Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Metro Nashville Korteck Powerpoint

620 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Metro Nashville Korteck Powerpoint

  1. 1. Metro Nashville Schools Koreteck Presentation Koreteck solid core insulated wall panel systems May 13, 2010
  2. 2. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies This one hour presentation provides for an understanding of sustainable wall construction using basic panelized wall units vs. other modular products. The featured sustainable wall units presented will be Koreteck solid core insulated panels. Specifically we will give a brief description of Koreteck solid core insulated wall panel systems and then discuss comparative data for Koreteck vs. cmu, insulated concrete forms, insulated tilt up wall construction, and autoclaved aerated concrete panels. This data will compare each different wall system as they pertain to wall costs per square foot, steady state R-values, installation rates, and cooling and heating loads. Sustainable interior finish systems for the Koreteck panels will also be presented by Gigacrete natural mineral cement-based interior wall coatings. Following lunch we will walk outside and inspect a Koreteck wall mock-up with a brick veneer exterior and a Gigacrete interior finish system.
  3. 3. Building Panelization Cole Elementary School
  4. 4. DAY 1
  5. 5. Sustainability Studies DAY 2
  6. 6. DAY 3
  7. 7. DAY 4
  8. 8. DAY 5
  9. 9. DAY 6
  10. 10. DAY 7
  11. 11. DAY 8
  12. 12. DAY 9
  13. 13. DAY 10
  14. 14. DAY 11
  15. 15. DAY 12
  16. 16. DAY 13
  17. 17. DAY 14
  18. 18. DAY 15
  19. 19. DAY 16
  20. 20. DAY 17
  21. 21. DAY 18
  22. 22. DAY 19
  23. 23. DAY 20
  24. 24. DAY 21
  25. 25. DAY 22
  26. 26. DAY 23
  27. 27. DAY 24
  28. 28. DAY 25
  29. 29. DAY 26
  30. 30. DAY 27
  31. 31. DAY 28
  32. 32. DAY 29
  33. 33. DAY 30
  34. 34. DAY 31
  35. 35. Sustainability Studies PANEL LAYOUT
  36. 36. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies Climate Zones Zone 1 is less than 2,000 CDD and greater than 7,000 HDD. Zone 2 is less than 2,000 CDD and 5,500 – 7,000 HDD. Chicago, IL – Zone 2 Zone 3 is less than 2,000 CDD and 4,000 – 5,499 HDD. Zone 4 is less than 2,000 CDD and less than 4,000 HDD. Austin, TX – Zone 5 Zone 5 is 2,000 CDD or more and less than 4,000 HDD.
  37. 37. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies Wall Systems Comparison / Life Cycle Overview Koreteck Wall Systems vs. Xella AAC, CMU, Thermomass, and Polysteel Wall Systems
  38. 38. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies Wall Systems Comparison / Life Cycle Overview – Koreteck wall systems vs. Xella AAC, CMU, Thermomass, and Polysteel wall systems 1. Illustrations of one typical wall section in a Chicago, Illinois and Austin, Texas store incorporating the use of each different product in their construction 2. Summary sheet • Wall Costs per square foot • Steady State R-Value • Installation Time • Cooling and Heating Loads
  39. 39. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies Section II Wall Type 1 Koreteck Wall Type 1
  40. 40. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies CMU XELLA AAC Wall Type 1
  41. 41. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies Thermomass Polysteel Wall Type 1
  42. 42. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies Summary Sheet Wall Costs (per sq. ft.) CMU XELLA AAC KORETECK Thermomass Polysteel Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Wall Type 1 $27 $41 $35 $50 $34 $46 $42 $50 $37 $58 R-Value (Steady State) Wall Type 1 3.23 (0.310) 13.68 (0.073) 34.73 (0.029) 12.63 (0.079) 24.04 (0.042) Installation Time (1 Man Day production) Wall Type 1 79 sq. ft. 235 sq. ft. 244 sq. ft. 100 sq. ft. 86 sq. ft. Cooling (Tons Per Hour) for the entire building envelope Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago 53.3 50.7 21.1 18.1 17.3 15.7 21.8 18.8 18.6 16.3 Heating Loads (MBH) for the entire building envelope Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago 758 1326.3 238.8 434.5 153.0 268.3 255.9 457 182.9 316.6
  43. 43. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies Section IV Conclusions
  44. 44. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies IV. Conclusions 1. Individual Rankings 2. Overall Rankings
  45. 45. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies Individual Rankings Initial Wall Costs (lowest to highest) 1. Concrete Masonry Units 2. Koreteck Insulated Metal Panel System 3. Xella Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels 4. Polysteel Insulated Concrete Forms 5. Thermomass (tilt-up) R – Values (Steady State) (best to worst) 1. Koreteck Insulated Metal Panel System 2. Polysteel Insulated Concrete Forms 3. Xella Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels 4. Thermomass (tilt-up) 5. Concrete Masonry Units Installation Rates (lowest to highest) 1. Koreteck Insulated Metal Panel System 2. Xella Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels 3. Thermomass (tilt-up) 4. Polysteel Insulated Concrete Forms 5. Concrete Masonry Units Thermal Performance (best to worst) 1. Koreteck Insulated Metal Panel System 2. Polysteel Insulated Concrete Forms 3. Xella Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels 4. Thermomass (tilt-up) 5. Concrete Masonry Units
  46. 46. Wall Systems Comparison Sustainability Studies Overall Rankings – Pros and Cons Pros: Cons: • Second least expensive of all 5 materials • Cannot Handle Shear Loading; Building must be braced Koreteck Insulated Metal • Best Steady State R-Value 1st Panel System • Fastest Installation rates • Exposed insulation on both sides of the panels which must be covered • Highest Thermal Performance • Requires additional misc. steel supports • Third least expensive of all 5 materials • Third Best Steady State R-Value • Cannot Handle Shear Loading; Building must be 2nd Xella Autoclaved Aerated • Second Fastest Installation rates braced Concrete Panels • Third Highest Thermal Performance • Requires additional misc. steel supports • Material can be painted or exposed • Second Best Steady State R-Value • Exposed insulation on both sides of the walls • Second Highest Thermal Performance which must be covered Polysteel Insulated Concrete 3rd Forms • Installation of forms can be expedited by • Fourth least expensive of all 5 materials panelizing them in the factory prior to erection • Fourth Fastest Installation rates • Third Fastest Installation rates • Casting slabs must be constructed and then • removed 4th Thermomass (tilt-up) Walls can be constructed on the ground incorporating all finish materials prior to • The most expensive of all 5 materials erection • Fourth Best Steady State R-Value • Product can be pre-cast or tilt-up • Fourth Highest Thermal Performance • Worst Steady State R-Value • Least expensive of all 5 materials • Worst Installation rates 5th Concrete Masonry Units • Can be readily supplied • Worst Thermal Performance • Most Wasteful

×