Tobacco Documents Online

EVALUATION OF DISPLACEMENT VENTILATION AND CONVENTIONAL VARIABLE AIR VOLUME SYSTEMS FOR INDOOR AIR QUAUTY CONTROL STATUS REPORT: DESIGN PROCESS OF THE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY PHASE 11 for Philip Morris USA November 18,1992 N O N iM+ iJt Indoor Environment Program ~ College of Architecture and Urban Studies ~ Virginia Tech, Blacksburg ~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to recognize the following people for their contributions: Albert J. Davis, William Galloway, Dixon B. Hanna, Charles W. Steger (College of Architecture and Urban Studies), John G. Kuykendall, Kenneth W. Baker, Steven P. Warren, Virgii F. Decker (Facilities Planning and Construction, Virginia Tech), John J. Harmon (H.C.Yu and Associates), reviewers of the Department of Energy and Buildings of the State of Virginia.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF TABLES ....._ ................................................ iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................ 1 1 DESIGN OF A RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY .............. 4 1.1 DESIGN OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEMS .................... 5 1.2 DESIGN OF THE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS ....................... 6 12.1 THE CONVENTIONAL VARIABLE AIR VOLUME VENTILATION SYSTEM ........................................... 7 1.2.2 THE VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT VENTILATION SYSTEM ...... 8 1.2.3 THE SYSTEM SERVING THE CONFERENCE ROOM, INSTRUMENTATION ROOM, AND CORRIDOR ............... 8 12.4 OTHER MECHANICAL SYSTEMS ........................ 9 12.5 COMMISSIONING .................................... 9 2 3 THE PROJECT BUDGET ........................................... 11 2.1 COST ESTIMATE ........................................... 11 2.2 BIDS ................................................... 18 REVIEW OF THE BID DOCUMENTS ................................. 22 3.1 IEP RESEARCH TEAM REVIEW ............................... 22 3.2 UNIVERSITY REVIEW ...................................... 23 3.3 STATE OF VIRGINIA REVIEW ................................ 25 REFERENCES ........................................................ 30 NOMENCLATURE .................................................... 31 lu

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Cost estimates by Rollins and Ass ............................... 14 Table 2. Bids for RDF Phase II ....................................... 19 Table 3. Final project budget ......................................... 20 Table 4. Cost estimate by division ...................................... 21 ~ 0 N t+ ~ ~ ~ N N ®

Status Report Evaluation of Vent6dion Systems November 16,1992 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Design of a Research and Demonstration Facility The Research and Demonstration Facility (RDF) grew out of the need to Investigate building related issues at full-scale. The intent of this facility is twofold: (a) to investigate systems that control the thermal, lighting, air quality and acoustic indoor environment; (b) to demonstrate innovative building systems. The architect of the project is Albert J. Davis, Associate Professor at the College of Architecture of Virginia Tech in cooperation with William Galloway and Robert P. Schubert. This report describes the design of Phase II only. Phase II, currently under construction, will endose 4000 square feet including conditioned office space, a mechanical room, and an instrumentation room. The office space consists of two visually identical open-plan areas, each 700 square feet, separated by a conference room. Each of these offices will be equipped with a different method of air delivery to evaluate and compare the performance of the two systems. There are three independent HVAC systems in the RDF Phase Ii. One Is a conventional variable air volume system serving one office, the second is a vertical displacement ventilation system serving the other office. The third air handling unit serves the conference room, the corridor and the instrumentation room. a commissioning process has been specified for the HVAC systems. The design of the facility and its systems is described in Chapter 1. The Project Budget Changes to the design for RDF Phase II were made to keep the project within budget. Since Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) was a research issue and the HVAC system was part of that research, no cost savings were possible in this division. Because of the phased construction of the RDF, Phase N was to be compatible with Phase i. Therefore major architectural components, such as Execumre Summary 1

Statw Report Evaluation of Ventil.tion Syatena November 18,1992 the space frame and the masonry walls could not be changed. Compromises were made in the architectural design and the engineering design to get the project within budget, without compromising the IAQ or the architectural Intent. Instead the strategy to reduce cost focused on those items that were non-mandatory or redundant. For example, a roof hatch provided in Phase I would suffice for roof accessibility allowing it to be deleted from the Phase II construction. Additional cost savings were realized through changes In materials used for the Interior walls and the roof. It is anticipated that a good preventive maintenance program will compensate for the loss of durability inherent to these new materials. Chapter 2 describes the several cost savings that were made in chronological order. The final budget was approved June 9,1992. Although bids were expected to come in low because of the current market, the lowest bid was 6% higher than the budget encumbered for. A loan was procured for the additional money and the contract was awarded and signed September 17, 1992. Review of the BId Documents Because the Research and Demonstration Facility is a State building, the design, drawings and specificabons were made in compliance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual. These documents were reviewed by the Indoor Environment Program (IEP) research team, the University Facilities Planning and Construction group, and the Division of Engineering and Buildings for the Commonwealth of Virginia, during the period between June 9,1992 and August 16, 1992. The IEP research team reviewed the project with an emphasis on the requirements of the research agenda and to verify that the research requirements were met with the design. Safety data sheets of materials known for high emission rates were reviewed as available; the amount of outdoor air for both the variable air volume system and the vertical displacement system were checked for compliance with the standards for all occupied operating conditions; the control sequence and the commissioning process were thoroughly reviewed and revised until they compiied with the criteria. Exeeutive 9ummary 2

startus Report Evaluation of Ventilation Systsms November 18,1992 The university review included three major objectives: (a) Compliance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual and Building Codes; (b) Compliance with University requirements, which include testing procedures, conformity with University systems, and custodial necessities; and, (c) Cheching for possible IAQ problems. All review comments were addressed and necessary changes made. However, some recommendations were not followed because they addressed research issues. For example, to reduce contamination, return air plenums or lining inside ductwork are not generally allowed in any new construction or renovation. Both return air plenums and lined ductwork are part of the research agenda and were therefore not deleted from this project. The Department of Engineering and Buildings of the State of Virginia divides the review process into six categories: architectural, mechanical, electrical, civiVstructurai, fire/safety, cost analytical. Each category is reviewed for: (a) Compliance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual; (b) Compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (i.e., BOCA), including the handicapped standards; (c) Cost in relation to building size and use; (d) Clarity of drawings and specifications; and, (e) Common sense, e.g. location of items for accessibility and preventing vandalism. Currently, the State review process does not specifically consider indoor air quality. However, as a result of our discussions with the Department during the review process, the State is now considering to address IAQ related Issues as part of the review process. Chapter 3 discusses the reviewers comments.

stoa Report Evaluation of Ventiiation syst.ms Ncvember 18,1992 DESIGN OF A RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION FACILITY The Research and Demonstration Facility grew out of the need to investigate building related issues at full-scale. The intent of this facility is twofold: (a) to investigate systems that control the thermal, lighting, air quality and acoustic indoor environment; (b) to demonstrate innovative building systems. The primary focus of the current research is indoor air quality, studied through evaluation and comparison of two ventilation systems, i.e., variable air volume and vertical displacement. Four specific factors will be examined: (a) ventilation effectiveness (air distribution) in occupied spaces, (b) contaminant removal effectiveness, (c) energy efficiency and (d) cost effectiveness. Human response and analytical measurements will be recorded and analyzed to verify that the criteria for human response and system performance are indeed met. This two-phase, 11,000 square foot project Is located at the Virginia Tech campus. The architect of the project Is Albert J. Davis, Associate Professor at the College of Architecture of Virginia Tech in cooperation with William Galloway and Robert P. Schubert. Because the work that will be done at RDF represents an on-going research agenda evoiving over time, the building has to respond as a dynamic and reconfigurabie research laboratory. Therefore, a column-supported space frame with a masonry infiii at the perimeter that allows for the expansion or reconfiguration of the enclosure system was chosen. The space frame, spanning both phases of construction, provides for an interstitial space accommodating duct runs, mechanical equipment, lighting systems, and data communication equipment. For Phase I, a research agenda was developed to investigate the application of new and previously untested products and construction assemblies directed towards concrete masonry products and construction integration and was funded by the National Concrete Masonry Association, the Center for Innovative Technology, and Philip Morris. This Phase of the facility, now being completed, has 7,000 square feet of N O N ~ N 41 ~ ~ Design of a Research and Demonstratlon Facdity 4

Status Report Evslwtion of Ventilation Systems November 18,1992 conditioned space and includes a fifty-person classroom, a ten-person office area, and a twelve- person studio. The research agenda for the Phase II includes a comparison between a variable air-voiume (VAV) system serving one area and a vertical displacement system serving the other. This Phase, currently under construction, is funded by Philip Morris USA and has 4000 square feet including conditioned office space, a mechanical room, and an instrumentation room. The office space consists of two visually identical 700 square feet open plan areas separated by a conference room. Each of these offices will be equipped with a different method of air delivery to evaluate and compare the performance of the two systems. Involved in the design of the RDF Phase II are: Jack Davis, Bill Galloway, and Bob Schubert, architects Jack Harmon, H.C.Yu and Associates, mechanical engineers Jim Woods and Sanjay Arora, Indoor Environment Program research team 1.1 DESIGN OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEMS The primary programmatic concern for this facility Is that it had to provide two architecturally Identical office spaces, typical of current office environments. This to ensure that the human response would reflect the difference in perception of the office environment due to a different HVAC system, and not confounded by other factors. The only difference between the offices is the HVAC system. The site is approximately 5000 square feet adjacent to the existing phase one building. Since this facility is an addition to Phase I, it is essential that it matches In scale and exterior material the existing building. The entire facility is covered by a space frame, which affords the maximum flexibility for mechanical ductwork and other utilities as well as future partition changes. N Maintaining the space frame at the existing height of Phase I, provides for an interior height of N 18' below the frame. The exterior is a polished ground-face concrete masonry block, fabricated ~ with a'dry-block' add mixture and with a factory applied clear acrylic finish. This biock is tied to ~ ~ Design of a Research and Oemonstration Faciliry 5~

Staws Report Evaiu.don of Ventilatbn Syst.na November 18,1992 conventional 8" concrete block with a 1 1/2" rigid insulation and 3/4" air space between, making this exterior construction a high quality, weather-tight, highly durable structural wall. There are two 700 square feet office areas, identical in size and interior finishes. The interior ceiling height is 9'-0" above a raised floor. The ceiling is a suspended ceiling with acoustic lay-in ceiling tiies. Lighting is typical of most office environments. Although the two rooms have different mechanical systems serving them, they both have the same lay-out for diffusers and lighting. In the office space served by the conventional HVAC system, air is supplied trough diffusers and returned through the light-troffers. In the office space served by the FACT system, air is supplied through the perforated floor, the diffusers will serve as return grilles. Light troffers in this space are covered. The floor Is a raised floor, with solid panels in one and perforated panels in the other space. The carpet is a non-commercial carpet with a special backing, allowing air flow through the carpet. Walls are standard dry-wall finished with semi-gloss paint. The conference room is 200 square feet and is located between the two office space as a neutral zone. This room will also serve as adaptation room for panels judging the air quality in the offices. Therefore, no fleecy materials (materials that absorb and desorb odors) could be allowed in this room. The walls and ceiling is the same as in the office spaces. The floor is a raised floor with solid panels. Initially, this floor will not be covered with carpet. The primary consideration of the mechanical room was adequate space for three mechanical systems and future mechanical equipment. To enable the installation of additional equipment an overhead door is provided. The floor is sealed concrete and the walls are unpainted concrete masonry. A room to accommodate the instrumentation is located in the mechanical space. 1.2 DESIGN OF THE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS There are three independent HVAC systems in the RDF Phase II. One is a conventional variable air volume system serving one office, the second is a vertical displacement ventilation system Design of a Research and Demonstration Facility 6

Statua R"M Er.luation of Ventilation Syst.ms November 18,1992 serving the other office. The third air handling unit serves the conference room, the corridor and the instrumentation room. 12.1 THE CONVENTIONAL VARIABLE AIR VOLUME VENTILATION SYSTEM The HVAC system that serves one office space is a conventional variabie air volume (VAV) system. A conventional VAV system is a system which might be designed to serve a typical small to medium size building. Design criteria for indoor conditions are 76 F (dry bulb) in the summer, and 72 F (dry bulb) in the winter. The air handling unit (AHU) has a filter (35% efficiency), hot water preheat coil, and chilled water cooling coil. The volume being delivered to the system will be determined by the VAV box (with reheat) serving the space. Air will be introduced into the room through perforated ceiling diffusers. Air will be returned through the light fixtures and the ceiling plenum. To ensure that the office Is negative with regard to the conference room and the corridor, an exhaust fan (300 cfm) is added. Lining inside ducts is allowed and applied were necessary. Although the protocol did not allow the research team to influence the design of the conventional system, some concerns the team had were discussed with the engineer. The supply air diffusers are located adjacent to the light fixtures that will return the air from the room. This might have a negative impact on the air distribution. The design is not changed but the supply air ducts will be constructed of flexible duct to allow simple modification. The control sequence for the system allows the VAV box to go to "zero pinch down", meaning under certain conditions that no outdoor air is supplied to the room for energy efficiency purposes. This is not in compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989, calling for 20 cfm outside air per person. The system control sequence is modified so that a minimum of 200 cfm outside air (10 persons) is provided for all operating modes. For research purposes provisions are made to allow future installation of a high efficiency filter (85%) in addition to the 35% efficiency filter. Because of concerns for microbiological contamination of the ducts, lining is not allowed 3 feet from cooling coil, humidifier or other wetted surfaces. Design of a Research and Demonstration Facil'tty 7

Status Report Evaluation of Ventif.tbn Systems November 18,1992 12.2 THE VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT VENTILATION SYSTEM The vertical displacement ventilation system Is similar to the FACT (Filtered Air Control Technology) system.- Design criteria for Indoor conditions are 76 F (dry bulb) in the summer, and 72 F (dry bulb) in the winter. The supply temperature has to be such that the system will answer the cooling load required, yet not cause any draft effects. The air handling unit (AHU) has two filters (35% and 85%), hot water preheat coil, chilled water cooling coil, and a terminal box (without reheat). The air from this unit will mix with return air in a fan powered box with reheat to provide a fixed air flow into the space. The supply air is filtered by a carbon filter and an electrostatic filter and introduced into the room through a perforated floor and carpet. Air will be returned through ceiling diffusers acting as return air grilles, and through ducts back to the unit. A high efficiency filter is installed in the recirculated airstream. To ensure that the office is negative with regard to the conference room and the corridor, an exhaust fan (300 cfm) is added. For research purposes provisions will be made so that all filters can be bypassed. The control sequence is modified so that a minimum of 200 cfm outside air (10 persons) is provided for all operating modes (for the same reasons as for the conventional system). 1.2.3 THE SYSTEM SERVING THE CONFERENCE ROOM, INSTRUMENTATION ROOM, AND CORRIDOR The third air handling unit serves the conference room, the instrumentation room and the corridor. The conference room will also serve as adaptation room for panels judging the air quality in the offices and therefore the air needs to be as clean, i.e. odor free, as possible. The equipment in the instrumentation room requires both thermal and humidity control. In order to prevent cross contamination between the offices, the offices will have negative pressure with regard to the conference room and corridor. Design criteria for indoor conditions are 76 F (dry bulb), 509'0 Relative Humidity in the summer, and 72 F (dry bulb), 30 % Relative Humidity in the winter. To comply with these requirements, the third air handling unit is a constant volume HVAC system with 100% outside. The unit has a pre-filter and final filter (respectively 30%o and 85% efficiency), N 0 N N ~ ~ O Design of a Research and Demonstration Faotliry 8

staa. R.port Evalwtion of V.ntil.tion Syst.ms November 18,1992 a carbon filter with final filter (85% efficiency), hot water preheat coil, chilled water cooling coil, a humidifier, and a supply fan. Constant volume boxes with heating coils will ensure proper air flow to each space. Air will be supplied through ceiiing diffusers in the conference room and instrumentation room, and through jets in the corridor. Air will be relieved through the mechanical equipment room to the outside. A vestibule and extra weather stripping was added to the doors in the corridor to minimize air infiltration. 1.2.4 OTHER MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Chilled water is provided by a nominal 15 ton air cooled water chiller serving all three air handling units. Heating water is provided by a gas fired cast iron hot water boiler serving the three air handling units and the two unit heaters. The mechanical room does not need comfortable conditions but only freeze protection for the equipment. Two unit heaters (hot water), placed on either side of the room, will serve this room. The bathrooms have both a separate exhaust fan. Initially the fans were connected to the light switch. To ensure that these room are always negative with regard to the rest of the building the design was modified so that the exhaust fans will run 24 hours a day. The two bathrooms in the facility have an in-line water heater. There is a mob-sink in the mechanical room, and a'rough-in" for one sink in the instrumentation room. A water cooler is located in the corridor. 1.2.5 COMMISSIONING ~ The purpose of the commissioning process, as defined in the Commonwealth of Virginia Capital Outlay Manual is: ~U o to document cteariy the design intent Design of a Research and Demonstraoon Facility

St.wa R.port Evaluation of Ventilation Systeros November 18,1992 o to verify that the system instaiiation and performance is in accordance with the plans and specifications and design intent o to train the owner's operators so that they fully understand the design intent and the operation and maintenance requirements of the equipment provided to accomplish that end, and to provide them with all necessary technical information required for a complete understanding of the system The commissioning process helps to provide assurance of healthy indoor environments by verification of the system performance criteria. Moreover it helps to realize economic benefits through reduced change orders, quicker solutions to problems arising during design and construction, and to lower operating and maintenance costs. The task requires a complete understanding of the performance criteria and design intent as well as of the building systems as instaiied. While the designers of the building and/or systems are suitable candidates to perform the task, another school of thought recommends that an independent person/group be appointed as the commissioning authority to allow for an independent evaluation of the service systems as designed and installed. As the mechanical system is a critical component of this test facility, the designers of the system have been retained as the commissioning authority. In an attempt to identify the monetary value assigned by the contractors to the commissioning process, the bidders were asked to provide this as an add alternate item (Chapter 2, Table 2). The cost effectiveness of this commissioning process including the cost for the commissioning authority and the mechanical contractors are now being analyzed. J Design of a Research and Demonsiraoon Facility 10

Status Report Evaluation of Ventilation systems November 18,1992 2 THE PROJECT BUDGET Based on a rough draft of the drawings an estimate of construction cost was prepared by Facilities Planning and Construction (FPC) In September 1991 (See Table 4). A project budget was made and granted by the sponsor. After completion of the design, an outside estimator was asked to give a cost estimate on the construction. The first estimate was much higher than was expected and design changes needed to be made to bring the project in budget Since IAQ was a research issue and the HVAC system was part of that research, no cost savings were possible in this division. Because of the phased construction of this project, Phase II was to be compatible with Phase I. Therefore major architectural components, i.e. space frame and the masonry walls could not be changed. Compromises were made in the architectural design and the engineering design to get the project within budget, without compromising the IAQ or the architectural intent. Instead the strategy to reduce cost focused on those items that were non-mandatory or redundant. Additional cost savings were realized through changes in materials used for the interior walls and the roof. It was anticipated that a good preventive maintenance program would compensate for the loss of durability inherent to these new materials. This chapter describes the several cost savings that were made in chronological order. Involved in the process of reviewing the cost estimate and bringing the project within budget are: Jack Davis and Bill Galloway, Bob Schubert, architects Dixon Hanna, College of Architecture Jim Woods, Bjame Olesen, Julie Seelen, Sanjay Arora, IEP-research team John Kuykendall, Ken Baker, Steve Warren, Virgil Decker, Facilities Planning and Construction Rollins & Associates, P.C., estimators 2.1 COST ESTIMATE 27 March 1992 The first cost estimate comes in at $796,255. Table 1 gives the summary of the cost estimates by Rollins and Associates. The three biggest cost items are exterior walls, HVAC rne Project audget 11

Status Rspcrt Evdwdon of Ventilation 9yst.ms Nbvmbec 18.1992 systems, and the building controls. The HVAC systems cost are higher than initially anticipated for two reasons: First, the project is decoupled form the EPRI-project and therefore it is necessary to provide for a separate chiller package and a third airhandling unit to serve the other occupied spaces. Second, during the design of the systems, and development of the protocol, the research became better understood and several changes and extra items were added to the systems (more efficient filters) during design. The cost for the building controls is based upon more measuring points than necessary. Moreover, this system will be donated (both material and labor) and the cost of this item should not be included in the construction cost. Items proposed to change: 1) The exterior walls have a bituminous damp proofing between the veneer and the backup masonry which has a big cost to it. Since this damp proofing is not necessary, this item is deleted. To bring the cost further down, the bi-axial block is changed to (cheaper) standard CMU. 2) The estimators included a markup that assumed a prime overhead on material, labor, and equipment of 12%0, bond of 1%, and escalation of 310/0. Because of the competitive market the prime overhead can be reduced to 10%, and bond to 0.75a. Since the project is to be built this summer, no escalation needs to be encumbered. The markup can be reduced which brings the base bid down considerably. 3) Some items on the drawings and in the specifications needed clarification (the side walk edge restraint and the raised floor) and were less in cost than assumed by the estimators. 4) Items provided by the University (landscaping, site lighting, signage, and inspection and testing) should not be included in the estimate. 5) Add a general contingency of 5%. 6) Reiterate the cost of space frame assembly and roofing (compared to Phase I they seem to be high). 7) Excess paver block that needs to be removed can be reused. 8) The roof paver ballast is available and can be an owner furnished item. The Project Budget 12

siaws Report Evaluatbn of Ventilation Systsma November 18,1992 The estimate is compared to the estimate prepared by Facilities Planning and Construction (FPC) (See Table 4). The estimate by FPC was done September 1991, based on a rough draft of the drawings. it was assumed that the space frame would cost $22,000, and a donation of $60,000 was encumbered. The cost of the space frame is not encumbered in the estimate by Rollins, and will add $45,000 to the construction estimate. FPC did not include cost for possible rock excavation, sitework, extra cost for (perforated) raised floor, the chiller package and third air handling unit. 22 Aprii 1992 The revised estimate comes in at $723,881 (Table 1). This is the construction estimate excluding the space frame and other costs, like A/E fees, administration, etc. (Appendix C), which bring the total project cost to $976,000. The available funds are the $634,907 (grant) and the donation of the building controls (assumed equal to the estimate, $105,000). To solve the $236,000 deficit a meeting is held to review the projectlcost estimate and discuss cost savings, starting with the costs other than building construction (categories as listed In final project budget, Table 3). 1) Consultant fees are very high, specially H.C.Yu. This can be explained because the design is complicated, including three mechanical systems. The fees include supervision, commissioning, shop-drawing review. 2) The University requires a contingency of 2 %, but FPC will use 5%. 3) Site lighting. There are several lights on the test ceii building and there will be several lights on the building. This might be sufficient to light the building and direct surroundings. Assuming that a parking lot will be built opposite the building site by the University, the site lighting can be lowered to $2000. 4) The geotech testing is necessary since it is very likely that we will hit rock. 5) A/E supplemental fees are only zero if we do not have to go back to the consultants. Since H.C.Yu has a little research going on within this project, lower this amount with $2500. - 6) Signage includes the signs for the bathroom, lab numbers. Since there will not be many signs required in this building, this can be lowered to $1-000. The Project Budget 13

Table 1. Cost estimates by Rollins and Ass. Cost items that were changed are redlined. The estimate of 27 March includes a higher mark up, and the rock contingency is included in the foundation cost. ff I/trah 1 tt AON 0 w 7! YN 3 Jur oa. fOYflAsY01t t0Af0 14R11 1~ 13.St0 ti;' ? ' ' ? ~ ~ $LDonR~ ,t;.Rk~35 ,Y, 7xt:. :: ) }a^•.~,a}3:. 9 403 4746 4.015 StuCLn.1 • 407 ${SQOl11d . "; 4.r, .. ..: • . . . : ~: '. v: 312 . . . 4q 7N 297 40'7 Stdn 0 4,q O.ON f.ON O.M{ OAN ~ s~v. . 90 4N ~4,p1 .;.; . . . .. .... ' ~$ 70.004 $~O~ trlN . :: }}" • 4 42,916 _ N 3i •:•n »}x{•,x~, .;~, ` R n0 •::n : . rffOf am" E , ..... . . /0.0N . R r7•sN u, s a4 l ta ";:ki<~S ~ n1.ea wr. n.so. r+w.. ,7./37 21.240 :1 DppM + ~~~ 31.N! ZO.N7 29.9" tl.N7 !0. . . ..,;~ y:.;,• nc a 3,4/0 2.416 SpbytNs Rodt CaopMmY „ : , :.:.::.. ... . :,......; :.} , . . . . + e .. . >~ . .::. . . . .. lDw wrw.r mn 7 :.. . : n . . v. :. .. ' . ...n. . 11.OM 11,ON it ,N1 11•N7 11•M) PYrnEYtO 1.//S ReNd.Mogo 1S1A11 :•,. ' • '.• = ~•~•.~~~ :• T.. . :r k:fi x HVAC h10 x , • kY ::;: ,~,• :: . a Poww tl.OM N,OtO 40.416 N.O10 AOA1~ ~V U ?lAt7 '•a.:. B~Mb CiEI1~Ot/ 4vr}`.:in:r '•,':2k 0, n}:..}:.} v 4~:~?:::;k: : .. w. tlA10 elephone , , }: ;/17. ;ON 2. . 2.0" t Olloer R.Y ~:..,. ..............,..::•:::::::•.. .].. ....::::.}•• :.... , . - :xS.i• ... . . -},. :::::. t0a zoa t,1q ton t0a w,e.r a.nawon 12 P9 2,N !•iN 2•1N t,1N _ k tlk toWiirq wrl ..,.. . ,.., ................ • : • ::: :.:::::::.:. . . . . . ... ..... : 5.700 S•700 :...... :.: : : : .... . . ... '{:S' ' :v~• $pear Me" -~• S.N1 3•tN O.tN S.tN S.1N TO~N670A 1 1 1. 1. ~~ 1•/1• : . . aM1101/MOPIf>•~{ ;-]}::i;'•F;: }kY.k: . r N /70 1 Z,730 Q,7J0 !. LT10 84nn QinpO . M~ T"1 M.N N1.7M rM AL Mfi MD 9Cz84STzUz

Status Report Evalwtion of Wntilation 9ystans November 18,1992 7) The University will pick up the landscaping and the transformer (2 x $5000). Taken into account all these changes the other cost totals to $48,700, and the budget for construction becomes: $489,077. The construction cost, estimated by Rollins, inciuding $47,000 for the space frame and $18,828 for rock excavation, excluding the building controls, is: $646,471. The difference between budget and estimate is: $157,394. We cannot compromise on the research, and the space frame is essential to the college, because Phase il shouidbe compatible with the Phase I. Moreover, $24.000 on design/construction cost is already spent. Maybe assembly cost can be lowered by having students or technicians construct it. FPC objects because this will take away all the warranties, If something happens, the contractor will blame it on the space frame assembly. Other possible cost savings suggested are: , 1) Masonry: The estimate of Rollins on masonry looks high at $22.56 per sqft. University uses about $15.00 per sqft. Anticipated savings: $26,000. Sitework: The sidewalks are made of CMU block. It will be cheaper to make these of concrete. Assuming a cost of $3.00 per sqft. Anticipated savings: $10,000. Rollins assumed that 12 feet of pavers, now covering the bay area, had to be removed, to allow the contractor to build the foundation and wall of Phase II. Assuming less needs to be removed: anticipated savings: $10,000. 3) Fire alarm system: A fire alarm system Is not required by code, since all occupied rooms have a direct access to the outside. The University will recommend but not mandate a fire alarm system. Anticipated cost savings: $11,090. This also saves $100 on other cost, since the connection to the University fire alarm system is not necessary. Metals (including space frame and roofing): Mero (space frame manufacturer) will be asked their estimate on cost of the erection of the frame. Assuming that 3 technicians assemble the frame in two weeks, plus the cost of a crane to lift the frame in one day, total erection should cost about $12,000. Anticipated savings: $5000. Rollins estimated the cost of putting the paver ballast on the roof at $1.05 per sqft. This seems very high. Anticipated savings: $2000. The Project Budget 15

gtat," R"Wrt Ewlu.tlon of Ventpation 8ay.tsms November 18,1992 5) Equipment catwalks and mezzanine: Since there is a roof access in the Phase I building, there is no need for it in the Phase II. The cost for a scuttle can be deleted ($424), as well as the ladder to the catwalk, the ladder to the roof and the railings on the catwalk ($2604). Total savings: $3030. No roof access means that the catwalk does not have to be a supported floor. Originally it was anticipated that the mezzanine would be a storage area, but the access was deleted to avoid problems with the ADA code. it is decided that this floor does not have to be a supported floor. Both concrete floors will be changed to gypsum board ceiling with acoustical insuiation. Assuming that the gypsum board/insulation will cost $1200. Anticipated savings are $2300. Specialties: Fire extinguishers will be bought by the university and are a separate item under the total cost ($317). Pipe bollards or mop&broom/utility shelf are not necessary ($436). Custodial services needs a mop-sink and a closet ($750). Total savings on specialties $0. 7) Doors and Windows: Change the 9 steel doors Inside to wood doors (solid, paint grade). Anticipated savings $1000. 8) Raised floor: Because of research purposes, the floor covering In the conference cannot be fleecy, and should be low-emitting. Reduce the 210 sqy carpet to 155 sqy. Saving: $1240. The raiiing (ramp in corridor) should be a wall railing. Anticipated savings $800. HVAC/Plumbing: For the initiai research we do not need all these filters. The technicians can make the housing for some of the filters, buy the electrostatic filter, and put these In later. Take out $5000 of the construction cost and bring this over to the other cost list, (extra item filters). (This brings the total construction budget from $489.077 to $484.077.) Take out of the speclcost estimate: one FILT2 (leave In two); both FILT3; one FILT4 (leave in one). Savings: $15170. In the estimate one pump to many accounted for. Savings: $1277. Pipe identification could be $0.37 instead of $3.70 per unit for labor. Anticipated savings: $2500. We can use the humidifier from ESL. Savings: $3282. Anticipate that Carrier will donate the chiller package, the terminal boxes, the air handling units, and the fans. Leave labor In the estimate. Anticipated saving because of donation: $28,903. The Project Budget 16

Status Report Evaluation of Ventilation Systena November 18,1992 k 10) Lighting: This estimate seems high although if is not dear were exactly the costs overrun. Anticipated saving $10,000. Lithonia wanted to donate equipment for Phase I and was disappointed that they could not. Maybe they want to donate the fixtures for Phase II. Leave labor in the estimate. Anticipated saving because of donation: $14,689. 11) Raised Floor: Battinger might be interested In donating. Leave labor in the estimate. Anticipated saving because of donation: $12,942. (This estimate might change because of the floor covering material that will be used.) The total cost savings by these changes and donations are $161,223. Rollins is asked to review the proposed changes. 5 May 1992 The proposed changes and donations are all, except four; encumbered in the new estimate which comes In at $595,652 (Table 1). The estimators do not agree to lower the cost of the masonry, the space frame assembly, or the lighting, and the anticipated cost for reducing the site work was not completely met. The general contingency (5 %) should not have been encumbered, it is inciuded in the overall project budget. The construction estimate, without contingency, building controis; and space frame, is $483,722. The College of Architecture is asked to underwrite the assumed donations to expedite the process. 22 May 1992 The College agrees to underwrite a total of $65,437 for the project. (All of the assumed donations plus an additional amount to cover the cost of pavers instead of concrete for the special walks.) The estimator Is asked to lower the rock contingency, delete the general contingency (this Is included In the project cost), add back the donations with a side note, and add back the pavers for the special walks. There is still a deficit of $27,000. At 26 May 1992 a meeting is called to review the project and discuss additional cost savings. Proposed is to change the interior walls from CMU to dry wall construction, and the exterior walls from 14" block to 8" block. These changes will effect the structural and foundations. The estimator is asked to calculate the real savings. The Project Budget 17

Status Report Evaluation of VentBation Systeros November 18,1992 29 May 1992 The fourth version of the estimate comes in at $661,749 (Table 1). The savings calculated for the changes to the walls are: $19,652 for the exterior waiis, $11,423 for the interior walis, and $3813 savings on foundations because of the change in the interior walls. A meeting is heid on June 3 to discuss these changes. The architects express their concern about making , these changes, especially the exterior walls because of compatibility with the Phase. Moreover these changes would Involve a major change in the drawings which would delay the project considerably. Other changes to save cost, which were suggested earlier by the estimator, are discussed. The following savings were proposed and impiemented by the estimator in the final estimate (Table 1): Change the interior walls from CMU to dry wall ($11,423), and following thereof savings on foundations ($3,813). i 2) Change the special walks to concrete ($4,870) 3) Change the roof to a mechanically adhered roof ($5,100) 4) Change the utilities trench to a p.v.c. pipe ($1,800) 5) Delete termite control since there is not much wood in the building ($1,500). The constructlon estimate, dated June 3, Is $634,209 (including all donations and cost of space frame), and the total project cost is $782,909. Avaiiable funds are: $634,907 (grant), $65,437 (College), $83,018 (Building controls), total : $783,362. 9 June 1992 - 16 August 1992 The University gives permission to submit the project to the State of Virginia for approval. During June 9 and August 16, the project is reviewed by the State ,and revised accordingly (See Chapter 3). After receiving approval from the State of Virginia on August 13, an add is placed in the Roanoke Times & World-News. N N CA Eight bids are received at September 10 and opened at September 11 (Table 2). The lowest bid ~ is from Breakell Inc. at $531,971. Available funds for construction are $502,700, excluding cost ~ for the building controls, space frame and carpet which are not Included in the bid. ~ ~ 2.2 BIDS The Project Budget 18

Status Report November 18,1992 Evaluation of Ventitation Systems Table 2. Bids for RDF Phase Ii. These bids do not inciude cost for the space frame, carpet, and building controls. The commissioning Is the add alternate item. Contractor Base Bid Add item Total Breakell Inc 524,771 7,200 531,971 Avis Construction 531,700 9,200 540,900 Lionberger Constr. 539,056 7,750 546,806 Debusk & Shelor 545,650 10,000 555,650 S.H.Seweil & Co 576,850 7,280 584,030 A.R.Neety Co. 568,900 0 568,900 Building Specialists 649,640 4,200 643,840 The W.G.Simmons 659,740 2,600 662,340 Average 574,538 6,028 579,305 Max-Min 134,969 10,000 130,369 15 September 1992 A meeting Is called to discuss the project budget. FPC expects major time delays when the project Is changed and negotiations with the contractor to bring the bid down have to take place. The College Is asked for $30,000 to get the project started. Final project budget in Table 3. On September 17, the contract Is signed, construction price is $531,971. This ~ excludes the space frame, carpet, building controls and filters. Table 4 gives the estimate of PM Facilities Planning and Construction, the final estimate of Rollins and the (preliminary) schedule ~ of values from Breakell. The Project Budget 1 g

Table 3. . SwAma .~~:*N--rrR, e AN W i`-n,aon -NE.s 101Fi.r ooa -M ~~ 4~-'= 4~-'= ~°z?^rn to, 9d PMs :undnn ooat.: o.bt sorviaa I eona lea,r,o. Tisceraneous: Design Contg. MFscellaneous (0.5%) re arm ZM m tructuwe to Fire Safety quip. na-e lsarkk-w" Carpet Total .n---TEr.T~,l 75.000 6,000 47-.VO-O -"2 0 3,= a5,m 97,100 Final project budget (excluding building controls).

Table 4. Cost estimate by division from Facilities Planning and Construction, Rollins and Ass. (dated June 3,1992, and Breakell, Inc.. (preliminary schedule of values, plus the space frame and the carpet). Division Estimat. FPC (1990) Estimats Rotlins Bnahell Inc. Comm.nts Oenerel (including bonds) 44,880 2. Site 0 32,008 23,794 3. Concrete 55,833 29,997 13,167 4. Masonry 89,440 89,961 85,774 5. Metals 73,020 109,730 108,868 FPC: spir:S22,000; others:$45,130 6. Woods & Plastics 0 0 711 7. Thermal & Moisture 6,480 0 29,454 8. Doors & Windows 89,805 51,212 49,699 9. Fnishes 17,095 26,164 33,108 10. specialties 1 10,325 22,116 26,863 BrealceN + $5,000 tor carpet 15. MechanicaUPlumbing 149,000 124,955 139,822 FPC: $60,000 donation assumed 16. Electrical 89,100 65,045 47,185 Sub total 580,100 551,200 587,101 Contingency 26,005 20,500 20,200 Design Services 45,000 75,000 75,000 Administration & Other 40,000 53,600 51,970 Totd Project Cost 695,105 700,287 729,271 4 YZ76SZ ZOZ

ststus Report Evdwtion of Ventifabn Systena November 18,1992 3 REVIEW OF THE BID DOCUMENTS Because the Research and Demonstration Facility Is a State building, the design, drawings and specifications were made in compliance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual. These documents were reviewed by the Indoor Environment Program (IEP) research team, the University Facilities Planning and Construction group, and the Division of Engineering and Buildings for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 3.1 IEP RESEARCH TEAM REVIEW s The IEP research team reviewed the project with an emphasis on the requirements of the research agenda. It was not the intent of the research group to verify the documents for compliance with Virginia State regulations. The following is a list of the comments all of which were fulfilled except were noted otherwise. Ceilings in offices should be like in a normal office, not having alcove: the windows which are at ceiling height are changed from clear glass to opaque, alcove in offices are deleted. Waiis in offices should be like in a normal office: the block walls will be fu»ed. Specify for the perforated floor panels an open area between 23 and 30%, panels are to have adjustable dampers. After review of the safety data sheets for the floor covering materials, specifically for emission rates, the panels in the offices are specified to have painted finish and the solid panels in the conference room and corridor are to have a high pressure laminate finish. Windows in walls between conference room and offices are redundant and can be ~ deleted. ~ - i+ Delete specification for ash-ums in rest rooms. Smoking will only be allowed in the CA offices. ~ Review of the Bid Documents 22

st.tus Report Evdwtion of Vsetilatioo systems November 18,1992 Do not paint the Interior surfaces of ducts where visible through registers or grilles. If this part of the duct gets dirty we want to see that. Specify outdoor air intake louvers, also for the boiler room in Phase I: louvers are specified and shown on architectural drawings except for louvers In boiler room. Add access door to air. intake plenum, to allow deaning of the plenum. Add note that all ducts/piping should run through the space frame. Add floor drain and rough-in for sink in instrumentation room. Add sprinkler instaltation in boiler room Phase I (required by Code). Secondary pumps on hot water and chllled water systems are redundant and can be deleted. The hot water system does not necessarily have to contain glycol for freeze protection. Because of cost considerations, the water system Is not changed. The carbon filter should be followed by a final filter (85% efficiency) and not preceded by a pre-filter. Relocate DDC-panel to be in place closer to equipment room where computer controls will be located. 3.2 UNIVERSITY REVIEW The University review Included three major objectives: (1) Compliance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual and Building Codes; (2) Compliance with University requirements, which include testing procedures, conformity with University systems, and custodial necessities; and, ~ (3) Checking for possible IAQ problems. ~ ~ The University has had indoor air quality problems in several buildings, and therefore has ~ developed a checklist as a guide to avoid occurrence of the same problems in new buildings. 1 For example, to reduce contamination, return air pienums or lining inside ductwork are not N Review of the Bid Documents 23

Status Report Evaluation of Ventilation Systems November 18,1992 generally allowed in any new construction or renovation. The following Is a list of the reviewers comments, grouped per objective. All were fulfilled except were noted otherwise. (1) Compliance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual and Building Codes: ) Geotechnical boring logs should be shown on the drawings. Drinking fountain, service sink, and electric water cooler need to be provided. Exposed hot water lines and drains in lavatory need to be insuiated. Outdoor design conditions for heating and cooling In the winter should be -10 F or 0 FDB. Chilled water lines outside should be freeze protected with heat tape, insulation, or glycol solution In lines:done (heat traced). Three manufacturers should be listed for all products. Specify protection of walls under constructlon from moisture during inciement weather. Indicate R-value of roof insuiation. Compliance with University requirements, which Include testing procedures, conformity - with University systems, and custodial necessities: Provide two 4" conduits to provide for adequate future expansion. - Add note with housekeeping pads to include provision and necessary location/installation - of anchor bolts as coordinated with mechanical contractor. Change floor based water closet to wall mounted to facilitate custodial services. - Add sanitary napkin disposal In ladies rest room. - Add protective coating on tiies in rest rooms ff recommended by manufacturer. - Water treatment specified as per University requirements. - Specify that no explosives may be used without written authorization from owner. - Specify that owner will provide full-time roofing inspector; the contractor to organize pre- - roofing meeting. Delete from specifications fire-extinguishers, University will provide. N IU - Fire alarm system shall be Simplex: the fire alarm Is deleted to save costs since this is CA ~ a non-mandatory item. ~ ~ ~ ~ Review of the Bid Documents 24

status Repat Evaluation of Ventilation Systena November 18,1992 Building control system should be Landys and Gyr: Johnson Controls will donate the building control system aa part of a research project (3) Checking for possible IAQ problems: - It Is a University policy not to use perforated duct lining material due to concerns with microbial growth in ducts: duct lining Is used in most conventional systems and the variable air volume system , as repr+esentative of conventional systems, will have lining where the engineer specifies it One constraint is set by the research team that no duct Ifning is allowed within three feet from cooling coil, humidifier or other wetted surfaces. - It is a University policy not to use ceiiing plenums but to return air through ducts back to the units: In most conventional systems, the air Is returned through a ceiling plenum and therefore the plenum is part of the research requirements. - Use aluminum grilles Instead of steel. 3.3 STATE OF VIRGINIA REVIEW The Department of Engineering and Buildings of the State of Virginia divides the review process Into six categories: architectural, cost, electrical, fire/safety, mechanical, and civil/structural. Each category is reviewed for: (1) Compiiance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual; (2) Compiiance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (i.e., BOCA), inciuding the handicapped standards; (3) Cost In relation to building size and use; (4) Clarity of drawings and specifications; and, (5) Common sense, e.g., location of Items for accessibility, preventing vandalism. Currently, the State review process does not specifically consider indoor air quality. However, as a result of our discussions with the Department during the review process, the State is now Review of the Bid Documents 25

Status Report EvsiusNon of Ventitalbn systems November 18,1992 considering to address IAQ related Issues as part of the review process. The following is a list of the reviewers comments for the various categories, grouped per objective. The comments are marked to show the category: (a) architectural, (c) cost, (e) electrical, (f) fire/safety, (m) mechanical, and (s) civil/structural. All comments were addressed and requests fulfilled except were noted otherwise. (1) Compiiance with the Virginia Capitol Outlay Manual: (a)- - The State does not permit the use of the number of years that a contractor has been in business to be used as a qualification for bidding, remove all referrals. The State does not permit the use of federal specification numbers, please change, refer - to codes or standards. All section detaii and elevation symbols are to be numbers: to change all drawings at this - time would cost to much, will revisit this Issue at substantial completion. All doors that are to be used by handicapped are to have a push pull or a iever handle. - all doors to hazardous areas are to have knurled knobs. Note on drawing mounting height of drinking fountain (for handicapped). (e)- . - Specify lighting levels In foot candles for the various areas. Tabulate electric loads in kilowatts. (e/f)- (f)- - Verify that exit lights and emergency egress lighting fixtures are equipped with standby batteries. Specify fire performance characteristics for building insulation, roof insuiation, and acoustical ceiiing tile. Sprinkler system shop drawings shall be submitted to DEB for review. (m)- - Chemical cleaning and chemical water treatment to comply with Capitol Outlay requirements. Show on drawings the results of a water flow test run and specify that contractor is to N O N confirm this prior to design of the sprinkler system. i*+ C11 - Reference VUSBC Mechanical Code instead of NFPA 54. ~ (s)- Show handicapped accessible routes. ~ ~ Review of the Bid Documents 26

Status psW Ev.tu.tbn of Ventilation Systems November 18,1992 Add drawing and specification sections for erosion and sediment control in compliance with the Capitol Outlay requirements. Add boring log to drawings. Seal, sign, and date the civil/structural drawing. Specify estimated quantity of rock and unsuitable material. (2) Compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (i.e., BOCA), induding the handicapped standards: (a)- Show, note and detail tactile warning surface at the head of stairs. Add handraiis to aii stairs, show height and extension lengths. - The % of glass in exterior wall can be greater than 17.5% if exterior wall and roof insuiation make up for the energy loss due to Increase of glass: the overall factor for the exterior wall is 0.053, required by code Is 0.11, we will verify that the energy loss is compensated for. (m)- All fired and unfired pressure vessels shall be specified to comply with ASME Code, vessels need to be stamped, and ASME report should be submitted by contractor to owner. - The Code of Virginia precludes the consultants from providing the commissioning services as part of the project to bid: the section on commissioning is revised to reflect that the Commissioning Authority Is hired by the owner under separate contract. (3) Cost in relation to building size and use: (c)- Five building systems show very high system unit costs. These systems include the following: power, roof structure, exterior walls, buiiding control system, and HVAC systems. Reasons for these high costs indude matching the existing space frame and exterior wall finish of Phase i, and the research and demonstration requirements. Several cost savings are proposed by the State to try to control costs: The cost savings proposed conflict with the Intent of the College of Architecture to meet short term and long term programmatic and the research concerns. Moreover, the costs of the building were Review of the Bid Documents 27

Status Report Ev.lu.tbn of VentNation 8ystems November 18,1992 reviewed thoroughly in-house, and all possible savings were made necessary to bring the project within the budget. HVAC commissioning is inappropriate due to the size of this facility. Also, it seems redundant since the mechanical systems will be used for demonstration purposes, detailed system monitoring and check-out will be accomplished by students and instructors on a regular basis: Commissioning of the HVAC system Is essential to the research agenda. The object of Including commissioning Is to evaluate the process Itself. (4) Clarity of drawings and specifications (a)- Clarify side walks, concrete pad for chiller. - Show position of existing concrete inlet: Inlet flush, no detail necessary.- Show elevations and mounting heights of all fixtures. - Note columns in east exterior wall as existing. . - Detail flashing for fans, vents, electrical conduit where penetrating roof. - Detail existing roof edge, what Is to be removed and how extended. - Detail thresholds exterior, rest rooms, and corridor doors. (m)- How is sprinkler system monitored?: The spninkler system will be hooked up to the DDC control panel. - Describe proper sealing method for ducts. - Clarify piping specialties. - Clarify for the building controls what is to be inciuded in this contract and what not. - Indicate method of condensate disposal of HVAC systems. - Clarify position of doors during balancing of the HVAC systems: all doors should be dosed. (s)- Clarify which contours are new and which are existing contours. - Show influence duct bank on foundation. - Show size of sanitary sewer, length and connection to existing sewer. - Show size of storm drain and connection to existing storm drain. - Show spot elevations and new contours around the building to ensure positive drainage. Review of the Bid Documents 28

Status Report Evaluatlon of Ventilation Systans November 18,1992 Ciarify pipe trench at south side of the building, detail connections to building and chiller pad. Label columns to make coordination easier for the contractor. Add PVC and R.D.L. to abbreviations list. Set one main finished floor elevation and show details reflecting that: this will be more confusing than the current drawings. Why is on footing four times the size of the other footings?: This is for lateral support of the space frame. (5) Common sense: (a)- Tubes of space frame that pass from exterior to interior have holes on either side. Please piug holes so that wind, air, and insects cannot get through: insuladon has been specified for tubes that pass from Interior to exterior. Since some condensation is Inevitable, It is not recommended to plug holes at both ends. - Fill space between steel channel and roof Insulation with a neoprene gasket and caulk. - Caulk on top of glass block and block lintel. - Fill top block with mortar for anchorage of metal floor channel for metal studs. (e)- Allow use of aluminum conductors equivalent to the capacity of copper conductors: this is not acceptable to VT. - Continue utilization of service feeding Phase I and use separate service to Phase II: this would mean that there would be unprotected service conductors running under the new building, use new feeding for both Phases. - Relocate control switch for electric heat trace cable to inside to prevent vandalism or inadvertent operation. - Rearrange exit iighting so that it will not be obscured by the columns. (m)- Revise 6" housekeeping pad below water heater, but do not create trip hazard with ~ discharge piping. ~ Justify or delete strainer: strainer Is required for pump and valve protection. CA Remove pea gravel from cavity in window head. Remove lintel above round louver. I 06 Review of the Bid Documents 29

Status Report EvNwtion of VentVstion Systsms November 18,1992 ~ REFERENCES ASHRAE. 1989. ASHRAE 1-1989: Guideline for Commissioning of HVAC Systems. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. ASHRAE. 1989. ASHRAE Standard 55-1989: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. ASHRAE. 1989. ASHRAE Standard 62-1989: Vendlation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. . BOCA. 1990. The BOCA National8uilding Code / 1990. Country Club Hills: Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. 11th edition. Commonweafth of Virginia. 1988. Commonwealth of Virginia Capitol Ouday Manual / and all revisions thereto. Virginia. References 30

Statw Report Evalu.tion of Ventil.8oe Systeros November 18,1992 NOMENCLATURE BOCA Building Officials and Administrators CMU Concrete Masonry Unit DDC Direct Digital Control FACT Filtered Air Control Technology FDB Fahrenheit, Dry Bulb FPC Facilities Planning and Construction IAQ Indoor Air Quality IEP Indoor Environment Program RDF Res`earch and Demonstration Facility N O N r CA ~ ~ W Nomendature 31