JBeD
Journal of Building Enclosure Design
An official publication of the National Institute of Building Sciences
Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council (BETEC)
National Institute of Building Sciences: An Authoritative Source of Innovative Solutions for the Built Environment
Winter 2010
Fenestration:
The Glazing Factor
JBED
Published For:
The National Institute of Building
Sciences Building Enclosure Technology
and Environment Council
1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-4905
Phone: (202) 289-7800
Fax: (202) 289-1092
nibs@nibs.org
www.nibs.org
Contents
Features:
13
16
22
The Future of Window
Technology...Is Here!
A Bottom Line Look
at Architectural Glass
Performance
Electronically Tintable
Glass For Building
Envelope Applications
The Future
PRESIDENT
Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA
VICE PRESIDENT
Earle W. Kennett
Published By:
Matrix Group Publishing
Please return all undeliverable addresses to:
16516 El Camino Real
Suite 413, Houston, TX 77062
Phone: (866) 999-1299
Fax: (866) 244-2544
President & CEO
Jack Andress
Senior Publisher
Maurice P. LaBorde
PUBLISHERS
Peter Schulz
Jessica Potter
Trish Bird
13
Editor-in-Chief
Shannon Savory
ssavory@matrixgroupinc.net
Finance/Accounting &
Administration
Shoshana Weinberg, Pat Andress,
Nathan Redekop
accounting@matrixgroupinc.net
Director of Marketing &
Circulation
Shoshana Weinberg
Sales Manager
Neil Gottfred
Matrix Group Publishing
Account Executives
Albert Brydges, Davin Commandeur, Lewis
Daigle, Rick Kuzie, Miles Meagher, Ken Percival,
Lesley Dion, Frank Christmann, Brian Davey,
Wilma Rose, Jim Hamilton, Chris Frezna, Declan
O’Donovan, Jeff Cash
Advertising Design
James Robinson
Layout & Design
Travis Bevan
©2010 Matrix Group Publishing. All rights
reserved. Contents may not be reproduced by
any means, in whole or in part, without the
prior written permission of the publisher. The
opinions expressed in JBED are not necessarily
those of Matrix Group Publishing or the National
Institute of Building Sciences/Building Enclosure
Technology and Environment Council.
Architectural
Glass
16
27
30
Developing The Next
Three Generations of
Zero-Energy Windows
New Advancements in
Glass Bring More Design
and Performance Choices
Than Ever Before
Tintable
Glass
Messages:
22
07
09
11
M
essage from Institute President
Henry L. Green
Message from BETEC Chairman
Wagdy Anis
Guest Message from MC² Mathis Consulting Company President
Christopher Mathis
Industry Updates:
33
35
BEC Corner
Buyer’s Guide
On the cover: City Center Plaza in
Bellevue, WA, is clad in triple-silvercoated, solar control, low-e glass.
The 26-story, 574,970 square foot
building officially opened on May 19,
2009 when Microsoft took occupancy
of floors two through nine. The
building features a large atrium-style
lobby that opens onto a two-anda-half acre urban landscaped plaza.
Photo courtesy of PPG Industries and
©Tom Kessler.
Winter 2010 5
Message from the National Institute of Building Sciences
Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA
In my message to you in the Summer 2009 issue of Journal of Building Enclosure Design, I discussed the need to raise
awareness to improve building enclosures. I outlined several
examples in that article, such as recognizing David Altenhofen for his efforts to establish Building Enclosure Councils
(BECs) throughout the country, the work Congressman Russ
Carnahan (D-Mo.) is doing to bring awareness to the issue
of high-performing buildings, the programs held at the 12th
Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology,
and the December 2009 Ecobuild America Conference held
in Washington, D.C.
Each of these examples addressed a consistent theme: education. These examples all focused on the need to improve
our knowledge base to better utilize the latest technology to
advance our building systems and to gain greater return on
our investments. Investing in education is money well spent.
approximately $496 million of its fiscal year 2010 budget for
repairs and alterations, $40 million of which will focus on
energy- and water-conservation measures as well as high–
performance, green buildings. While the amount attributed
to retrofit and green buildings is only about 10 percent of
that part of the budget, GSA has also requested significant
resources to devote to other major limited-scope programs
that will include upgrades to current technology and systems
to improve the sustainability and energy efficiency of the federal building stock. This is but one example of the effort at
the federal level. Other agencies are also devoting substantial
budget allocations to this effort and emphasizing the need to
improve existing infrastructure.
In order to achieve the desired results, a collaborative and
expanded effort is necessary to understand the complexities
associated with retrofitting and improving our existing building stock. Programs such as the upcoming BEST2 Conference
in Portland, Oregon, to be held April 12 -14, provide an opportunity to learn more and gain a greater appreciation for
the work needed to meet this challenge. This three-day conference has a variety of programs scheduled that will include
information on best practices, improved theories and case
studies on retrofitting buildings. I hope to see you there.
Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA
President
National Institute of Building Sciences
Numerous reports predict that the
expected new construction in 2010 will
amount to less than one percent being added
to our nation’s building stock. Therefore, it
is vitally important to focus our attention on
existing buildings and how we can retrofit
existing buildings effectively.
Recently, the discussion on buildings has become concentrated on the current building stock and the impact these buildings will continue to have on our society as we move forward.
Numerous reports predict that the expected new construction
in 2010 will amount to less than one percent being added to
our nation’s building stock. Therefore, it is vitally important to
focus our attention on existing buildings and how we can retrofit existing buildings effectively. In order to achieve the goal
of improving our existing buildings, we need to become educated on the opportunities, technology and systems available
to relieve our nation of high-energy buildings, thereby reducing costs and improving our built environment.
We are beginning to see a greater emphasis on the federal
government’s focus on the need to retrofit existing buildings.
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has allotted
Winter 2010 7
Message from the Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council
Wagdy Anis, FAIA, LEED AP
WARM WINTER GREETINGS TO ALL!
I’d like to report on the Building Enclosure Technology
and Environment Council (BETEC) Annual Meeting, which
convened December 9, 2009. Open to all members, it was
part of the greater National Institute of Building Sciences
Annual Meeting held in conjunction with the Ecobuild
America Conference in Washington, D.C. The day before,
the BEC National Committee met. Representatives from a
dozen Building Enclosure Councils (BEC) chapters discussed
BEC priorities and business, including a meeting with the
American Institute of Architects (AIA) aimed at solidifying
AIA support for the BECs.
A very important initiative emerged from these meetings,
namely a proposed educational webinar program on building
science topics. The webinars would be nationally televised to
the BECs utilizing star presenters as part of a plan to reinforce
building science education. Hopefully, this initiative will
emerge in 2010 as a joint program with AIA to benefit the
design and construction industries.
The BETEC Board also discussed the important topic of
whole building commissioning. In 2006, BETEC published
the NIBS Guideline 3-2006: Exterior Enclosure Technical
Requirements for the Commissioning Process. The guide
was part of the family of commissioning guidelines produced
within the structure established by ASHRAE and the Institute,
using Guideline 0: The Commissioning Process as the guidance
document. Recently, ASTM announced the formation of the
E06-55-09 Task Group, which was charged with producing a
new standard, Exterior Enclosure Commissioning.
A number of E06 members joined the BETEC Board
discussion. The BEC National Committee brought a proposed
action to the BETEC Board that the BEC chairs felt was
extremely important to the industry. Based on their proposal,
the BETEC Board voted for two things: first, that an update of
NIBS Guideline 3 was required, and second, that Guideline
3 and the ASTM document be “consistent, compatible, and
complementary” and, therefore, not in conflict with each
other.
The BETEC Board expressed two other action items
urgently needed. One is the call to reinforce building science
education, both in academic venues and in the construction
industry as a whole. The second is the issue of the lack of
energy efficiency of fenestration framing.
The BETEC Board was pleased to hear that the BEST 2
Conference (www.thebestconference.org) is on track, and
proceeding with extensive U.S./Canadian collaboration on its
substantial content. Hosted by BEC Portland and scheduled
for April 12-14, the theme is “A New Design Paradigm for
Energy Efficient Buildings.” Please join us this spring in
Portland!
Lastly, I’m happy to report that the BETEC Symposium on
Retrofitting Building Enclosures for Energy Efficiency and
Sustainability, held December 10, was sold out. BETEC action
on the subject of energy efficiency of our existing building
stock, both in its white paper (JBED Fall 2008) and followup action by Institute President Henry Green, have brought
national attention to the topic and resulted in an intensified
focus on Capitol Hill on this subject. The BETEC Symposium
continued the necessary dialogue, and its presentations
on retrofit techniques were extremely well received by the
attendees.
Happy 2010 to you. I look forward to seeing you at BEST2!
Wagdy Anis, FAIA, LEED AP
Chairman, BETEC Board
Chairman, JBED Editorial Board
Principal, Wiss Janney Elstner
Thermal Performance of Exterior
Envelopes of Whole Buildings XI
International Conference
December 5-9, 2010
Sheraton Sand Key Resort
Clearwater Beach, Florida
This conference, sponsored by BETEC, ASHRAE and CIBSE,
and organized by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), will
present two concurrent tracks: Principles - Devoted to Research; and
Practices - Focusing on Practical Applications and Case Studies. Special topic workshops will be presented before or after the conference.
Since its inception in 1979, the “Buildings Conference” has taken
place once every three years allowing time to develop new research
and technology applications and to record the findings. Attendance
is international and draws heavily on the advanced techniques of all
our global experts.
For additional information, visit
www.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/2010/index.shtm
or contact Pat Love at lovepm@ornl.gov or (865) 574-4346.
Winter 2010 9
Guest Message from the Mathis Consulting Company’s President
R. Christopher Mathis
The demand for improved energy efficiency in buildings
has followed a few predictable patterns since the early 1970s.
From insulation to appliances and now to windows, we have
a) the need for ratings, b) the standardization of testing and
calculation methodologies, (c) ratings, labels and third-party certification, (d) code adoption and utility programs, and
(hopefully) they all lead to (e) consumer awareness and protection when making buying decisions.
Unfortunately, even with all of the marvelous technologies showcased in the magazines (from new low-e coatings,
triple and quadruple glazing systems, new inert gas fills, new
frame materials, etc.) windows are STILL the poorest performing elements of the building envelope.
But we continue to insist on taking perfectly good walls
(well insulated and properly installed, of course) and we
cut holes in them to accommodate windows. We do this for
many reasons, including wanting natural light, on-demand
ventilation and access to views.
Think about the challenges for the window industry. They
take a combination of materials—from wood to glass to
space age composites—and make products that meet wind
loads, structural requirements, acoustical requirements, operability requirements and energy requirements, all the while
making something that is CLEAR so we can see through it!
I have often said that the window industry has the toughest job: selling the “invisible”. They have to find a way to include invisible low-e coatings, gas fills and other efficiency
improvements that we do not want to see but we definitely
want in the final product.
So we improve window and glass technology. We improve
coatings, gasses and durability. We improve the energy codes
and computer tools. We improve window efficiency education materials and programs like ENERGY STAR. We constantly work to improve product ratings and labeling. But
after all these improvements, windows remain the “weakest
link” in accomplishing our overall building efficiency objectives (and yes, I know we still have to address uncontrolled
envelope air leakage).
Our computer programs can show us all types of recipes
for meeting some energy targets. Mathematical trade-offs
have become the norm, marketed as “options” to meet those
energy performance targets, often with apparent disregard
for unintended consequences of the recipes.
For example, what if the occupant is uncomfortable with
a recipe that meets a computer-defined energy target? Their
only option is to adjust a thermostat, rendering the computer predictions immediately irrelevant. What if the product’s
durability is untested? What if that super performance only
lasts three months or three years? And what if the manufacturer that sold that window is now nowhere to be found?
A few rules can serve to protect the consumer, builder,
architect and engineer in this age of evolving window technologies.
First, demand NFRC ratings and labels. It is the only
chance at even getting close to reliable performance ratings.
The U-factor and SHGC values on the label provide your
first line of assurance at meeting code and performance requirements. Beware of “R-value” claims. These not only don’t
meet the code, they don’t tell the whole product performance
story. My rule: if there’s no NFRC label or certification, don’t
use it. Choose windows with certified U-factors below 0.35
and SHGC values of 0.30 or less as a starting place—for every
residential or commercial project.
Second, beware of warranties that sound too good to be
true. They probably are. Sure, embrace new technologies,
but in the absence of proven durability, protect yourself (and
your client) with substantial warranties. My rule: compare
warranties and demand at least 20 years of coverage on the
sealed insulating glass unit integrity. Most of the efficiency
technology is embodied in the glazing system, so make sure
it is protected (for more on window warranties see www.ornl.
gov/sci/buildings/2010/Session%20PDFs/2_New.pdf ).
Third, never trade off window performance in energy
models. Remember, they are still the weak link in the building envelope. The code defines the minimum performance
values. These minimums provide some support for meeting your expectations of heating and cooling efficiency, and
occupant comfort. Trading window performance is a recipe
for comfort complaints and unexpectedly higher cooling
and heating bills. Make sure your windows at least meet the
code!
Fourth, when increasing window area, make sure window
performance increases by a commensurate amount. The
more window area you want, the better the windows need
to be.
Extreme care should be taken when selecting or comparing windows and the many different technologies available.
There are literally thousands of different glass coatings, gas
types and fills, and frames and spacer combinations that
deliver a wide array of performance. Whole product U and
SHGC ratings that meet the code are just the first step in the
decision process for this all-important hole in the wall.
R. Christopher Mathis
President
Mathis Consulting Company
Winter 2010 11
Feature
The Future of Window
Technology…Is Here!
By Dr. John Straube, P.Eng., University of Waterloo
Windows and curtainwalls are ubiquitous building enclosure components. Like all parts of the building
enclosure, they have to meet the fundamental functional
requirements of support, control and finish (Straube& Burnett, 2005). They need to do all of this AND be transparent,
thin, and in many cases, operable! It should be no surprise
then, that windows and curtainwalls cost more per square
foot than any other part of the enclosure. What designers often forget, however, is that these components perform their
support and control functions at a level that is far below that
of other opaque components: the fire, thermal, solar, impact
and sound resistance are all very low.
Modern aluminum curtainwalls and windows often have
thermally broken frames, solar control and low-emissivity
coatings on the glass, gas fills such as argon in the glazing space, and increasingly use insulating spacers. A combination of all of these technologies allows the U-value of
the vision glass section of a curtainwall to reach a value of
only around 0.3 to 0.4 (R-values of 2.5 to 3.0). It is difficult
to achieve a whole-window R-value of even 4. Similarly, the
percentage of solar heat gain that enters remains the same
over the year, even though such heat gain is undesirable
during warm weather and desirable in cold. Just as limiting
is the fixed ratio of visual light transmittance to solar gain:
whether it is dull or bright, the same proportion of light enters (see BSI-006: Can Highly Glazed Building Façades Be
Green? at buildingscience.com).
The benefit of high-performance windows and curtainwalls are becoming more widely known:
• Significant improvements to comfort by improving the
Mean Radiant Temperature (MRT) avoidance of cold
films falling off the glass and wide temperature swings;
• Major reductions in peak sizing of air conditioning; and
• Major reductions in annual space conditioning and lighting energy (Carmody et al, 2004).
Increasing the R-value and airtightness of walls and roofs
to R20, 40 and even 60 is now well developed and can be
deployed in almost all projects if desired (Straube & Smegal,
2009). High-performance window technology is more expensive and has not been as widely adopted. Changes are
occurring, however, with a range of new products being
released, both from established firms and new technology
firms.
Double trouble
Double-glazing has reached the limits of what is practical. With coating emissivity values as low as 0.03 and cavity fills of krypton or even xenon, the R-value at the center
of glass cannot reach even R5. Hence, other approaches are
Figure 1. A composite foam and wood frame with aluminum cladding,
and integrated operable shading (Courtesy of Holz & Form Canada).
used. The most obvious approach is to add another layer of
glazing. This is a time-tested and reliable method, which,
when combined with noble gas fills and low-e coatings, can
deliver center of glass R-values of 6 to 9. Quadruple glazing
takes this approach another step further to deliver centerof-glass R-values of R10 to 12 and higher.
The technical drawbacks to adding sheets of glass include
increased thickness and weight. If this is a problem, there
are solutions to both: the interior glazing can be replaced
with a thin and lightweight sheet of plastic or film, and narrower cavities can be used if the argon gas fill is replaced
with krypton. Center of glass R-values of over 9 are achievable with current technology in a 1” (25 mm) glazing package, and R20 in a 1 3/8” (35 mm) quintuple-layered system.
Vacuum glazing is another approach to increasing the Rvalue (decreasing U-value) of glazing. By drawing a vacuum
on the space between two sheets of low-e coated glass, and
using closely spaced small glass “posts” to support the glass,
the conduction and convection heat transfer can be virtually eliminated, much like a thermos. There are only a few
such products available, with center of glass R-values of less
than 5. However, products are improving, and relatively
thin (3/4”) triple glazing with 4 low-e coatings theoretically
has the potential to deliver well over R20.
Winter 2010 13
fiberglass extrusions with wood interior finish and aluminum
outer weathered components. All of these offer the possibilities of R6 to R8 frames, and all are commercially available (or
are close to being available). These frames still have more
heat flow through them than very-high-performance glazing,
but can reduce heat flow by two to three times when compared to standard window frames.
Aluminum window frames with thermal breaks over ½”, and
up to 1” are available and can provide acceptable performance
(e.g., R6 frames). Combining such large thermal breaks with
non-conductive exterior pressure plates and filling the voids
with materials such as aerogels can deliver frames with an Rvalue approaching R10, or 5 times as much as normal frames.
Figure 2. Quad-pane high R-value glazing and insulated wood frames,
with operable exterior shades.
Framing the problem
The limitation with all of the high R-value glazing technologies is heat lost through the spacers and the framing systems. Warm-edge spacers have become quite affordable and
widely available, but most insulated glazing units (IGU) still
have more heat lost through the spacers than center of glass.
Much more significant is the heat loss through the frame.
As high-performance glazing units deliver higher R-values,
the heat loss of poor frames begins to dominate. In residential construction, a normal wood or vinyl frame may have
an R-value of just 2 to 3. A commercial aluminum frame,
even thermally broken, rarely has an R-value of better than
2. Hence, the energy-saving potential provided by multiple
glazings, coatings and gas fills are bypassed by low-performance frames. This is a very significant penalty in practice:
an R9 3’ x 5’ triple-glazed glazing unit in a standard thermally-broken aluminum frame can have a whole window thermal resistance of only R4.
Frames of high-performance composite materials, commercially available as fiberglass frames, offer most of the
strength, stiffness and durability of aluminum with the thermal performance of wood. Composite frames have been
demonstrated in the lab and are becoming commercially
available. This includes foam-filled vinyl frames with aluminum exterior claddings, wood frames with polyurethane
foam thermal breaks (Figure 1), and slender foam-filled
14 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Sunny days
The maximum rate of heat flow through a window does
not occur on the coldest night of the year, but during sunny
days. Of course, this heat flow is due to solar heat gain. The
ratio of solar energy that becomes heat inside a building to
that which falls on a window is defined as the Solar Heat Gain
Coefficient (SHGC). Dark tinted windows and reflective coatings were used in the past to reduce the solar gain. However,
these approaches significantly reduce the view and daylight.
Modern windows use spectrally selective coatings which reduce solar gain with only a small effect on daylight.
As impressive as spectrally selective coatings are, large
windows will still allow very large amounts of heat to enter a
building when exposed to direct sun. Windows in full shade
can allow nearly half as much heat to enter as windows directly exposed to the sun. For well-insulated, airtight, lowenergy buildings, even limited areas of low SHGC (e.g., 40
percent window to wall ratio in an office, with SHGC=0.33)
can define the peak air conditioning load. At the same time,
solar gain can be useful in cold weather, and daylight is usually welcome if it is not too intense.
To allow solar heat and daylight through a window when
needed (a high SHGC), and reject it more effectively when
not (eg, a SHGC below 0.1), advanced technology is required
(Selkowitz & Lee, 2004). Exterior shading, operated by automatic controls, can deliver this level of performance. For
example, as the light intensity in the building reaches a predetermined threshold, the shades may deploy to fix the light
level. If solar gain can be usefully harvested, the shades remain fully open, or pivot to bounce the light off the ceiling,
thereby collecting the heat without glare.
The same high performance can be delivered without any
visible shades through the use of electrochromic glazings.
Several technologies are available, but ultra-thin coatings
that change their tint when a small voltage is applied are now
available. One product silently changes its SHGC from 0.48 to
0.09 in a few minutes with no moving parts.
Case study
For the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Decathalon
competition, the Team North entry (University of Waterloo, Ryerson University and Simon Fraser University, www.
team-north.com) explored many of the available high-tech
options. The result: a Serious Materials product with quadruple glazing, krypton fill, 3 low-e coatings, and proprietary non-conductive spacers to achieve a center-of-glass
R-value of 12, a visual transmittance of 0.58, and a SHGC
of 0.44.
The high-performance glazing was held to glulam wood
frames with structural silicone and a nylon, extruded cover
cap. Despite having almost no thermal bridging through the
frame, the frame’s R-value is still the limiting factor with an
R-value of less than 7. Still, the whole-window has an R-vaue
of around 10.
For such a high-performance building, the ability to control SHGC actively is critical, or over-heating even on bright
sunny cold days will occur. A Colt exterior venetian blind system with special controls was developed for the competition.
The high-level blinds could be controlled separately to allow
daylight harvesting while providing privacy and still controlling solar gain.
The total system has worked exceptionally well in the field
and is very attractive to many. Windows and curtainwalls
have seen tremendous development over the last 30 years.
Conclusion
Low-e coatings, gas fills, warm-edge spacers and thermally
broken frames have become available at reasonable cost. Given the performance demands of the new breed of high-performance buildings, these available technologies will need to
be deployed along side multiple-layer glazings, dynamically
controllable shading, and highly-insulated frames. The good
news is that after years of laboratory research, many of these
pieces are falling into place.
John F. Straube, Ph.D., P.Eng., is a specialist building science
engineer who has been deeply involved in the areas of building
enclosure design, moisture physics, and whole building performance as a consultant, researcher and educator. He is also a
faculty member in the Department of Civil Engineering and
the School of Architecture at the University of Waterloo where
he teaches courses in structural design, material science and
building science to both disciplines.
REFERENCES
Carmody, J.; Selkowitz, S.; Lee, E.S.; Arasteh, D.; Wilmert, T.
Win­dow Systems for High Performance Commercial Buildings.
New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. 2004.
Selkowitz, S.E.; Lee, E.S. 2004. Integrating Automated Shading
and Smart Glazings with Daylight Controls. Tokyo, Japan:
International Sympo­sium on Daylighting Buildings (IEA SHC
TASK 31). 2004.
Straube, J.; Burnett, E. BSD-018: The Building En­closure.
Westford, MA: Building Science Press. 2006. See extract at www.
buildingscience.com – Building Science Digest.
Straube, J.; Smegal, J. RR-0903. Building America Special
Research Project: High-R Walls Case Study Analysis. Westford, MA:
Building Science Press. 2009. See extract at www.buildingscience.
com – Research Reports.
Winter 2010 15
Feature
A Bottom Line Look at
Architectural Glass
Performance
By Wayne E. Boor, P.E., PPG Performance Glazings
Architectural glass has long
been a favored building material,
thanks to its relatively low cost and aesthetic versatility. Now, with the green
building movement continuing to expand and mature, glass has become
the focus of intensive research and development aimed at maximizing its
two most environmentally attractive
traits: the ability to transmit light and
block heat.
In recent years, these efforts have
engendered a number of significant
advances, from the introduction of uncoated spectrally selective glass to the
rise of multi-cavity insulating glass
units. While these developments clearly hold promise, the desire to enhance
the performance of glass coatings remains a top priority among the industry’s scientists and engineers.
A major step toward that objective took place four years ago when
glass manufacturers introduced the
first commercially viable triple-silvercoated, solar control, low-emissivity
(low-e) glass. This development produced a dramatic leap in glass performance as measured by light to solar
gain (LSG) ratio, a common standard
architects use to compare the environmental attributes of competing architectural glasses.
Although the introduction of a triple-silver-coated, solar control, low-e
glass marked a significant industry
milestone, it was merely the latest step
in a steady march of performance improvements in low-e glass over the last
quarter-century. Unfortunately, despite these advances—and prodding
from the U.S. government to use more
Figure 1. Located in Seattle, The Terry Thomas Building is a 4-story, 40,000 square foot
commercial structure. The building was designed based on the principles of sustainable design
and is LEED Gold certified.
16 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
energy-efficient glass—architects and
building owners continue to specify
less sophisticated products such as dual-pane tinted glass for many commercial buildings.
The reason is simple. They cost
less. But are they really less expensive?
To answer that question, a nationally known energy and environmental
firm was commissioned to measure
and compare the potential real-world
performance of six commonly specified architectural glazings. The results
showed that, despite their higher initial costs, high-performance, solar control, low-e architectural glasses are well
worth the investment, not just from a
fiscal perspective, but from an environmental one as well.
Parameters of the study
Architectural glasses
As stated earlier, the purpose of the
study was to gauge the relative environmental performance of commonly
specified architectural glazings. To
ensure the accuracy and objectivity if
its results, the testing corporation used
the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE)
2.2 Building Analysis Tool, which is
regarded as a reliable and well-documented whole building energy analysis
software in the United States.
The DOE 2.2 tool works by calculating hour-by-hour energy consumption
for prototype buildings over an entire
year. Input includes hourly climate data
for the building’s location as well as local utility costs, heating and air conditioning systems and controls, interior
and exterior building mass, enclosure
insulation, shading and fenestration,
hourly scheduling of occupants, lighting equipment, thermostat settings
and numerous other variables.
In the architectural glass study,
the testing firm modeled five glazing
types. They were:
• Triple-silver-coated, Magnetron
Sputtered Vacuum Deposition
(MSVD), solar control, low-e glass
(clear);
• Double-silver-coated, MSVD, solar
control, low-e glass (clear);
• Tinted, MSVD, solar control, low-e
glass (blue-green tint);
• Pyrolytic-coated, spectrally selective, tinted, passive low-e glass
(blue-green tint); and
• Dual-pane, spectrally selective,
tinted glass (blue-green tint).
Relevant performance data for each
glazing type is included in Table 1.
Building prototypes
Each of the six architectural glasses
was tested on two building prototypes:
an eight-story office building and a
single-story middle school. Each was
modeled with two glazing design scenarios: one with punched windows on
each façade and the other with complete window walls on each exposure.
The eight-story office building
totaled 270,000 square-feet and was
equipped with a VAV air-handling
system, a centrifugal chiller cooling
type plant, an economizer, and hot
water boilers for both the heating
plant and hot water service. The cooling and heating temperatures were
set at 75°F (23.8°C) and 70°F (21.1°C),
respectively, and operated according
to a yearly schedule of 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m.
to 12:00 p.m. on weekends.
Internal peak load calculations for
the facility were based on occupancy
of one person per 448 square-feet,
with 1.3 watts of lighting and .75 watts
of equipment per square-foot.The
school building was modeled according to a different set of assumptions.
The 200,000 square-foot, singlestory structure was equipped with a
packaged VAV air-handling system,
DX coils for cooling, an economizer,
hot water boilers for the heating plant,
and a gas water heater for hot water
service. Operating hours were from
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays
from September to June, and from
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on weekends
during the summer (July and August).
The heating temperature was 72°F
(22.2°C) and the cooling temperature
was 76°F (24.4°C).
Internal peak load assumptions
were as follows: 125 square-feet per
occupant, and 1.1 watts of lighting and .45 watts of equipment per
square-foot.
The cities
Both building prototypes were
tested against climate data files for
12 major North American cities. They
were Atlanta, Houston, Mexico City
and Phoenix in the south and Boston,
Chicago, Denver, Ottawa and Philadelphia in the north. The remaining
cities were Los Angeles, St. Louis and
Seattle.
In addition to representing a widerange of environmental conditions,
these cities had widely fluctuating
tariffs for natural gas and electricity,
which were obtained and factored into
the models.
The results
In the end, 288 energy-modeling
simulation scenarios were produced.
They generated calculations for building load, cooling equipment size,
energy costs and HVAC cooling costs
for each building prototype in each
city with each glazing option.
Triple-Silver-Coated, Solar Control,
Low-E Glass (Clear) vs. Dual-Pane
Tinted Glass
The study demonstrated architects and building owners can lower
their costs when they specify highperformance, solar control, low-e
glasses in place of dual-pane tinted
glasses. These products not only cut
energy consumption, they also lessen
requirements for total HVAC capacity.
In fact, simply by substituting
triple-silver-coated, solar control,
low-e glass for dual-pane tinted glass,
the study showed that the owners of
the prototypical, window-walled, office building, in Los Angeles or Atlanta
could realize HVAC capital equipment
savings of up to 20 percent. These
equipment cost savings, which were
estimated at more than $400,000,
were comparable in Boston, Chicago,
Philadelphia and other cold-weather
cities.
While the HVAC equipment costs
savings are significant, the report
showed the greatest return on investment would result from year-to-year
energy savings. As Table 2 highlights,
annual energy cost savings could
range from $43,000 (12.9 percent) for
the window-walled office building
in Seattle to nearly $100,000 per year
(11.4 percent) for the same building
in Boston. Over the 25- to 40-year
lifespan of a building, these savings
could ultimately amount to several
million dollars.
Table 1
Glazing Type
Dual-Pane Tinted Glass
(Blue-Green Tint)
Double-Silver MSVD
Solar Control Low-E Glass (Clear)
Tinted MSVD Solar Control Low-E Glass
(Blue-Green Tint)
Passive Low-E with Spectrally Selective
Tinted Glass (Blue-Green Tint)
Triple-Silver MSVD Solar Control Low-E Glass
(Clear)
Visible Light
Transmittance (VLT)
Solar Heat Gain
Coefficient (SHGC)
Winter Night
Time U-Value
Light to Solar
Gain (LSG) Ratio
69%
0.49
0.47
1.41
70%
0.38
0.29
1.84
51%
0.31
0.29
1.66
64%
0.45
0.35
1.42
64%
0.27
0.29
2.37
Winter 2010 17
Double-Silver Coated, Solar Control,
Low-E Glass (Clear) vs. Dual-Pane
Tinted Glass
Double-silver-coated, solar control,
low-e glasses have been on the market for more than a decade, yet they are
still specified at significantly lower rates
than dual-pane tinted glass and other
less-expensive glazings. Although double-silver-coated glasses incorporate
older coatings technology, they still offer significant opportunities to save
money by reducing HVAC equipment
needs and long-term energy consumption.
Table 3 compares the energy and
equipment costs of a window-walled,
eight-story office building in six cities. One is glazed with dual-pane tinted
glass and the other with a clear, doublesilver-coated, solar-control, low-e glass.
(dual-pane tinted and tinted solar control, low-e glasses will be compared in
table 4).
Annual energy savings across the six
cities ranges from $27,488 (6.3 percent)
in Phoenix to more than $60,000 (9.2
percent) in Chicago.
As a percentage, equipment cost
savings are even larger. In Atlanta and
Chicago, a prospective building owner
would lower capital investment in HVAC
equipment by more than 10 percent
when specifying double-silver-coated,
solar control, low-e glass instead of dual-pane tinted glass. The savings in the
other six cities ranged from 8.7 percent
in the cold-weather city of Boston to 9.5
percent in sun-baked Phoenix.
Tinted, Solar Control, Low-E Glass vs.
Dual-Pane Tinted Glass
One reason architects specify tinted glass is for solar control. The other is for aesthetics. By specifying a
tinted solar control, low-e glass, architects and building owners can achieve
the appearance they want, along with
enhanced cost savings and environmental performance.
Table 4 compares two similarly
tinted blue-green glasses in the same
window-walled,
eight-story
office
building. One features a solar control,
low-e coating. The other is conventional dual-pane tinted glass.
Again, as Table 4 shows, the savings
realized in on-going energy and upfront
equipment costs are more than enough
to justify the expense of the superior
glass technology. In Boston, the owner of
a prototype window-walled, eight-story office building could cut cooling-related energy bills by more than $82,000
(9.6 percent) per year by installing tinted solar control, low-e glass instead of
dual-pane tinted glass. The same owner
pockets more than $400,000 (13.9 percent) from lower HVAC equipment requirements.
In Atlanta, where the cooling load
is much higher, annual energy savings
Table 2
City
Annual HVAC Operating Expenses
Annual
Savings
Total HVAC Equipment Cost
Immediate
Equipment Savings
1st Year
Savings
Dual-Pane
Tinted
Triple-Silver
Solar Control
Low-E
$82,684
$2,115,484
$1,697,868
$417,596
$500,280
$97,539
$2,326,967
$1,928,086
$398,881
$496,420
$361,429
$56,346
$2,113,620
$1,710,275
$403,345
$459,691
$684,484
$608,756
$75,728
$2,237,643
$1,819,144
$418,499
$494,227
Phoenix
$436,554
$390,781
$45,773
$2,178,115
$1,796,710
$381,405
$427,178
Seattle
$337,361
$293,506
$43,885
$1,937,682
$1,591,412
$346,269
$390,124
Annual
Savings
Total HVAC Equipment Costs
Immediate
Equipment Savings
1st Year
Savings
Dual-Pane
Tinted
Triple-Silver Solar
Control Low-E (Clear)
Atlanta
$680,456
$597,772
Boston
$853,450
$756,001
Chicago
$417,775
Los Angeles
Eight-story office building, window wall.
Total Floor Area: 270,000 ft2.
Total Glass Area: 50,976 ft2.
Table 3
City
Annual HVAC Operating Expenses
Dual-Pane
Tinted
Double-Silver
Solar Control
Low-E
$47,348
$2,115,484
$1,894,098
$221,386
$268,734
$793,066
$60,384
$2,326,967
$2,123,627
$203,340
$263,724
$379,484
$38,291
$2,113,620
$1,898,094
$215,526
$253,817
$684,484
$646,749
$37,735
$2,237,643
$2,027,546
$210,097
$247,832
$436,554
$409,066
$27,488
$2,178,115
$1,972,002
$206,113
$233,601
$337,361
$307,774
$29,587
$1,937,682
$1,759,554
$178,138
$207,725
Dual-Pane
Tinted
Double-Silver Solar
Control Low-E
Atlanta
$680,456
$633,108
Boston
$853,450
Chicago
$417,775
Los Angeles
Phoenix
Seattle
Eight-story office building, window wall.
Total Floor Area: 270,000 ft2.
Total Glass Area: 50,976 ft2.
18 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
of $69,556 (10.2 percent) combine with
equipment savings of $343,134 (16.2 percent) to generate a first-year cost reduction of more than $412,000 (8.5 percent).
As energy prices rise, the annual energy
savings will continue to escalate in value.
The environmental benefits of highperformance architectural glazings
While lower energy and equipment
costs represent the most tangible benefit of high-performance glazings, their
widespread use can positively impact
the health of the environment as well.
In the United States, commercial
buildings account for nearly 40 percent of the country’s total energy consumption, and more than 75 percent of
its electricity use. That means commercial buildings also represent our largest
source of greenhouse gas emissions.
The potential cost savings associated with these energy-saving attributes
already have been substantiated. However, using multipliers developed by the
DOE, the same study can be used to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions
from each building type and each glazing scenario.
Table 5 compares the energy usage and cooling-related greenhouse
gas emissions associated with three
glazing types in a window-walled,
eight-story office building in Atlanta.
As the table demonstrates, the
specification of tinted solar control
low-e glass in place of dual-pane tinted glass has the potential to reduce annual cooling-related CO2 emissions by
more than 260 tons, which is equal to
removing 43 passenger vehicles from
the road or eliminating the CO2 emissions from burning 550 barrels of oil.
The CO2-emissions savings are even
more impressive with the clear, triple-silver-coated, solar control, low-e
glass. The 327 tons of carbon emissions prevented from entering the atmosphere represent the total from 54
cars or 690 barrels of oil.
It is estimated that there is approximately 77 billion square feet of built
space nationwide, with another seven billion projected to come on-line
in the next five years. If, in a perfect
world, all the existing buildings and
newly constructed buildings were
to incorporate triple-silver-coated,
solar control, low-e glass, the country
would cut its energy consumption by
approximately 2,134 trillion BTUs per
year, a net cost savings of nearly $40
billion in natural gas and electric utilities.
Beyond these bottom-line benefits, the installation of these glazings
would also cut domestic annual cooling-related carbon emissions by 123
million tons. That is the same as removing 204 million passenger cars
from the road annually, or about 80
million more than are currently registered in the entire country.
When considered in terms of cost
and environmental health, it is clear
that advanced architectural glazings
represent an investment that can pay
for itself many times over, and in more
ways than one.
Wayne E. Boor, P.E., is Manager, Architectural Quality for PPG Performance Glazings. He is a 30-year veteran of PPG Industries who has worked in
all facets of its glass business, including
manufacturing, research, commercial
development and technical services.
Table 4
City
Annual HVAC Operating Expenses
Dual-Pane
Tinted
Annual
Savings
Tinted Solar Control
Low-E (Pyrolytic)
Atlanta
$680,456
$610,900
Boston
$853,450
$770,241
Chicago
$417,775
$368,649
Los Angeles
$684,484
$623,466
Phoenix
$436,554
$398,016
Seattle
$337,361
$299,412
Eight-story office building, window wall.
Total Floor Area: 270,000 ft2.
Total Glass Area: 50,976 ft2.
Total HVAC Equipment Costs
Dual-Pane
Tinted
$69,556
$82,209
$49,126
$61,018
$38,538
$37,949
$2,115,484
$2,326,967
$2,113,620
$2,237,643
$2,178,115
$1,937,682
Tinted Solar
Control Low-E
(Pyrolytic)
$1,772,350
$2,003,328
$1,783,050
$1,899,559
$1,864,399
$1,656,023
Immediate
Equipment Savings
1st Year
Savings
$343,134
$323,639
$330,570
$338,084
$313,716
$281,659
$412,690
$405,848
$379,696
$399,102
$352,254
$319,608
Table 5: Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City
Glazing Type
Electricity
(in KwH)
Gas
(in therms)
Annual CO2
Emissions
(tons)
Annual CO2
Reduction
(tons)
40-Year CO2
Reduction
(tons)
Atlanta
Dual-Pane Tinted (Blue-Green
Tint)
4,736,231
71,094
3,644
N/A
N/A
4,359,188
53,918
3,382
262
10,480
4,280,390
52,256
3,317
327
13,080
Tinted Solar Control Low-E
(Blue-Green Tint)
Triple-Silver, Solar Control
Low-E (clear)
Eight-story office building, window wall.
Total Floor Area: 270,000 ft2.
Total Glass Area: 50,976 ft2.
Winter 2010 19
Feature
Electronically Tintable Glass For Building
Envelope Applications
By Helen Sanders, Ph.D. and Lou Podbelski, SAGE Electrochromics, Inc.
We live in a dynamic environment
which changes season by season, day by
day and hour by hour, yet the traditional building envelope cannot respond
to these ever-changing conditions. The
static nature of regular glass, especially,
leads to significant problems related to
the control of ever-changing incident
heat and light, occupant comfort and
productivity, and energy consumption.
Glass is ubiquitous in buildings because of the positive impact that natural daylight and the connection with the
outdoors has on health and well-being.
Despite these desirable benefits, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), windows are the
largest source of unwanted heat loss
and heat gain, which must be managed
by the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system.
While a full range of glazing products have been developed, from highly
reflective glass to spectrally selective
low-emissivity (low-e) glass, these are
still static in nature. Consequently,
a designer must make compromises
in addressing a building’s combined
need to manage solar energy, daylight
and glare, while maintaining the window’s intended use by trading off visible light transmission with solar heat
gain performance. Building occupants
typically resort to using shades or
blinds to control glare, which negates
the purpose of the window, increases
lighting energy use and still does not
solve the problem of heat gain in the
building.
Durable¹ electronically tintable electrochromic (EC) glass has been on the
market for a number of years now. Figure 1 shows the EC insulating glass
unit in the clear and tinted states. EC
glass can help building owners, designers, contractors and occupants avoid
such compromises and challenges because it can provide active control over
the transmission of the sun’s light and
heat. The solar heat gain coefficient
and visible light transmission can be
varied to let as much light and heat
into a building as desired based on outside environmental conditions and the
needs of the building occupants without loss of view to the outside. EC glass
can harness increased natural daylight
and solar heat (for example, on a cloudy
or cold day), and can also block the solar heat and unwanted glare as needed
on hot or sunny days.
In this way, a building envelope with
dynamic glass has significantly more
potential to save energy than one with
static glass, as well as providing greater
occupant thermal and visual comfort.
Figure 2 illustrates the large variation in visible light (62 to 3 percent)
and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC)
(0.48 to 0.09) that EC glass can provide
Figure 1. An EC insulating glass unit in clear and tinted states.
22 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
compared to the performance of static
glass products.
Energy saving benefits
The EPA estimates that up to 30 percent of commercial buildings’ energy
is used for lighting and as much as 80
percent of this lighting energy results
in heat, which must be removed by air
conditioning. Additionally, HVAC systems account for more than 35 percent
of energy use in commercial buildings.
In fact, an EC window performance
assessment by the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory reports that daily
lighting energy savings of up to 60 percent can be achieved by using EC.2
The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) estimates that commercial
buildings relying on EC window systems could save up to 28 percent in energy costs when compared to buildings
with static, spectrally selective, low-e
windows. A DOE research lab, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
estimates:
• 10 to 20 percent operating cost
savings;
• 15 to 24 percent peak demand reduction; and
• Up to 25 percent decrease in HVAC
system size.
Furthermore, EC glass is a key component of the DOE’s roadmap to achieving
zero energy buildings in 2030.
Figure 2. Graph of Visible Light Transmission (%) vs. Solar Heat Gain
Coefficient. This chart shows the heat gain and light transmission
range of an EC product compared with standard static glass.
Figure 3. EC windows find applications in restaurants where the view
is particularly important, as it is in this establishment situated on the
edge of a lake in Wisconsin. Note that shades or blinds are not necessary.
Figure 4. EC glass in a library in a tertiary education college in
Minnesota. The top three and bottom rows are EC glass; the middle
rows are static, tinted, low-e glass.
Figure 5. The exterior view of the EC skylight installation in
Connecticut. The photovoltaic panels that power the skylight system
run along the bottom of the skylights.
Applications
Electronically tintable glass has applications in the built environment
wherever light and heat control is required. Applications include restaurants, commercial office spaces, and
schools and medical buildings (see Figures 3 to 7). In restaurants, dynamic
glass is used to control uncomfortable
glare while preserving the views that
enable those businesses to command
premium pricing (Figure 3).
It has been shown in studies that
access to natural daylight promotes
learning.3 In schools dynamic glass
can provide access to more natural daylight while also providing a
comfortable learning environment
(Figure 4).
The top two complaints by occupants
of commercial office buildings are, “It’s
too hot,” or “It’s too cold”.4 Dynamic
glass can be used to improve the thermal
and visual comfort around the perimeter
zone without loss of view to the outside,
positively impacting worker productivity. An example of such an application
is shown in Figures 5 and 6 where a
skylight (2,500 sq.ft. of glass) is installed
over a large office space in Greenwich,
Conn. The original method for controlling heat gain and glare from the skylight was to pull a tarpaulin over the
entire skylight in the spring and remove
it in the autumn!
Although the tarpaulin blocked the
heat and glare, it also closed in the space
which eliminated the natural daylighting and removed the connection to the
outside. During a renovation late in
2008, the owner re-glazed the skylight
with EC glass.
Winter 2010 23
The EC control system takes power
from building integrated photovoltaic
panels installed along the bottom edge of
each side of the skylight and provides automatic intermediate state control, based
on a user-defined light level in the occupied space. The result is a comfortable
work space that provides natural light,
heat and glare control for the occupants.
Cost
Electrochromic glazings can be
comparable in cost to (and in some
cases lower than) today’s static glass
solutions. Even with high-performance
static low-e, additional methods of
solar control (exterior sunshades, interior shading systems, larger HVAC
capacity) are frequently required to
Figure 6. East- and west-facing banks of the
ridge skylight are programmed to change
according to the location of the sun. The roof
can also be completely tinted or completely
cleared, or switched in any combination of
its eight zones.
24 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
complete the static glass solution.
When adding up these initial costs (in
addition to the higher ongoing energy
expenses), the similarity in costs becomes apparent.
With the static glass system, the
building owner also has the potential
reduction in productivity due to comfort issues, which is a great deal more
costly than other operating expenses.
Worst of all is the loss of the primary reason we put windows in a building in the
first place—to see out. Furthermore, as
with all new products, manufacturing
scale and efficiencies will drive costs
ever lower until the product becomes a
standard.
and work in buildings and need the
view and connection with the outside,
and the health and well-being that access to natural daylight brings. For this
reason, coupled with the need to dramatically reduce energy usage in buildings to deal with climate change and
energy security, we firmly believe that
dynamic fenestration will soon become
the standard choice for building envelope design.
Dr. Helen Sanders is an executive
at SAGE Electrochromics with 15 years
experience in the glass industry. Since
joining SAGE in 1999, Dr. Sanders has
been involved in a number of business
areas including product development,
sales, developing a technical and customer services organization, and most
recently, leading manufacturing and delivery operations. Lou Podbelski’s primary responsibilities as an executive at SAGE are marketing and sales. He has over 28 years of experience in the marketing and selling of
construction products and services, 16 of
which were in the glazing industry. Conclusion
We ask groups all the time, “Why do
we put windows in buildings?” It’s because of people—because people live
REFERENCES
1.
Meets ASTM E2190 Specification for
Insulated Glass Unit Performance and
Evaluation and E2141-06 Stan­dard
Test Methods for Assessing the Durability of Absorptive Electrochro­mic Coatings in Sealed Insulated Glass Units.
2.
IEA Task 31/45, Daylighting/Lighting
Seminar on Research and Practice.
Pacific Energy Center, San Francis­co.
April 21, 2005. Presented by Eleanor
Lee, Law­rence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL).
3.
Heschong Mahone Group (1999). Daylighting in Schools. An in­vestigation
into the relationship between daylight
and human per­formance. Detailed
Report. Fair Oaks, CA. Heschong
Mahone Group (2001). Re-Analysis
Report. Daylight­ing in Schools, for
the California En­ergy Commission.
Published by New Buildings Institute (www.newbuild­ings.org). The
Heschong Mahone Group (2003).
Windows and Classrooms: A Study of
Student Performance and the Indoor
Environment – CEC PIER 2003.
4.
Results from the International Facility Management Association’s (IFMA’s) 2003 Corporate Facility Monitoring Survey.
Winter 2010 25
Feature
Developing The Next Three
Generations of Zero-Energy Windows
By Brandon Tinianov, Ph.D., P.E., LEED AP, Serious Materials
It is without question that building façade and envelope
design is an extremely complicated science. Thousands of materials come together to create a dynamic interface between a
constantly changing outdoor environment and stable indoor
conditions.
Advanced glazing has great importance due to its profound
impact on total building energy performance. In some cases,
the glazing may have the single greatest impact of any single
building component. In fact, research indicates that highperformance glazing is critical in “fulfilling the vision of zeroenergy buildings”.1 Analytical tools and policy have matured
in the last several years, providing additional impetus for its
adoption. Additionally, advanced glazing is in the midst of a
technological revolution which heightens its potential energy
savings and accelerates the payback period (and financial rationale), both in new construction and in energy retrofits of
existing buildings. For these reasons, a brief overview of stateof-the-art glazing is in order.
A new market for glazing
One of the key influencers to the expanded discussion of
advanced glazing systems is the restructuring and refocus
of the current and future construction market. Traditionally, code-mandated building energy requirements have been
modest and most insulated glass systems could meet these basic performance demands. However, there is a growing market
demand for green or high-performance buildings that mandate energy efficiency beyond code minimums. In many cases,
the total building consumption must be reduced by 15 to 40
percent. Advanced glazing is a key enabler to these targets.
A second, important market influence is the shift from new
construction to retrofit construction activity. New buildings
Figure 1. Cutaway of a triple pane insulated glass unit.
Courtesy of Serious Materials.
represent only 2.5 percent of the U.S. building market, while
retrofitting provides an enormous market opportunity for
owners and green builders and, recently, energy service provider companies (ESCOs).
Currently, energy-focused and green building comprises 5
to 9 percent of the retrofit and renovation market activity by
value. This equates to a $2 to 4 billion marketplace for major
projects. By 2014, researchers estimate that the share is projected to increase by 20 to 30 percent, creating a $10 to 15
billion market for major retrofit projects in only five years.2
Boosted in part by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA), which will provide significant funding for renovations to federal buildings, the total potential market for major
green renovations in the commercial building sector could
grow to as much as $400 billion, according to another study.3
“Three generations” of advanced glazing
In my opinion, advanced glazing in the mid-term future
will take the form of “three generations” of technology. These
generations, in order of market availability, are:
1. Generation 1 – low U-factor glazing (U ≤ 0.20);
2. Generation 2 – dynamic glazing; and
3. Generation 3 – building integrated photovoltaic glazing.
Other interesting technologies, façade elements and glass
features may take shape along the way, but these three advances will be the landmarks along the path of fenestration improvements and the establishment of zero energy buildings.
Generation 1: high thermal performance
glazing
Fenestration systems with low U-factors reduce the heat
flux (both into and out of) the building. We must improve on
Figure 2. Cutaway of a quad pane window including the frame.
Courtesy of Serious Materials.
Winter 2010 27
Generation 2: dynamic glazing
In the context of this article, dynamic
glazings are those that can modulate
their transmission properties to improve
energy efficiency while allowing daylight
to offset electric lighting requirements
and encourage a connection to the outdoor environment. A secondary role of
some user-controlled systems is that
they can act as light shades or privacy
glass as needed.
Dynamic glazing can admit solar heat
when it is needed to offset heating energy
needs, reject solar gain to reduce cooling
loads, possibly reduce a building’s peak
Figure 3. Chart depicting the high relative performance of suspended film glass systems over
electricity demand, and offset much of a
standard dual pane systems. Courtesy of Serious Materials.
building’s lighting needs during daylight
hours. To do so, the solar heat gain coefficient
(SHGC)
of
the
window may vary from approximately
common dual pane low-e systems (full frame U-factor of 0.50
to 0.25) using super insulating systems that achieve U-factors 0.50 to 0.05. The trigger for this performance switching can be
of 0.20 to 0.10 or less. There are multiple, well-established controlled either actively (user) or passively (environment).
The energy-saving benefits of dynamic glazings are highly
methods to achieve these benchmarks, with the greatest success found in three or more separated coated panes (with in- case specific and vary with building type and climate, but can
ternal panes of either glass or suspended coated films) having be profound at a national scale. A 2004 study of optimized applications of dynamic glazings was done by Lawrence Berkeley
the greatest commercial success.
At the time of publication, such a window, which employs National Laboratory. It concluded that “perimeter zone primatwo external glass panes and three internally suspended coat- ry energy use is reduced by 10 to 20 percent in east, south and
ed films, is currently listed as the National Fenestration Re- west zones in most climates if the commercial building has a
search Council’s (NFRC) highest performing assembly, with a large window-to-wall ratio” when compared to insulating statfull-frame U-factor of 0.09.5 An example of a stand-alone in- ic glazing, and that peak demand in these example buildings
was reduced by 20 to 30 percent. The study also found that at
sulated glass unit is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
One advantage of this system is its well-understood energy 40 percent market adoption, dynamic windows with daylightsaving benefits (demonstrable via energy models) and its de- ing controls could save approximately 9 × 1013 BTU in the year
sign and performance flexibility. Multiple layers and a broad 2030.7
library of low-e coatings allows for systems that can be tuned
Dynamic windows can be based on a number of possible
for low or high solar gain, tint and U-value in all of the forms technologies, including electrochromic layers, reflective metal
and styles that architects are comfortable using. Other tech- hydride coatings, suspended particle devices, or thermonologies to improve glazing thermal performance currently chromic liquid crystals. Previous researchers have classified
in research or undergoing initial market adoption include ideal dynamic glazing into three types whose transmittance
vacuum glass panes and evacuated insulated glass. These switched over different spectral ranges: the entire solar specunits may soon be widely available. As with many emerging trum, the visible spectrum only, or the solar infrared spectrum
technologies, the shortcomings of these new methods are that only. Additionally, each of these activations can take place eithey are costly, difficult to fabricate across a range of typical ther by absorption or reflection.
dimensions, and are unproven over a typical 20+ year service
At this time, several companies are offering versions of paslife.6
sive, active, absorptive and reflective systems. Of the possible
This first generation of advanced glazing is being widely variations, by far, the most common are active electrochromics
adopted in the national building market right now. This is not blocking full spectrum light via absorption.8 The advantages of
because the technology required is new (suspended coated this current technology approach is that unwanted solar gain
films have been available and in service for over 30 years), but can be controlled by either building environmental controls
because their unit pricing is now attractive to architects and or users, and that they can be readily incorporated into tradibuilding engineers. A U-factor 0.15 Generation 1 system may tional glazing systems (including Generation 1 technology).
have a comparable cost to many “performance” dual pane
However, there are several disadvantages to current EC
systems and may have a very short (2 to 5 years) premium technology. By far, the greatest is cost. Existing EC products
payback period when compared to a commodity glass system can cost $60 to $100 per sq.ft., far exceeding the energy savwith a U-factor of approximately 0.5. Such Generation 1 glaz- ings. Second, the approach is full spectrum absorption, so aring should enjoy rapid adoption because 2× performance is tificial lights must be used when the glass is active.
possible at little or no incremental cost (Figure 3).
Dynamic glass will see widespread adoption when it is
28 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Figure 4. Image of a commercially available “light thru” BIPV
product. Courtesy of SunTech Corp.
Figure 5. Image of a commercially available “see thru” BIPV product.
Courtesy of SunTech Corp.
demonstrable that the incremental cost of the technology can
be recovered as energy savings within a 10 to 15 year period.
Given the current trend in energy costs and climate policy, it is
reasonable to expect that dynamic glazing technology with an
incremental cost of $5 to 10 per sq.ft. would enjoy broad market adoption. Last, it is important to note that for full energy
savings, dynamic glazings must be paired with low U-factor
systems. Without such a combination, the solar gain passing
into and heating the building is immediately lost through the
poorly insulating glass.
In order to be more than a technology showpiece, BIPV incremental costs need to come down to the point where they
can demonstrate a financial payback period comparable to
other non-building integrated PV.
Generation 3: building integrated
photovoltaic glazing
The last generation of energy efficient fenestration is one
that generates its own renewable energy, effectively reducing
the total building consumption. Generation 3 fenestration
products are commonly known as building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV). For the purposes of this discussion, I will consider fenestration BIPV as that which incorporates photovoltaics into the viewable area.
Third generation BIPV will come in two main forms: partially opaque/light transmitting; and transparent. As implemented today, light transmitting BIPV consists of solar cells made
from thick crystalline silicon either as single or poly-crystalline
wafers (Figure 4). These deliver about 10 to 12 watts per ft²
of PV array (under full sun). Such technology is best suited for
areas with no light transmission requirements (e.g. spandrels)
or shading areas such as overhangs and sunshades.
Transparent BIPV systems are thin-film products that typically incorporate very thin layers of PV active material placed
on a glass superstrate or a metal substrate using vacuum-deposition manufacturing techniques similar to those employed in
the coating of architectural glass (Figure 5). Presently commercial thin-film materials deliver about 4 to 5 watts per ft² of
PV array area (under full sun). Thin-film technologies hold out
the promise of lower costs due to much lower requirements
for active materials and energy in their production when compared to thick-crystal products. Although the thin film technology is designated as transparent, its actual light transmittance is typically between 1 to 10 percent. Such systems are
not currently suitable for high transparency applications, but
are well suited for atriums and glass canopies.
Conclusion
Now is an exciting time for advanced building glazing, as
building energy has caught the attention of both technology
companies and energy policy advisors. Along the path of future glazing technologies are three generational milestones:
low U-factor, dynamic properties and energy generation. Developing the next three generations of zero-energy windows
will provide products for both existing buildings undergoing
window replacements and products which are expected to be
important contributors to a zero-energy building future.
Brandon Tinianov, Ph.D., P.E., LEED AP, is the Chief
Technology Officer at Serious Materials.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Arasteh, D.; Selkowitz, S.; et al. Zero Energy Windows, Proceed­
ings of the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency
in Buildings. August 13-18, 2006. Pacific Grove, CA. LBNL60049.
SmartMarket Report: Green Building Retrofit & Renovation.
McGraw Hill Construction, 2009.
Energy Efficiency Retrofits for Commercial and Public Build­
ings. Pike Research, 2009.
In all cases the U-factor is given in English units of BTU/
h·ft2·˚F and represents full frame values.
As manufactured by Serious Materials. www.seriousmaterials.com.
Vacuum glass panes are being produced under the name
Spacia (www.nsg-spacia.co.jp) and vacuum IGUs created via
a metal-to-glass diffusion bonding process are under development by EverSealed Windows Inc. www.eversealedwindows.com.
Lee, E.; Yazdanian, M.; Selkowitz, S. The Energy-Savings Potential of Electrochromic Windows in the US Commercial
Build­ings Sector. Completed April 30, 2004. LBNL-54966.
At the time of publication, SAGE Electrochromics is the lead­
ing manufacturer of commercially available EC glazing (www.
sage-ec.com).
Winter 2010 29
Feature
New Advancements in Glass Bring
More Design and Performance
Choices Than Ever Before
By Chris Dolan, Guardian Industries Corp.
Daylighting is taking center stage in many of today’s
healthcare and educational buildings as architects and designers look for new ways to improve energy efficiency and
productivity while creating a tranquil environment conducive to healing and learning. To achieve these benefits, architects are looking to the latest developments in glass to
deliver the right balance of solar control and light transmission.
Historically, hospitals and other therapeutic settings have
used darker or more reflective glass to achieve patient privacy. But with today’s advances in glass technology, professionals who design healthcare buildings have better options
that provide desirable light transmission with medium to low
light reflection, either from inside, outside or both, depending on the design requirements. They have access to glass
that is neutral in appearance and fills interior spaces with
natural light, while reducing solar heat gain in warm weather
and preventing heat loss in cold weather.
Today’s low-emissivity (low-e) glass can now provide a
range of visible light transmission, between 40 and 70 percent, while also offering lower reflectivity than was possible
in the past. These products are available in a variety of colors,
with emphasis on the neutral range of light gray or green to
slightly blue in reflected color.
A study by Fair Oaks, CA-based consultant Heschong Mahone Group, “Daylighting in Schools,” highlights some of the
remarkable results of daylighting, including superior math
and reading skills improvement for children in well-daylighted classrooms. Similarly, a California Energy Commission
study discovered that call center workers with outdoor views
performed 10 to 25 percent better on tests of mental function and memory recall, adding weight to the case the role of
natural light plays in human productivity and performance.
The use of sunlight to light a facility is not new. The incorporation of natural daylight in today’s school and heath care
facility designs signifies a return to lighting concepts from
more than 50 years ago when the sun was used as a facility’s
main light source. While daylighting trends frequently appear
in current building designs and facilities, there are several
factors to consider before moving ahead with the design.
Spectrally selective low-e options
Traditionally, architects and designers have relied on
heavily tinted or highly reflective products to achieve energy
performance. Today, they are looking for glass that is neutral
30 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
in color with natural light transmittance but does not transmit the heat and glare.
The glass industry has responded with high-performance
low-e products that use a super-thin metallic coating to allow natural light inside while reducing heat transfer. Emissivity is the measure of the glass’s ability to radiate energy,
and the lower the emissivity, the less heat that is transferred
in or out. The newest generation of low-e technologies includes spectrally selective coatings that reflect between 40 to
70 percent of solar radiation normally transmitted through
clear glass, while still allowing in large amounts of light. Advanced glazings with spectrally selective coatings can reduce
cooling requirements in hot climates by approximately 40
percent.
Two spectrally selective low-e options are sputter-coated
(also known as soft coat) glass, and pyrolytic-coated (also
known as hard coat) glass. To create sputter low-e coatings,
optically transparent silver along with other metals is deposited on the float glass off-line in a vacuum chamber, after
the base glass is manufactured. Sputter low-e includes one
or more layers of silver between layers of metal oxide in a
vacuum. Pyrolytic low-e is produced by applying metal oxides during the molten stage of float glass manufacturing.
Sputter-coated glass provides high visible light transmission
and optimal transparency, and dramatically lowers heat gain
or loss, while pyrolytic low-e coatings typically allow more
solar heat to be transmitted than the latest generation of
sputter-coated glass.
Manufacturers are offering spectrally selective low-e glass
with a clear transparent appearance and solar heat gain coefficients (SHGC) as low as 0.28., which means 72 percent of
the solar radiation is reflected back outside. Given the same
U-values, decreasing the SHGC from the .37 of the standard
commercial low-e glass to .28, and the visible light transmittance from 67 percent to 54 percent, add up to significant
energy savings.
Energy efficiency and sustainability
In addition to controlling the solar heat gain inside a
building, the correct glass can affect the size efficiency of the
heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment
as well as daylighting systems.
Most buildings, including healthcare and educational
facilities, are typically designed to perform well in worstcase scenarios. This means the type and size of the HVAC
equipment is often based on the most extreme temperatures and the highest levels of occupancy. Preparing for the worst case often leads to the purchasing
of larger than necessary equipment, which means a
higher capital expenditure upfront and higher usage
costs over time. What’s more, when an HVAC unit runs
at less than 50 percent of its full capacity, its ability to
use energy efficiently declines exponentially.
But there are ways to reduce the size of an HVAC
unit. First on the list is minimizing solar heat gain
through low-e coatings. An independent study by
engineering company Enermodal Engineering Inc.
pegs the upfront potential savings generated by lower SHCG glass at as much as $2.50 a square foot due
to downsizing the chilled water and air distribution
systems. When compared to traditional high-performance low-e glass, operational costs savings of up to
$1.60 per foot of glass can be achieved by the newer
glass in buildings with glare and daylighting controls.
The glass effectively blocks 72 percent of solar energy, Guardian Industries and fabricator JE Berkowitz provided SunGuard® Superwhile transmitting 54 percent of natural light. Mean- Neutral 68 for the University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center’s cylindrical,
while, the cost differential over standard high-perfor- glass-enclosed atrium. The atrium uses natural light as both a healing element
and an energy-saving feature.
mance low-e glass can be measured in pennies.
Cost savings is just one of the benefits manufacturers are seeking by turning out greener products. Thanks When broken, tempered glass fragments are usually relativeto technological advances that make glass stronger and more ly small and less likely to cause serious injury, so it qualifies
durable, there are more manufacturing plants throughout the under building codes as “safety glass.”
United States, meaning glass is more readily available, which
Spandrel glass: Spandrels are opaque glass panels decuts down on transportation costs. Local production adds to signed to conceal building components and match or consustainability and eligibility for LEED credits.
trast with vision glass. They’re used to conceal such building
components as columns, floors, HVAC systems, wiring or
plumbing. Designs calling for large areas of glass, such as curChoosing glass for strength, savings and
tain walls or structural glazing, often include spandrels.
beauty
Silk-screened glass: The printed patterns of silk-screened
Today’s designers and architects have many choices for
glass that keeps energy costs down, lets in more natural light, glass can provide extra privacy and interesting design options. Silk-screened glass is named for the printing process
provides added security—all while creating striking designs.
Insulating glass: Insulating glass units (IG units) improve that creates a design or pattern by applying ceramic frit/paint
thermal performance by providing a thermal break—two or to the glass surface. It offers designers exciting opportunities
more lites of glass separated by a sealed air space. This en- to customize both exterior and interior glass with patterns
ables the glass to meet two very different requirements; keep- and colors. It also reduces glare and increases occupants’ priing heat in during colder weather and keeping heat out dur- vacy.
ing warmer weather. When used in conjunction with low-e
and/or reflective coatings, IG units perform even better for Conclusion
conserving energy and complying with local codes.
For designers and architects of healthcare and educaLaminated glass: By code, laminated glass is considered tional buildings, advances in glass technology are making it
“safety glass.” Laminated glass consists of two or more lites of possible to explore more striking designs while meeting new
glass that are permanently bonded by heat and pressure with standards in sustainable building. Glass is one of the first deone or more plastic interlayers of polyvinyl butyral (PVB).
sign elements to consider and is also one of the most imporHeat-strengthened glass: With a surface compression at tant materials for delivering meaningful energy savings and
least double that of raw glass, heat-strengthened (HS) glass sustainable practices.
provides additional strength against wind load and thermal
stress. HS glass has been subjected to a heating and coolChristopher G. Dolan serves as Director of Commercial
ing cycle during the manufacturing process and is generally Glass Products for Guardian Industries Corp., a position he has
twice as strong as annealed glass of the same thickness and had since 2002. His responsibilities include sales and marketconfiguration.
ing, new product development and overall program manageTempered glass: Even stronger than heat-strengthened ment of Guardian’s commercial glass product line, including
glass, its surface compression is four times that of raw glass. SunGuard® coated glass products.
Winter 2010 31
Industry Update
BEC Corner
BOSTON
By Jonathan Baron, AIA, Shepley Bulfinch
BEC-Boston continues to meet monthly (except for August and December) at the BSA headquarters in Boston’s Financial District. Recent
presentations have included Air Barrier Research by Laverne Dalgleish of
Building Professionals Consortium; Designing with Daylight, by Marilyne
Andersen, Professor at MIT; and Deep Energy Retrofits for Existing Homes,
by Betsy Pettit of Building Science Corporation. We typically have 20 to 30
attendees and there is always spirited discussion with the presenters.
The BEC-Boston is preparing another Building Enclosure Award program. The call for entries was released in November 2009. Visit www.becboston.org for more information. The award will go to the building that
best demonstrates innovation in design through the craft, science and engineering of high performance building enclosures in New England.
We are beginning a study of the impact of Massachusetts’ Energy Code
on the energy efficiency of buildings. We hope to look at energy consumption within a group of sample buildings and to possibly conduct airtightness testing.
Upcoming meetings will focus on glass and glazing. More information
about future and past meetings can be found at www.bec-boston.org.
COLORADO
By Robert Matschulat, AIA, CSI, CCS, CEFPI, NCARB, edutecture LLC
BEC-Colorado is approaching its fifth anniversary and is thriving. Attendance at our monthly first-Wednesday programs has continued to
grow, ranging from 25 to 72 participants in 2009. The success of these programs required mid-year relocation to larger venues, including an oversized classroom at the University of Colorado Denver campus.
Here is a summary of the BEC-Colorado program topics presented
since our last report: December 2008: Air Barriers; January 2009: Rainscreen Systems; February: Curtain Walls & Storefront Systems; March: Architectural Aerodynamics Using Wind Tunnel Modeling; April: HVAC Systems
& Their Effect on the Building Envelope; May: Designing for Moisture Prevention in Masonry Walls; June: Building Enclosure Sustainability; LEED /
Green Globes Comparison; July: Wind Design for Roofing Systems; August:
2006 IECC and/or Case Studies on Energy Improvements to Existing Buildings; September: Weather Barriers and the Annual Seminar.
In addition to the monthly programs, BEC-Colorado hosted our third
annual half-day building enclosure seminar, which attracted more than 90
attendees on September 30, 2009. The seminar topic was Air and Moisture
Transmission through Walls at Transitions and Details, presented by Vince
Cammallleri, AIA, and Michael Louis, P.E.
The success of BEC-Colorado is due, in large part, to the support of
our sponsors A-1 Glass Inc.; Ambient Energy; Andersen Windows; Building Consultants and Engineers; Elliott Associates; Fentress Architecture;
Georgia Pacific; HDR Architecture; Sto Corporation; Vapro Shield; and WR
Grace.
For 2010, BEC-Colorado has identified more program topics than
months are available to present them! We will continue to investigate the
applicability of our programs to qualify for the new AIA continuing education “sustainability” credits. We plan to host a fourth annual BEC seminar in September or October and again, send our chair to the National
BEC Conference.
GREATER DETROIT
By Tony Wolf, SmithGroup
The Greater Detroit BEC was organized in late 2008 and since then, we
have been sponsoring program meetings once each month (except December and the three summer months). Attendance at each meeting ranges from 60 to 80 members. Even the Detroit Chapter of the AIA has remarked that our growth and profitability is almost without precedent. In October 2009 we held a successful day-long symposium, which drew
approximately 110 attendees. Our speakers included:
• Brad Burdic, National Group Manager, Owner Services, for JME3co.,
a Johns Manville Company spoke on the topic of Solar Solutions for
Commercial Roofing Systems.
• Rochelle Jaffe, Senior VP/Quality Officer in Asset Preservation at NTH
Consultants, Ltd., spoke about Controlling Masonry Cracks and Leaks.
• Mark Michener, a Senior Roofing and Waterproofing Consultant at
SME Consultants, covered A Forensic Approach to Roofing Failures.
• Dr. Joseph Lstiburek, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., Ph.D., P.Eng., a Principal of Building Science Corp., spoke about Building Envelope Fundamentals: Don’t
Do Stupid Things.
The titles of our the regular monthly programs from last year and the
slideshows are available at www.aiami.com/Chapters/Detroit/committees/bec/aiadet_comtee_bec_home.htm.
KANSAS
By Dave Herron, BOKA Powell
In October 2009 our BEC took a walking tour of the new Kansas City
Performing Arts Center, which was under construction. At our November
meeting attendees enjoyed a presentation by J.B. Howell of Novum Structures. And at our December meeting we learned a lot from a presentation
given by the Josef Gartner Group, a division of Permasteelisa Group.
We are currently in the process of soliciting sponsors to help fund our
2010 sessions so that we will be able to bring national expertise to the Kansas City AEC industry.
MIAMI
By Karol Kazmierczak, AIA, ASHRAE, CDT, CSI, LEED-AP, NCARB,
Morrison Hershfield Corporation
In Miami we continue to meet monthly and the attendance is growing
as an increasing number of construction professionals get familiar with
BEC-Miami. We are proud to say we marked our second anniversary in July
2009! We head into the new calendar with a small change: the day of our
meeting will now be the third Tuesday of each month.
Recent speakers and topics include Alex Hidalgo-Gato of Formas on
Rainscreen Facades; Ed Crim of Kawneer on Storefronts and Curtain Walls;
and Dawn Griffin of Henry on Moisture in Exterior Walls. We look forward
to having Thomas Schwartz of SGH in February.
In November, we were supposed to learn about anti-terrorism and
blast mitigation in aluminum glazing systems but, for the very first time
in our history, the speaker did not show up. Fortunately, our member
Dean Kautheen organized a projector, and I gave an impromptu lecture
on Sloped Glazing instead.
In December, we participated in the BEC and BETEC meetings at the
Ecobuild Conference in Washington, D.C. We look forward to participating
in the BEST2 Conference in April.
We also stepped firmer into the world of internet technology. We expanded our webpage and ventured into digital social networking by establishing a LinkedIn group. We also plan to experiment with getting our
Winter 2010 33
meetings videotaped and transmitted over the internet. One of our members drives over 350 miles one way to meet in Miami every month!
2010 is the year of the annual AIA Convention, which is taking place in
Miami. At the event our BEC-Miami chairman will speak about façade engineering to the attending architects.
Florida was particularly hard hit by the recent real estate bust, but we
look forward to the year 2010 to see the emergence from the economic crisis.
MINNESOTA
By Judd Peterson, Judd Allen Group
In August 2009, the Minnesota BEC hosted Erick Filby, a representative from Traco Windows, who presented information on the latest thermal break technology of Traco’s NexGen line of products.
During the month of August we also discussed educational efforts by
BETEC and local BECs, in particular the ones modeled or done in conjunction with RCI certification programs that are already established. The
University of Minnesota then took a simultaneous interest in developing a curriculum to address building enclosure technology. We had further discussions with John Carmody, Director of the Center for Sustainable Building Research at the University of Minnesota, and his research
fellows Rich Strong, Garrett Mosiman and Kerry Haglund, with regard to
setting up some education for building enclosure technology through the
University of Minnesota. The University of Minnesota made the news when their ICON Solar
House finished in fifth place overall, and first place for Lighting Technology, in the 2009 Solar Decathlon in Washington, D.C. The competition,
hosted by the U.S. Department of Energy, took place at the National Mall.
The U of M Team was among only 20 universities from around the world
that competed in the event.
In October, we had a roundtable discussion on the current status of
spontaneous failures in tempered glass due to nickel sulfide inclusions,
particularly as it pertained to some local occurrences of the phenomenon.
In November, the annual AIA Minnesota Convention was held. Also
in November, Stanley Gatland, Manager of Building Science Technology
for CertainTeed Corporation, was a guest presenter of a seminar on thermal and moisture properties in building envelopes and how this relates to
Minnesota’s recent air barrier code requirements.
PORTLAND
By David C. Young, P.E., RDH Building Sciences, Inc.
The Portland-BEC is off to a great start this year! We’re very happy to
be resuming our lunch presentation schedule at the new (historic restoration) University of Oregon White Stag Building, in Old Town Portland.
The best news is that we now have the ability to broadcast our speakers’
presentations over the U of O’s teleconferencing system. This will allow
all other BEC members to benefit from our program. When they become
available for broadcast, BEC members across the country will be able to
login and follow along, similar to a webinar broadcast.
The theme of our presentations this season is the “Mad Building Scientist.” In my mind, this conjures images of the Dr. Lstiburek and Mr. (Dr.)
Straube duo, and I assure our presentations will be no less entertaining.
The theme is really about pushing the envelope in building enclosures (or
is that pushing the enclosure in building enclosures?).
Of course, the main thrust of the Portland-BEC executive this year is
the BEST2 Conference. The event will showcase the beauty (and wine) of
34 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Portland in April. There will be some fantastic tours set up and the program of speakers for BEST2 is excellent. Please join us in Portland on April
12-14, 2010.
SEATTLE
By Peter M. Ryan, AIA, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
In September 2009, the Seattle Building Enclosure Council (SeaBEC)
kicked off our sixth year of operation with a keynote presentation by Mark
LaLiberte of Building Better Homes. He helped outline this year’s educational program theme: building envelope energy efficiency and energy
savings. With some of the lowest energy costs in the nation and our moderate summer and winter temperatures here on the west-side of the state,
most of our presentations over the last five years have dealt with stopping,
or as we say “reducing,” water infiltration through the exterior enclosure
during our six-month-long rain event each year. However, we hope to attract new members with our new energy efficiency-focused direction. The
remainder of our year will be rounded out with presentations on building
commissioning, photo voltaics and air barriers.
Recently a group from our board drove to Vancouver, British Columbia, to attend the BEC’s Annual Conference and Educational Seminar.
The purpose of our attendance was to evaluate the possibility of producing our own seminar event in the Seattle metro area. The SeaBEC board
was impressed with BC-BEC’s program and is now in the process of preliminary planning to produce our own program, for the Spring of 2011.
We also had the opportunity to meet with the BC-BEC President Joel
Schwartz, their Vice-President and Conference Chair Sophie Mercier, and
their past President Douglas Watts. The SeaBEC Board enjoyed exchanging ideas and came away with some great ones. Thank-you BC-BEC for
your invitation to meet. We were all quite impressed with your dedication and fine work.
This past spring our group participated in the Rebuilding Together
program by supporting a local senior center’s effort to revitalize their resale shop. Fifteen SeaBEC members took part in the one-day event, which
was part of a larger volunteer effort throughout the nation. Our members
helped refurbish double hung wood windows, infill a back door and install new lap siding. They also removed an unsafe deck structure.
This past year we have also been attempting to support the PortlandBEC in their efforts to host the BEST2 Conference in April 2010. We are
looking forward to providing continued support as this event draws closers.
If you ever find yourself in Seattle on the third Thursday of the month
(except July and August) please stop in for our monthly meeting. For more
information, visit our website at www.seabec.org.
WISCONSIN
By Joe Schultz, AIA, Kahler Slater
BEC-Wisconsin is in its second year and generally speaking, monthly meetings have been well attended with 20 to 25 guests. One of our current initiatives includes taking steps to improve leadership as well as attendance at our events. To do this, we have a larger core group helping to
organize and arrange speakers. What’s most exciting for BEC-Wisconsin is our outreach throughout
the state. The meetings are offered through the internet and we have host
sites in Milwaukee, Madison and UW-Eau Claire. As we become more
comfortable with the webinars, we are looking to expand to other areas
of the state. While we are still adjusting to the new format, we are excited
about the outreach and collaboration to more professionals in our state. Buyer’s Guide
Architects
The Marshall Group, Ltd.................................................................. 35
Entrance Systems Spare Parts
Oldcastle Glass............................................................................ 20, 21
Architectural Glass and Windows
Oldcastle Glass............................................................................ 20, 21
Float and Fabricated Glass Products
Guardian Industries.......................................................................... 37
Association
The Glass Association of North America.......................................... 32
Below Grade Water and Containment Barrier
Polyguard............................................................................................ 4
Building Enclosure
Construction Consulting International............................................. 24
Building Sciences and Restoration Consultants
Read Jones Christoffersen................................................................. 25
Commercial Insulation Supplier
Thermafiber Inc................................................................................... 8
Consulting, Commissioning, Engineering, Testing,
Certification and Inspections
Architectural Testing.....................................................................OBC
Glass Wall Curtain Manufacturer
McMullen Incorporated.................................................................... 24
Industrial Glass Supplier
PPG Industries............................................................................ 38, 39
Jag Architecture
Omegavue / Judd Allen Group.......................................................... 10
Mineral Wool Insulation
Roxul Inc............................................................................................. 6
Silicone Products Supplier
Dow Corning Corporation................................................................ 12
Structural Engineering Design and Consultants
WJE................................................................................................... 23
Diagnostic Tools
Retrotec Energy Innovations, Ltd.................................................. 3,15
The Energy Conservatory.................................................................. 26
Windows, Energy Efficiency
The National Fenestration Rating Council....................................... 35
Engineered Curtain Wall and Window Wall
Oldcastle Glass............................................................................ 20, 21
Water Proofing
Sto Corp......................................................................................... IFC
Winter 2010 35
36 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Winter 2010 37
38 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Winter 2010 39
40 Journal of Building Enclosure Design