<%BANNER%>

Glazing Selection Tool for Healthcare Facilities

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043884/00001

Material Information

Title: Glazing Selection Tool for Healthcare Facilities
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Tomaselli, Jessica N
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: biophilia -- daylight -- fenestration -- glazing -- healthcare -- integrated -- process -- sustainability -- tool
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The construction and use of healthcare facilities consumes billions of tons of raw materials, generates significant waste, consumes a tremendous amount of energy and contributes toxic emissions to the air. Given this impact, there are significant opportunities to improve environmental quality and human health through the green planning, design and construction of health care facilities (Health Care Without Harm 2011). One major way to improve the quality of the indoor environment is to allow ample daylighting to penetrate the interior of the healthcare facility. This research will focus on selecting the appropriate glass for a high performance healthcare facility in order to meet owner requirements and provide patients with increased daylight and views. The integrated selection process for materials will be analyzed to facilitate the creation of a glazing selection tool for designers and contractors. This selection tool will provide a comprehensive means to selecting glazing materials based on project location, glass performance criteria, the construction attributes affected, and the potential energy savings. This research will provides a comprehensive and interactive tool for the integrated design and construction team to determine the appropriate glass selection for the healthcare facility based on set owner requirements.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica N Tomaselli.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043884:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043884/00001

Material Information

Title: Glazing Selection Tool for Healthcare Facilities
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Tomaselli, Jessica N
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: biophilia -- daylight -- fenestration -- glazing -- healthcare -- integrated -- process -- sustainability -- tool
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The construction and use of healthcare facilities consumes billions of tons of raw materials, generates significant waste, consumes a tremendous amount of energy and contributes toxic emissions to the air. Given this impact, there are significant opportunities to improve environmental quality and human health through the green planning, design and construction of health care facilities (Health Care Without Harm 2011). One major way to improve the quality of the indoor environment is to allow ample daylighting to penetrate the interior of the healthcare facility. This research will focus on selecting the appropriate glass for a high performance healthcare facility in order to meet owner requirements and provide patients with increased daylight and views. The integrated selection process for materials will be analyzed to facilitate the creation of a glazing selection tool for designers and contractors. This selection tool will provide a comprehensive means to selecting glazing materials based on project location, glass performance criteria, the construction attributes affected, and the potential energy savings. This research will provides a comprehensive and interactive tool for the integrated design and construction team to determine the appropriate glass selection for the healthcare facility based on set owner requirements.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica N Tomaselli.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043884:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 GLAZING SELECTION TOOL FOR HEALTHCARE FACILITIES By JESSICA N. TOMASELLI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Jessica N. Tomaselli

PAGE 3

3 To the amazing nurses in my life, my mother, Becky Tomaselli and my grandmother, Pauline Mulrennan. Your dedication to providing quality healthcare has inspired me t o design and construct superior healthcare facilities.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my wonderful parents, Becky and Kevin; my amazing sister, Kelsey; and the entire Tomaselli family. Your never ending love, dedication, interest, and humor ha ve instilled in me the ability to constantly overcome any obstacles faced. Without all of you, none of this would have been possible. I would also like to thank Jim Sullivan, my thesis chair. His constant support and positive reinforcement allowed me the chance to attain my goals. Without his mantra, To my friend, Rachel Compton, who stood by me, stuck in the same predicament with thesis. Your constant friendship, love, and your ridiculous sense o f humor have could think of no better friend.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 GLOSSARY ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPT ER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 16 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 17 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 18 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 19 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 20 An Integrated Approach ................................ ................................ .................... 20 Healthcare Facilities ................................ ................................ ............................... 23 Hospitals as Healing Environments ................................ ................................ .. 25 Biophilia ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 26 Daylighting ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 27 Views ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 28 Sustainability ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 29 The Benefits of Sustainable Design and Construction ................................ ..... 30 Leaders in Sustainable Healthcare ................................ ................................ ......... 32 United States Green Building Council ................................ .............................. 32 Green Guide for Healthcare ................................ ................................ ............. 32 Practice Greenhealth ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 Global Health and Safety Initiative ................................ ................................ ... 33 Health Care Without Harm ................................ ................................ ............... 33 United States Department of Energy ................................ ................................ 34 ENERGY STAR ................................ ................................ ......................... 34 LEED for Healthcare ................................ ................................ ............................... 34 Energy and Atmosphere ................................ ................................ ................... 35 Materials and Resources ................................ ................................ .................. 36 Indoor Environmental Quality ................................ ................................ ........... 36

PAGE 6

6 Regulation Committees ................................ ................................ ........................... 38 American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers .. 38 ASHRAE 90.1 2010 ................................ ................................ ................... 38 ASHRAE 62.1 2010 ................................ ................................ ................... 38 ASHRAE 189.1 2009 ................................ ................................ ................. 39 American Architectural Manufacturer s Association ................................ .......... 39 Window and Door Manufacturers Association ................................ .................. 40 CSA International ................................ ................................ ............................. 40 National Fenestration Rating Council ................................ ............................... 40 ASTM Internationa l ................................ ................................ ........................... 41 Legislation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 41 Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities ..................... 42 Building Envelope ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44 Glazing ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 46 Performance Criteria ................................ ................................ ........................ 47 U v alue ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 47 Solar heat gain coefficient (SGHC) ................................ ............................ 47 Visible transmittance ................................ ................................ .................. 48 Air leakage (infiltration) ................................ ................................ .............. 50 Condensation resistance factor ................................ ................................ .. 50 Hurricane resistance ................................ ................................ .................. 51 Structural adequacy ................................ ................................ ................... 52 Glazing Framing Systems ................................ ................................ ................ 53 Glazing installation ................................ ................................ ..................... 53 Exterior glazed ................................ ................................ ........................... 53 Interior glazed ................................ ................................ ............................ 54 Stick built system ................................ ................................ ....................... 54 Unitized system ................................ ................................ .......................... 55 Unit and mullion system ................................ ................................ ............. 55 Panel system ................................ ................................ ............................. 56 Column cover and spandrel system ................................ ........................... 56 Glazing Types ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 57 Annealed glass ................................ ................................ .......................... 57 Heat strengthened glass ................................ ................................ ............ 57 Tempered glass ................................ ................................ ......................... 58 Monolithic glass ................................ ................................ ......................... 58 Laminated glass ................................ ................................ ......................... 59 Ins ulating glass unit (IGU) ................................ ................................ .......... 59 Coatings applied to glass ................................ ................................ ........... 60 Tint ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 60 Reflective ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 60 Low emiss ivity ................................ ................................ ............................ 61 Construction Attributes of Glass ................................ ................................ ............. 61 Cost ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 61 Schedule ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 62 Labor ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 63

PAGE 7

7 Equipment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 63 Access ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 64 Current Ana lysis Tools ................................ ................................ ............................ 65 Conventional Selection Process ................................ ................................ ....... 65 Integrated Selection Process ................................ ................................ ............ 66 Energy Modeling ................................ ................................ .............................. 68 Life Cycle Cost Analysis ................................ ................................ ................... 70 Quality Modeling ................................ ................................ ............................... 70 Developing an Analysis Tool ................................ ................................ ................... 73 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 77 Preliminary Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 81 Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 81 ................................ ................................ ..................... 81 Aesthetics and Owner Preferences ................................ ................................ .. 82 Function Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................. 83 Establish Performance Requirements ................................ .............................. 84 Compile a List of Alternatives. ................................ ................................ .......... 84 Collect Construction Attributes. ................................ ................................ ........ 86 Energy Modeling ................................ ................................ .............................. 88 Perform Life Cycle Cost Analysis ................................ ................................ ..... 90 Quality Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 92 Create the Glass Selection Tool ................................ ................................ ............. 96 Research and Information Gathering ................................ ............................... 97 Simulations and Calculations ................................ ................................ ........... 99 Quality Model ................................ ................................ ................................ 100 Testing the Tool ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 101 Research and Information Gathering ................................ ............................. 102 Simulations and Calculations ................................ ................................ ......... 106 Quality Model ................................ ................................ ................................ 108 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 111 Preliminary Analysis Results ................................ ................................ ................. 111 Testing the Tool Results ................................ ................................ ....................... 120 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIO NS FOR FURTHER STUDY ............. 141 APPENDIX A POINTS APPLICABLE TO GLAZING IN LEED FOR HEALTHCARE ................... 143 B GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF HEALTH CARE FACILITIES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 149 C PRELIMINARY GLAZING PERFORMANCE AND CONSTRUCTION DATA ....... 153

PAGE 8

8 D PRELIMINARY ENERGY SAVINGS DATA ................................ .......................... 155 E PRELIMINARY LIFE CYCL E COST DATA ................................ ........................... 157 F PRELIMINARY QUALITY MODEL LIKERT TABLES ................................ ........... 159 G SELECTION TOOL: RESEARCH AND INFORMATION GATHERING SECTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 165 H SELECTION TOOL: SIMULATIONS AND CALCULATIONS SECTION ............... 166 I S ELECTION TOOL: QUALITY MODEL SECTION ................................ ............... 168 J TESTING THE TOOL: GLASS ALTERNATIVES ................................ .................. 171 K TESTING THE TOOL: GLASS CONSTRUCTION DATA ................................ ..... 173 L TESTING THE TOOL: GLAZING ALTERNATIVES ENERGY SAVINGS DATA .. 175 M TESTING THE TOOL: LIFE CYCLE COST DATA ................................ ............... 177 N TESTING THE TOOL: QUALITY MODEL LIKERT TABLES ................................ 179 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 189 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 194

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 ENERGY STAR performance factors for glazing ................................ ................ 85 3 2 Preliminary glass performance values ................................ ................................ 86 3 3 Preliminary glass construction values ................................ ................................ 87 3 4 Preliminary glass life cycle costs ................................ ................................ ........ 92 3 5 Preliminary owner requirement rankings ................................ ............................ 93 3 6 Test owner requirement rankings ................................ ................................ ... 108 A 1 Energy percent savings to points achievable ................................ ................... 143 A 2 Renewable energy percentages to points achievable ................................ ...... 144 A 3 Window access requirements for non inpatient areas ................................ ...... 148

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 IECC climate zones of the United States ................................ ............................ 49 2 2 NFRC window properties ................................ ................................ .................... 50 2 3 FBC w ind speed map ................................ ................................ ......................... 52 2 4 FAST diagram example roofing system ................................ ........................... 72 3 1 Conventional selection process flowchart ................................ ........................... 78 3 2 Integrated selection process flowchart ................................ ............................... 80 3 3 Glazing system FAST diagram ................................ ................................ ........... 83 3 4 E NERGY STAR climate zone map ................................ ................................ ..... 85 3 5 Preliminary pairwise comparison matrix ................................ ............................. 94 3 6 Testing the tool: pairwise comparison matrix ................................ .................... 109 4 1 Preliminary energy savings Likert scores ................................ ......................... 115 4 2 Preliminary life cycle cost Likert scores ................................ ............................ 115 4 3 Preliminary first cost Likert scores ................................ ................................ .... 116 4 4 Prel iminary maintenance Likert scores ................................ ............................. 116 4 5 Preliminary schedule Likert scores ................................ ................................ ... 117 4 6 Preliminary vernacular Li kert scores ................................ ................................ 117 4 7 Preliminary access to daylight Likert scores ................................ ..................... 118 4 8 Preliminary labor Likert scores ................................ ................................ ......... 118 4 9 Preliminary equipment Likert scores ................................ ................................ 119 4 10 Preliminary final scores ................................ ................................ .................... 119 4 11 Tested schedule Likert scores ................................ ................................ .......... 126 4 12 Tested initial cost Likert scores ................................ ................................ ......... 127 4 13 Tested energy savings Likert scores ................................ ................................ 128

PAGE 11

11 4 14 Tested maintenance Likert scores ................................ ................................ .... 129 4 15 T ested life cycle costs Likert scores ................................ ................................ 130 4 16 Tested community vernacular Likert scores ................................ ..................... 131 4 17 Tested labor Liker t scores ................................ ................................ ................ 132 4 18 Tested equipment Likert scores ................................ ................................ ........ 133 4 19 Tested access to daylight Likert scores ................................ ............................ 134 4 20 Tested final scores ................................ ................................ ........................... 135 4 21 Schedule importance final scores ................................ ................................ ..... 136 4 22 Low energy final scores ................................ ................................ .................... 137 4 23 Initial cost importance final scores ................................ ................................ .... 138 4 24 Life cycle cost importance final scores ................................ ............................. 139 4 25 Access to daylight importance final scores ................................ ....................... 140 A 1 USGBC win dow to floor area diagram ................................ ............................. 147 A 2 USGBC top zone lighting diagram ................................ ................................ ... 147

PAGE 12

12 GLOSSARY Annealed Glass Float glass en heat It is considered a hazard in architectural applications because it breaks into large, jagged shards that can cause serious injury. Conduction Conduction results when energy moves from one object to anot her by direct contact. Convection Convection results from the movement of air due to temperature differences. For instance, warm air moves in an upward direction and, conversely, cool air moves in a downward direction. Daylight Daylight refers to the combi nation of all direct and indirect sunli ght outdoors during the daytime. These include direct sunlight and diffuse sky radiation. Daylighting Daylighting refers to lighting an indoor space with openings such as windows and skylights that allow sun light into the building. This type of lighting is chosen to save energy, to avoid adverse health effects of over illumination by artificial light, and also for aesthetics. Heat Gain Heat gain is heat added to a building interior by radiation, convection or conductio n. Building heat gain can be caused by radiation from the sun or the heat in hot summer air convected/conducted to the building interior. Heat Strengthened Glass It has been subjected to a heating and cooling cycle and is generally twice as strong as annea led glass of the same thickness and configuration. HS glass must achieve residual surface compression between 3,500 and 7,500 PSI for 6 mm glass, according to ASTM C 1048 Insulating Glass It refers to two or more lites of glass sealed around the edges wi th an air space between, to form a single unit. Commonly referred to air to air heat transfer through the glazing. Laminated Glass Laminated glass is two or more lites (pieces) of glass permanently bonded together with one or more plastic inter layers (PVB) using heat and pressure. Light to Solar Gain Index Ratio of the visible light transmittance to the Solar Heat Gain Coefficient. A higher LSG ratio means sunlight entering the room is

PAGE 13

13 more efficient for daylighting, especially for summer conditions where more light is desired with less solar gain. Low E Coating A low E coating reduce s heat gain or loss by reflecting long wave infrared energy (heat) and, therefore, decrease s the U va lue and improve s energy efficiency. Monolithic Glass Glazing construction of m onolithic g lass consists of a single sheet of glass formed using the float glass manufacturing process. Radiation Radiation, or emission, occurs when heat (energy) can move thro ugh space or an object and then is absorbed by a second object. Shading Coefficient An alternative measure of the heat gain through glass from solar radiation. Specifically, the shading coefficient is the ratio between the solar heat gain for a particular type of glass and that of double strength clear glass. A lower shading coefficient indicates lower solar heat gain. Solar Heat Gain Coefficient The percent of solar energy on glass that is transferred indoors, both directly and indirectly through the gla ss. The direct gain equals the solar energy transmittance, while the indirect is the fraction of solar energy that is absorbed and re radiated or convected indoors. Tinted Glass Tinted glass is a colored glass which reduces both visual and radiant transmi ttances T inted glass almost always requires heat treatment to reduce potential thermal stress and breakage and tends to reradiate the absorbed heat. Transmittance The percentage of incident solar energy directly transmitted through the glass. U Value A measure of the heat gain or loss through glass due to the difference between indoor and outdoor air temperatures. It is also referred to as the overall coefficient of heat transfer. A lower U Value indicates better insulating properties. The units are Btu/ (hr.ft2.F). Wind Load Wind load is the result of wind creating pressure that the glass must resist. The wind load on a specific building depends on that terrain, along with local wind sp eeds and the duration of gusts.

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction GLAZING SELECTION TOO L FOR HEALTHCARE FACILITIES By Jessica N. Tomaselli December 2011 Chair: Jim Sullivan Cochair: Robert R ies Major: Building Construction The construction and use of healthcare facilities consumes billions of tons of raw materials, generates significant waste, consumes a tremendous amount of energy and contributes toxic emissions to the air. Given this impact, there are significant opportunities to improve environmental quality and human health through the green planning, design and construction of health care facilities (Health Care Without Harm 2011). One major way to improve the quality of the indoor environment is to allow ample daylighting to penetrate the interior of the healthcare facility. This research will focus on the integrated selecti on proces s for gla zing in a high performance healthcare facility in order to meet owner requirements and provide patients with increased daylight and views. The integrated selection process for materials will be analyzed to facilitate the creation of a glazing sele ction tool for designers and contractors. This selection tool will provide a comprehensive means for selecting glazing materials based on project location, glass performance criteria, the construction attributes affected, and the potential energy savings.

PAGE 15

15 This research will provides a comprehensive and interactive tool for the integrated design and construction team to determine the appropriate glass selection for the healthcare facility based on set owner requirements.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview As the market calls for high performance green buildings, the pressure has been increased to design and construct healthcare facilities to meet these contemporary standards of practice. Yet, the effects of daylighting and views on patient recovery have not c hanged. In fact, an increasing number of studies most notably those performed by Ulrich and Simmons, have shown a correlation between abundant daylighting and access to views with the patient recovery process (Guenther and Vittori 2008) In this, the era of sustainability the integration of innovative technology with glazing systems must result in a facility that improves upon previous design and construction The performance of these technologies has made the decisio n making proc ess more difficult. There is no standard integrated process for the selection of glass, and designers/contractors often struggle to justify decisions to the owner. The lack of such a process creates a division between owner and designer/contractor, resulting in a facility that may Problem Statement With the increase of high performance green buildings leading the way in healthy indoor environments, it seems clear that healthcare facilities would attempt to be the first to implement such techniques However, the healthcare industry has been slow to adapt to sustainable practices as only 17% of current healthcare facilities have implemented green design, construction, and operational strategies (McGraw Hill Construction 2007) One of the most common characteristics of high performance green buildings is the abundance of daylighting and the access to natural views H ealthcare

PAGE 17

17 leaders such as the American Hospital Association (AHA), need to be able to pr omote affordable healthcare for the masses, and o ne way to do this is to reduce the recovery time of patients who stay at inpatient facilities. Studies performed by Ulrich in 1972 were the first to link daylight and views to a reduction in the length of patient recover y time (Guenther and Vittori 2008) The study pioneered the way for daylight and views as driving factor s in the design of building facades. The issue is not designing for increased daylighting and views, but the selection of materials for a high performance envelope. Currently, the market is flooded with numerous high performance materials and typically a conventional selection process is used as the overall decision making tool A n integrated decision making process needs to be utilized to aid designers and contractors in the selecti on of glazing. This process ensure s that d esigners and contractors have the ability to justify using certain glazing systems based on product performance data and the effects on the integrated design/construction process rather than subjective or economic criter ia alone. Research Objectives T he research objective of this study is to develop a n integrated decision making tool for designers and contractors to select glazing for healthcare facilities. The proposed tool will be developed through the analysis of glaz ing system performance data and the c onstruction process. This tool will allow designers and contractors to readily apply an integrated process in the early stages of project development to select the best combination of fenestration products. Significanc e of the Study The Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, has developed a white paper of tips and check lists for daylighting with windows

PAGE 18

18 to provide glazing suggestions. However there is not a standard decision making tool for the selection of glazing for health care facilities. There has been a considerable amount of research collected on the effects of daylighting on healthcare facility patients by Ulrich, Simmons, and Beauchemin (Guenther and Vittori 2008) By linking these topics designers and contractors will be able to document the glazing selection based on a predetermined process with criteria that ha s been developed through an integrated process. Limitations of the Study Although important, this study do es not asses s shading devices in conjunction with the performance of glazing system s It is assumed that the glazing system may perform at an enhanced level with the addition of interior or exterior shading systems. In addition this study is limited to hea lthcare facilities in the state of Florida.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Overview The construction and use of buildings consumes billions of tons of raw materials, generates significant waste, consumes a tremendous amount of energy and contributes toxic e missions to the air. Given this impact, there are significant opportunities to improve environmental quality and human health through the green planning, design and construction of health care facilities (Health Care Without Harm 2011) care canno t be separated from the buildings in which it is delivered. The quality of space in such buildings affects the outcome s of medi c al care and design is thus an Horsburgh 199 5 ). One way to improve the quality of the in door environment is to allow daylighting to penetrate the interior of the facility. This generally correlates to an increase in access to views, making occupants feel more comfortable. Daylighting and views are linked to windows and openings within the env elope of the building S tudies have shown a relationship between the healing process and the amount of daylighting and views to the outdoors (Wilson 2004). According to Edward O. Wilson, who coined the term ttracted to the natural environment that surrounds them. However, the number of buildings that rely on the sun and other eco friendly design principles are minuscule compared with their conventional counterparts ( Boubekri 2008). Fe w countries have dayligh ting legislations, yet similar legislation ha s not been made mandatory in the United States (Boubekri 2008) Keeping this in mind, healthcare leaders should design facilities to accommodate these findings.

PAGE 20

20 It is not only the design phase that is affected b y the amount of daylighting to be included in a facility. The construction and operational phase s become important, as schedule, costs, aesthetics, maintenance, and labor are re defined as the amount of glazing increases It is not enough to rely on the pre sence of windows and assume that daylight will be adequate (Boubekri 2008). An integrated approach needs to be taken when selecting glazing systems for a healthcare facility. Therefore, the properties and characteristics of glazing become essential when ma king initial decisions on the faade of the facility. This chapter discusses the issues of integrated design for high performance facilities hospitals as healing environments, sustainability in healthcare, the guidelines for daylighting in high performan ce buildings, properties of windows and their performance levels the design and construction process es associated with glazing Theoretical Framework It has been stated that an integrated approach to the design and construction of buildings allows them to function at their highest efficiency while exceeding the mechanical, structural, functional and aesthetic needs expressed by the owner. Integrated design is about connecting key members of the project team to work collectively across discip lines (Malin 200 4). It encourages out of the box thinking and moves from immediate issues to a more holistic approach to design, effectively associating green building and social issues with the design. An Integrated Approach The conventional process of design and constr uction is linear and compartmentalized moving from point to point without any interaction among the disciplines. It has been understood as a three step process: architects and engineers

PAGE 21

21 design the entire building, bids are solicited from contractors, and contractors construct the buildings (Hallowell and Toole 2009). This process requires more time spent on the design and construction documents associated with the project and less on the communication among disciplines. There is a growing body of literatur e that describes the driving forces behind the evolution of project delivery in the construction industry (Hallowell and Toole 2009). Improvements in technology, materials, and products have eclipsed the technical capabilities of many architecture/engineer ing firms (Hallowell and Toole 2009). I n an integrated design approach, all supporting members responsible for areas of work within the facility (code officials, building technologists, cost consultants, civil engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers structural engineers, specifications specialists, and consultants from many specialized fields) are asked to attend a design charrette (Whole Building Design Guide 2010) This charrette allows the team to discuss and collaborate on ideas and problems wit h the building. Different perspectives from the team allow for a greater integration of systems and a greater potential for innovative design. The team can only work well if there is constant communication between all members. The collaborative nature of i ntegrated design ensures that all parties have the same goals in mind. This also allows for potential conflicts between systems to be addressed early in the design stage. One of the main premises of integrated design is having multiple seasoned professiona ls interacting with one another to ensure that the design is practical and cost effective (Hallowell and Toole 2009). working as a team from the beg 2004).

PAGE 22

22 Typical design and construction process es are priced differently from the integrated process. In conventional processes, f ees are paid separately to the architect/designer and contra ctor to achieve the end product: a complete, occupied building. The inte charrette. This however, seems to reduce construction costs, as there is less time spent inquiring about the construction documents, effectively eliminating redundant de sign (Malin and Wendt 2010). The cost does not increase by utilizing the integrated design technique; it merely shifts the costs to the initial stages of the project, whe n the team is collaborating on decisions for t he most effective design and construction. The traditional de sign and construction process has become increasingly fragmented. More entities are providing architecture and engineering services which increase the split among the three different groups: design professionals who produce contract documents, engineering consultants hired by constructors, and component manufacturers (Hallowell and Toole 2009). There has traditionally been insufficient communication among these groups, so the increased fragmentation will likely lead to increased inefficiencies in the design and construction process (Hallowell and Toole 2009). Lack of sufficient communication between design and construction entities would seem to point towards the inherent superiority of integrated design over the traditional design and construction process ( Hallowell and Toole 2009). The key to integrated design is to design and construct high performance buildings in a cost effective manner. It encourages collaboration across disciplines and promotes interdisciplinary relationships for future projects. Integ rated design challenges the design and construction processes and supports the method that engages

PAGE 23

23 imaginations. Serious problems that result from a fragmented design and construction process suggest the need for a concurrent design process (Hallo well and Toole 2009). It is a complex interaction between human minds, tec hnology, budgets, and deadlines to create a high performance building in which systems are integrated to the highest level (Malin and Wendt 2010) Healthcare Facilities Healthcare f acilities are defined as institutions that provide treatment by specialized staff and equipment and often provide for long term patient stays ( Boehland renovation of healthc building boom occurred just after World War II, and many of those buildings are in need of either reno vations or over hauls (Boehland 2005). The industry is ready for innovative facilities that keep current the techn ological advances and the demands placed on infrastructure. The healthcare industry is expected to spend over $25 billion on construction of these facilities and it may be time to evaluate the way we design and build within the healthcare sector (Johnson 2010). In essence, a hospital has many of the same characteristics as other buildings. Some spaces within healthcare facilities, specifically administrative offices and patient waiting areas, are almost identical to administrative offices and lobbies in c onventional office buildings (Boehland 2005). However, many of the unique characteristics of healthcare facilities actively set them apart from conventional buildings. Hospitals are differentiated by their high, continuous demand for electricity, hot water cooling and by the need for redundancy and emergency backup power systems (Boehland 2005).

PAGE 24

24 Healthcare facilities are becoming larger. According to the Energy Information inpatien t healthcare facility is 11 times the size of the average commercial building (Boehland 2005). In addition, they consume about double the amount of energy as that of an office building, accounting for 9% of all commercial energy consumption in the United S tates (En ergy Information Administration 2 011 ). Most of these facilities operate on a 24 hour basis in which specialized equipment is utilized. This maintains the continuous consumption of energy, electricity, and water. Healthcare facilities are highly and promote the public health by providing for the development, establishment, and enforcement of certain standards in the construction, maintenance, and operation of hospitals which will e nsure safe, sani tary, and reasonably adequate care and treatment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and th e American Hospital Association 2001 ). Massive amounts of waste are generated by healthcare facilities. According to Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, the healthcare industry in the United States creates more than 2.4 million tons of waste per year, or 1% of all municipal waste (Boehland 2005). This includes hazardous and chemical waste that must be disposed of properly. However, ver y few healthcare leaders are informed of how much waste they produce or how much it costs to dispose of this waste (Boehland 2005). Lastly, healthcare facilities are stressful environments in which many of the occupants have depressed im mune systems (John son 2010). Hospitals are places of extreme drama: death, injury, birth and the saving of life are hourly occurrences. This

PAGE 25

25 should not be is on ways to influence calmness and serenity. Researc h shows that hospitals can be good healing environments, which can speed recovery and help to retain staff, if the facility has been designed to influence patient recovery and not patient anxiety (Boehland 2005) The main goal of the healthcare industry, a s a whole, is to save lives and improve health. With the onset of sustainability as a driving force in the design/construction industry, a growing belief has been developed by many health practitioners that sustainable practices go hand in hand with a mi ssion to both cure the sick and keep patients, employees and their communities well (Martin 2009). If we wish to restore and safeguard health we must begin to design and construct environmentally responsible healthcare facilities. Health Care Without Harm a national coalition of healthcare and community organizations, is working with the healthcare sector to implement ecologically sound and healthy alternatives to health care practices that pollute the environment and contribute to disease (Johnson 2010). Hospitals must become environments that promote healing while working to eliminate environmental contaminants to assure that the healthcare setting does not negatively impact a n 2010). Hospitals as Healing Environments The main g oal of every healthcare professional the healthcare industry has neglected to impress this same slogan upon the healthcare environment. Healthcare providers are under the impression that sustainable healthca re means having to do more with less. The argument needs to evolve. Healthcare facilities are about improving the health of patients, and this may be

PAGE 26

26 achievable if the facility can create a healthier community through environmentally friendly design and co nstruction. Biophilia R esearch in a variety of fields has shown that a connection to nature generates and Kellert 2006). Biophilia is simply put a love of nature. But more importantly it is our genetic tendencies to value nature and these tendencies, in turn, affect our physical, emotional, intellectual, psychological, and moral well being (Wilson 2006). Harv ard biologist Edward O. Wilson suggested by leaders of the sustainability movement that biophilia is the missing piece of sustainable design. The most clearly demonstrated benefits of biophilia are related to health and healing (Wilson 2006). There are two primary reasons why biophilia should be utilized in, not only sustainable design, but all healthcare design. First, it has been shown that there is a correlation between the elem ents of biophilia (environmental features, natural shapes and forms, natural patterns, light, and space) and human performance factors such as productivity, emotional well being, stress reduction, learning, and healing. Not only do the medical requirement s of patients need to be addressed in the design and execution of healthcare facilities, but the psychological and emotional requirements as well (Wilson 2004). Second, in terms of environmentalism, biophilia encourages an appreciation of nature, which may lead to the protection of natural landscapes, a decrease in pollution, and the preservation of a healthy and flourishing environment (Guenthe r and Vittori 2008). Given the evidence of the health and well being benefits

PAGE 27

27 that accrue from contact with nature it is surprising that healthcare institutions have been slow to incorporate nature into building and site design (Heerwagen and Keller 2006). Daylighting health, productivity, and well Vittori 2008). Sunlight in patient rooms is associated with a reduction in pain, stress, and depression, more positive moods, and/or shorter hos pital stays (Guenther and Vittori 2008). Roger S. Ulrich has explored the benefi ts of daylighting and views on h ealthcare patients. He suggests that an exposure to natural light or direct sunl ight may aid in the release of the neurotransmitter, serotonin which affects the pain receiving areas of the central nervous system that can al leviate the experienced intensity of pain (Wilson 2006). In a study of patients who had been hospitalized with severe depression, Beauchemin and Hays found that the patients in day lit rooms had a shorter hospital stay than those in diml y lit rooms (Guent her and Vittori 2008). Similar results have been found for patients recovering from heart surgery and patients situated in the critical care center. A more recent study assessed patient results in bright hospital rooms as compared with rooms in which sunl ight exposure was blocked by a bu ilding wing (Guenther and Vittori r s found that patients in the brighter rooms (rooms receiving 46 percent higher lighting levels) experienced less perceived stress, took less analgesic medication per hour and accrued 21 percent less pain medication costs than the patients who underwent the same surgery but were housed in the more dimly and Vittori 2008).

PAGE 28

28 The effect of daylight on patient outcomes is becoming more widely known, primari ly through the evidence based research compiled by the Cen ter for Health Design (Pradinuk 2006). The evidence that links the impacts of daylighting on medical outcomes and patient well being should be significant enough to warrant a new approach to develop ing daylighting standards for contemporary healthcare projects. Views Consistent findings have been shown in a number of studies that asses s the quality of views on recovering patients. Mood improvement and stress reduction are related to the ability to ei ther contact or view nature. A landmark study by Ulrich took place in a hospital setting between 1972 and 1981. In this study gallbladder surgery patients who were matched based on gender, age, and general health conditions were exposed to a window with e ither a natural view or a view of a brick wall (Guenther and Vittori 2008) Patients with the view of nature had significantly shorter hospital stays, elicited fewer negative comments from nurses, require less pain medication, and experienced slightly fewe r surgical effects of natural views on patients exposed to a stressor in a healthcare setting (Guenther and Vittori 2008). Researchers are constantly reporting the positive effe cts on patients with views to nature and correlate them to stress reduction, an increased capacity to heal, and more rapid mood enhancement. R.F. Simons, in conjunction with Ulrich, have demonstrated the effects of natural views on blood pressure, muscle t ension, stress, and speed of recovery (Guenther and Vittori 2008)

PAGE 29

29 (Wilson 2004). A broad group of studies and research show s that a connection to nature yields a consistent set of benefits in a hospital setting. Strategies in healthcare are currently geared towards a reduction in energy use because it relates directly to cost savings. However, happier, healthier, less stressed employees have proven more productive and generally perform with fewer medical mistakes (Martin 2009). Natural lighting is also shown to increase employee retention. R eplacing nursing staff can be costly to healthcare providers. Creating an environment th at fosters patient and staff well being through evidence based features, such as views to nature, will save money in the long run. Sustainability Sustainability without compromising the a bility of future generations to meet their own needs ( Environmental Protection Agency 2011) The United States Green Building Council is committed to a prosperous and sustainable future for our nation through cost efficient and energy saving green buildin gs (B uilding Design and Construction 2011). This includes designing and constructing in a way that is comfortable, healthy, and energy efficient. Integrated design reinforces the connection between sustainable design and the design and construction process es. An integrated approach allows for systems to be utilized in a multitude of ways to decrease the burden placed on the environment (Malin 2004) This becomes especially important with the design and construction of healthcare facilities.

PAGE 30

30 Many advocates b elieve that enough hospitals have entered the sustainable movement to begin a chain reaction that will affect the healthcare industry (Wilson, 2005) However, for as many healthcare facilities that have embraced this movement, there are double and triple t instance, it is useful to communicate the benefits of designing and building sustainably. The Benefits of Sustainable Design and Construction Sustainable design and construction is not only about adding together different green features; it is about how these systems work together to create a building that achieves optimu m levels of performance (Wilson 2005). Currently, there is an idea that oehland 2005). However, sustainable principles and parameters challenge designers to investigate methods of utilizing every possible component to contribute toward the envir onment (Tennant 2010). No building can achieve every green benefit. However, build ing sustainably begins the decision making process for the areas on which the facility should focus For example, a focus on materials that do not off gas hazardous chemicals might be the main goal of one facility that cannot achieve a reduction in potable water usage. Each facility is unique and should be designed in a specific way that obtains maximum results at a certain level. Many of the first cost savings of building sustainably relates to the site. A streamlined and compact building takes up less sp ace on a site and therefore reduces the infrastructure costs associated with the facility. A smaller site minimizes the loss of open, natural space. Savings in construction waste disposal are included in the first costs because they go hand in hand with a facility that has optimized building

PAGE 31

31 dimensions. In addition, tax incentives and municipality credits may be offered for green building developers (Wilson 2005). Lower water costs are also a benefit to green building. Many green buildings are using less t han a quarter as much water as conventional buildings (Wilson 2005). Water conservation is a strategy that lowers these costs. Collecting rain water and re harvesting it for irrigation and toilet flushing are two approaches for non potable water while redu cing the flow and flush capacities are approaches for potable water. The most significant savings in high performance buildings is the energy savings. Green buildings generally have lower operating costs. Reduced energy is often the single most obvious ec onomic benefit. Green buildings commonly use less than half as much energy as their conventional counterparts, and some green buildings consume less than one quarter as much energy (Wilson 2005). As energy costs continue to rise, the savings based on reduc ed consumption will be come a major driver in the sustainable movement. Furthermore, green buildings have increased health and productivity benefits. Improved health, comfort, productivity and learning are a few advantages to green buildings. The quality o f the indoor environment is extremely important considering Americans spend between 85 and 95% of their time indoors (Wilson 2005). Ensuring a healthy space almost guarantees healthier users. The advantages to creating sustainable buildings may be obvious to some. However, people need to become educated on the facts that support integrated design and green building as a lifestyle, not only in everyday situations, but specifically in the healthcare industry. I mproving health is at the heart of the gr een buil ding movement

PAGE 32

32 (Boehland 2005). As it stands, the design and construction of healthcare facili ties is at a juncture (Boehland 2005). As the connection between the environment and healthcare becomes clearer, the issue of sustainability will become the drivin g force in the design and construction industry. By considering the environmental and health implications of design and construction decisions, we can bring the performance of healthcare facilities on to restore and safeguard health (Boehland 2005). Leaders in Sustainable Healthcare There are a number of groups that are currently ready to give advice and trend has developed into a long term strategy for design and construction, more groups will become available for assistan ce The major resources for sustainability and the healthcare industry are described in the following sections. United States Green Buildin g Council The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) is a nonprofit association that offers green building certification, administers the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, provides courses and workshops, publishes re ference guides, and disseminates information (Vernon 2009). The USGBC has recently released the newest version of LEED, the LEED for Healthcare rating system which takes into account the unique nature of healthcare facilities. Green Guide for Healthcare B efore the USGBC had been organized, the Green Guide for Healthcare (GGHC) was created by a group of volunteers that developed a rating system specifically for the healthcare industry. The Green Guide for Healthcare is a points based system;

PAGE 33

33 however, there is no third party certification. The toolkit is free to healthcare community forum and other resources. The USGBC was given permission to develop The LEED for Healthcare syst em based on the GGHC toolkit. Green Guide for Healthcare and the USGBC work together to provide education about and improvements to the LEED system (Vernon 2009). Practice Greenhealth The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the American Ho spital Association, Health Care Without Harm, and the American Nurses Association founded Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) with the purpose of helping healthcare organizations eliminate mercury from their facilities and operations (Vernon 2009). T he organization expanded to oversee the majority of the planning and operations that take place within a healthcare facility and was renamed Practice Greenhealth. Currently, Practice Greenhealth offers educational tools for use in the healthcare industry. Global Health and Safety Initiative Formed because many healthcare organiza tions wanted the chance to make sustainable changes, the Global Health and Safety Initiative (GHSI) makes guidelines, instruments, models, and proven strategies available to the he althcare industry. By merging resources from partners and other organizations, the GHSI provides a comprehensive set of tools, information, and resources to these facilities. Health Care Without Harm A leader in the sustainable healthcare movement Health Care Without Harm is a non profit, international network of healthcare organizations, clinicians, environmental

PAGE 34

34 sector worldwide, without compromising patient safety or care, so that it is ecologically sustainable and no longer a source of har m (Vernon 2009). Toolkits and resources are provided to healthcare organizations through online interaction. United States Department of Energy The U nited S tates Department of Energy (DOE) is new to the sustainable movement in healthcare. Yet, they are working closely with the healthcare sector to make significant improvements in energy usage. The DOE is currently working to create a document series ca version for larger hospitals will be produced shortly after (Vernon, 2009) The DOE formed the Hospital Energy Alliance which is made up of representative from leading healthcare organizations a nd national associations. The group is part of an industry led energy partnership to increase energy efficiency and they focus on energy related challenges within the sector. ENERGY STAR The ENERGY STAR Program is aimed at conserving energy and reducing the environmental impact of energy consumption (Vernon 2009). The prominent label on equipment and appliances reminds consumers and promotes more energy efficient choices on the market. ENERGY STAR also provides a free energy performance benchmarking tool for healthcare organizations to utilize for comparison to other similar buildings in the area. LEED for Healthcare The USGBC (2009) has recently published a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LEED ) for Healthcare certification system that focuses on the

PAGE 35

35 unique needs of the healthcare sector and healthcare facilities. Previously, it was difficult for healthcare facilities to achieve any LEED points due to the amount of total ener gy consumed and waste produced. However, a handful of facilities did ma nage to make the LEED for New Construction certification system work in their favor. There are numerous ways in which to achieve points on the LEED rating system. This section looks at possible point allocation when dealing with glazing systems and where p oints can be earned. Energy and Atmosphere A facility that truly has sustainability in mind can successfully achieve a significant score in the energy and atmosphere section. The main goal is to achieve increased levels of performance beyond the minimum p rescribed values. This reduces the environmental and economic impacts associated with excessive energy use (USGBC 2009 ). A dedicated checks and balances system of energy modeling can demonstrate a reduction in total building energy consumption. Glazing tha t has been selected appropriately for the climate zone, performs above baseline standards, installed correctly, and sealed properly can aid in the decrease of energy usage. This puts less pressure on the HVAC system, effectively reducing the size of the sy stem and contributing to optimal energy performance. The points are applicable to new use of alternate forms of energy created on site to reduce the impacts placed on the environment and offset building energy costs. Glazing cannot achieve a sufficient production of energy to qualify for these points; however, the glazing can help contribu te to overall energy

PAGE 36

36 Photovoltaic films, similar to those used in solar panels, placed on glass utilize the sun to generate energy for the facility. Although only a small amount of usab le energy may be produced, when coupled with other forms of site generated energy, the savings can prove significant. Up to eight points can be achieved through the use of on site renewable energy. Materials and Resources placed on the environment through the production and transportation of materials. Up to four points will be awarded for each 10% of the total value of materials and products used in the project that were either recy cled or regionally sourced. Glass alone cannot achieve a recycled content value; however, the framing systems can contribute to the selecting products and materials. Glass can be sourced from a manufacturer within a 500 mile radius of the project site and qualify for a portion of points under this credit. Indoor Environmental Quality Reducing the amount of airborne contaminates on the interior of the facility that is odorous, irritating and/or harmful to the comfort of the occupants is the main goal of ). The products associated with gl azing that can achieve points under this credit are exterior applied products such as ad hesives, sealants, coatings and weatherproofing materials. Any of these products applied on site must comply with the VOC limits set by the California Air Resources Board Glazing can be sealed on either the interior or the exterior and most require weathe rproofing to avoid water damage. Using sealants, adhesives, and

PAGE 37

37 weatherproofing products with a low VOC content ensures compliance with the credit requirement s awarding the facility one point for reducing indoor air contaminants. Credit 8.1 and 8.2 are di rectly associated with glazing as they provide access to daylighting and views. Credit 8.1 applies directly to daylighting and its infiltration to the interior parts of the facility. One option must be selected from the four available options. These option s include a computer simulated model showings a 75% use of perimeter surface area to be glazed; calculations for the visible light transmittance and window to floor area; the actual measurement of daylight illumination levels meeting or exceeding ten footc andles; or any combination of the previous three methods to document daylight illumination on 75% of the perimeter area See Appendix A for a full description of these options. Up to two points may be achieved through the documentation of these methods. Cr edit 8.2 stipulates a connection to the outdoors through the use of views in regularly occupied areas of the building. This credit requires that 90% of inpatient areas are exposed to windows within 20 feet of the perimeter of the building. Non inpatient ar eas must be within 15 feet of the perimeter and that 90% of the perimeter rooms have windows. Up to three points may be achieved under this credit. Daylighting and views in healthcare facilities successfully stabilizes moods, reduces stress, and promotes healing in patients. Approximately 39 points on the LEED for Healthcare rating system are associated with glazing. The majority of these points are allocated to increased performance of materials and products which reduces energy consumption. Utilizing an integrated design process can help to fully intertwine all systems to function at peak performance

PAGE 38

38 with minimal effort. This generat es a facility that reduces environmental impacts as well as energy consumption Re gulation Committees The design and constr uction of healthcare facilities is highly regulated due to the inherent nature of the clientele that inhabits the facility. There are numerous guidelines and regulations that must be met in order to proceed. The following sections will describe the guideli nes that relate to the topic of daylighting and glazing and discuss the contributing groups that regulate these systems. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Con dition ing Engineers (ASHRAE) regulate the energy usa ge of buildings and standardize the requirements for building envelope insulation and performance. They have developed lighting power allowances (ASHRAE 2010 (a) ). ASHRAE 90.1 2010 This standard regulates the building envelope for fenestration and doors. For each specific material (vertical glazing, doors with glazing, etc. ) the U Values and R Values are defined, and the products must meet these requirements. If a space is conditioned, the U value, Solar H eat Gain Coefficient (SHGC), the visible transmittance, and at time s the air leakage rate, must meet the prescribed value. This ensures that the energy requirements of the facility remain at a minimum (ASHRAE 2010 (a) ) ASHRAE 62.1 2010 This standard regu lates the natural ventilation allowances for buildings. Although most healthcare facilities are not naturally ventilated, it helps to asses s the compatibility

PAGE 39

39 of glazing and ventilation techniques. Operable windows allow the patient to have partial control over the ventilation of the space (ASHRAE 2010 (b) ) ASHRAE 189.1 2009 This is the standard for the design of high performance buildings. This is similar to the 90.1 standard with the exception of higher values for insulation and envelope performance. The objective is for the building envelope to be come more efficient, therefore reducing the cooling, heating, and energy loads in order to qualify the facility as a high performance building (ASHRAE 20 09 ) American Architectural Manufacturers Association Fen estration standards are always evolving due to changes in technology, building codes and rating system performance requirements The American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) is a third party certification specialist in windows, doors, and sk ylights. AAMA is involved in developing industry standards, test methods, and performance criteria for certified window and door products and components. AAMA standard ensures that quality and performance are measured for each product and product class Th e product must pass required performance testing for the applicable product class and desired performance class. The performance test s include but are not limited to: operating force, air leakage, water penetration, load deflection, structural load, and fo rced entry. In addition, the individual components that make up windows, doors, and skylights are tested to ensure quality and performance. The AAMA Certification Program is the only program in the window and door industry that requires that components use d in the finished window and door assembly pass their own set of performance tests (AAMA 2011)

PAGE 40

40 Window and Door Manufacturers Association The Window and Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA) is a t rade association representing some 130 manufacturers and su ppliers of windows and doors. Formerly, the National Wood Window & Door Association, the organization now focuses on quality window and door products. WDMA defines the standards in the residential and commercial window, door and skylight industry and advan ces these standards among industry members. In addition WDMA provides resources, education and professional programs designed to advance industry businesses and provide a greater va lue to their consumers (WDMA 201 1 ). CSA International Formerly the Canadian Standards Association, CSA International develops standards for a wide range of products. Although active internationally, it represents Canada in the development of North American window and door standards. It also operates a window and door certificati on and labeling program. The association tests and evaluates all windows in order to meet the A440 standard. This ensures the maximum performance standards for the product (CSA 2011) National Fenestration Rating Council The National Fenestration Rating C ouncil (NFRC) is a non profit, public/private organization, created by the window, door and skylight industry. The organization is comprised of manufacturers, suppliers, builders, architects and designers, specifiers, code officials, and government agencie s. NFRC has established a voluntary national energy performance rating and labeling system for fenestration products (NFRC 2011) NFRC 100 is the procedure for and evaluation of the U value for all glazing products. NFRC 200 is the procedure for and eval uation of the solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC)

PAGE 41

41 and the visible transmittance of glazing products. These characteristics are necessary when specifying glazing systems and are used to determine the energy efficiency of the system. The current energy conser vation code requires conformance only with the U value and th e SHGC of windows (Metha et al 2008). ASTM International Formerly American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM International is an organization involved in establishing test methods and gui delines for all types of materials, including glass and other window and door components. ASTM International is a developer of standards for installation of windows and doors. ASTM standards are used around the world to improve product quality, enhance saf ety, facilitate market access and trade, and build consumer confidence (ASTM 2011) ASTM members deliver the test methods, specifications, guides and practices that support industries and governments worldwide Legislation Currently, there is no legislati on for the requirement of daylighting in healthcare facilities. The closest requirement is a window size requirement b ased on the types of activity that occur in the space. These window size requirements are for the venting of smoke or to provide exits in the event of fire or other emergency. Building codes t the window 2008). In the United States, the Building Official Code Administrators (BOCA) specifies that every room or spaces intended for human occupancy should have an exterior glazing area of no less than 8 percent of the total floor area ( BOCA 2009 ). The deficiency of legislation for daylighting in healthcare

PAGE 42

42 facilities and other buildings makes it clear tha t there should be a minimum standard for daylighting in all buildings Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities The Guidelines for Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities suggests the minimum program, space, functi onal program, patient handling, infection prevention, architectural detail, and surface and furnishing needs for clinical and support areas of hospitals, ambulatory care facilities, rehabilitation facilities, and nursing and other residential care faciliti es The appendices are labeled in the guidelines and are not necessarily standard practice The applicable guidelines instruct and recommend minimal standards for daylighting and views in a healthcare setting and provided a gener al overview of the glazing standards for hospitals Since 1947, the guidelines have set minimum standards for American health care facility design (The Facility Guidelines Institute 2006). These guidelines address any recommendation s for daylighting and vi ews in g eneral hospitals. Today, these performance oriented requirements give health care providers and design professional guidance on good practice and emerging trends (The Facility Guidelines Institute 2006). As the healthcare industry continues to evol ve their healthcare needs in response to patient satisfaction, so do the guidelines and recommendations. Revisions are a natural part of every process and the Facility Guidelines Institute successfully updates gu idelines and recommendations as necessary. When deciphering these guidelines, it is important to start with the general considerations sections to identify areas that may impact the function or framework of the design. The framework constitutes the built features as well as describes the type of en vironment necessary in a healthcare facility. These guidelines aid in enhancing the

PAGE 43

43 performance, productivity, and satisfaction of patients and staff in order to provide a safe environment of care (The Facility Guidelines Institute 2006). The functional el ements recommended in the guidelines applies to the physical layout, systems designs, and planning. It recommends the use of natural light and views in the physical environment and includes details of healing gardens. The control of the physical environmen t in respect to lighting specifies the need for individual controls for patient comfort. Energy conservation and sustainability is mentioned as an appendix to the physical environment. Suggestions for energy conservation strategies to reduce the overall de mand on systems includes: a high efficiency envelope, low energy sources of light (daylight) and the use of high efficiency equipment. in all hospitals. General hospitals details rooms, to staff areas, to emergency areas. In patient rooms, it has been recommended that each patient have access to the outside environment. Design criteria for glazing is also mentioned in the general hospital section and details the locations of patient beds in response to window locations. Glazing materials are discussed in a general hospital sub section and the guidelines communicate the need for meeting NFPA standards The operability of windows is mentioned briefly and recommends designing small openings to restrict escape or suicide. Safety glass, tempered glass, and wired glass are covered in this sub section and will be detailed at a later point in this thesis These guidelines set a minimum sta ndard for healthcare facility design and construction. There are many more stringent standards that must be followed in

PAGE 44

44 accordance with county and state regulations. The areas mentioned in The Guidelines for Design and Construction of Health Care Facilitie s (2006) are generalized towards a typical hospital Further guidelines and recommendations are detailed in accordance with alternate healthcare facility types. Building Envelope gy consumption is to properly plan its building envelope (United States Department of Energy 2011). and exterior. More than 70% of the total energy consumed in healthcare faciliti es is attributed to lighting and HVAC needs (United States Department of Energy 2011). The construction of new h ea l thcare envelopes and the retrofit of existing healthcare envelopes have (2011) Hospit al Energy Alliance and has developed six major factors that should be taken into The United States Department of Energy (2011) identifies envelope features, such as daylighting, views, an d materials, as important factors in creating safe and therapeutic patient environments. This guidance from the DOE ties directly into the concepts of biophilia mentioned earlier. For the purposes of this thesis, the building envelope features that are exp lored are those that directly impact daylighting and views, mainly the glazing. The orientation, shape, and volume of a building have an impact on the daylighting, heat gains or losses within the building, air movement throughout the building, the indoor environmental quality and the energy consumption (United States Department of Energy 2011). Approximately 18% of energy consumed in healthcare facilities can be directly attributed to electric lighting (United States Department of

PAGE 45

45 Energy 2011). By designin g facilities that allow for daylight to penetrate the interior, this electric lighting energy can be decreased. A decrease in electric lighting consumption can result in a ten to 15% reduction in HVAC consumption in cooling dominated climates (United State s Department of Energy 2011). The climate zone is an important aspect when designing and constructing facility envelopes, as it determines the necessary performance characteristics needed to attain optimal thermal comfort. The specific climate zones will be discussed in later sections of this thesis. Climate zones aid in determining which envelope features will reduce energy needs the most (United States Department of Energy 2011). The design, orientation, size, and materials specifications for all glazing should be based on the interaction among daylighting, visual performance, and the HVAC needs of the healthcare facility (United States Department of Energy 2011). Windows are the parts of the building envelope where most heat losses occur and most heat ga ins are achieved (Aksoy and Bektas 2008). Precautionary measures must be taken when in glazing to prevent heat loss and undesirable heat gain (Aksoy and Bektas 2008) It has been estimated that ten to 40% reduction in electric lighting and HVAC costs is att ainable through improved fenestration (United States Department of Energy 2011). The materials for glazing should be specified carefully as they can contribute to creating a facility that is not only more efficient, but is healthy, comfortable and non haza rdous (United States Department of Energy 2011). It is important for glazing to be situated to best accommodate energy efficiency, patient comfort, and visual considerations (United States Department of Energy 2011)

PAGE 46

46 A building envelope only interacts well with the facility as a whole if the system is integrated with other individual components such as lighting and HVAC systems. An integrated building can provide the difference between a building that saves energy and a building that consumes energy. In addi tion, energy simulation may be a necessary step in examining the interactions between energy consumption and the building envelope (United States Department of Energy 2011). The building envelope should be included in the operations and maintenance of the facility to ensure that all materials specifications, performance requirements and construction guidelines are being handled. It is also important to properly inspect the envelope components, together and separately, as overall operations and maintenance p rotocol (United States Department of Energy 2011). As the overall features of the building envelope have been discussed, it is important for this thesis, to discuss the specifics of glazing to fully understand the system. Glazing Glazing refers to any arc hitectural glass utilized in the envelope of a building. Glazing impacts comfort (both visual and thermal), capital cost, and operating costs (Newell and Newell 2010) Daylight and view s are two of the fundamental attributes of glazing systems. Glazing has a variety of characteristics that ensure a specific level of performance as well as certify a secure faade and building envelope. Glazing has a significant role in ventilating, lighting, connecting indoors and outdoors, and providing a thermally comforta ble indoor environment (Aksoy and Bektas 2008). Proper integration into a building for achieving good performance and aesthetic appeal requires close cooperation of architect and engineers (Newell and Newell 2010) In the following sections, the performanc e factors of windows will be discussed.

PAGE 47

47 Performance Criteria U v alue The U value (U factor) is used to express the insulation value of glazing. The rate of heat loss is indicated in terms of the U value of a window assembly. The lower the U factor, the gre ater a window's resistance to heat flow and the better insulating properties it possesses ( Efficient Windows Collaborative 2011). Low U factors any number below 0.65, are most important in heating dominated climates, while higher U values, those above 0.6 5, are beneficial in cooling dominated climates. Figure 2 1 shows the climate regions of the United States. E nergy efficient performance of windows and skylights varies by climate. The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) provides recommended U v alues for the different climate zones of the United States. These zones are utilized when determining the U value for glazing in a specific climate. For commercial buildings, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the IECC are typically used As shown in Figure 2 1 Flor ida is in a southern zone which suggests that a U value above 0.65 is needed for additional insulation from the heat. A high U factor is helpful during hot days when it is important to keep the heat out and a prescriptive U value for the southern climate zone is less than or equal to 0.65 (Efficient Windows Collaborative 2011). Solar h eat g ain c oefficient (SGHC) The solar heat gain coefficient is defined as the amount of solar radiation that penetrates a given glass divided by the solar radiation incident on the glass (Metha et al 2008). It is a measure of how well glass performs with respect to direct solar radiation. When solar radiation falls on a glass surface, a part of it is transmitted through the glass, a part is reflected, and a part is absorbed b y the glass. Figure 2 2 shows the

PAGE 48

48 characteristics of the solar heat gain coefficient. SHGC is expressed as a number between zero and one (Efficient Windows Collaborative 2011) The lower a window's solar heat gain coefficient, the less solar heat it transm its. For most southern regions of the United States the SHGC should be very low. Solar heat gain can provide free heat in the winter but can also lead to overheating in the summer. The best way to control solar heat gain is to identify an app ropriate SHGC depending upon the climate, orientation, and shading conditions. During the summer, strong direct sunlight comes into contact with people and interior surfaces, creating overheating and discomfort. Windows with a low solar heat gain coefficient reduce the solar radiati on coming through the glass therefore decreasing any associated discomfort. A low SHGC is the most important w indow property in warm climates and the requirements are a SHGC that is less than or equal to 0.30 (Efficient Windows Collaborative, 2011). gain through a given type of glass divided by the solar heat gain through an un shaded clear 1/8 inch thick type of glass under the same internal and ex ternal va et al 2008). The Shading Coefficient (SC) is a measure of the heat gain through glass from solar radiation The index ranges from zero to one and the value closer to one allows more heat to penetrate the interior. A lower number indicates improved solar control over the clear glass baseline. Visible t ransmittance Transparency is one of the main reasons for the utilization of glass in buildings. Another property of glass is its ability to transmit light. Visible Transmittance (VT) is the per centage of the visible part of solar radiation transmitted through glass. Visible transmittance is related to the SHGC because t raditional solutions to reducing solar

PAGE 49

49 heat gain such as tinted glazing or shades translates into a reduction of visible light (Metha et al. 2008) Visible transmittance also refers to the transparency and clarity of views due to the methods of reducing solar heat gain. The higher the VT, the more day light is transmitted through the glazing A higher VT means there is more daylig ht in a space which, if designed properly, can offset elec tric lighting and cooling loads (Center for Sustainable Building Research 2007) Visible transmittance is influenced by the glazing type, the number of layers, and any coatings that m ight be applied to the glazing The visible transmittance of glazing can range from above 90 percent for clear glass to less than 10 percent for highly reflective coatings o r tinted glass. The light to solar gain (LSG) index is also valuable to visible transmittance. Thi s ratio tells the more efficient glazing in respect to reducing the solar heat gain and increasing light transmission. The greater the value of the LSG index, the better insulation and lighting transmission. Figure 2 1. IECC c limate z ones of the U nited S tates

PAGE 50

50 Figure 2 2. NFRC window properties Air l eakage ( i nfiltration) Heat loss and gain also occur by air leakage through cracks in the window components and building envelope This effect is measured in terms of the amount of air (cubic feet or cubic meters per minute) that passes through a unit area of window (square foot or square meter) under given pressure conditions (Center fo r Susta inable Building Research 2007) In filtration varies slightly with wind driven and temperature driven pressure changes. Air leakage also contributes to summer cooling loads by raising the interior humidity level. Tight sealing and weather stripping of windo ws, sashes, and frames are some of the most important ways to control air leakage. In addition, a proper installation ensures that the main air barrier of the wall construction is effectively sealed to the window or skylight assembly so that continuity of the two air barriers is maintained (Efficient Windows Collaborative 2011) Condensation r esistance f actor The condensation resistance factor (CRF) is a measure that rates glazing on its condensation potential. Condensation on the interior surface of the gl ass or its frame can occur when the outside temperature is low and interior humidity is relatively high

PAGE 51

51 (Metha et al 2008) The higher the value of the CRF, the better the glazing will perform with respect to condensation. The CRF is related to the R valu e. The R value is the insulation measurement of opaque objects, such as walls and floors. The R value can be calculated by dividing one by the U value. The higher the R value of the glazing, the higher the CRF. However, the CRF value does not ensure that n o condensation will form; it merely states that condensation will be minimal within the acceptable limits. Hurricane r esistance lateral loads (particularly wind loads), i ncluding missile impact resistance in hurricane prone r (Metha et al 2008). in wind damage, many coastal structures are required to comply with additional safety measures to ensure structural st ability. The 2007 Florida Building code regulates the wind loads and testing for glazing and structural glazing systems Section 2410 High Velocity Hurricane Zones from the Florida Building code states: Exterior wall cladding, surfacing and glazing, with in the lowest 30 feet (9.1 m) of the exterior building walls shall be of sufficient strength to resist large missile impacts as outlined in Chapter 16 (High Velocity Hurricane Zones). Exterior wall cladding, surfacing and glazing located above the lowest 3 0 feet (9.1 mm) of the exterior building walls shall be of sufficient strength to resist small missile imp acts as outlined in Chapter 16 High Velocity Hurricane Zones (2007) In addition, glazing structures must be designed to withstand prescribed wind lo ads in the state of Florida. Figure 2 3 illustrates the different wind speeds that must be met when de signing glass in Florida. All testing for glazing must comply with Chapter 16 of the Florida Building code, where live loads, dead loads, wind speed calc ulation, and impact resistance are detailed for all structural and glazing components.

PAGE 52

52 Figure 2 3 FBC w ind s peed m ap Structural a dequacy All windows and curtain wall systems must be designed to meet minimum requirements for structural integrity. The glass is measured separately from the structural system to determine the loads allowable. Together, the glass and structure must function to d isperse the appropriate loads to the structural system of the building in order to maintain structural adequacy. Wind loads, thermal loads, and missile impact resistance are the primary considerations for structural integrity in glazing. The ASTM Standard en wind

PAGE 53

53 l oad (Metha et al 2008). The thickness of glass is determined by the probability of b reakage. The maximum probability of breakage allowed by building codes for windows and curtain walls to withstand wi nd loads is 0.008 (Metha et al 2008). Glazing Framing Systems Building faades have improved tremendously with the advancement of technology and the n ew systems that are being introduced to the market. Glazing has been incorporated into the envelope more so now than ever before. Technologically advanced glazing systems combined with a sound framing structure are utilized in the majority o f contemporary buildings. This section describes the different framing systems used in faade construction Glazing i nstallation The strength and structure of mullions in a glazing structural system is determined by whether the system is exterior or interior glazed. Thi s determination also controls the shape of the mullion system. This segment briefly explains the difference between exterior and interior glazed systems. Exterior g lazed In an exterior glazed wall system, the glass is installed from the outside of the buil ding. This requires the glaziers to stand on scaffolding or staging, install the glass into a pre constructed structural system, and seal the connection from weather and moisture. Installing glass from the exterior of the building is generally less efficie nt and more costly (Metha et al 2008). Worker safety increases the risk associated with a project that is exterior glazed. A more stringent worker safety plan may be necessary when glazing from the exterior of a high rise structure.

PAGE 54

54 Interior g lazed In an interior glazed wall system, the glass is installed from the inside of the building by workers standing on the associated floor. No scaffolding is required and glaziers have the ability install glass in high rise construction. A disadvantage is that the m ullions and rails are generally more complex in design than the exterior glazed mullions. However, an interior glazed wall system is installed more efficie ntly (Metha et al 2008). Worker safety is less of an issue when interior glazing as compared to exte rior glazing. A worker safety plan must be met, as tie offs and falls can still cause problems. Stick b uilt s ystem The stick built curtain wall system is the oldest and most commonly used structure cture through a system of mullions the vertical elements, which provide the majority of support for the glazing Mullions may span either from floor to floor, or over two floors. Th e mullions are fabricated at an a luminum manufacturer and are shipped to t he jobsite, which allows for lower shipping costs and increased flexibility. Once the mullions are attached to the installed last within the mullion/rail framework, m ost commonly from the interior of the structure. In addition to g lazing, opaque spandrel panels complete with insulation can be installed within the stick built system ( Simmons 2007) Most stick built systems are the can be combined with stock pieces for greater design options The disadvantages of stick built systems are longer on site assembly time and the use of more on site labor than other systems (Metha et al 2008)

PAGE 55

55 Unitized s ystem The unitized system is a curt ain wall term used to describe systems that use prefabricated panels either with or without glazing, assembled under factory controlled conditions that are packed and shipped to the site as a whole. The panel is designed so that vertical and horizontal mem bers are aligned and interlock once set into place. Once in generally the same way as the stick much of the support remains in the framing. A key advantage to the unitized system is a greater degree of quality in the system, as the labor requirements shift from the site to the factory (Patterson 2011) This allows for increased quality control with the product as a whole. Its disadvantages are the higher shipping costs associated with bulk preassembled units, the need for greater protection during transportation and once the units reach the site, and a smaller allotment for adjustments to be made on site (Metha et al 2008) Unit and mullion s ystem This system combines the unitized system and the stick built system. The mullions built system. Subsequently, a panel sys tem is prefabricated at the factory, to be placed between the mullions on site. In certain situations, the panels contain opaque spandrel sections along with glass sections, while other times, the spandrel sections may be prefabricated separately from the glass sections (Simmons 2007). Because this system is a combination between two separate structural system types, it also has the advantages and disadvantages of each system. The shipping price is generally lower than the unitized system, but greater than the stick built system. It has a greater ability

PAGE 56

56 than the unitized system to make on site adjustments, yet it is not as flexible as the s tick built system (Metha et al 2008). Panel s ystem The panel system is made up of prefabricated homogenous metal sheet s or cast panels that come either glazed or non glazed from the factory (Metha et al 2008). The panels generally span between floors and contain few joints and mullions. The curtain an a complex system of horizontal and vertical elements. This system has the least on site flexibility and there is very little opportunity to correct errors. In addition, the panel system has increased shipping costs and a great deal of care needs to be a ddressed during transportation. The storage of these panels becomes cumbersome when arriving on site, as the panels must be protected. However, the ease of installation facilitates a quicker schedule with less on site labor required. Architectural panels c an be expensive and are only economical when a large number of identical panels are needed (Si mmons 2007). Column cover and s pandrel s ystem The column cover and spandrel system is not a true glass curtain wall system, yet it provides a unique approach to concealing the structur e behind a wall of glass (Metha et al 2008). Separate column covers span between floors and pre insulated spandrel panels are generally placed between the columns. Glazing fits in the remaining space between column covers and may be either factory assembled or stick built on site. The column cover and spandrel system is slightly more labor intensive than the panel or unitized system due to the multiple systems that must come toge ther accordingly to create a continuous faade.

PAGE 57

57 However, the preassembled sections will install quicker than the stick built system. Shipping costs are less than the panelized and unitized systems because the sections are generally smaller in size and ligh ter in weight (Simmons 2007) Glazing Types There are many different types of glazing on the market today that offer alternate performance options for buildings. These performance categories need to be assessed thoroughly before a decision is made on the t ype of glazing for the building. Many different factors become apparent when selecting glazing. The selection of glazing is a critical part in the overall success of the building. This section defines the various kinds strengths and characteristics. Annealed g lass Annealed glass is float glass (also referred to as flat glass) that has been neither heat strengthened nor tempered. The process of annealing float glass requires an additional cycle of cooling for the newly p rocessed glass to remove any remaining stresses locked inside the glass from the initial cooling process (Metha et al 2008). The annealing process ensures that each glass particle cools at the same rate, guaranteeing no remaining stress. The annealed glas s is produced as a constant ribbon and can be cut into specific lengths (Guardian Industries Corp 2011). Heat s trengthened g lass Heat Strengthened (HS) glass is generally twice as strong as annealed glass. It is subjected to additional heating cycles that increase the bending strength and th e temperature resistance (Metha et al. 2008) The glass is then blast cooled so the exterior surface becomes rigid quickly, allowing the interior to cool slowly. Heat strengthened glass must achieve residual surface comp ression between 3,500 and

PAGE 58

58 7,500 PSI according to ASTM C 1048 (Guardian Industries Corp 2011). This type of glass is u tilized as general glazing where additional strength against wind and thermal loads is needed When broken, the pieces are larger than that of tempered glass, yet have more blunt edges than that of annealed glass. However, heat strengthened glass is preferred over tempered glass is most situations, except those that require safety glass, d ue to less optical distortions caused by the rapid coo ling process (Metha et al. 2008) Tempered g lass Tempered glass is four times as strong as annealed glass and twice as strong as heat strengthened glass. It is also more resistant to impact and thermal stresses than both annealed and heat strengthened glas s. The surface compression must be over 10,000 PSI according to ASTM C 1048 (Guardian Industries Corp 2011). Tempered glass is created in the same manner as heat strengthened glass, with the exception of a higher heating process, liquefying the glass even f urther. The tempering process must occur after the glass has been cut to size. When broken, the pieces of temper ed glass form very small square edged particles (Metha et al 2008). This allows tempered glass to be used in hazardous situations, as it will not cause serious injuries, and it meets the requirements for safety glass. Tempered glass is also utilized as general glazing, but more often than not, it is installed for specific purposes as safety glass. Monolithic g la ss Monolithic glazing is one cons istent slab of a material such as clear float glass. It can be utilized as an individual panel of glass or it can become a substrate or component of another type of glazing. Generally, monolithic glazing is coated or tinted,

PAGE 59

59 as its properties are not as si gnificant as high performance glazing types (Simmons 2007) Laminated g lass Laminated glass is made up of two layers of glass fused together under heat and pressure with a plastic polymer interlayer, usually polyvinyl butyryl or PVB to form one single uni t (Metha et al 2008). The unique quality of laminated glass is its ability to remain intact after an impact occurs. The PVB interlayer adheres to the broken glass minimizing the hazard of shattered glass. Advantages of laminated glass are the blocking of ultraviolet rays by the PVB interlayer and an increase in the acoustic properties of the glass by the PVB layer (Simmons 2007) Any type of glass can be laminated with another, and laminated glass can also be utilized as a pane in an insulating glass unit. Insulating g lass u nit (IGU) An insulating glass unit is comprised of two layers of glass with a dehydrated air cavity separating the lights to perform as added insulation (Metha et al 2008) This unit is factory manufactured and the cavity has an air t ight seal to reduce maintenance, humidity, and condensation between the layers. In instances where greater insulation is necessary, either argon or krypton may be utilized in the cavity to replace air. Insulating glass is common in climate zones that requi re protection from heat loss in the winter and/or heat gain in the summer. The use of insulating glass has been shown, when installed and oriented appropriately, to reduce the heating and cooling loads placed on the building (Simmons 2007). Any type of gl ass can be utilized in insulating glass units. Laminated glass has become an additional feature of insulating glass units. The

PAGE 60

60 laminated glass can be the exterior or the interior layer of the insulating glass unit and generally a tint or coating is applied to the glass to increase the performance. Coatings a pplied to g lass Coatings are typically applied to glass to reduce the solar heat gain and are found most commonly, on glazed curtain wall systems. There are a variety of coatings applied to most curtai n wall system and this section briefly describes the most prevalent. Tint Glass can be tinted to any color by adding metallic pigments to molten glass during the manufacturing process (Metha et al 2008) Tinted glass absorbs more solar radiation than clea r glass under the same condition s The most common tint colors are blue, green, grey, and bronze. Reflective Glass is made reflective by bonding metal or metal oxide coatings to one surface of clear or tinted glass (Metha et al 2008) Chrome, titanium, s tainless steel, and co balt oxide are the primary metals used to create the reflective surface. This coating remains extremely thin, allowing a small quantity of visible light to pass through the glass. Reflective coatings reduce the solar heat gain, but al so reduce the visible transmittance (VT). Reflected solar radiation from this coating may cause glare in the surrounding environment and can be detrimental to motorists and pedestrians. Low visible transmittance for general illumination is generally an und esirable condition of reflective coatings. With the introduction of low e coatings, the use of reflective coatings has decre ased (Simmons 2007).

PAGE 61

61 Low e missivity The emissivity of a surface is determined by the amount of heat absorbed. Applying a low emissi vity (low e) coating to glass effectively lowers the absorption of heat and increases the ability of the surface to reflect heat This helps to reduce the heat loss from the interior of the building through the glass to the exterior. Low e coatings are bes t in cold climates in which interior heat loss tends to be a problem. In warmer climates, a low e coating can reduce the absorption of heat by the glazing surface (Simmons 2007) The low e coating is applied in the same manner as reflective coatings; metal or metal oxide coatings are bonded to the surface of glass either by magnetic sputtering or pyrolytic deposition (Metha et al 2008). Sputter coated low e on the i nterior of insulating glass units e surface of glass, and have a higher emissivity value (Metha et al. 2008) Construction Att ributes of Glass There are many attributes that are encompassed in the construction process. In an integrated process, a contractor is brought in during the design charrette. This allows for the documentation of the contractors perspective on the analysis of systems and materials. It also increases the overall building integration with the selected systems and materials. Cost The cost to construct projects is extensive. There are many variables affecting the pricing of construction, including the nature, si ze and location of the project as well as the management organization (Simmons 2007) For the purposes of this study, the

PAGE 62

62 initial costs associated with purchasing the materials will be determined based on historical construction data. Included in the initi al cost is the cost of labor for the selected materials. In this instance the cost of glazing will depend on the size of the pane of glass, the type of glass, the coatings applied to the glass, and the transportation fees. In an integrated process, the co sts associated with materials are generally higher up front. A superior product for the facade will guarantee decreased maintenance, repair, and energy use associated with the building. Owners are generally more receptive to an increased initial cost if th e bottom line savings is significant. Schedule Other than costs, scheduling is the single most important factor in the construction of buildings. A schedule determines the duration of time needed to perform each activity as well as indicates when each ac tivity begins and ends. S pecific activities and o perations that may occur at the same point in time and t he overlapping of these operations allow construction to move forward in a linear fashion (Simmons 2007) In addition, the schedule controls the order in which activities are performed Setting critical dates or critical goals is essential to achieving completion. These critical dates, if not met, may put the entire construction behind schedule. The factors for glazing that affect scheduling are labor requirements and duration of installation for the glass. A pre constructed system may be more expensive yet, will save labor hours for field installation. The completion of the faade will allow the schedule to progress through activities that must occur a fter the envelope installation. On occasion, incentives are written into the contract for early completion (Simmons 2007) These provide a financial gain for the contractor while providing early occupation for building owners.

PAGE 63

63 Labor The productivity associ ated with construction project s is generally defined in terms of the output per labor hour. Labor makes up a considerable amount of construction costs, and the amount of labor hours related to certain activities can be reduced through the utilization of m odular systems and parts. Labor crews are made up of specific types of workers that perform defined tasks in the construction process (RS Means 2009) The productivity of the crew is averaged by historical construction data over the length of an entire pro ject. In this same manner, the wages for laborers and crews are determined over an entire project and are average for historical construction data. The labor required for glazing the envelope of a building is generally two glaziers to install the glass, t wo structural steel workers to install the framing systems, and one general construction laborer. A combination of these laborers constitute s the majority of the crews necessary for installing storefront and curtain wall system s (Simmons 2007) The more ef ficient the installation of such systems requires less on site labor. Panelized and unitized systems have decreased the amount of labor hours required to install glazed curtain wall systems, effectively placing more responsibility on the manufacturer rathe r than the field laborer (Metha et al. 2008) Equipment Productivity can also be expressed in terms of equipment (RS Means 2009) The equipment necessary to install certain aspects of the construction project may, either, hinder the productivity of crews piece of equipment may increase the labor output, successfully increasing the productivity of the crew. General construction equipment is typically owned by the contractor; however, specialized equi pment may require the contractor to rent the

PAGE 64

64 equipment (Simmons 2007) The selection of the appropriate type of equipment for construction projects requires time, effort, methods of construction and therefore, on site productivity (Simmons 2007) Construct ion equipment is generally used in cycles to perform sequential tasks. The productivity rate of equipment is based on ideal conditions, but the suggested productivity can be impacted by actual on site working conditions (Metha et al. 2008) In the instanc e of glazed curtain walls, the standard equipment is a crane, or other lifting equipment and scaffolding for exterior glazed surfaces. The cranes must be controlled which adds to the laborers working on site. The crane allows the glass to be lifted to the appropriate height in order for installation into the framing system and sealing. Either a crane or scaffolding may be used in a stick built framing system f or buildings with multiple stories (Simmons 2007) The use of equipment in panelized and unitized f raming systems generally ensures an increased rate of productivity for workers. Access In the construction industry, access has a few definitions. Access can refer to distance in relation to the transportation of materials and equipment. It may also refer to the amount of space that is designated on site for the storage of materials and equipment of the amount of space needed to successfully erect the building (Simmons 2007) In terms of transportation, it may prove difficult to locate a building in an ar ea with little infrastructure. The addition or roads and pathways may need to be determined before construction on the project begins. In terms of space, city construction may prove difficult for certain methods of construction as the amount of equipment n eeded to

PAGE 65

65 successfully erect the building overtakes the allotted s ite In terms of storage, the amount of space provided on the site needs to meet the sched uling requirements for material procurement (Simmons 2007) The owner needs to be aware of the effect s access can have on the method of construction. Innovative construction techniques may requirements (Simmons 2007) Current Analysis Tools Conventional Selection Pro cess The typical design and construction process is linear, with few people making the majority of the envelope decisions. The linear quality does not allow for interaction among disciplines, nor does it allow for other team members to become involved in t he final decision making process. Design and construction are completed in individual stages during the conventional process. The linear approach only allows for the designer and owner to agree on a s general exterior appearance, massing, and fun ction. This information is then turned over to mechanical, structural, and electrical engineers to achieve the initial design by making appropriate system suggestions. The process suggests a quick and simple design, but in actuality the results of this pro cess show high operational costs and a sub standard interior environment, which may harm the overall value of the building ( Larsson 2004 ). The problem leads to a lack of consistency in the building, as all responsible members are not consulted on the init ial design and construction considerations. This lack of consistency leads to a limited ability to optimize energy performance, a decreased opportunity to implement system integration, and an increase in system isolation and redundancy (Busby Perkins + Wil l

PAGE 66

66 2007). Whole building simulation and energy models are not typically involved in the conventional process resulting in systems that perform poorly against energy standards. The original selection process for materials and systems within buildings is set in the same linear standard The collection of data and information occurs along a linear path and very few people are involved in the decision making process (Larsson 2004) It is typical for the owner to set some requirements for materials and systems an d allow the designer to make the final decisions. Systems and materials are selected separately from each other, leaving few allowances for integration. The individual systems may function at a higher efficiency, yet when paired with another system, they p rove redundant and result in increased consumption and costs (Larsson 2004) Systems that are selected separately have no option to perform multiple functions. The product is a building that functions moderately well r equirements. The green building movement has changed the way people are thinking about building materials and systems. The thought process is evolving away from the linear and becoming more holistic. With sustainability making considerable headways in the design and construction industry, it may be time to implement a new set of tools that includes a sustainable approach to decision making and product selection. Integrated Selection Process The integrated process is one that is set in collaboration with m any people working together to make multiple decisions. The process involves a highly cooperative initial charrette, in which all responsible parties become familiar with the project. This allows the owner to set standards and goals for the whole team and in turn, the team attempts to achieve as many of these goals as possible. The charrette clarifies any problems that

PAGE 67

67 may arise in the design and multiple people have the ability to share ideas. The collaborative process allows for systems to become fully in tegrated and to perform at their optimum level (Larsson 2004) When carried out in a spirit of cooperation among key actors, this results in a design that is highly efficient with minimal, and sometimes zero, incremental capital costs, along with reduced l ong term operating and maintenance costs ( Larsson 200 4 ). Experience shows that the inter disciplinary discussion and synergistic approach to design and construction will often lead to improvements in the functional program, in the selection of structural s ystems and in architectural expression ( Larsson 2004 ). Specialized consultants are generally brought on to the team because they possess skills and experience that may be necessary in the full integration of systems. Energy modeling is a major part of the integrated process and is generally performed by an energy consultant. Utilizing an energy model allows the faade and skin of the building to be tested for performance (Malin 2004) This simulation technique allows the owner to visualize the advantages o f higher efficiency materials and systems. Energy modeling also allows alternate system s to be paired and tested for performance. An integrated process pairs well with the creation of high performance green buildings. The main goal in sustainable building is to optimize all performance factors consumption while maintaining a healthy indoor environment (Larsson 2004) The general approach to an integrated process develops t he same areas as the sustainable process and therefore, the two share a relationship that impacts each other (Malin 2004)

PAGE 68

68 The following sections detail the analysis tools that are not inherent to the conventional approach to design and construction. Ener gy Modeling Energy modeling requirements have merged with LEED in the design and construction industry. Energy modeling is critical to making informed design decisions about the envelope and mechanical systems of a building (Korkmaz et al. 2010). Utilized by integrated design teams in the design charrette, this whole building simulation allows f or input data to be analyzed in order to determine th e areas that may need reassessing (Efficient Windows Collaborative 2011(a)) This helps to estimate energy requi rements, size mechanical equipment and design control logic (Korkmaz et al. 2010). Energy modeling takes into account the size of the building, the climate zone, the orientation of the building, the type of construction, the mechanical equipment proposed, and the performance values for selected materials. These values are inserted into the software in order to simulate real time energy use and thus, generate a summary report of energy use (Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory 2009) The early use of energy and daylighting analysis impacts the various configurations on daylighting levels and energy consumption (Korkmaz et al. 2010). By changing the variables, the optimum performance of the building can be calculated, and the design team will have criteria on which to base material and system s selection. By proposing the optimal variation of energy efficient materials, the loads placed on the building decrease, creating a more cost effective end product (Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory 2009) Energy model ing allows the owner and designers to evaluate the building for discrepancies long before construction has started. Systems have a higher potential to

PAGE 69

69 be integrated successfully into the overall building. It aids in creating a better understanding of the d aylighting effects on the building with the different material choices and facilitates better communication with different design professionals (Korkmaz et al. 2010). Energy modeling demonstrates the low performing areas in the design, allowing for adjustm ents to be made with no cost to the owner (Efficient Windows Collaborative 2011(a)) Modeling can improve architectural productivity and make it easier to consider and evaluate design alternatives while integrating the vari ous Prowler 2011). This encourages the need for an integrated design process from beginning to end. There are various energy simulation tools available on the market today. These tools allow a basic user the ability to quantify potential energy savings. The COMFEN simulation tool is a software tool developed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2009) for quick early design scenarios of specific faade, lighting, and shading options using the EnergyPlus simulation engine Efficient Windows Collaborative 201 1 (a) ) It allows for the comparison of different faade options in terms of annual energy impact, peak demand, carbon, daylight illuminance, glare, and thermal comfort. The energy rating and labeling system by the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC ) has primarily been used for residential windows. R ecently the NFRC launched the Component Modeling Approach (CMA), a program that provides certified energy ratings of commercial window systems for product validation and code compliance purposes for the commercial market Efficient Windows Collaborative 2011 (a) ) With the advent of computer simulation tools, it has become easier for owner to visualize the potential savings associated with certain products. This ensures that

PAGE 70

70 buildings will select material s that perform at an optimum level, decreasing the impacts placed on the environment. Life Cycle Cost Analysis The life cycle cost analysis is an economic method of project evaluation in which all costs arising from owning, operating, maintaining and ultim ately disposing of a project are considered to be potentially important to that decision (Fuller and Petersen 1995). It aids i n evaluating building system and material alternatives and becomes a tool when selecting these systems and materials. Projects tha t involve the assessment of potential energy saving techniques can be economically justified to the owner. Life cycle cost analysis is done over a given study period which usually relates to the l ife of a project (Fuller and Petersen 1995) Also, the life cycle cost analysis takes into account the time value of money which discounts and adjusts all future costs into present values using an acceptable discount rate determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce for the given year (Fuller and Petersen 1995) T he life cycle cost analysis aids in determining the appropriate material or system for a project. Quality Modeling Value engineering is a systematic approach to improving the quality of materials, goods, or services. It is a problem solving technique base d on the function of those materials, goods, or services to determine the most effective and functional end product (Kirk 1994) Quality modeling is utilized in value engineering as an approach to defining, measuring and managing the owner quality expec tations 1994) Typically the first step in quality modeling is to determine the function of the material or system through the functional analysis systems technique, or FAST diagram (Kirk 1994) A FAST diagram is structured horizontally and reads fr h

PAGE 71

71 the how w hy manner because those types of questions are asked when developing the structural logic of the systems functions (Kirk 1994) The vertical lines represent the scope of the system and keep the study on track. The left scope line divides the basic function of the system from the basic functions, while the right scope line defines the s located outside the left scope line. The function located to the immediate right of the left scope line reveals the main objective the basic function represent th e approach to satisfy the basic function. See Figure 2 4 as a FAST diagram example. Quality modeling is typically set up as a workshop and the team members include the owner, designers, contractors, facility managers, and the end user. This workshop occur s early in the planning stages or during the design stages of the building. Quality modeling helps define project expectations and these expectations are explored and image flexibility, functionality, technical systems performance, budget adherence, or irk 1994). Each expectation is clearly defined by both the owner and value engineering team, and is assigned a numerical value from which to measure compliance. consists of narrative descriptions of each value and a graphic diagram which shows the relative priorities between th 1994). During the workshop stage, a v ariety of alternatives are defined to enhance the project design and

PAGE 72

72 The quality model is comprised of a graphical depiction displaying the weighted importance of each component (Kirk 1994). A low weighte d value indicates that a component is less important than the other elements. A high weighted value denotes prepared during the workshop stage are used to assess how well the a ctual design and resulting score are calculated based on the quality component measurement scales developed earlier. The same component scales are used to measure other desig n alternatives. The key outcome of quality modeling is to assure a successful decision making tool for the selection of systems and materials (Kirk 1994). Figure 2 4. FAST d iagram e xample r oofing s ystem

PAGE 73

73 Developing an Analysis Tool In order to develop an analysis tool, one must determine any issues with current tools to create something that eliminates any issues. In addition, an understanding of general selection processes must be developed to create a new analysis tool. To cope with the changing deman ds of building owners and users, a continuous search for a new and streamlined selection process is at the forefront of integrated design. The major issue with the selection process is that unclear design criteria for a project are used in material searche s leading to wasted efforts in the long run (Kesteren et al. 2008). Formulating clear and complete criteria can lead to a more effective selection process in which decisions can usually be reached in fewer steps with a more effective application of materia ls attribute information (Kesteren et al. 2008). In an effective materials selection process, the activities and steps result in a materials specification that includes materials that are the best available options (Kesteren et al. 2008). A design project requires a sequence of material selection steps that are planned for the specific project. It may be necessary to adjust selection criteria when information is not usable for other process activities. The critical moments in the selection process occur du ring the information gathering stages, and determining when these critical moments occur may reduce the number of iterations performed and increase the quality of the selected material (Kesteren et al. 2008). In addition, changes to the project objectives, often brought about by the client or owner, are indicated as being most critical for the materials selection process (Kesteren et al. 2008). Adjustments made to the project criteria are needed to make some material requirements more important or new insig hts have been determined during research initiatives. This may lead to unnecessary searches for materials. Unclear and

PAGE 74

74 incomplete criteria make it difficult to compare different material alternativ es. It is determined that clear formulated criteria includi ng very recognizable restrictions are a positive influence on the materials selection process and may result in fewer iterations (Kesteren et al. 2008). The general issue when developing a new selection tool is that the objectives and criteria sometimes c hange after materials searches have begun thus rendering the selections no longer useful. The unclear and incomplete criteria may cause unnecessary steps in the selection process which wastes time and may lead to ineffective material selections (Kesteren e t al. 2008). In order to remedy this issue, it may be important to involve the owner or client in the formulation of project objectives and material criteria. When all parties agree on the objectives and material criteria early in the project, the chance o f later changes will be reduced (Kesteren et al. 2008). In addition, a complete set of material criteria related to the design aspects need to be specified to enable comparisons of the material alternatives (Kesteren et al. 2008). Material selection is a d ifficult and subtle ta sk due to the immense number of different available materials. Designers must take into account a large number of material selection criteria. A material selection attribute is defined as a factor that influences the selection of a ma terial for a given application (Davim and Rao 2006). These attributes may include physical properties, electrical properties, magnetic properties, mechanical properties, chemical properties, manufacturing properties, material cost, product shape, material impact on the environment, performance characteristics, availability, market trends, cultural aspects, aesthetics, recyclability, the target user, etc (Davim and Rao 2006). This suggests the need for a simple, systematic

PAGE 75

75 and logical method or tool to guid e designers into making a proper materials selection decision (Davim and Rao 2006). The objective of the whole materials selection process is to identify the material attributes and obtain the most appropriate combination of attributes for optimal performa nce. The selection of an optimal material from among two or more alternatives on the basis of two or more attributes constitutes a multiple attribute decision making problem (Davim and Rao 2006). The multiple attribute decision making (MADM) refers to an approach of problem solving that is employed to solve problems involving selection from among a number of alternatives (Davim and Rao 2006). This approach specifies how material attribute information is processed in order to arrive at a choice. The most po pular methods of decision making under MADM are the technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Davim and Rao 2006). Both are logical decision making approaches and can a id in selecti ng a material from a set of candidate alternatives which have been characterized by attributes (Davim and Rao 2006). The TOPSIS technique is based on the concept that the chosen alternative should have the shortest Euclidean distance from the ideal solutio n (Davim and Rao 2006). The ideal solution is one that contains all the necessary attributes of the specific material. The TOPSIS method requires a process to develop the relative importance of the different attributes with respect to the overall objective and the AHP provides this process (Davim and Rao 2006). The AHP is a flexible decision making process to help people set priorities and make the best decision when both tangible and non tangible aspects must be considered. It is designed to reflect the w ay people think, and continues to be the most widely used selection method (Davim and Rao 2006). For

PAGE 76

76 the purposes of this thesis, the AHP is discussed further as it is the most common tool used to select materials and is the basis for quality modeling whic h was mentioned previously. The first step of the AHP is to determine the overall objective and identify any material attributes which would aid in material evaluation. A quantitative value is then assigned to each attribute in the consideration process. Step two is to determine the relative importance of the different attributes with respect to the objective by constructing a pairwise comparison matrix. This matrix is developed with each row allocated to one attribute and each column also allocated to one attribute to compare the attributes against each other (Davim and Rao 2006). Step three measures the attributes and their relative importance to rank the alternative materials which in turn provides an accurate evaluation of the alternatives (Davim and Ra o 2006). This is a general method that allows for any number of material attributes to be considered simultaneously and, therefore, offers a more objective and logic al material selection approach. In developing a new tool, the current issues must be elimin ated for the tool to function properly. In addition, it should follow similar analysis tools in order to build upon the current trends and streamline them into something more user friendly. The new tool should allow for an appropriate material selection ba sed on set criteria. It should allow for multiple iterations to be performed, if necessary, in the least amount of time possible, while maintaining the integrity of the criteria and objectives in the final material selection.

PAGE 77

77 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The pr imary objective of this research is to develop a strategy for selecting glazing in high performance healthcare facilities with a focus on an integrated design approach. The selection of glazing for a facility can prove difficult with the numerous products flooding the market today. During the integrated process, a list of owner requirements is distributed to the design team on which design decisions will be based. In addition, all design decisions must meet or exceed performance codes and standards. This re search will show that a step by step process can be taken in order to determine the appropriate glazing based on designated criteria. to better insulate the entire structure, significantly decreasing the amount of energy consumed. The climate zone, orientation of the building on the site, and the composition of materials that make up the faade have influenced the choices made by designers and contractors when designing with su stainability in mind. The glazing of a building can either increase or decrease the energy consumption. An appropriately selected and installed interior, reducing the consumptio n of lighting electricity. In addition, an optimum insulation value will decrease the amount of energy needed to heat and cool the facility which reduces the size of the HVAC equipment, effectively cutting the energy and mechanical costs. Optimal glazing will increase the thermal comfort of occupants by providing ample daylighting and views. An integrated approach needs to be taken when addressing the glazing for a building. Systems become interwoven and multiple benefits can be determined by means of a th orough selection process.

PAGE 78

78 To address the issues with selecting glazing for a healthcare facility, a diagram of the conventional selection method is shown in Figure 3 1 This process requires minimal owner participation and uses the architect/designer to de termine the selection of glazing. Figure 3 1. Conventional s election p rocess f lowchart In order to develop a technique that aids the design and construction industry in the selection of materials, a new selection method was analyzed. The implementation of an integrated mindset to the materials selection process was determined to be the most thorough method for developing a decision making tool The integrated process

PAGE 79

79 including t he owner, in the decision making process. The integrated process requires the use of a dditional rating techniques the life cycle cost analysis, energy modeling, and quality modeling. This allows for a process that approaches decision making from a number of viewpoints. Figure 3 2 buil ds upon the conventional selection process and in turn, determined the steps needed to reach a final decision for the selection of glazing in a healthcare facility It must be noted that the first two steps in each diagram ar e performed no matter which process is utilized the conventional or the integrated. In addition the final step, the selection of glass, is the outcome for both processes. Identifying t he steps taken in between is what differentiates the process es and the diagrams The following sections will detail the steps taken in the preliminary analysis using the integrated selection process. This preliminary analysis will allow for a better understanding of the integrated process in order to create a selection tool specifically for an integrated team. The steps identified in the integrated process diagram were used to perform a preliminary study of glazing in terms of owner requirements. The preliminary information gathering steps are necessary to determine a prelim a function analysis of windows, performance criteria, a list of glazing alternatives, and a list of construction attributes that may be affected by glazing selection. The a nalysis tools shown in the integrated process, an energy model, a life cycle cost analysis, and a quality model, will be utilized to determine the best glazing option in the preliminary analysis.

PAGE 80

80 Figure 3 2. Integrated s election process f lowchart

PAGE 81

81 Preli minary Analysis Assumptions In order to actively engage in all the steps taken in the integrated process some baseline assumptions about a healthcare facility needed to be generated. To establish requirements and performance criteria the building needed to be identified. The following are the building assumptions: Location: Jacksonville, Florida Dimensions: 150 f ee t (L) x 100 f ee t (W) x 75 f ee t (H) Size: 75,000 square feet 5 stor y Type: Inpatient/Outpatient Community Healthcare Facility Approximately 90 bed s Each stor standard four foot by six foot window was utilized and a total of 600 windows fit the area of the simulated building. Six hundred windows created a total glass surface area of 14,400 square feet. The se assumptions will allow all the integrated process steps to be complete in order to determine the best option for glazing. The requirements of the owner are an essential part of an integrated process to determin e an appropriate glazing system. The criteria may consist of a variety of issues and it is the designer s responsibility to present options that follow closely to the rde r to produce a facility that functions at an optimum level with the appropriate aesthetics. For the purpose of this thesis a list of owner requirements has been developed in accordance with the major objectives of value engineering: the ability to save mo ney, reduce time, improve quality, reliability, maintainability and performance. In addition the

PAGE 82

82 University of Florida has set criteria for the planning and design of all facilities on thorough list of requirements functional efficiency, economic effectiveness, and aesthetic appeal (Facilities Planning and Design 2011) These criteria will later aid in eliminating undesirable options as well as operate as the basis for the quality model. The following are the ow Schedule First costs Energy savings Maintenance Life cycle cost R Labor Required Equipment Required Access to Daylight Aesthetics and Owner Pref erences Although not a measurable performance factor of glazing, the overall aesthetic quality of the glazing will become a deciding factor during the selection of glazing types. The appearance of glazing is just as important as performance qualities. Many glazing manufacturers have expanded their options for glazing appearances. Tinting, reflective coatings, mirrored coatings and a vast array of colors have been added to already existing types of glazing that are on the market today. However, these tints a nd coatings have been introduced to compete with high performance glazing and can result in an aesthetically pleasing appearance while reducing electric lighting and cooling loads. In addition, the glazing structure can affect the appearance of the system as a whole.

PAGE 83

83 Function Analysis The function analysis system technique (FAST) is utilized as a diagram to determine the main objectives and uses of a product or system. It aid s in aligning the T diagram allow s for selection criteria to be determined based on an integrated approach. This method identifi es specific requirements. The higher function and the basic function al lowed for products to be selected based on the function of the entire system. The FAST diagram for this particular glazing system is shown in Figure 3 determines that the way for Figure 3 3. Glazing s ystem FAST diagram

PAGE 84

84 determining determined how the glazing system should function as a piece of the whole building design. This step led to the establishment of the main function of the glazing system. For the Establish Performance Requirements Once the basic function of the glazing system was determined, the p erformance requirements of glazing were selected based on the climate zone. As mentioned, the facility is located in Jacksonville, Florida. In accordance with the E NERGY STAR climate zone map shown in Figure 3 4, Florida was located in the southern climate were set for glazing in this zone. Enhanced glazing will keep cooling costs down while maintaining an ample amount of daylight penetration into the space. In the southern climate zone, the solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) was the most important value to keep cooling loads low. Table 3 1 details the prescriptive SHGC values and the accompanying U factor for glazing in the southern climate zone. The prescriptive values wer e standard while the equivalent performance merely suggested alternate options to achieve the desired values. As shown, for the southern climate zone, the SHGC remained at 0.35 or less and the accompanying U factor remained at 0.6 5 In order for glazing to perform in the southern zone, the values listed had to be met Compile a L ist of A lternatives A preliminary list of general glazing categories was compiled. In order to meet the ings for glass

PAGE 85

85 were chosen. Clear, tinted, low e, and reflective coatings were selected for the preliminary analysis of the glass. The selected glass categories were as follows: Insulated Glass Unit Clear Insulated Glass Unit Tinted Insulated Glass Uni t Low E Tinted Insulated Glass Unit Reflective Clear Insulated Glass Unit Reflective Tinted Exterior Laminated IGU Clear Exterior Laminated IGU Tinted Interior Laminated IGU Clear Interior Laminated IGU Tinted Figure 3 4 ENERGY STAR c limate z one m ap Table 3 1. ENERGY STAR p erformance factors for glazing Climate Zone U Factor SHGC Northern 0.35 Any Prescriptive North/Central Prescriptive South/Central Prescriptive Equivalent Performance Equivalent Performance Equivalent Performance Southern Prescriptive Equivalent Performance Equivalent Performance Equivalent Performance Equivalent Performance Equivalent Performance

PAGE 86

86 These glass categories were selected based on performance and aesthetic criteria. This list compiled generalized performance ratings about each category of glass. The SHGC, U factor, percent visible transmittance, and shading coefficient were recorded in Table 3 2. It was determined that single pane glass did not me et any performance requirements for the southern climate zone and would not be included in the preliminary analysis. Triple pane glazing would also not be included in the preliminary analysis. Table 3 2. Preliminary g lass p erformance v alues Type Visible Transmittance (%) U Factor SHGC Shading Coefficient IGU Clear 54 0.27 0.28 0.33 IGU Tinted 21 0.50 0.29 0.34 IGU Low E Tinted 35 0.35 0.30 0.35 IGU Reflective Clear 29 0.44 0.31 0.36 IGU Reflective Tinted 24 0.44 0.24 0.48 Ext. Laminated I GU Clear 59 0.26 0.27 0.31 Ext. Laminated IGU Tinted 51 0.27 0.29 0.33 Int. Laminated IGU Clear 59 0.26 0.26 0.30 Int. Laminated IGU Tinted 30 0.26 0.24 0.28 Based on the selected glass categories, it was determined that all insulated glass un its would be comprised of inch exterior glass, inch air space, and inch interior glass. It was determined that all coatings for insulated glass units were to be located on separate panes of glass, the exterior pane with a coating and the clear interior pane. See Appendix C for an additional spreadsheet on glazing performance data Collect C onstruction A ttributes Based on the list of selected glazing, the c onstruction attri butes for glazing were collected RS Means (2009) historical construction data provided a necessary tool in recording the material cost, schedule, labor, and equipment needed for glass

PAGE 87

87 installation. Shown in Table 3 3 are the recorded values associated wit h construction processes. See Appendix C for a n additional spreadsheet of preliminary construction values. Table 3 3. Preliminary g lass c onstruction v alu es Type Cost Daily Output Schedule Labor Equipment IGU Clear $10.95 95 19 $11,734 $43,555 GU Ti nted $22.00 75 24 $14,822 $50,280 IGU Low E Tinted $28.00 85 21 $12,969 $46,245 IGU Reflective Clear $12.85 115 16 $9,881 $39,520 IGU Reflective Tinted $15.50 115 16 $9,881 $39,520 Ext. Laminated IGU Clear $21.00 78 23 $14,204 $48,935 Ext. La minated IGU Tinted $21.00 78 23 $14,204 $48,935 Int. Laminated IGU Clear $21.00 78 23 $14,204 $48,935 Int. Laminated IGU Tinted $21.00 78 23 $14,204 $48,935 Costs were determined based on RS Means (2009) data as manufacturer cost information was unavailable The crew necessary to install all types of glass was a crew of two glaziers. The daily output was also recorded using RS Means (2009) data. The daily output is a function of productivity based on the crew and represents the typical number of u nits the crew will install. The daily output values were necessary in determining the overall schedule for installation Schedule values were calculated by dividing the total square feet of glass (14, 4 00 sq uare f ee t ) by the daily out put per glass categor y and next by dividing the new figure by an eight hour day. The formula is as follows: Schedule days = (14,400 sq. ft. daily output of glass type) an 8 hour day. Labor was determined using the schedule days. Based on RS Means (2009) construction dat a, the crew needed to install glazing is two glazier and they are paid $617.60 per day. Labor costs were calculated by multiplying the schedule days by the cost per day.

PAGE 88

88 The e quipment necessary to install glass is scaff olding for worker support and a cran e to lift the material. The equipment values were calculated based on the schedule. According to RS Means (2009) is cost $1 345.00 to rent a crane for one day and $160.00 per 100 sq uare feet of scaffolding. Based on the schedule per glass type, the crane c osts were calculated by multiplying the crane cost per day ($1 345) by the number of schedule days. The scaffolding costs were determined based on the dimensions of the building. The total scaffolding needed is the largest surface area of the building or 1 1,250 sq uare f ee t. Due to the installation procedure, scaffolding is only necessary for one side of the building at a time. The largest surface area based on building dimensions was utilized in calculating the scaffolding cost. This number was determined b y multiplying the largest length dimension of the b u ilding by the height dimension to get 11,250 square feet. The surface area of 11,250 sq uare f ee t was adjusted by a factor of 100 for the purposes of unit correlation for scaffold ing costs and became 112.5 csf. This value was multiplied by the $160.00 rental cost per 100 sq uare f ee t to become an $18,000.00 rental fee. The crane costs and the scaffolding costs were added together to calculate the total equipment value. Energy Modeling Determining the amount of energy saved is an important step in the integrated process as well as the selection of glazing for any facility Once the performance data was determined and the glass types selected, the next step was energy modeling. For a similar baseline building and show a percentage decrease in overall energy consumption.

PAGE 89

89 The program utilized for the energy model was the Energy 10 simulation software. It uses site specific clim ate data to show how different combinations of materials, and systems yield either lesser or great er results, based on energy use and cost data. This software will help make informed decisions about energy performance during the crucial early phases of des ign, when sustainable building strategies and materials can be integrated at the lowest cost. Data is tabulated based on hour by hour calculations and determines the building's thermal, HVAC, and daylighting performance over a full year of operation. No bu ilding i ntegrated m odel (BIM) i s necessary for the simulation which makes it acceptable to use at the early stages of the integrated design process. A baseline building was defined and baseline glass was introduced to the facility The glazing perfo rmance values from the Energy 10 software were used as baseline glass values. The alternate building was set to the same values and standards as the baseline building with the exception of the glass performance values. The energy values for the baseline buildi ng were simulated and the categories for comparison were heating, cooling, and fan/auxiliary in kilowatt hours Each glass product, with its specifi c performance values were simulated through Energy 10 The values produced by the alternate building in th e heating, cooling, and fa n /auxiliary categories were recorded and compared to the baseline building. The amount of energy saved from baseline building to alternate building was generated into percentages of saved energy. See Appendix D for the values asso ciated with energy savings. If any glass recorded a negative energy savings, it was eliminated from the compiled list of glass products.

PAGE 90

90 The Energy 10 simulation software is generally utilized to determine whole building energy reduction. For the purpos es of this thesis, only the glass variables changed, leaving the amount of energy saved a direct function of the different type of glass and its corresponding performance values. See Appendix D for a n additional spreadsheet of values associated with energy saved. Perform Life Cycle Cost Analysis As mentioned previously, the life cycle cost analysis is a method of project evaluation of building design alternatives to satisfy a level of building performance. The life cycle analysis was performed and calculat ed for each preliminary glass category. All values utilized the time value of money which discounted the prices to present value based on a 2.7% discount rate set by the U.S. Department of Commerce for 2011. The length of the study was 50 years, as the ove years, if not longer. The life cycle analysis for glazing included first cost, annual maintenance cost, the value of energy saved, repair costs and their associated year, and the replacement cost in the year s in which they reoccur First cost was based on the square footage costs recorded from RS Means multiplied by the square feet of glazing (14,400 sq uare f ee t) for the facility. Windows have very little maintenance costs with the exception of glass cleaning. For the purposes of this thesis, it was assumed that the glazing would be cleaned every four months, totaling a whole faade cleaning three times a year. Professional cleaning for the faade of a commercial building is generally priced by the window. Rese arch determined th at the cleaning fee would be $6 .00 per window every four months. The formula for determining maintenance was as follows: Annual Maintenance = ($6.00 x 600 windows) x 3 times a year

PAGE 91

91 According to the manufacturers the alternate types of gl ass do not need to be cleaned differently from each other, so the same value was used for each type of glass. As mentioned previously, an energy simulation was performed in order to calculate the total amount of energy saved based on the different types o f glass used. The retail price for electricity in the state of Florida is 11.49 cents per kilowatt hour. To calculate the value of energy saved, the total kilowatt hours saved were multiplied by 11.49 cents to generate a price of energy saved for each type of glass. This value was used to decrease the overall life cycle costs associated with each preliminary glass category Repairing glass and windows is costly. In order reduce the probability of having to repair glass, it was determined from manufacturers and building codes that glass inspections needed to be performed every few years. The assumptions for glass inspections are as follows: $2,200 every 5 years for Laminated IGU inspections $2,000 every 5 years for IGU inspections $1,700 every 12 years for L ow E tinted inspections $1,500 every 12 years for Tint inspections The single present value (SPV) formula for the time value of money was applied, as these were costs occurring at regulated intervals over the lifetime of the glass. The formula for single present value is as follows: SPV = cost [ (1 + Discount Rate)^ reoccurring year] The single present value formula allowed for the future price of inspections to be The replacement costs for glass were generally more expensive. Usually, glass does not need to be replaced unless the seal of an insulated glass unit fails. It was determined that the seals for IGUs last roughly 20 years. It is not uncommon for a seal

PAGE 92

92 to fail case ten seals would fail out of 600 windows by year 20. The cost to replace a seal in an IGU is approximately $200. To replace a se al in an interior or exterior laminated IGU is cost approximately $275. Again the single present value formula was used to calculate the cost in present monetary value. Shown in Table 3 4 are the life cycle costs associated with each glass category. See A ppendix E for a spreadsheet of each variable associated with the life cycle cost end values Table 3 4 Preliminary g lass l ife c ycle c osts Type Life Cycle Cost IGU Clear $312,864.48 GU Tinted $608,907.38 IGU Low E Tinted $598,207.42 IGU Refle ctive Clear $365,431.67 IGU Reflective Tinted $460,772.01 Ext. Laminated IGU Clear $559,422.97 Ext. Laminated IGU Tinted $616,572.06 Int. Laminated IGU Clear $633,279.27 Int. Laminated IGU Tinted $644,807.68 Quality Model In an integrated process the quality model is one of the last steps taken to determine the optimal product selection based on the requirements of the owner. At this point, the owner becomes very involved in the integrated process, and aids in determining the qualities that are necessary for the facility. It allows for the owner requirements to be weighted based on importance and the result of the quality model is The first step in quality modeling was to determine the owner requirements. As mentioned previously, the owner requirements are as follows:

PAGE 93

93 Schedule First costs Energy savings Maintenance Life cycle cost Labor Required Equipment Required Access to Dayli ght These requirements will be used to determine the most important factors when choosing glass. importance. The scale ranged from one to nine One was the lowest possible rankin g denoting the least importance while nine denoted the most important requirement. The Shown in Table 3 5 are the rankings associated with each owner requirement. Table 3 5 Preliminary o wner r equirement r ankings Owner Requirement Rank Energy Saved 9 Life Cycle Cost 8 First Cost 7 Maintenance 6 Schedule 5 Reflect Vernacular 4 Access to Daylight 4 Labor 3 Equipment 3 The next step was to use the owner requirem ent rankings to complete a pairwise comparison matrix. This matrix compared each owner requirement to each other in order to determine a weighted score for each requirement. The weighted scores will be used as a basis to calculate final scores and from the re to select the appropriate g lazing. Shown in Figure 3 5 is the pairwise comparison matrix.

PAGE 94

94 After the pairwise comparison matrix was complete, the next step was to create a Likert table for each owner requirement. There were nine Likert tables created to correspond to each owner requirement. The Likert tables required a one to nine scale on which to weight each glass category under the specific owner requirement. This weight is known as a Likert score and is multiplied by the pairwise comparison score to d etermine an overall score for each glass type based on the specific owner requirement. Actual values for each glass category are needed when determining the Likert score for each owner requirement. The scores for each owner requirement are tabulated, based on the glass category, to determine one final score. This final score was used to compare the glass categories and select a glass to use in the facility. Figure 3 5 Preliminary p airwise c omparison m atrix Each Likert table use d the actual values on which to base the Likert scale. As mentioned, a scale of actual values corresponds to each Likert score. The Likert scores for each glass category were determined based on the actual values scale. The Likert score was then multiplied by the weighted value from the pairwise comparison. For

PAGE 95

95 energy savings, the weighted value was 32. Each glass category used their Likert score and multiplied it by the weighted value to get a total score for th is specific owner requirement. A Likert table was created for each of the nine owner requirement s and can be seen in Appendix F As mentioned, the energy savings actual values were the calculated percentage saving s from the energy modeling process and were used to create a scale for the Likert table The life cycle cost actual values were found in a similar way, yet they were recorded a s a monetary amount. The actual values associated life cycle cost were determined in the life cycle cost process and were used to create a scale for the owner requirem ent associated Likert table. A low life cycle cost ranked high on the Likert scale. The first costs and maintenance costs were calculated as monetary values during the life cycle cost process and used in their corresponding owner requirement Likert tables. Low first costs and maintenance costs ranked high on the Likert scale. The actual values for the schedule were collected from RS Means (2009) in the construction attribut es process and applied to the Likert table as the amount of days necessary to install glass. A short schedule ranked high on the Likert scale. There were no numerical values associated with the vernacular, or aesthetics, as this was a subjective owner requirement. A high number was associated with better aesthetic quality on the Likert sca le. The access to daylight actual values were collected from each glass performance criteria as the visible transmittance percentage and applied to the associated Likert table. A high visible transmittance percentage ranked high on the Likert scale. The ac tual values for labor were calculated during the construction attributes process as a monetary value and applied to the scale for the corresponding Likert table. A low labor

PAGE 96

96 cost ranked high on the Likert scale. Equipment actual values were also calculated during the construction attributes process as a monetary value and were used to determine the scale of the corresponding Likert table. A low equipment cost ranked high on the Likert scale. Once each glass category had one value associated with each owner requirement, the values were totaled to determine one final score. This final score was the determining factor for the selection of glass in the preliminary selection process. Create the Glass Selection Tool Through the preliminary analysis process, the steps of the integrated process were learned and performed. The preliminary analysis allowed for each tool to be utilized in order to gain an understanding of the process and the inputs needed. In order to crea te a tool that would function for use by any p erson charged with the selection of glass for a healthcare facility the previous assessments and calculations needed to be performed. However, each tool was separate, and the tools did not function well when attempting to perform multiple tasks as once. I t was determined that the integrated process could be streamlined to combine the existing analysis tools into a step by step process to create a comprehensive tool. To reduce human error in calculations, it was determined that the tool should be interactiv e and that the user would supply the necessary inputs based on the owner requirements. The combination of these attributes would create a tool that would be user friendly and applicable in the real world. The first factor in creating the selection tool wa s to categorize the major tasks needed to make decisions into generalized sections These generalized sections grouped similar tasks, making the tool easy to follow. Three sections were defined: Rese arch and Information Gathering

PAGE 97

97 Simulations and Calculati ons Quality Modeling These groups were comprised of steps that progressed in sequential order. It was determined that the tool was straightforward enough for one person to perform all tasks, or a team could distribute the three sections for increased coll aboration in the selection process Research and Information Gathering Based on the steps taken in the integrated process, it was determined that the first section, research and information gathering, should group all the information collecting processes together. This streamlined the integrated process by allowing all information to be gathered at one time, instead of going back and forth between collected values and calculations. Research and information gathering began similar to the integrated process, Due to the nature of this thesis, it was determined that two important sustainable requirements would be implemented into the owner requirements for the selection tool. Energy savings and access to daylight (or the using this selection tool. This ensured that these sustainable requirements would be considered when selecting glass. The project location was determined and from there the climate zone for the facility. The climate zone allowed for glazing performance criteria to be established. Any section as well. The performance criteria and aesthetic preferences w ere then utiliz ed to make initial glass selections. Manufacturer information, product type and performance v alues were compiled into a list to be inserted into the research and information gathering section. The performance values needed were the SHGC, the U factor, the

PAGE 98

98 visible transmittance, and the shading coefficient. The construction processes that would be affected by implementing glass alternatives were compiled based on the initial glass selections. Schedule, cost, labor, and equipment were suggested as the main co nstruction attributes influenced by alternate glass types. Values associated with schedule, costs, labor and equipment were compiled and inserted into the research and information gathering section. The last step in the research and information gathering s ection was to compile values based on annual maintenance costs, repair costs, and replacement costs associated with the alternate types of glass. Most numerical values will be used in the following section, Simulation s and Calculation s. The following are t he steps that were included in the research and information gathering section: Step 1: List Owner Requirements for Healthcare Step 2: Determine Site Location. Step 3: Based on the ENERGY STAR climate zone map and performance values provided, identify the performance requirements for your location. If the location is too difficult to determine from the map, a list of zip codes can be provided to identify climate zone. Step 4: Address any aesthetic qualities that m ay be required by the owner such as color a nd glass sizing. Step 5: Compile a list of glass that meets the requirements based on climate zone. Record the performance criteria for the SHGC, the U value, the Visible Transmittance, and the Shading Coefficient Step 6: Based on the compilation of glass from Step 5 identify any construction characteristics that may affect decisions. Some suggestions are, but are not limited to: schedule, cost, labor, equipment, etc. Li st the construction characteristics you will be using. Step 7: Compile a list of value s associated with the construction characteristics. Step 8: Identify the annual maintenance cost for glass, the costs to repair the glass, and any replacement costs that may be necessary. This data generally comes from the manufacturer.

PAGE 99

99 See Appendix G for the complete r esearch and i nformation g athering s ection. Simulations and Calculations The Simulation s and Calculation s section began with energy modeling. It was prescribed that the information be developed by a team member who is familiar with energy mod eling, or a hired energy consultant to supply the data. The simulation step is an important part of creating any facility that uses less energy. The energy model must take into account the location of the facility. The important values associated with ener gy modeling were heating, cooling, and fan/auxiliary. These values provided by the energy model will allow for energy savings to be determined. Space has been provided and it is required to insert the associated energy savings values. The energy simulati on was performed using the performance values from the list of glass alternatives selected in the research and information gathering section. It is important to collect the energy data in the space p rovided, as it acts as a reference area for the life cycl e analysis. A fter the simulation was performed, it was determined that any glass alternative that did not save energy would be eliminated from the remaining sections of the selection process, effectively reducing the initial glass list. The life cycle cos t calculations were included in the simulations and calculations section. The life cycle cost calculations implemented a significant portion of the previously collected data. A life cycle cost spreadshee t was utilized and required the user to input the app ropriate values into the associated rows and columns. The spreadsheet was set up in a way that all calculations w ould automatically update when values were inserted. This required little effort from the user making the calculation process seem uncomplicat ed. The following are the steps that were included in the simulations and calculations section:

PAGE 100

100 Step 9: The Energy Model. Utilizing the Energy Modeling Consultant on your team or an outside Energy Consultant, perform an energy model based on the performanc e data collected in Step 5 In order to ensure that only savings based on the glass performance is recorded, keep all other building variables the same. After the energy model is complete if any glass results in a negative energy savings, eliminate that gl ass from the list compiled in Step 5. Step 10: The remaining data collected in Step 8 will be entered into the following spreadsheet. This spreadsheet automatically calculates the Life Cycle Costs for the selected glass types. Based on the current year and life expectancy of the building, the Discount Rate and Life may need to be updated. List your glass options in the far left hand column and place values in associated columns. See Appendix H for the complete simulations and calculations section. Quality Model The final section, Quality Modeling, required the most input from the user. The beginning step linked ements from the first section It became the users input values that determined the end result of the quality model. A ranking sys tem, from one to nine was described and provided the user with the space to insert a rank for each owner requirement, based on importance. These rankings were linked to the following step which implemented a pairwise matrix to determine the overall weight ed importance of each owner requirement. This matrix was connected to the data automatically. A weight for each owner requirement was populated and linked to the next step. The Likert t ables wer e the final step in the q uality m odeling section, yet required the user to synthesize previously collected values. Each owner requirement was connected to a Likert values for each owner requirement. Once the values were inserted into the Likert table, and the user determined the value each g lass type would receive on the Likert scale, the scores were calculated automatically. The calculations for each owner requirement

PAGE 101

101 were given a total score. Th e user must input data on each Likert table and determine the Likert scale based on actual values. The last table or the f inal s cores table, totaled all scores for each owner requiremen t. The highest overall score should prove to b e the best option for glass. In addition, space for the top three glass types were allotted for the user to make a final decision. If need be, the quality model section can be updated based on the rankings of each owner requirement to produce a varied top three. The following were the steps included in the quality model section: Step 11A: Take the Owner's Requirements from Step 1 and rank, with a numerical value, ea ch requirement on a scale from one to nine (nine being the most important and one being the least important) It is acceptable for certain requirements to be ranked with the same number. Step 11B: Based on the Owner's Requirements and the Ranked Values, a Radar Diagram will be created to act as a visual representation of the ranked values. Step 12 : The owner's requirements need to be weighted based on importance. This pairwise comparison graph will automatically calculate the values based on the rankings determined from Step 1 1 The score given to each owner requirement will then b e utilized in the Likert t ables to tabulate a total score for each glass type. Due to the nature of excel, it is required to manually change any generated zeros into a one and any negative numbers into zeros before proceeding. Step 13: Based on the Criteria from Step 1 1 a series of graphs will become available. In each of these graphs based on each owner requirement data must be input in order to score the values given to each type of glass. The outcome of these graphs will be a total score, in which one type or one group of glass prevails. The maximum score generated through these graphs will give validation to the glass selection based on the list of owner requirements. See Appendix I for the complete quality model section. Testing the Tool Once the tool was created, it needed to be tested to ensure accuracy in calculations as well as selection. Final d ata from the preliminary analysis was utilized in order to ensure that areas that needed calculations functioned and calculated the correct values. All building assumptions were kept the same from the preliminary

PAGE 102

102 analysis, including the facility location, to ensure that building variables did not change and skew the results. All owner requirements and their associated rankings were also kept the same between the preliminary analysis and the tool test. Energy savings and access to daylight were made mandatory as owner requirements and will be ranked with the same values as the preliminary analysis. Research and Information Gathering Step 1 was to determine the owner requireme nts. As mentioned previously, all owner requirements remained the same between the preliminary analysis and the test. The owner requirements are as follows: Energy Savings Access to Daylight Life Cycle Cost First Cost Maintenance Sched ule Reflects Communi ty Vernacular Labor Equipment As mentioned above, energy savings and access to daylight were made mandatory and now top the owner requirements list. This does not mean that they will be ranked the highest in the quality model. Step 2 was to determine the location. The location remained the same between the preliminary analysis and test. The location is Jacksonville, Florida. The location is also necessary for the energy model. Step 3 was to determine the climate zone in which the facility location will be built utilizing the ENERGY STAR climate zone map. Jacksonville, Florida is located in the southern climate zone and from this the performance requirements could be

PAGE 103

103 determined. The required U factor was less than, or equal to 0.65 and the SHGC was less than or equal to 0.35. Based on these performance requirements, a list of glazing products could be populated. Step 4 required any aesthetic options to be listed. For the purposes of this thesis, the aesthetic options were to choose glazing products that came in clear, blue, green, and grey colors. The glazing products wer e also to come in the standard four foot by six foot size. Step 5 was to compile a list of glazing options that met the above requirements for performance and aesthetics. Three of the most we ll known glass manufacturers in the United States were chosen and the glazing alternatives list began from their products. The glass manufacturers were Pilkington, PPG Industries, and Guardian Glass. It was determined that not all glass types were applicab le for the southern climate. No single pane or monolithic glass types were used in the test, similar to the preliminary analysis. In addition, triple glazing was not deemed appropriate for this test. Insulated glass units, in many coating options were the products selected in an effort to minimize the tested products. From there, one glass product was selected from each of the three manufacturers. For example, three glass products, one from Pilkington, one from PPG Industries, and one from Guardian Glass, w ere selected from the tinted insulated glass unit category. This initial list compiled performance ratings and data from the manufacturers about each type of glass. The SHGC, U factor, percent visible transmittance, and shading coefficient were recorded, a long with the names of the company and the glass product name. See Appendix J for the full list of initial glazing selections.

PAGE 104

104 Step 6 was to identify any construction attributes that would affect the selection of glass and to list them in the given area. It was determined that cost, schedule, labor, and equipment would affect the selection of glass Step 7 was to compile a list of construction values from the list in the previous step. All construction values were determined based on RS Means (2009) constr uction data. Costs were determined based on RS Means (2009) data as manufacturer cost information was unavailable. The crew necessary to install all types of glass was a crew of two glaziers. The daily output was also recorded using RS Means (2009) data. T he daily output is a function of productivity based on the crew and represents the typical number of units the crew will install. The daily output values were necessary in determining the overall schedule for installation. Schedule values were calculated by dividing the total square feet of glass (14,400 sq uare f ee t) by the daily output per glass category and next by dividing the new figure by an eight hour day. The formula is as follows: Schedule days = (14,400 sq. ft. daily output of glass type) a n 8 hour day. The schedule determined the remaining construction values. Labor was determined using the schedule days. Based on RS Means (2009) construction data, the cre w needed to install glazing is two glazier and they are paid $617.60 per day. Labor costs were calculated by multiplying the schedule days by the cost per day. The equipment necessary to install glass is scaffolding for worker support and a crane to lift the material. The equipment values were calculated based on the schedule. According to RS Means (2009) is cost $1 345.00 to rent a crane for one day and

PAGE 105

105 $160.00 per 100 sq uare f ee t of scaffolding. Based on the schedule per glass type, the crane costs were calculated by multip lying the crane cost per day ($1, 345 .00 ) by the number of schedu le days. The scaffolding costs were determined based on the dimensions of the building. The total scaffolding needed is the largest surface area of the building or 11,250 sq uare f ee t. Due to the installation procedure, scaffolding is only necessary for one side of the building at a time. The largest surface area based on building dimensions was utilized in calculating the scaffolding cost. This number was determined by multiplying the largest length dimension of the building by the height dimension to get 1 1,250 square feet. The surface area of 11,250 sq uare f ee t was adjusted by a factor of 100 for the purposes of unit correlation for scaffolding costs and became 112.5 csf. This value was multiplied by the $160.00 rental cost per 100 sq uare f eet to become an $18,000.00 rental fee. The crane costs and the scaffolding costs were added together to calculate the total equipment value. See Appendix K for the full list of construction values. Step 8 was to identify any annual maintenance, repair, or replacement co sts for each glazing product. These values would be needed in the following section to perform the life cycle cost analysis. Windows have very little maintenance costs with the exception of glass cleaning. For the purposes of this thesis, it was assumed th at the glazing would be cleaned every four months, to taling a whole faade cleaning three times a year. Professional cleaning for the faade of a commercial building is generally priced by the window. Research determined that the cleaning fee wo uld be $6.0 0 per window, every four months. The formula for determining maintenance was as follows: Annual Maintenance = ($6.00 x 600 windows) x 3 times a year

PAGE 106

106 According to the manufacturers the alternate types of glass do not need to be cleaned differently from each other, so the same value was used for each type of glass. Repairing glass and windows is costly. In order reduce the probability of having to repair glass, it was determined from manufacturers and building codes that glass inspections needed to be perfor med every few years. The assumptions for glass inspections are as follows: $2,200 every 5 years for Laminated IGU inspections $2,000 every 5 years for IGU inspections $1,700 every 12 years for Low E tinted inspections $1,500 every 12 years for Tint inspect ions The replacement costs for glass were generally more expensive. Usually, glass does not need to be replaced unless the seal of an insulated glass unit fails. It was determined that the seals for IGUs last roughly 20 years. It is not uncommon for a sea l case ten seals would fail out of 600 windows by year 20. The cost to replace a seal in an IGU is approximately $200. To re place a seal in an interior or exterior laminated IGU is cost approximately $275. After collecting all the data and product information, it was time to move to the simulations and calculations section, where most of the values would be used. Simulations a nd Calculations This section combined most of the values collected previously to determine the energy savings and the life cycle costs. Step 9 was to perform an energy model. The energy model allowed for energy savings to be calculated using the Energ y 10 software. This software was the same as used in the pr eliminary analysis. However, there were more glazing options to input

PAGE 107

107 into the software. In the space provided, the specific energy data was collected for use in the life cycle analysis as well as la ter in the quality model. The areas that were important to the energy model were heating, cooling, and the fan/auxiliary functions. A baseline building and baseline glass was input into the software and each glass product was run through the same scenario to determine the amount of energy saved compared to the baseline building and window performance. All building simulation variables from the preliminary analysis were used in order to keep the energy model at the same standard. The different glazing produc ts were tested to determine which product saved the most energy. Only the glazing performance values were changed between simulations to keep the energy savings a direct result of the glazing product. See Appendix L for the values associated with energy sa vings. The value of energy saved was a necessary part of the life cycle costs of each glazing product and the energy modeling was performed prior to the life cycle cost analysis for that purpose. Step 10 was to input all values associated with first costs annual maintenance, energy savings, repairs, and replacements into the life cycle costs spreadsheet. Once the values were input, the spreadsheet automatically calculated the life cycle costs. All values utilized the time value of money which discounted t he prices to present value based on a 2.7% discount rate set by the U.S. Department of Commerce for 2011. The years, if not longer. First cost was based on the squa re footage costs of each glazing product recorded from RS Means (2009) multiplied by the square feet of glazing or 14,400 sq uare f ee t.

PAGE 108

108 As mentioned previously, an energy simulation was performed in order to calculate the total amount of energy saved based on the different types of glass. The retail price for electricity in the state of Florida is 11.49 cents per kilowatt hour. To calculate the value of energy saved, the total kilowatt hours saved were multiplied by 11.49 cents to generate a price of energy saved for each type of glass. This value was used to decrease the overall life cycle costs associated with each glazing product. The annual maintenance costs, the repair costs, and the replacement costs were input into spreadsheet, based on t he values cal culated in step 8. See Appendix M for the full spreadsheet of life cycle cost values. The simulation and calculations performed in this section aided in determining additional data needed for the following section. Quality Model The quality model section list provided in step 11. Step 11 required a numerical value to rank each of the owner requirements. Energy savings and access to daylight were required by the tool and were ranked accordingly with the remaining owner requirements. The same rankings from the preliminary analysis were utilized to test the selection tool. Shown in T able 3 6 are the rankings associated with each owner requirement populated from step 1. Table 3 6 Test o wner r equirement r ankings Owner Requirement Rank Energy Saved 9 Life Cycle Cost 8 First Cost 7 Maintenance 6 Schedule 5 Reflect Vernacular 4 Access to Daylight 4 Labor 3 Equipment 3

PAGE 109

109 Step 12 utilized the ranked values from step 11 to complete a pairwise matrix. T his matrix compared each owner requirement to each other in order to determine a weighted score for each requirement. Shown in Figure 3 6 is the pairwise matrix to test the selection tool. The weighted scores will be used as a basis to calculate final scor es and from there to select the appropriate input actual values and a scale into the Likert tables for each owner requirement. The same rankings were used to test the tool as in the preliminary analysis to determine if the tool selected the same glass as i n the preliminary results. Figure 3 6 Testing the tool: p airwise c omparison m atrix Step 13 made available the Likert tables for each owner requirement and the tw o automatic requirements. Each Likert table title was linked to a n owner requirement The scale for each Likert table was determined based on the actual values associated with the specific owner requirement. The scale of values for each Likert table was the same scale between the preliminary analysis and the testing fo r the associated owner requirements. The pairwise scores associated with each owner requirement were multiplied by the different glass product Likert scores. See Appendix N for each owner

PAGE 110

110 requirement Likert table and the associated values. The values for e ach glass product were added together to calculate one total score to determine the glass selected for the project.

PAGE 111

111 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In order to fully understand the integrated process associated with selecting materials a preliminary analysis was perfo rmed. The selection tool was developed based on a more comprehensive knowledge of the process and streamlined the process into an interactive tool. The results of the preliminary analysis were used as a means of comparison after the selection tool was deve loped. To test the tool, the variables for each owner requirement were set the same, and the analysis was performed. By comparing the preliminary analysis to the test, it was determined that the tool functioned properly and calculated properly, as the same glass product was selected on both attempts. Preliminary Analysis Results Each Likert table for the preliminary analysis, complete with associated values is shown in Appendix F. To give more validation to each Likert table, a bar graph has been developed per each owner requirement to show which glass category performed best. The glass cate gory with the highest score achieves the most points for the owner requirement. However, the actual measurement scale differs from one owner requirement to another. For example, a low cost may result in a higher score on the Likert scale. At the end of the process one final score was totaled a nd t he best option, based on the owner requirements and weighted values, is determined The first Likert table is energy savings a nd Figure 4 1 shows the overall points attained for each glass category. As it is shown in the bar graph, the insulated glass unit in clear saved the most energy with 288 total points for this owner requirement. Saving a significant amount of energy earned more points for this owner requirement.

PAGE 112

112 The life cycle cost Likert scores is the next graph shown in Figure 4 2. As shown in the bar graph, the insulated glass unit has achieved 216 points for the life cycle cost owner requirement. A low life cycle cost attained more points on the Likert scale for this owner requirement. It is desirable to have a low actual life cycle cost, as it requires little The next owner requirement is the first cost of the glass product. Shown in Figure 4 3 is the bar graph associated with the fist costs of each glass category. A low first cost is desirable when comparing actual cost values for glass products. As shown, the insulated glass unit in clear has scored the highest points for the first costs owner requirement. This means that the insulated glass unit in clear has the lowest first cost of all the glass categories sampled. The next owner requirement calculated with a Likert table is maintenance. Shown in Figure 4 4, the insulated glass unit tinted and the insulated glass unit reflective tinted have achieved the same score for maintenance. Having the highest Likert score for maintenance reveals that these two glass products had the lowest actual c osts for maintenance. It is more desirable to have a low maintenance cost associated with the glass product, as it costs less to upkeep the product over its lifetime. Schedule is the next owner requirement that is scored using Likert tables. Shown in Figur e 4 5 the reflective insulated glass unit in clear has the same score as the reflective insulated glass unit with tint. A high score on the schedule means that these two glass categories had the least amount of schedule days required to install the product It is more desirable to have a short schedule, as it decreases the labor,

PAGE 113

113 equipment, and installation costs of the product. No other glass category has as short a schedule as the reflective glass. rnacular otherwise known as the aesthetic qualities associated with the glass categories. Figure 4 6 shows that each glass category that is not clear achieved a high score on the liker scale. It seems that more structures are moving away from clear glass t o a coated glass. The difference in the scores between the coated and non coated glass categories is not very large. It does suggest that a coated or colored glass category may be more desirable. Access to daylight is the next owner requirement that is sco red using the Likert tables. Figure 4 7 shows that the tinted exterior laminated insulated glass unit and the interior laminate insulated glass unit in clear had the highest Likert scores. For access to daylight, the percentage of light allowed to pass thr ough the glass, or the visible transmittance was collected from the performance values for each glass category. The highest scores show that these two glass categories had the most daylight penetration into the space which is desirable to reduce electric l ighting loads. Labor costs are the next owner requirement to use Likert scores. Show in Figure 4 8 the reflective insulated glass unit in clear and the reflective insulated glass unit in tinted attained the highest Likert scores. This means that their labo r costs were the lowest based on the schedule days needed to install the glass product. A low labor cost is desirable, and helps keep the overall project within the allotted budget. However, labor is a crucial part in the installation of glass products as it can mean the difference between a product that is sealed properly and one that must be replaced or repaired

PAGE 114

114 due to faulty installation. These labor costs are based on the amount of schedule days only, and not the quality of workmanship. The final owner requirement to use Likert table scores is equipment costs. Show in Figure 4 9 the reflective insulated glass unit in clear and the reflective insulated glass unit in tint had the lowest equipment costs and therefore, the highest Likert scores. Similar to l abor costs, equipment costs are more desirable when they are low. The equipment costs are also based on the amount of schedule days and the costs to rent a crane per day and to use a certain square footage of scaffolding. The equipment costs, if kept low, contribute to a project that falls within or under budget. With the appropriate equipment, installation and labor may decrease and save the owner money. However, renting equipment can prove cumbersome if not used effectively. The values associated with t he glass category for each owner requirement was added together to calculate one final score. This overall score contributes to the selection of the glass for the project at hand. Based on the owner requirements and the building assumptions, Figure 4 10 sh ows the outcome of the preliminary analysis. As shown, the glass category with the highest score is the insulated glass unit in clear. Although the insulated glass unit in clear did not achieve the highest scores associated with each owner requirement, it did achieve the highest scores for the owner requirements that were weighted more heavily than others. Achieving a high score in a heavily weighted owner requirement allowed the insulated glass unit in clear the overall highest total score. This shows that the glass category to be utilized in the project should be the insulated glass unit in clear. Following behind the insulated glass unit in

PAGE 115

115 clear, is the reflective insulated glass unit in clear. Although it did not achieve the highest score, this glass ca tegory may be selected for the project also. Figure 4 1. Pr eliminary e nergy s avings Likert s cores Figure 4 2. Preliminary l ife c ycle c ost Likert s cores

PAGE 116

116 Figure 4 3. Preliminary f irst c ost Likert s cores Figure 4 4. Preliminary m aintenance Likert s cores

PAGE 117

117 Figure 4 5. Preliminary s chedule Likert s cores Figure 4 6. Preliminary v er nacular Likert s cores

PAGE 118

118 Figure 4 7 Preliminary a ccess to d aylight Likert s cores Fi gure 4 8. Preliminary l abor Likert s cores

PAGE 119

119 Figure 4 9. Preliminary e quipment Likert s cores Figure 4 10. Prelimina ry final s cores

PAGE 120

120 Testing the Tool Results In order to determine if the developed selection tool functions and calculates in a similar way to the preliminary analysis, the two were compared to each other. The owner requiremen ts, rankings, Likert tables, and Likert table scales, were all set the same to determine if the same results were achieved between the preliminary analysis and the selection tool results. Each of the owner requirement Likert scores is shown in the followin g pages as bar graphs for visual ease of information sharing. The outcome, using the selection tool, is one final score to make the decision about which glass product to use for the assumed project. The only difference between the preliminary analysis and the testing of the tool is the amount of glass products analyzed. A more substantial list was developed as shown in Appendix J. The first owner requirement scored using the Likert tables is schedule Shown in Figure 4 11 all reflective glass products have scored the highest on the Likert tables. This means that all the reflective products have the shortest schedule length based on information gathered from RS Means (2009) construction data. A short schedule allows for a shorter construction period and a qu icker occupation of the project after construction is complete. The next owner requ irement to use the Likert table scores is initial cost. As shown in Figure 4 12 the highest scores achieved are the insulated glass unit in clear and the reflective insulat ed glass unit in clear. A high score on the Likert table for initial cost means that the first cost was low. A low initial cost is desirable when selecting glass products. Shown in Figure 4 13 are the Likert scores associated with the energy savings. Each glass pro duct was run through the Energy 1 0 simulation software to determine

PAGE 121

121 the amount of energy saved compared to a baseline building. There are 9 glass products that scored highest in energy savings with 288 points, which means that each product save d approximately 9% energy when compared to the baseline building. A high score in energy savings means that the glass product saved a significant amount of energy. The next owner requirement to use the Likert table scores is maintenance costs. Shown in Fi gure 4 14 are twelve glass products that achieved the same score, with 88 points. This is the highest score and means that the maintenance costs for these twelve products were low. A low maintenance cost is desirable when comparing glass products, as it co sts less to upkeep the product over its lifespan. The total maintenance costs were calculated during the life cycle cost analysis section of the selection tool. Life cycle costs are the next owner requirement to use the Likert table scores. Figure 4 15 sho ws the insulated glass unit in clear has achieved the highest Likert score with 216 points. This means that the insulated glass unit in clear has the lowest life cycle cost. Life cycle costs take into account the monetary value of the energy saved. A low l ife cycle cost is desirable when comparing glass products, as it means less money spent over the lifespan of the product. The next owner requirement to use the Likert table scores is matching the 16 are the glass products in clear that did not achieve a high score. The remaining glass products, if colored, attained the highest scores. Similar to the preliminary analysis, it was determined that colored or coated glass has been used more frequently in g lazing products. This owner requirement is quite subjective and may have varied outcomes depending on the

PAGE 122

122 aesthetic qualities desired by the owner. Although the difference between the scores are not very large, the score still determines which glass produc t will be selected when final scores are calculated. The labor costs are the next owner requirement to use the Likert tables. Figure 4 17 shows that all the reflective glass products had the highest Likert score for labor costs. This means that their labo r costs were the lowest based on the schedule days needed to install the glass product. A low labor cost is desirable, and helps keep the overall project within the allotted budget. However, labor is a crucial part in the installation of glass products, as it can mean the difference between a product that is sealed properly and one that must be replaced or repaired due to faulty installation. These labor costs are based on the amount of schedule days only, and not the quality of workmanship. Equipment cost s are the next owner requirement to use the Likert tables. Shown in Figure 4 18 all the reflective glass products also have achieved the highest scores for equipment costs. Similar to labor costs, equipment costs are more desirable when they are low. The e quipment costs are also based on the amount of schedule days and the costs to rent a crane per day and to use a certain square footage of scaffolding. The equipment costs, if kept low, contribute to a project that falls within or under budget. The appropr iate equipment, installation and labor may decrease and save the owner money. The last owner requirement to use the Likert tables is the access to daylight. Figure 4 19 shows the two highest scores for this owner requirement are 27 points and are achieved by the exterior laminated insulated glass unit in clear and the interior

PAGE 123

123 laminated glass unit in clear. For access to daylight, the percentage of light allowed to pass through the glass, or the visible transmittance was collected from the performance valu es for each glass product. The highest scores show that these two glass products had the most daylight penetration into the space which is desirable to reduce electric lighting loads. The values associated with the glass category for each owner requiremen t was added together to calculate one final score. This overall score contributes to the selection of the glass for the project at hand. Based on the owner requirements and the building assumptions, Figure 4 20 shows the outcome of the test. As shown, the insulated glass unit in clear achieves the highest points with 783 total points. Followed very closely behind is the reflective insulated glass unit in blue with 780 total points. The small difference between these two products basically will allow them to be interchanged with each other without affecting the owner requirements for this assumed project. The result of the test analysis proves that the selection tool functions appropriately and calculates correctly and the same type of glass was deemed the w inner with the highest total point s for both sets of results. The following pages are the figures associated with each owner requirement Likert scores. To test the selection tool even further, it was determined that one value would be changed in the owner requirement rankings, to see which glass product achieves the highest points or if there is one glass product that out performs all other products. The first owner requirement that was altered was schedule. The ranking for schedule was originally a five and to give schedule a higher importance it was changed

PAGE 124

124 to a nine When schedule was changed to a nine the product that was the most beneficial and had the highest final score was the reflective insulated glass unit in blue by guardian manufacturers with 907 total points. See Figure 4 21 for the graph associated with schedule as the most important owner requirement. When the owner requirement for e nergy saving is changed from a nine ranking to a six ranking the scores are varied. The overall scores are no t as high as the previous final score graphs. Energy savings originally was ranked as the most important owner requirement, but with the decrease in importance, l ife cycle costs with a rank of eight had the most importance. In this scenario, no owner requi rement receiv ed the highest rank which is a nine The insulated glass unit in clear was the highest scoring with 634 points followed closely by the reflective insulated glass unit in blue by guardian manufacturer with 631 points. See Figure 4 22 for the ba r graph of values associated with a low importance on energy savings. When the owner requirement initial cost is change d from its original ranking of seven to an i ncreased importance ranking of nine the overall scores are varied. By changing the rank of i nitial cost to a nine it became as important as the energy savings owner requirement. When initial cost is important, the insulated glass unit in clear achieved the highest score with 891 total points. The closest score behind was the reflective insulated glass unit in blue by guardian with 861 points. See Figure 4 23 for the bar graph associated with an increased importance on initial cost. When the owner requirement life cycle cost is change d from its original ranking of eight to an increased importance ranking of nine the overall scores are varied. By changing the rank of life cycle costs to a rank of nine this owner requirement became

PAGE 125

125 as important as the energy savings owner requirement. When life cycle costs were increased in importance, the insulate d glass unit in clear achieved the highest score with 855 points followed closely by the reflective insulated glass unit in blue by guardian manufacturers with 844 points. See Figure 4 24 for the bar graph associated with an increased importance on life cy cle costs. When the access to daylight owner requirement is changed from its origina l ranking of five to an increased ranking of nine the overall scores varied. By changing the rank of access to daylighting to an increased importance of nine this owner r equirement became as important as energy savings. Access to daylight is an important aspect to decreasing the total building energy consumption and pairs well with an importance in energy savings. When access to daylight has an increased importance the ins ulated glass unit in clear achieves a score of 866 points and the closest glass product is the reflective insulated glass unit in blue by Pilkington industries with 802 points. See Figure 4 25 for the bar graph associated with an increased importance on ac cess to daylight. The results of the alternate importance analysis proves that the insulated glass unit in cl ear achieves the highest score four out of the five alternate tests. This ensures that even with different owner requirement rankings the insulat ed glass unit in clear is the best option for the assumed facility.

PAGE 126

126 Figure 4 11. Tested s chedule Likert s cores

PAGE 127

127 Figure 4 12. Tested i nitial c ost Likert s cores

PAGE 128

128 Figure 4 13. Tested e nergy s avings Likert s cores

PAGE 129

129 Figure 4 14. Tested m aintenance Likert s cores

PAGE 130

130 Figure 4 15. Tested l ife c ycle c osts Likert s cores

PAGE 131

131 Figure 4 1 6. Tested community v ernacular Likert s cores

PAGE 132

132 Figure 4 17. Tested l abor Likert s cores

PAGE 133

133 Figure 4 18. Tested e quipment Likert s cores

PAGE 134

134 Figure 4 19. Tested a ccess to d aylight Likert s cores

PAGE 135

135 Figure 4 20. Tested final s cores

PAGE 136

136 Figure 4 21. Schedule i mportan ce final s cores

PAGE 137

137 Figure 4 22. Low e nergy f inal s cores

PAGE 138

138 Figure 4 23. Initial c ost i mportance f inal s cores

PAGE 139

139 Figure 4 24. Life c ycle cost i mportance f inal s cores

PAGE 140

140 F igure 4 25. Access to daylight i mportance f inal s cores

PAGE 141

141 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS FOR FURT HER STUDY The conclusions to gather from this thesis are the time savings associated with using the selection tool to aid the design team in choosing a glass product to implement into the facility. In understanding the integrated process, t he preliminary analysis took a total of four days to complete the information collection and each individual calculation associated with the life cycle analysis and the quality model. The understanding of the integrated process and each analysis tool aided in the creation of the selection tool. A fter the selection tool was created, the time frame significantly decreased for the overall process associated with selectin g glass. By using the tool to select glass the whole process took approximately one day. In addition, the owner requirement rankings were changed five times in the one day period to give more validity to the selection tool. The results of the selection to ol were the same as the preliminary analysis, furthering the validity of the tool. It is important during an integrated process to completely evaluate each option. This tool will allow for the owner to become even more involved in the selection process. T he tool shortens the length of time it takes to perform all the calculations and results in a true answer. It also allows for multiple alternative requirements to be implemented into the selection tool, in a quick and easy manner, to achieve the optimal pr oduct for the intended facility. Recommendations for further study include a wider variety of glazing options. This thesis covered insulated glass units and the different coatings applied to these units. It would be interesting to study the differences be tween insulated glass units and triple or even quadruple glazed units from an owner requirements standpoint. There may be

PAGE 142

142 significant energy reductions, but it would it really be economically feasible to incorporate triple and quadruple glazed units into t he facility. The addition of shading devices to the interior and the exterior of the facility paired with different glazing options would also be appropriate for further study. In addition, it would be interesting to have an assigned building to select gl azin g products for specifically. This thesis used building assumptions but a true implementation of the selection tool for a predetermined facility would allow for the tool to be tested to its fullest potential.

PAGE 143

143 APPENDIX A POINTS APPLICABLE TO GLAZING I N LEED FOR HEALTHCAR E This appendix documents the areas in LEED for Healthcare that is applicable to Healthcare documentation toolkit. Energy and Atmosphere Optimize Energy P erformance: Credit 1. Achieve increasing levels of energy performance beyond the prerequisite standard to reduce environmental and economic impacts associated with excessive energy use. Possible Points: 1 24. Optimize energy performance requirements are as follows: Whole Building Energy Simulation. Demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared with the baseline building performance rating. See Table A 1 for point allocation. Calculate the baseline building perform ance according to Appendix G of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 2007 using a computer simulation model for the whole building project. Table A 1. Energy p ercent s avings to p oints a chievable New Buildings Points 12% 1 14% 2 16% 3 18% 5 20% 7 22% 9 24% 11 26% 13 28% 14 30% 15 32% 16 34% 17 36% 18 38% 19 40% 20 42% 21 44% 22 46% 23 48% 24

PAGE 144

144 If selected and installed correctly, glazing systems have the ability to save energy. The energy savings come in the form of a reduction on the cooling/ heating loads and a decrease in the amount of electrical energy used for lighting. On site Renewable Energy: Credit 2. Encourage and recognize increasing levels of on site renewable energy self supply to reduce environmental and economic impacts associate d with fossil fuel energy use. Possible Points: one to eight points On site Renewable Energy is described as follows: Use on site renewable energy systems to offset building energy costs. Calculate project performance by expressing the energy produced by the renewable A 2 below to determine the number of points achieved. Use the building annual energy cost calculated in EA Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance or the U.S. Department Consumption Survey database to determine the estimated electricity use. Table A 2. Renewable e nergy p ercentages to p oints a chievable Percent Renewable Energy Points 1% 1 3% 2 10% 5 20% 6 30% 7 40% 8 Technol ogically advanced glazing systems can be applied with a photovoltaic film. This film uses the sun to generate energy for the facility. Although only a small amount of usable energy may be produced by the film, when coupled with other forms of alternate ene rgy, the savings can prove significant. Materials and Resources Sustainably Sourced Materials and Products : Credit 3. Reduce the environmental burdens of materials and products acquired to construct building and to upgrade

PAGE 145

145 build ing services. Possible Point s: one to four points. Sustainably sourced materials and products stipulate the following: One point and up to a maximum of four will be awarded for each 10% of the total value of all building materials and products used in the project (based on cost) that meet the criteria below. If concrete or steel structural elements are applied toward this credit, the project must include at least two other materials or products from CSI Master Format Divisions (other than 03 and 05) to attain the first point. Of the t otal recycled content, no more than 75% may be steel or concrete. Recycled content. The recycled content value is determined by multiplying the recycled content fraction of the assembly (based on weight) by the cost of the assembly. The recycled content fr action is the sum of all po st consumer recycled content pl us one half of the pre consumer content. Note: The same material cannot contribute to both salvaged and recycled content values. Regionally sourced/manufactured materials and products that have been extracted, harvested or recovered, as well as manufactured within 500 miles of the project site Although window glass is not a recycled product, the encasing components of the glazing system may contain recycled content. For example, aluminum is generally used to encase windows and would count towards recycled content. Indoor Environmental Quality Low Emitting Materials : Credit 4. Reduce the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are odorous, irritating and/or harmful to the comfort and wellbeing of inst allers and occupants. One point (maximum four) can be achieved for each group of materials that comply with the requirements. Possible Points: one point One group of materials is applicable for this credit in terms of glazing systems: GROUP 5: Exterior Ap plied Products: Adhesives, sealants, coatings, roofing and waterproofing materials defined as from the weatherproofing system out and applied on site shall comply with the VOC limits of California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2007 Suggested Control Measure (S CM) for Architectural Coatings and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1168 effective July 1, 2005. (USGBC 2009)

PAGE 146

146 Architectural glazing requires sealants and adhesives to waterproof the system as well as secure it to the structure of the facility. The glazing may be sealed on the interior as well as the exterior. Using low VOC sealants and adhesives ensures these points Daylighting and Views: Credit 8.1 Daylight To provide building occupants with a connection between indoor spaces a nd the outdoors through the introduction of daylight and views into the regularly occupied areas of the building. Possible Points: one to two points Daylighting requires the following: Install daylight responsive controls in 100% of the area that meets th e daylight quantity thresholds above. Daylight controls must switch or dim electric lights in response to the presence or absence of daylight illumination in the space. For a minimum of 75% or more of the perimeter area used to qualify under IEQ Credit 8.2 achieve daylighting i n at least the following spaces thr ough one of the four options: OPTION 1. Simulation Demonstrate through computer simulations that 75% or more of perimeter area used to qualify under IEQ Credit 8.2 achieve daylight illuminance leve ls of a minimum of ten footcandles (fc) and a maximum of 500 fc in a clear sk y condition on September 21 at nine a.m. and three p.m. Provide glare control devices to avoid high contrast situations that could impede visual tasks. However, designs that incor porate view preserving automated shades for glare control may demonstrate compliance for only the minimum ten fc illuminance level. OPTION 2. Prescriptive For side lighting zones: Achieve a value, calculated as the product of the vi sible light transmittanc e (VLT) and window to floor area ratio (WFR) between 0.150 and 0.180. Use this formula -0.150 < VLT x WFR < 0.180 The window area included in the calculation must be at least 30 inches above the floor. In section, the ceiling must not obstruct a line tha t extends from the window head to a point on the floor that is located twice the height of the window head from the exterior wall as measured perpendicular to the glass. See Figure A 1 for calculation reference s Provide glare control devices to avoid hig h contrast situations that could impede visual tasks. H owever, designs that incorporate view preserving automated

PAGE 147

147 shades for glare control may demonstrate compliance for only the minimum 0.150 value. Figure A 1. USGBC w indow to floor area d iagram For top lighting zones: The top lighting zone under a skylight is the outline of the opening beneath the skylight, plus in each direction the lesser of (see diagram below): See Figure A 2 for diagrammatical reference to the standard. 70% of the ceiling height, Half the distance to the edge of the nearest skylight, The distance to any permanent partition that is closer than 70% of the distance between the top of the partition and the ceiling. Figure A 2. USGBC t op z one lighting d iagram OPTION 3. Measuremen t. Demonstrate through records of indoor light measurements that a minimum daylight illumination level of ten fc and a maximum

PAGE 148

148 500 fc has been achieved in at least 75% of the perimeter area used to qualify under IEQ Credit 8.2. Measurements must be taken o n a ten foot grid for all occupied spaces and recorded on building floor plans. Provide glare control devices to avoid high contrast situations that could impede visual tasks. However, designs that incorporate view preserving automated shades for glare con trol may demonstrate compliance for only the minimum ten fc value. OPTION 4. Combination. Any of the above calculation methods may be combined to document the minimum daylight illumination in at least 75% of the perimeter area used to qualify under IEQ Cre dit 8.2. Daylighting and Views: Credit 8.2 Views Provide building occupants a connection to the outdoors through the introduction of daylight and views into the regularly occupied areas of the building. Possible Points: one to three points Provide acce ss to views that meet the following criteria: In patient Units (one point). A minimum of 90% of the inpatient staff and public areas shall be within 20 feet or twice the window head height, whichever is smaller of the perimeter. All such perimeter areas mu st have windows that provide at least an 11 angle of unobstructed view in the vertical and horizontal direction. Non Inpatient Areas ( one to two points) In the block planning stage, configure the building floor plates such that the area within 15 feet of the perimeter exceeds the perimeter area requirement as determined by Table 2 3 outlined below. Confirm at the conclusion of detailed planning that 90% of the perimeter rooms have windows that provide at least an 11 angle of unobstructed view in the verti cal and horizontal direction. Table A 3. Window a ccess r equirements for non inpatient a reas Floor Plate (bgsf) Threshold A (1 p oin t) Threshold B (2 p oin ts) Up to 15,000 7,348 8,248 20,000 8,785 9,985 25,000 10,087 11,587 30,000 11,292 13,092 35,000 12,425 14,525 40,000 13,500 15,900 45,000 14,258 17,228 50,000 and higher 15,516 18,516

PAGE 149

149 APPENDIX B GUIDELINES FOR THE D ESIGN AND CONSTRUCTI ON OF HEALTH CARE FACILITIES This appendix documents the guidelines that are applicable to glazing in a health care facility. These are merely suggestions for the design and construction of healthcare facilities. They only aid in a fully developed, well designed, operational healthcare facility. This information is sourced directly from the 2006 Guidelines for Desi gn and Construction of Health Care Facilities created by the Facilities Guidelines Institute. 1.2 1.3.1 Framework for Health Facility Design. This section is categorized as general plicable to As health care economics apply pressure to management, design should make every effort to enhance the performance, productivity, and satisfaction of the staff in order to prom ote a safe en vironment of care. (Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Healthcare Facilities 2006) Daylighting and access to views have been correlated with staff performance and productivity. In addition the workplace satisfaction of employees increases which helps to maintain employee retention rates. 1.2 2.2.2.5 Physical environment. This section falls under the functional programming of healthcare facilities. Lighting and views are addressed in subsection 1. (1) Light and views. Use and availability of nat ural light, illumination, and views shall be considered in the des ign of the physical environment (Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Healthcare Facilities 2006) There is, however, an addendum made to the light and views section which expands u pon the suggestions for an appropriate physical environment. Appendix 1.2 2.2.2.5 (1) Light and views. This appendix states:

PAGE 150

150 Natural light, views of nature, and access to the outdoors should be considered in the design of the physica l environment wherever possible (Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Healthcare Facilities 2006) The following is a list of suggestions from the guidelines to achieve maximum daylighting and views: Access to natural light should be provided no farther than 50 feet fr om any patient activity area, visitor space, or staff work area. To the highest extend possible, the source of such natural light should also provide opportunities for exterior views. Siting and organization of the building should respond to and prioritiz e unique natural views and other natural site features. Access to natural light should be achieved without going into private spaces. Examples include windows at the ends of corridors, skylights into deep areas of the building in highly trafficked areas, t ransoms, and door sidelights. 1.2 6.2.1.4 Energy Efficiency. The efficiency of the overall facility is taken into account in the guidelines and states: Efficient mechanical and electrical systems shall be selected and sized to meet loads, efficiently util ize space, and consider climate characteristics, daylighting, and building orientation to significantly reduce overall energy de mand and consumption (Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Healthcare Facilities 2006) Appropriately selected and inst alled glazing systems have the ability to reduce electrical loads as well as increase the overall energy efficiency of the building by reducing cooling loads. An addendum has been created for this guideline to recommend strategies for energy conservation. Appendix 1.2 6.2.1.4 Energy Efficiency This subsection recommends strategies for increasing energy efficiency and states: Heath care facilities should set energy efficiency goals (e.g., application of ASHRAE 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low Rise Residential Buildings; design to earn the ENERGY STAR or a number of LEED energy points) and consid er energy efficiency strategies (Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Healthcare Facilities 2006)

PAGE 151

151 The following subsection has been selected be cause it relates to daylighting strategies and issues: 2. Reduce overall energy demand. Sample strategies for this purpose include using a high efficiency building envelope; passive and low energy sources of lighting (including daylighting); advanced light ing controls integrated with daylighting strategies; high efficiency equipment, as both part of building mechanical and electrical systems and for plug loads; and heat reco very and natural ventilation (Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Healthc are Facilities 2006) 2.1 7.2.2.5 Windows. This section is generalized for all hospitals and has a relatively small section devoted to glazing. The following are the only general recommendations for glazing: (1)Operable windows are not required in patient r ooms. If operable windows are provided in patient rooms or suites, operation of such windows shall be restricted to inhibit possible escape or suicide. (Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Healthcare Facilities 2006) (2) When a window is required the minimum net glazed area shall be no less than 8 percent of th e floor area of the room served (Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Healthcare Facilities 2006 ) 2.2 2.2.2.3 Windows. This guideline details the more specific requirements of win dows in regards to patient health and well being. This guideline states: Each patient room shall be provided with natural light by means of a window to the outside. Further requirement s are listed under 2.1 7.2.2.5. (Guidelines for the Design and Construct ion of Healthcare Facilities 2006) An addendum has been created for this guideline. More stringent recommendations are described as to ensure patient comfort. Appendix 2.2. 2.2.2.3 Windows. This guideline expresses the need for abundant natural daylighting and specifically states: A window in each patient room, the views from it, and the diurnal cycle of natural light afforded by it are important for the psychological well being of all patients, as well as for meeting fire safety and building code requireme nts. When designed to be operable, a window in the patient room

PAGE 152

152 may also be important for continued use of the area in the event of mechan ical ventilation system failure (Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Healthcare Facilities 2006) It has bee n stated that patient who experience natural daylighting and views are more likely to decrease their stay in the healthcare facility, as the speed of their recovery is increased. In turn, daylighting and views can reduce stress in patients and staff to cre ate a more psychologically stable environment

PAGE 153

153 APPENDIX C PRELIMINARY GLAZING PERFORMANCE AND CONS TRUCTION D ATA

PAGE 154

154

PAGE 155

155 APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY ENERGY S AVINGS D ATA

PAGE 156

156

PAGE 157

157 A PPENDIX E PRELIMINARY LIFE CYC LE COST D ATA

PAGE 158

158

PAGE 159

159 APPENDIX F PRELIMINARY QUALITY MODEL LIKERT T ABLES

PAGE 160

160

PAGE 161

161

PAGE 162

162

PAGE 163

163

PAGE 164

164

PAGE 165

165 APPENDIX G SELECTION TOOL: RESE ARCH AND INFORMATION GATHERING S ECTION

PAGE 166

166 APPENDIX H SELECTION TOOL: SIMU LATIONS AND CALCULAT IONS S ECTION

PAGE 167

167

PAGE 168

168 APPENDIX I S ELECTION T OOL: Q UALITY M ODEL S ECTION

PAGE 169

169

PAGE 170

170

PAGE 171

171 APPENDIX J TESTING THE TOOL: GL ASS ALTERNATIVES

PAGE 172

172

PAGE 173

173 APPENDI X K TESTING THE TOOL: GL ASS CONSTRUCTION DAT A

PAGE 174

174

PAGE 175

175 APPENDIX L TESTING THE TOOL: GL AZING ALTERNATIVES E NERGY SAVINGS DATA

PAGE 176

176

PAGE 177

177 APPENDIX M T ESTING THE T OOL: L IFE C YCLE C OST D ATA

PAGE 178

178

PAGE 179

179 APPENDIX N TESTING THE TOOL: Q UALITY M ODEL LIKERT T ABLES

PAGE 180

180

PAGE 181

181

PAGE 182

182

PAGE 183

183

PAGE 184

184

PAGE 185

185

PAGE 186

186

PAGE 187

187

PAGE 188

188

PAGE 189

189 LIST OF REFERENCES http://www.aamanet.org/general/1/2/abou t aama (September 12, 2011). AHA (American Hospital Association). (2010). "About the American Hospital Association." http://www.aha.org/aha/about/index.html (August 25, 2011). ASHRAE (American Socie ty of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers). (2010 (a) ASHRAE (American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers). (2010 (b) ASHRAE (American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers). http://www.astm.org/ABOUT/overview.html (October 3, 2011). window usage on external walls in terms of heating Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences (32): 23 33. Ander, G. (2003). Daylighting performance and design. Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey. BOCA (Building Officials Code Administrators). http://publicecodes.citation.com/icc/boca/nbc/1999/index.htm (October 11, 2011). nstruction of Environmental Building News, Building Green, 14(6). Boubekri, M. (2008). Daylighting, architecture, and health: building design strategies. Elsevier Ltd, Boston, Massachusetts. NeuroRehabilitation, IOS, 25: 189 199. Building Design and Construction. (2011). USGBC debuts LEED for healthcare. http://www.bdcnetwork.com/article/usgbc debuts lee d healthcare (August 25, 2011). Developed for the BC Green Building Roundtable. British Columbia Roundtable. take the pulse of http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/research/research_ieq.htm (August 21, 2011).

PAGE 190

190 CSA (Canadian Standards A http://www.csa international.org/about/ (October 12, 2011). making framework model for material selection usin g a combined multiple attribute decision International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (35): 751 760. Efficient Windows Collaborative. (2011 (a) Center for Sustain able Building Research. University of Minnesota. http://www.efficientwindows.org/codes2009/Florida%2009%20EWC.pdf (October 3, 2011). Efficient Windows Collaborative. (2011 (b ) http://www.efficientwindows.org/factsheets/Florida.pdf (October 3, 2011). EIA ( Energy Information Administration ) (2011). Healthc are buildings. http://www.eia.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/health/health_what equip.htm (October 12, 2011). Fuller, S. and Petersen, S. (1995). Life Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program. National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 135. 1995 Edition. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/florida_codes/ (September 13, 2011). http://www.glasswebsite.com/publications/default.asp (August 22, 2011). Potential Building Systems. http://www.gghc.org/about.whoweare.overview.php (September 16, 2011). Guardian Industries Corporation http://www.na.en.sunguardglass.com/SunguardProducts/PerformanceComparison Tool/View/index.htm?id=11002080&coatingid=5408 (October 2, 2011). Guenther, R. and Vittori, G. (2008). Sustainable Healthcare Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. bid Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 135(6): 540 549. HCWH ( Health Care Without Harm ) (201 1 ). About us: what we do. http://www.noharm.org/us_canada/about/ (August 25, 2011).

PAGE 191

191 Published in Sustainable Healthcare Architecture (2008), by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. New England Journal of Medicine 333 :735 740 http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Pages/default.aspx (September 12, 2011). Johnson, S.W. (2010). Summarizing green practices in U.S. hospitals. Hospital Topics 88(3): 75 81. Kirk, S. ( Conference of the Society of American Value Engineers (SAVE) in New Orleans, LA. SAVE Annual Proceedings, Detroit, Michigan. of materials selection activities in user Journal of Engineering Design 19(5): 417 429. performance green building design process modeling and integrated use of Journal of Architectural Engineering 16(1): 37 45. International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE) Ottawa, Canada. LBNL (Lawrence Berkley National Laborato http://lowenergyfacades.lbl.gov/ (August 21, 2011). Environmental Building News Building Green, 13(11). Ma lin, N and Wendt, A. (2010 Environmental Building News Building Green 19(5). Wall Street Journal: Market Watch http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hospitals taking healthy environments heart (October 12, 2011). McGraw and Analytics. http://www.pacificad.com/community/pdf/SmartMarket_Green_Building_Healthcar e.pdf (November 10, 2011). Metha, M., Scarborough, W., Armpriest, D. (2008). Building construction principles, materials, and systems. Pearson Prentice Hall, Columbus Ohio.

PAGE 192

192 Windows and overhangs: solar NZEB project. ASHRAE Journal, 134 137. NFRC (National Fenestration Rating Council). http://www.nfrc.org/codesinfo.aspx (October 19, 2011). Patterson, M. (2011). Structural glass facades and enclosures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey. Pilki http://www.pilkington.com/north america/USA/English/products/bp/downloads/byproduct/s olarcontrol/default.htm (October 2, 2011). http://www.ppg.com/corporate/id eascapes/glass/Documents/101076%20IG%20Co mparisons%20(7084).pdf (October 2, 2011). Architecture (2008), by John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey Institute of Building Sciences. http://www.wbdg.org/wbdg_approach.php (August 23, 2011). RS Means (2009). Building Construction Cost Data R.S. Means Co. Inc, Kingston, Massachusetts. Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey. are spaces with Healthcare Design Magazine, 10(6): 16 24. The Facility Guidelines Institute (2006). Guidelines for design and construction of health care facilities. American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC. US DOE (United Building envelope critical to Building technologies program Commercial Building Initiative www.commercialbu ildings.energy.gov/hospital (October 9, 2011). USEPA ( Environmental Protection Agency ) (2011). Basic infor mation: what is http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm ( October 12, 2011). US E PA( E nvironmental Protection Agency ) and AHA ( American Hospital Association ) (2001). Memorandum of understanding between the American Hospital Association and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health without harm. http://www.h2e online.org/docs/h2emou101501.pdf (October 12, 2011).

PAGE 193

193 USGBC (United States Green Building Coun cil). (2009). "LEED 2009 for Healthcare New Construction and Major Renovations." United St ates Green Building Council. Architecture (2008) by John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey. Journal of Healthcare Management 54(4): 227 230. h ttps://www.wdma.com/IndustryInformation/ArchitectsBuildersSpecifiers/tabid/103/ Default.aspx (October 12, 2011). stitute of Building Sciences. http://www.wbdg.org/design/engage_process.php (August 23, 2011). Environmental Building News, B uilding Green, 8(9) Environmental Building News Building Green, 13(10). Wilson, A. (2005). Making the case for green building. Environmental Building News Building Green, 14(4). Wilson, A. (2006). American Institute of Architects Reprinted for Environmental Building News, Building Green, 15(7). Environmental Building News Bu ilding Green, 19(7).

PAGE 194

194 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jessica Tomaselli first experienced the joy of design in high school when attending an interior design class. She graduated high school in 2005 and attended the University of Florida, where she majored in interio r design. Grad uating in 2009 with a Bachelor of Design in i nterior d esign at the height of the economic recession, the idea of c ontinuing her education with a m s d egree became her new path. Attending the University of m asters p rogram in c on struction management through the M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction she expanded her marketability as a designer with hopes of one day working at a design build firm. Jessica Tomaselli graduated with a Master of Scienc e in Building Construction with a sustainable focus in the f all of 2011 to pursue a career in high performance healthcare design and construction.