era Edmonton building has allowed occupancy to double while cutting energy costs significantly. Improved building envelope clears way for new HVAC STEPHEN DAFOE correspondent EDMONTON An integrated design approach proved successful in the retrofit of a 1960s downtown Edmonton office building. The move doubled the original occupancy while increasing energy efficiency through the use of Alberta’s first chilled beam heating and cooling system. Nick Trovato, managing principal with building science and restoration at Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. and Greg Kroening, senior manager and project manager with Arrow Engineering presented their case study: Building Exterior Retrofit and its Impact on Energy Performance at Buildex Edmonton on Mar. 23. The 15,000-square-foot, two-storey with windowed basement building was built in 1962 from precast concrete, using a face sealed building envelope system. “One of the challenges was that the exterior walls were structural elements,” Trovato explained. “They were not just building envelope clad, they were integral to the structure.” For aesthetic reasons, their client wanted to keep the existing building face and maintain the existing visibility and light penetration. This presented several challenges. The company worked with the existing face seal system, create an effective air seal and improve thermal performance. They replaced existing windows with more energy efficient ones when the entire building was gutted. The existing R6 roof was replaced with a more energy efficient one and the interior paper-backed insulation was replaced with spray applied urethane foam insulation. “The appropriate spray foam will provide you with a vapour retarder, an air barrier, and good thermal properties,” Trovato said, noting that the system was easy to apply. He explained that the interior block walls and insulation were removed from the backside of the precast concrete. Metal studs were placed behind the precast concrete with a gap to allow room for the spray foam. A membrane was then applied to the sills to tie into the rest of the building’s air barrier, before the entire area was boxed in. A vent opening was left in each sill to allow any moisture that penetrates through the precast to dry out. The same process was used in the window heads. Between the sill and heads, the buildings original rubber-framed windows were replaced with windows with a four-element glazing that not only improved thermal quality, but also all but eliminated exterior noise. Once the building envelope was successfully upgraded, Arrow Engineering was able to install a unique mechanical system, something that would not have been possible without the former work. Installing a new mechanical system presented other challenges. Conventional systems were eliminated, either because they didn’t meet the controllability requirements of the client or because the limited floor-to-ceiling height made them impossible to use. After quickly running out of options, Kroening decided to look at a modular active chilled beam system, something that was made possible because of the windows used in the building envelope. Rather than the 20-degree differential between inside and outside temperatures, achieved with double glazed windows, the high-performance glazing system created differentials as high as 80 degrees. “With minus 20 outside, you’d have plus 60 inside,” he said. “With temperature like that on the inside surface of the glass and cold outside air temperatures, you can design the building without perimeter heating.” He said that chilled beams are so named because the original units were beams that hung below the ceilings and distributed air through side grills. They are an old technology that’s been redefined. “Instead of a horizontal induction unit at the base of the windows throughout the perimeter, these are horizontal ceiling mounted induction units, installed in the T-bar,” he said. About 120 units were installed in the ceilings, each capable of providing heating and cooling. The units use three-inch pipes to provide hot and cold water intake and return. The primary air source makes the chilled beam system work. The air is introduced into the top of the unit’s plenum, injected into a series of nozzles, which induces the air coming up through a coil. “So you get room air, which is typically 24 degrees Celsius through the coil,” he said. “It cools down to about 16 degrees, mixes with the 14 degree air coming from the primary air, and it’s introduced into the space in a nice even air flow because the slot runs the full length of the chilled beam.” http://dcnonl.com/article/id38532Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Urethane Insulation Impacting HVAC Market
April 22, 2010 STEPHEN DAFOE An upgrade to the building envelope and mechanical systems of this 1960s-era Edmonton building has allowed occupancy to double while cutting energy costs significantly. Improved building envelope clears way for new HVAC STEPHEN DAFOE correspondent EDMONTON An integrated design approach proved successful in the retrofit of a 1960s downtown Edmonton office building. The move doubled the original occupancy while increasing energy efficiency through the use of Alberta’s first chilled beam heating and cooling system. Nick Trovato, managing principal with building science and restoration at Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. and Greg Kroening, senior manager and project manager with Arrow Engineering presented their case study: Building Exterior Retrofit and its Impact on Energy Performance at Buildex Edmonton on Mar. 23. The 15,000-square-foot, two-storey with windowed basement building was built in 1962 from precast concrete, using a face sealed building envelope system. “One of the challenges was that the exterior walls were structural elements,” Trovato explained. “They were not just building envelope clad, they were integral to the structure.” For aesthetic reasons, their client wanted to keep the existing building face and maintain the existing visibility and light penetration. This presented several challenges. The company worked with the existing face seal system, create an effective air seal and improve thermal performance. They replaced existing windows with more energy efficient ones when the entire building was gutted. The existing R6 roof was replaced with a more energy efficient one and the interior paper-backed insulation was replaced with spray applied urethane foam insulation. “The appropriate spray foam will provide you with a vapour retarder, an air barrier, and good thermal properties,” Trovato said, noting that the system was easy to apply. He explained that the interior block walls and insulation were removed from the backside of the precast concrete. Metal studs were placed behind the precast concrete with a gap to allow room for the spray foam. A membrane was then applied to the sills to tie into the rest of the building’s air barrier, before the entire area was boxed in. A vent opening was left in each sill to allow any moisture that penetrates through the precast to dry out. The same process was used in the window heads. Between the sill and heads, the buildings original rubber-framed windows were replaced with windows with a four-element glazing that not only improved thermal quality, but also all but eliminated exterior noise. Once the building envelope was successfully upgraded, Arrow Engineering was able to install a unique mechanical system, something that would not have been possible without the former work. Installing a new mechanical system presented other challenges. Conventional systems were eliminated, either because they didn’t meet the controllability requirements of the client or because the limited floor-to-ceiling height made them impossible to use. After quickly running out of options, Kroening decided to look at a modular active chilled beam system, something that was made possible because of the windows used in the building envelope. Rather than the 20-degree differential between inside and outside temperatures, achieved with double glazed windows, the high-performance glazing system created differentials as high as 80 degrees. “With minus 20 outside, you’d have plus 60 inside,” he said. “With temperature like that on the inside surface of the glass and cold outside air temperatures, you can design the building without perimeter heating.” He said that chilled beams are so named because the original units were beams that hung below the ceilings and distributed air through side grills. They are an old technology that’s been redefined. “Instead of a horizontal induction unit at the base of the windows throughout the perimeter, these are horizontal ceiling mounted induction units, installed in the T-bar,” he said. About 120 units were installed in the ceilings, each capable of providing heating and cooling. The units use three-inch pipes to provide hot and cold water intake and return. The primary air source makes the chilled beam system work. The air is introduced into the top of the unit’s plenum, injected into a series of nozzles, which induces the air coming up through a coil. “So you get room air, which is typically 24 degrees Celsius through the coil,” he said. “It cools down to about 16 degrees, mixes with the 14 degree air coming from the primary air, and it’s introduced into the space in a nice even air flow because the slot runs the full length of the chilled beam.” http://dcnonl.com/article/id38532
STEPHEN DAFOE An upgrade to the building envelope and mechanical systems of this 1960s-era Edmonton building has allowed occupancy to double while cutting energy costs significantly. Improved building envelope clears way for new HVAC STEPHEN DAFOE correspondent EDMONTON An integrated design approach proved successful in the retrofit of a 1960s downtown Edmonton office building. The move doubled the original occupancy while increasing energy efficiency through the use of Alberta’s first chilled beam heating and cooling system. Nick Trovato, managing principal with building science and restoration at Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. and Greg Kroening, senior manager and project manager with Arrow Engineering presented their case study: Building Exterior Retrofit and its Impact on Energy Performance at Buildex Edmonton on Mar. 23. The 15,000-square-foot, two-storey with windowed basement building was built in 1962 from precast concrete, using a face sealed building envelope system. “One of the challenges was that the exterior walls were structural elements,” Trovato explained. “They were not just building envelope clad, they were integral to the structure.” For aesthetic reasons, their client wanted to keep the existing building face and maintain the existing visibility and light penetration. This presented several challenges. The company worked with the existing face seal system, create an effective air seal and improve thermal performance. They replaced existing windows with more energy efficient ones when the entire building was gutted. The existing R6 roof was replaced with a more energy efficient one and the interior paper-backed insulation was replaced with spray applied urethane foam insulation. “The appropriate spray foam will provide you with a vapour retarder, an air barrier, and good thermal properties,” Trovato said, noting that the system was easy to apply. He explained that the interior block walls and insulation were removed from the backside of the precast concrete. Metal studs were placed behind the precast concrete with a gap to allow room for the spray foam. A membrane was then applied to the sills to tie into the rest of the building’s air barrier, before the entire area was boxed in. A vent opening was left in each sill to allow any moisture that penetrates through the precast to dry out. The same process was used in the window heads. Between the sill and heads, the buildings original rubber-framed windows were replaced with windows with a four-element glazing that not only improved thermal quality, but also all but eliminated exterior noise. Once the building envelope was successfully upgraded, Arrow Engineering was able to install a unique mechanical system, something that would not have been possible without the former work. Installing a new mechanical system presented other challenges. Conventional systems were eliminated, either because they didn’t meet the controllability requirements of the client or because the limited floor-to-ceiling height made them impossible to use. After quickly running out of options, Kroening decided to look at a modular active chilled beam system, something that was made possible because of the windows used in the building envelope. Rather than the 20-degree differential between inside and outside temperatures, achieved with double glazed windows, the high-performance glazing system created differentials as high as 80 degrees. “With minus 20 outside, you’d have plus 60 inside,” he said. “With temperature like that on the inside surface of the glass and cold outside air temperatures, you can design the building without perimeter heating.” He said that chilled beams are so named because the original units were beams that hung below the ceilings and distributed air through side grills. They are an old technology that’s been redefined. “Instead of a horizontal induction unit at the base of the windows throughout the perimeter, these are horizontal ceiling mounted induction units, installed in the T-bar,” he said. About 120 units were installed in the ceilings, each capable of providing heating and cooling. The units use three-inch pipes to provide hot and cold water intake and return. The primary air source makes the chilled beam system work. The air is introduced into the top of the unit’s plenum, injected into a series of nozzles, which induces the air coming up through a coil. “So you get room air, which is typically 24 degrees Celsius through the coil,” he said. “It cools down to about 16 degrees, mixes with the 14 degree air coming from the primary air, and it’s introduced into the space in a nice even air flow because the slot runs the full length of the chilled beam.” http://dcnonl.com/article/id38532
Saturday, November 27, 2010
granitifiandre Introduces Building Envelope Solutions Continuing <b>...</b>
\CartyStudios Corporation\WebMagnates - Auto Blogging Software\data\Building Envelope Systems (BES)\Building Envelope System\Graniti_Fiandre-logo(1).jpg)
CHICAGO, February 8, 2008 – Italian stone and tile manufacturer GranitiFiandre has recently expanded their continuing education program for architects, specifiers, and design professionals with the introduction of a course entitled Building Envelope Solutions: Porcelain Ventilated Façade Rain Screen Protection. The course objective is to provide a working knowledge of the ventilated façade building envelope system, an understanding of the system benefits, a review of the system’s contributions to LEED building standards, and to offer economical and efficient construction design suggestions. “The Building Envelope Solutions course explains the ventilated façade criterion requirements for a porcelain tile exterior cladding installation and how they are economically and aesthetically superior to other exterior building facades,” said Bill Perkins, Marketing & Territory Development Manager for GranitiFiandre.
GranitiFiandre also offers a course entitled Physical Properties and Proper Applications of Stone with the objective of teaching the physical composition of various stones and their proper application in residential and commercial specifications.
Both are one-hour courses and will earn AIA member participants 1.0 Health, Safety & Welfare Learning Units. Credits are also applicable for ASID and IIDA members.
Continuing education programs from GranitiFiandre may be arranged by calling Amy Willard, Sales Administrator, at 630-875- 877 or by contacting local sales representatives listed on the granitifiandresusa.com website.
GranitiFiandre AIA Continuing Education System (CES) facilitators are experts in the field of tile and stone installation and have been trained on CES guidelines and presentation skills.
About GranitiFiandre
Founded in 1961 in Castellarano, Italy, GranitiFiandre has for decades supplied global customers with the highest quality selection of fine architectural surfacing products. With international facilities in Italy, Germany and the United States, as well as a global distribution network, GranitiFiandre is equipped to address product needs for an array of architectural and design situations. The company’s United States operations are managed through Trans Ceramica with American headquarters based in the Chicago area.
Dedication to a healthy and safe environment is an important part of GranitiFiandre’s history, and the company proudly continues the tradition of environmental leadership at its United States facility. Significant investments in materials usage efficiency, air quality protection, water resource management and energy efficiency are the hallmarks of GranitiFiandre’s corporate stewardship.
For more information, visit www.granitifiandreusa.com.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Vermont school studies building heating efficiency
By Craig Stead PE, CEM, Stead Energy Services
Project overview
Putney Central School, K-8 grades, is located in Putney, Vermont. The school has 3 wings constructed in 1955-64, 1974 & 1996 heated by three hot water boilers. Each wing is a separate heating zone identified as zones A, B, and C.
Data loggers were deployed on each boiler oil burner to determine daily operating time. Fuel splits were calculated by multiplying the burner operating time by the burner nozzle through put and the heating value of fuel oil. This fuel split was then converted to Btu/Square Foot (SF) – Year (Yr) to determine the relative heating efficiency and fuel consumption in each of the three zones.
The fuel split was further converted to Btu/SF-Year-Heating Degree Day (HDD). This calculation showed the relative efficiency of heating adjusted for HDD. If the number found by this calculation is less than 5, then the building heating efficiency and envelope thermal efficiency are good. If the number is greater than 5 there is room for improvement. Further investigation is needed to determine the contributing factors to higher numbers.
An energy audit was performed on the Putney Central School in 2008. The building energy performance was computer modeled using Trane Trace 700 software. The zone energy splits between the computer model and those determined by data loggers were compared. The computer model used with the associated assumptions was found to inaccurately predict building performance. The computer model varied from the data logger energy use by 7 to 42%.
Data logger deployment
Motor run time data loggers were deployed on boilers serving heating zones A, B, and C at Putney Central School on April 1, 2009. Data loggers were removed on May 7, 2009.
Boiler A serves the gym and a front wing built in 1957 and 1964. Boiler B serves a middle school built 1974 and Boiler C serves a wing built 1994. Boiler A has a 1 minute purge cycle at the end of firing which was subtracted from each burner cycle time.
Data Analysis
Analysis of the data was done for the coldest day during the period, April 13. The day had a high temperature of 39.3o F. and a low temperature of 31.0o F.
The use of oil for April 13, 2009 is given in Table 1.
Table 1, Fuel splits between heating zones, April 13, 2009Extrapolated over the year with annual oil consumption of 14,500 gallons the fuel oil split and heat loading by school zone is given in Table 2.
Table 2, Heat loading by school zoneNote: Square Feet is the area of the heated space served by the boiler; Sf is square foot; Yr is year; HDD is yearly heating degree days. For Putney HDD is based upon 7,200 annual heating degree days. Btu/Sf/Yr/HDD less than 5 indicates an efficient heating system. Btu/Sf/Yr/HDD greater than 5 indicates improvements can be made to the heating and building envelope system.
Data interpretation
Boiler B in the middle school had the highest heat load per square foot of floor area at 16.7 Btu/Sf-Yr-HDD. The area served has a high outside wall area for the floor space and contains an entry corridor with a large glass area. The boiler and overall heating efficiency appear low.
Boiler A serving the gym and front wing had the next highest heat load per square foot of floor area at 6.9 Btu/Sf-Yr-HDD. The boiler was oversized for the heat load and replacement should be considered. Insulation, ventilation and air handling unit upgrades should be accomplished before the boiler is replaced.
Boiler C serving the new wing had a heat load at 3.6 Btu/Sf-Yr-HDD that reflects better insulation, thermal pane windows and a heat recovery ventilation system. This boiler appears to be oversize. Consideration should be given to using Boiler C to provide the heat for the Boiler B area and removing Boiler B. Verification of Boiler C run times during the coldest part of the year should be done before heating system modification.
Data Comparison to Computer Model
The School was modeled using Trane Trace 700 software. A comparison of actual building performance with the model is given in Table 3 with annual fuel splits in %. Variance compares the data logger actual performance with the modeled performance.
Table 3, Comparison of Modeled School Performance to Actual PerformanceAs can be seen from Table 3 the modeled building performance by zone varies from actual performance by 7-42%. Thus the model as used in this example is an inaccurate tool in predicting building performance. Energy conservation measures based upon the model would not reflect current and future building performance.
Conclusion
Data loggers were deployed to determine the fuel splits for three heating zones in a local school. Results were converted to a measure of building heating efficiency of Btu/SF-Yr-HDD. The zones varied from 3.6-16.7 Btu/SF-Yr-HDD.
A number of less than 5 BTU/SF-Yr-HDD indicates a relatively efficient heating system and thermal envelope. A number of greater than 5 Btu/SF-Yr-HDD indicates improvements can be made in the heating system and building thermal efficiency. The low number found at the school of 3.6 Btu/Sf-Yr-HDD was in a new wing constructed in 1994 with efficient insulation package, thermal pane windows, and heat recovery ventilation. The high number of 16.7 Btu/Sf-Yr-HDD was found for a school wing with large amounts of glass, an entrance door with poor weather stripping, an inefficient boiler, and minimal insulation package.
The actual building heating performance found through data loggers was compared to computer modeled building heating performance. The computer model was found to be off by 7-42% compared to actual performance.
Data loggers provide a simple and accurate method to determine actual building performance. They can be used to obtain building performance baseline data. From this baseline data energy conservation measures (ECMs) can be proposed with real building information. Reductions in energy use from installation of ECMs can then be measured and verified through subsequent data logger deployment.
About the author
Craig Stead has been working in the energy field for over 30 years. His company, Stead Energy Services, focuses on energy efficiency and conservation for schools, wastewater plants, and other commercial structures.
Education
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, BS, Masters of Engineering (Chemical)
Western New England College, Springfield, MA, MBA
Building Performance Institute, building analyst training
Association of Energy Engineers; comprehensive training for energy managers
Professional Certifications
Professional Engineer, Civil & Sanitary, VT, MA
Building Performance Institute, Certified Building Analyst
Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), Certified Energy Manager
Heat Spring Institute, Certified Heat Pump Installer
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
New local energy efficiency instrument receives international <b>...</b>
South Africa’s first rotatable guarded hot box (RGHB), an instrument that determines the energy efficiency of a building envelope, has received certification from a US independent rating and labelling system for energy performance, the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC).
A building envelope is a term used to describe the roof, walls, windows, and floors of a building.
The RGHB, which was launched on Wednesday, is being housed at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Council’s Thermal Testing Laboratory (TTL), which is a research facility that aims to develop technologies that improve the energy efficiency and environmental compatibility of residential and commercial buildings. The product is a testing equipment, which determines heat transmission values of virtually any building envelope system.
NFRC international programme coordinator Bipin Shah referred to the accuracy of the putting together the South African RGHB as “mind boggling” given the challenges and deadlines presented to the team responsible for engineering the product.
Shah added that while the US was the first to implement the hot box, the South African version was “in fact better that the ones available in the US today”, in light of the dedication from the relevant South Africa team.
He said that this product was necessary as rating systems enable one’s product to stand out in the market, and that without performance information, like that provided by a hot box, it was impossible to determine if a building is “green”.
This initiative and investment in the RGHB is spearheaded by the Association of Architectural Aluminium Manufacturers of South Africa (AAAMSA), which also led to the formation of the South African Fenestration and Insulation Energy Rating Association (SAFIERA). The NFRC has appointed SAFIERA as its country representative in South Africa.
SAFIERA’s key function is to determine and register, among other things, the heat transmissions values of fenestration (u-factors) in particular, and other envelopes of the building envelope in general.
The RGHB will benefit professionals in the building and construction industry and manufacturers whose components are used in the test equipment.
AAAMSA executive director Hans Schefferlie said, “We support government’s energy efficiency initiative and worked closely with relevant government and South African National Standard departments to ensure that the RGHB satisfied the requirements of the then being drafted standard [now published] SANS 204 for energy efficiency in buildings.”
Physical testing of fenestrations and insulation systems is one way to determine thermal performance. The testing of fenestrations systems will be conducted in accordance with the protocols of the NFRC, which is recognised internationally.
The RGHB testing programme is divided into two parts, which is building envelope research, which focuses on the structural elements that enclose building, such as walls and roofs, and materials research, which concentrates on the materials within the envelope systems, such as glass and insulation.
Monday, November 22, 2010
XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities - JLC-Online Forums
\CartyStudios Corporation\WebMagnates - Auto Blogging Software\data\Building Envelope Systems (BES)\Building Envelope System\reply.gif)
\CartyStudios Corporation\WebMagnates - Auto Blogging Software\data\Building Envelope Systems (BES)\Building Envelope System\post_old.gif)
03-24-2009, 12:39 PM \CartyStudios Corporation\WebMagnates - Auto Blogging Software\data\Building Envelope Systems (BES)\Building Envelope System\icon1.gif)
XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities Assuming we start building houses again someday, I want to lobby anew for 3/4" or 1" rigid foam on the exterior of my client's projects. The purpose would be to address thermal bridging in wood framed construction. Location is Portland, Oregon were it is 40deg and wet all winter long. The challenge is that we build all year round, which means that many structures are built in the rain. We've gotten past green lumber, so at least we're starting with KD before we put it in the rain, and we're in a seismic zone, so walls are fully sheathed, and that sheathing is OSB.
We've also gotten past installing interiors before the framing has dried.
So the sequence is: framing (including sheathing), roofing, windows and doors(while waiting for the municipal sheathing inspection), WRB and siding, WAIT for things to dry to the interior and exterior, insulation (fiberglass), interior finishes.
Putting XPS insulation over rain-soaked OSB (or over WRB on rain-soaked OSB) would trap the water pretty much forever. The better option would be EPS because of its greater permeance.
However, EPS in 3/4" or 1" sheets looks like it would suffer a LOT of breakage during handling and installation, especially on windy days. Some products address this by putting on a plastic facer, which rather defeats the permeance advantage.
Any practical feedback on the relative ease of installation of EPS vs XPS?
Should I give up on the foam idea in this climate and lobby instead for dense-pack cellulose insulation in lieu of fiberglass?
Any studies comparing dense pack with thermal bridging vs fiberglas without thermal bridging?
Anything I'm missing in my thought process?
(BTW I never can keep the acronyms straight, so I've taken to thinking of them as EPS: Especially Permeable Stuff and XPS: Not Permeable Stuff. Anybody got a better mnemonic?)
\CartyStudios Corporation\WebMagnates - Auto Blogging Software\data\Building Envelope Systems (BES)\Building Envelope System\quote.gif)
03-24-2009, 01:51 PM Location: Brooklyn, Fire Island Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities Originally Posted by NW Architect \CartyStudios Corporation\WebMagnates - Auto Blogging Software\data\Building Envelope Systems (BES)\Building Envelope System\viewpost.gif)
Anything I'm missing in my thought process?I have one, maybe... In the 2" of exterior foam thread, Dick and I got to argueing code provisions for exterior foam, right? The list from my code book is: FM 4880,
UL 1040,
NFPA 286,
ASTM E 152,
UL 1715.
I've googled up a few MSDS sheets for EPS, they all mention ASTM D1929, nothing about any of the above. I'll admit I'm pretty vague about what all these standards refer to, exactly... but are you sure code allows the use of EPS in this application?
__________________Francois
Truth, as my uncle Roger used to say, is just one man's explanation for what he thinks he understands. (Walter Mosley)
03-24-2009, 01:56 PM Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities I'll cross that bridge later. But since I can put drainage plane EIFS in a house, and that uses EPS, I'm thinking it is permissible.
03-24-2009, 03:05 PM Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities Dick is that all you have? I was waiting for a real bomb, you let me down. Anyway, NW, here in MA, if you frame anything more than a house with metal studs or CMU you are required to provide a min R3 continuous insulation. So I am most definitely in support of your idea.
As for EPS, it is the predominate insulation of EIFS which manufactures an entire line of water management systems. It is also more stable than polyiso relative to moisture - and polyiso I believe is the heart of the Dow SIS we have discussed, intended for exterior walls. So I think you are ok.
I would look at different manufactures; the EPS comes in various densities. I can't cite specifics, I can only say the stuff you buy for EIFS is pretty weak and the stuff that ICF's are made of is pretty durable. So I think you need to spec more than just "EPS"
Personally I'd stick with XPS. For reasons that you are probably going to nail furring strips through it and I'd be leery about doing that with EPS. I think I'd go with 4x8 sheets of "ship lapped" Cavitymate by Dow. I think that would give you more air tightness and would take the furring strips better, but just a guess.
As for that "WAIT" periods you are referring to, maybe with a custom house but forget about it on the mainstream. If you are doing multifamily, I'd start thinking about a 'Moisture Management Plan" which gets incorporated into the specs. I did this for a few architects, you basically develop a plan during construction in which moisture is limited, then the building is measured and dried if required. I wrote it off of the St Pauls Checklist which was a document written for the insurance industry, attached is a copy.
03-24-2009, 04:12 PM Location: Martinez, California Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities Ted: I find it hard to believe that any legitimate architect would specify EIFS, most of it that was installed is in the landfills, here is a picture of it being torn off a building and the styrofoam is in the landfill of floating around in the Pacific in that sea of plastics twice the size of Texas.
What about the fact that the public considers it cheap crap? I mentioned to a group in Berkeley that they could buy homes in Brentwood for $200,000 that sold for $800,000 a few years ago, one said: "Who would want a new home, they're all built with styrofoam now"; they aren't, we don't use it around here but they've apparently seen or heard that it is being used in other parts of the nation.
What about the fact that all insurance companies (selling in California anyway) not only prohibit EIFS but won't insure a contractor who has installed it within the last 10 years? (see attached) If it's worth anything at all why would the insurance companies refuse to sell insurance to contractors installing it? Somebody ought to tell the insurance companies that styrofoam isn't only behind EIFS but is showing up behind other siding materials so they can specifically exclude from coverage not only EIFS but styrofoam itself.
If NW does specify it how's he going to handle the waste? Portland banned styrofoam in restaurants 18 years ago and was a leader in banning it. If it's got no place in temporary usages like plates, it's certainly got no legitimate use in a building that is suppose to be permanent. If you get a leak, and you will, the styrofoam is destroyed and ends up in the landfill, if you remodel the building you are tearing it off and it's in the landfill.
In today's environmental world sustainability and quality trump energy efficiency.
__________________We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. Carl Sagan
03-24-2009, 04:26 PM Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities #6: Facts not in evidence, counsel. Never said I specified EIFS. Said it was done and used that as a logical fact to indicate that EPS in a NON-EIFS application would be code acceptable #5: "Wait" actually works in our winter climate. It may be raining, but the air is relatively dry. In multi-family, one just delays the insulation and finish crews about 30 days behind the siders. Cost of money is cheaper than the cost of heat. In single family, sometimes the opposite is true. The HVAC guys are using up a lot of that interval anyway since they don't install their stuff except in dry weather or in a dried-in enclosure.
In either case, nothing goes into the inside until the framing and sheathing have been tested and the WMC is 19% or below.
03-24-2009, 04:45 PM Location: Martinez, California Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities NW, to date nobody has figured out how to recycle it, it's too light-weight to manage. I mentioned before that a student in Canada has developed a process to biologically degrade it, if his invention pans out I guess our dumps will have special sections dedicated to degrading it over a few months' period of time' so we'll have huge cesspools in every dump degrading it. You will have large amounts of waste from cutting it and just breakage, my recycle container has instructions on the top prohibiting it from the container. I never accused you of specifying EIFS, but I did accuse Ted of the dastardly deed. What about your reputation as an architect if you specify something as cheap as styrofoam? What if a building's siding leaks, what happens then? A disaster like the EIFS disasters?
__________________We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. Carl Sagan
03-24-2009, 05:11 PM Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities Originally Posted by Dick Seibert I never accused you of specifying EIFS, but I did accuse Ted of the dastardly deed.My reputation was one who was able to make EIFS work. Since you keep bring up the junk EIFS of 1995, which I am very familiar with, why don't you go back even further to war torn Germany where it was originated and see if you can figure out why many of those installations are still just fine.
Then you will be on a level where I can talk EIFS with you.
03-24-2009, 05:18 PM Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities If my building's siding leaks the WRB is there to deal with it. If the WRB can't keep it completely out, the building's hygric capacity and drying potential are there to deal with it. If all that can't handle the leak, its a BIG EFFING LEAK that no building envelope system would be intended to cope with (meaning its a contractor error that I didn't see when it was being built, or somebody put a big hole in the wall after I left)
Thanks for not putting me on the EIFS bandwagon. FWIW, though, I think drainable EIFS is a very workable product - just too much stigma attached to it, and too many contractor policies that won't allow them to touch the stigma.
03-24-2009, 05:20 PM Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities #11: Can I play??? (Answer: Masonry structure)
Do I win anything?
03-24-2009, 05:26 PM Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities Looks like styrofoam IS recyclable. This is from MissionRecycling.com, located in Pomona, CA. In the ongoing effort to attain zero waste for our communities, Mission Recycling is pleased to begin offering an exciting new service - Styrofoam Recycling.
Styrofoam or polystyrene is pervasive in our society and is a considerable environmental hazard as it is not biodegradable. While it is not heavy by its nature, it is space consuming which is a serious problem for our already overburdened landfills.
Mission Recycling has invested in new technology that will allow it to compress styrofoam in a 50:1 ratio thereby producing blocks of styrofoam weighing 19 lbs. per square foot.
This technology has made the recycling of styrofoam economically viable and when such programs expand, they will greatly reduce material currently taken directly to landfills.
If you are a company that generates or produces large quantities of Styrofoam/Polystyrene and are interested in recycling this material, thereby lowering your regular waste hauling expense AND helping to save the environment, please contact us for a consultation.
We will come to your location anywhere in the Southern California area to give you a presentation that will go over how to set-up a styrofoam recycling program and detail the benefits to your company.
03-24-2009, 05:28 PM Re: XPS vs EPS Field Practicalities OH, BTW, I hereby throw the yellow flag, blow the whistle, and charge "THREAD DRIFT". Now away with the environmental and EIFS stuff, and back to my original inquiry, please.
\CartyStudios Corporation\WebMagnates - Auto Blogging Software\data\Building Envelope Systems (BES)\Building Envelope System\collapse_thead.gif)
Posting Rules All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 PM.Friday, November 19, 2010
GREEN FIBER INSULATION WWW.GREENFIBER.COM
Benefits
Seamless Protection
Unlike common batt insulations, GreenFiber Cocoon Insulation is sprayed into walls and cavities, creating a continuous blanket of protection from energy leaks. This monolithic blanket, combined with GreenFiber Cocoon Insulation's high R-value, enhance the energy efficiency of the home.
Studies of actual buildings show that cellulose-insulated buildings use as much as 26% less energy than similar buildings insulated with typically installed fiberglass at the same R-value. One reason for this is the ability of cellulose to control air infiltration.
Uncontrolled air leakage through exterior walls and ceilings is almost as important as R-value in determining how much energy will be required to heat and cool a building. GreenFiber Cocoon Insulation is very effective at greatly reducing air infiltration; it fills cavities and around obstructions filling cracks and seams.
Install GreenFiber Cocoon Insulation for Effective Insulation throughout Your Structure
The building envelope plays many roles in the proper function of the entire structure. It serves as the thermal barrier and the air pressure barrier of the building. The systems approach to design and construction ensures that GreenFiber Cocoon Insulation will perform to meet a wide range of structural demands.
Construction and workmanship are critical to building envelope performance. The examples below illustrate effective installation techniques for addressing varying conditions, from foundation to attic.
Back to Top
High R-value
GreenFiber Cocoon Insulation is manufactured in specially designed mills that separate cellulose fibers. This technique produces less dust and the fibers are more uniform in size to provide the maximum possible R-value. These fibers remain uniform, so they won't lose their ability to block air movement through the years.
GreenFiber also maintains R-value even under extreme cold conditions. The insulation's seamless monolithic blanket ensures that R-values are not compromised. The R-value and density of GreenFiber Cocoon Insulation reduce air flow and help homeowners realize energy savings.*
*Savings vary. Find out why in the seller's fact sheet on R-values. Higher R-values mean greater insulating power.
Back to Top
Achieve Full Insulating Potential with the Systems Approach to Design and Installation
Modern buildings consist of thousands of components that shape large functional interrelated systems. When all the components of these systems work together, the results are dramatic: maximum safety, durability, comfort and efficiency throughout the structure.
That's the systems approach to building design. And it is the approach that can help you achieve thermal performance and insulation value with GreenFiber Cocoon Insulation.
Back to Top
Effective Thermal Installation
Insulation plays a crucial role in the building envelope system. It is important that insulation be in direct contact with the pressure barrier. The pressure barrier is the plane commonly made of drywall that separates the conditioned area of a building from the unconditioned area. Adherence to these guidelines will produce an effective thermal boundary:
No Gaps
Gaps commonly occur in the thermal boundary when insulation covers too short or too narrow an area for a stud cavity.
No Voids
Holes in the thermal boundary allow unwanted heat gain during the summer and heat loss during the winter. Typical problem areas are knee walls, stairs on exterior walls, vaulted ceilings, tubs or tub and shower stalls, and utility shafts.
No Compression
Insulation achieves its full R-value only when it is allowed to remain at its full thickness.
No Misalignment
Misalignment occurs when there is a separation between the insulation and the air barrier. This space allows air to circulate inside or through the cavity resulting in a decrease in insulation performance.
No Wind Intrusion
In attics, wind can enter the insulation through soffit vents and reduce R-value. Therefore, wind baffles properly installed prior to insulating can prevent wind intrusion.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
ARCH689 Project_3_Julian
This stage of ARCH689 is for developing a prototypical add-in for my building model of Project1&2. (http://tamu-arch689-julian.blogspot.com/2009/10/arch689-project-1julian.html) .
The objective of my prototypical tool is a user interface named Solar Radiation Response which can provide the inputs of data. The data involves the comfort zone(indoor temperature requirements), solar radiation(outdoor climatic conditions) and indoor activity which will affect the indoor temperature conditions and possibilities. Also, all three data are related to the building model’s geometry parameters, especially about the panel height on the canopy. This stage’s work is to further my original idea that is building envelope system can be kinetic and behavior responding to the outdoor climatic conditions and in turn may reduce the range of indoor temperature swings within great range of outdoor temperature swings. The decreases may offer promising energy savings compared with the mechanical air-conditioning system.
The process of this work involves the Solar Analysis plug-in, C# programming and Autodesk Revit API.
The Solar Analysis plug-in presents the model with the different levels’ solar radiation on the building envelope. Through this method, I can differentiate the each panel parameters of the building envelope into three levels: High, Middle and Low. After this, the Revit building model needs the update for linking the instance parameters and the project parameters which related to the high, middle and low solar radiation.
By using C#, each panel parameter of height can be filtered and set a new value related to a series of constrains, like seasons, indoor temperature and others, and provide the user interface as well. Note the filter command is from Autodesk Revit API.
To conclude, contemporary thinking in intelligent buildings, changing or kinetic architecture, digital interactive interface and biomimetic design has given rise to a new evolution of architecture. These works present me with the new insight into parametric design and kinetic buildings. In the context of sustainable needs, the BKE systems present the sustainable building research with a new approach of exchanges and communications with climate and local environments, especially in the locations with extreme climates. Moreover, the kinetic expression of building envelopes has been the sublime pursuit of contemporary architectural design in recent years. On balance, the parametric design method based on BIM and related sustainable design will be explored more in future.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Alberta's first chilled beam heating and cooling system.
Alberta?s first chilled beam heating and cooling system. March 31, 2010 http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id38207 
STEPHEN DAFOE
An upgrade to the envelope of this 1960s office building in Edmonton has allowed occupancy to double while reducing heating costs.
Buildex Edmonton
Improved building envelope clears way for new HVAC
STEPHEN DAFOE
correspondent
EDMONTON
An integrated design approach proved successful in the retrofit of a 1960s downtown Edmonton office building. The move doubled the original occupancy while increasing energy efficiency through the use of Alberta?s first chilled beam heating and cooling system.
Nick Trovato, managing principal with building science and restoration at Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. and Greg Kroening, senior manager and project manager with Arrow Engineering presented their case study: Building Exterior Retrofit and its Impact on Energy Performance at Buildex Edmonton on Mar. 23. The 15,000 square foot, two-storey with windowed basement building was built in 1962 from precast concrete, using a face sealed building envelope system
Saturday, November 13, 2010
BAU 2009: Europe's Architecture, Materials, & Systems Fair
by Marina Hoffman
"Bau" (German word meaning building/construction) is Europe’s most important trade fair for Architecture, materials and systems. The fair, visited by a wide variety of people in the design and construction industry takes place every two years in Munich, Germany. A record 211,000 visitors from 151 countries and nearly 2,000 exhibitors made BAU 2009 the best year in their 40 year history. This year’s program included lectures like “The Future of Building” and “MacroArchitecture” given by German architects working internationally, such as Stefan Behnisch (www.behnisch.com), Eckhard Gerber (www.gerberarchitekten.de), and Volkwin Marg (www.gmp-architekten.de), resulting in crowded lecture halls. Other topics like “Sustainable and energy-efficient building for the future,” presented by the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs, covered the entire range of sustainable building from practical guidelines and construction services to the current policies of the E.U. to promote global sustainable building and energy savings.Without reading upfront about the big push for sustainability at this year’s fair, products incorporating solar power made it obvious - all of the Curtain Wall manufacturers presented systems with integrated photovoltaic’s. A German friend of mine who fabricates louver glass systems said he was asked from the visitors if he offers it too. So it looks like the push for renewable energy is not coming from the manufacturers, but from the users.One of the first (and also biggest) stands I visited was from the curtain wall manufacturer Schüco. I have to say I was amazed by their product appearance and advanced technology they use. The Schüco E² Facade, with its credo "Energy2 - Saving energy, generating energy", is a new façade system with innovative solutions for the modern building envelope, which saves and generates energy at the same time. The integration of photovoltaics, solar thermal transfer, thermal insulation, solar shading and decentralized mechanical ventilation with heat recovery provides consistent automation for floor-to-ceiling glazing. The result is maximum energy efficiency, economical building construction, a high-quality appearance and optimum comfort levels. At the same time, the functional units in the facade are a design feature of a new and innovative architectural style. Stephen Kieran and James Timberlake’s new Sculpture Building at Yale University in New Haven, CT recently employed Schüco’s sustainable and innovative building envelope system. The system features energy-efficient triple-layer glass façade with its ceiling-high windows and high-performance sun control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
