Pacific Highway LPOE Envelope Study Report-2013.pdf

Pacific Highway Land Port of Entry Blaine, Washington

Envelope Study

By: Mehrdad (Marty) Novini, PE, LEED AP O+M

Frank Hill

April 2013

Pac-Highway LPOE

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 2

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

THE PURPOSE OF STUDY

DATE OF VISIT

BUILDING ENVELOPE DESIGN CONCEPT

BUILDING ENVELOPE CONSTRUCTION

THERMAL IMAGING ANALYSIS

SOLUTIONS

APPENDIX A, THERMAL IMAGES

Acknowledgements

We greatly appreciate the participation, and guidance that we received from the Pac Highway

Assistant Property Manager, Mr. Baron Wellman and the Lead Operations and Maintenance manager Mr. Jason Schlund of Total Systems Service, Inc. Their assistance in this process was in-valuable and we could not have accomplished this task without their support.

This report was developed through teamwork between Mr. Mehrdad (Marty) Novini, Region-10

Mechanical Engineer, and Mr. Frank Hill Region-10 Envelope Subject Matter Expert. Thermal imaging and reporting was provided by Mr. Hill, while information gathering and reporting was provided by Mr. Novini.

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. land port of entry at Pacific Highway building, in Blaine Washington (Pac-Highway) has had issues with moisture infiltration since it was constructed in 1999. In late 2010, mold growth was found inside an office on the second floor of the Cargo building, which was remedied. During this remediation, it was noticed that moisture barrier was never installed at the interior section of the perimeter wall. GSA Region-10, Design and Construction division authorized an internal investigation of the building envelope construction. The team was tasked with the following:

Compare the as-found construction of the building envelope to its as-built documentation.

Identify the potential areas where the moisture is infiltrating the building.

Recommend corrective measures and their associated costs.

Pac Highway complex consists of three structures, Cargo building, Bus and Auto building, and a warehouse building. The primary exterior architecture of these buildings is the same and consists of a combination of aluminum-curtain wall system with a mixture of double pane windows and translucent panels, while the opaque walls consist of either cedar wood or corrugated steel cladding. Based on our estimates, approximately 60% of the exterior wall is aluminum curtain wall, 55% of which is translucent and 45% visual glass. The roof surface is constructed of corrugated steel exterior, with a relatively shallow pitch.

During our research, we documented the existing conditions with photographs, captured thermal images of the building from inside and outside, and analyzed the building envelope construction, from inside and above the ceiling tiles. Our goal was to review and evaluate a sample representative location of the perimeter wall construction, and compare it to the requirements of International Building Code, for the Pacific Northwest climate. Our primary findings were as follows:

1. Moisture barrier was not installed at the interior (warm side) of the perimeter wall, in spite of that suggested by IBC. The interior paint of the gypsum wall board is not oil based paint.

2. Signs of moisture were observed behind the insulation, and on the interior side of the plywood that supports the wood cladding.

3. The construction contractor had glued a reflective building paper as the inner most layer of the perimeter wall, which was lying on top of the ceiling tiles. Reportedly, this construction paper was a significant cause of airflow issues, as it got sucked into the HVAC air intake. Additionally, this construction paper is permeable and cannot be used as a moisture retarder.

4. The architectural “as-build” drawings show the wall details of the translucent panel construction at the aluminum curtain wall, as a double-pane layer with an air gap of approximately 26-mm. This detail does not match our findings and is not the same as the finished building. Instead the translucent panels consist of the finished building consist of single pane fiberglass material, which does not provide thermal protection from outside air.

5. The Architectural roof detail does not provide methods of securing the outer layer of the roof to the building roof structure. Additionally, it appears that the installing contractor applied excessive torque when fastening the roofing screws, which is deforming the water-proofing gasket separating the screw and the roofing material and causing water

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 4 leakage into the building. Based on our observations, the rubber gaskets have failed pre-maturely and are in need of replacement.

6. Due to poor construction quality of the corrugated steel wall cladding, we found gaps in the building exterior that potentially causes moisture infiltration, and/or warm building air exfiltration.

7. The galvanized nails used to secure the cedar wood cladding are exposed, rather than hidden. The exposure of these nails to outside elements could be the cause of moisture intrusion to interior layers of the building envelope.

8. The window gaskets at the aluminum wall structure appear to be failing pre-maturely, perhaps because these gaskets were not rated for the Northwest climate.

In Tables 1 and 2 below, the wall and roof assemblies, respectively, are presented, which compares the Architectural as-built drawings and as-constructed wall assembly.

Table 1 Wall Assembly Detail

Per Architectural Design As constructed Outside air Outside air Cladding (cedar or corrugated steel)

Cladding (cedar or corrugated steel)

Building Paper Existence of building Paper could not be verified

20-mm plywood plywood (observed from inside of the wall, thickness is unknown)

152-mm steel wall stud system 152-mm steel wall stud system R-19 batt insulation in between steel stud

R-19 batt insulation in between steel stud

16-mm painted Gypsum Wall Board

16-mm painted Gypsum Wall Board

Inside air Inside air

Table-2 Roof Assembly Detail

Per Architectural Design As constructed Outside air Outside air Corrugated steel outer layer Corrugated steel outer layer secured using exposed screws with rubber gaskets

Water proofing layer Existence of water proofing layer could not be verified.

Nail base insulation R=27.3 Existence of nail base insulation could not be verified

Corrugated steel roof decking over structural steel

Corrugated steel roof decking tap welded together, and mounted to top of structural steel

Inside air Inside air

IBC requires moisture barrier at this location.

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 5

The various options that will correct the issues identified above are presented in Table-3 below:

Table-3 Options to correct envelope issues

Issue Option-1 Option-2 Option-3

Lack of moisture barrier

Paint interior GWB walls with oil based paint1

Remove GWB and install moisture barrier, and painted

GWB

Aluminum curtain wall gaskets failing

Remove the glazing, install appropriate glazing-gasket and reinstall at the aluminum curtain wall

Single Pane translucent panel

Remove and replace the translucent panel with double-wall translucent panel with better thermal resistance

Remove and replace the translucent panel with double-pane thermally insulated glazing with frosted glazing at the interior layer.

Remediate leaky opaque walls

Remove cladding

Install new moisture barrier

Re-install cladding

Leaking Roof Remove the existing screws, and replace with new longer screws to penetrate the roof deck.

Install gasket at the screw head and be sure not to over-tighten.

Remove the outer layer of the roof, Replace the roofing felt

Install roofing clips and bearing plate with new screws, long enough screws to penetrate through the roof deck and the insulation.

Mount the outer layer to the roofing clips.

Remove the roof structure, and install

Install a layer of hardy boards at the roof deck

Install a layer of rigid insulation on top of the hardy-board

Install a layer of vapor barrier on top of the rigid insulation

Install a layer of 24-mm corrugated steel metal roofing and secure this layer to the hardy-board, using capped screws rated for high wind.

Class-III moisture retarder can only be applied, if the exterior cladding is vented and allowed to dry.

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 6

Table-4 Cost of corrective actions

Issue

Option-1 Cost Option-2 Cost Option-3 Cost

Cargo Bldg Auto/Bus

Bldg Cargo Bldg

Auto/Bus Bldg

Cargo Bldg

Auto/Bus Bldg

Moisture barrier 3,193,5982 441,045 1,958,966 316,406

Aluminum curtain wall gaskets Replacement

906,361 468,301

Replace Single Pane translucent panel

863,4023 82,485 946,4883 168,501

Remediate leaky opaque walls

2,379,945 430,984

Leaking Roof 1,436,960 239,396 2,065,521 319,054 1,913,343 525,895

In the Table-4 above, our recommended corrective actions are highlighted in yellow, for the

Cargo and Auto-Bus buildings. The cost of relocating personnel has not been factored into these costs, and if necessary, should be considered as additional costs. The total cost of the construction, as recommended in Table-4 above, is presented in Table-5 below.

Table 5 Total implementation cost of the recommendations

Issue Cargo Building

Cost Auto/Bus Building

Cost Total Cost

Install Moisture barrier $1,958,966 $316,406 $2,275,372

Replace Single Pane translucent panel & replace window gaskets

$863,402 $82,485 $945,887

Remediate leaky opaque walls $2,379,945 $430,984 $2,810,929

Replace Roof with 50-year roof $1,913,343 $525,895 $2,439,238

Total $7,115,656 $1,355,770 $8,471,426

BACKGROUND

The General Services Administration Region 10 Northwest / Arctic Pacific Highway US Border Station is located on Pacific Highway Border Street in Blaine, WA. This complex consists of three main buildings and US Border Patrol personnel booths that monitor the vehicle entry at the US/Canada border. This site is operational 24 hours a day, 7-days a week, however, the Port of Entry is operates between 6AM and Midnight.

The Complex was originally constructed in 1960, and was upgraded in 1999 to its existing configuration, and has not had any significant modifications since then. The complex consists of three buildings totaling approximately 97,400 square feet. These buildings are listed as follows:

Price includes the cost of opaque wall remediation, to allow for ventilated cladding, plus skimming the exiting coat, applying 3-coats of oil based primer, plus paint prep, sand and putty.

Price includes gasket replacement

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 7

Cargo Building, which is the main building housing Fish and Wildlife, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Homeland Security, and US Customs and Border Patrol.

Warehouse building, which is primarily used as storage as well as GSA and O&M Staff.

Bus and Auto building, which is used by US Border Patrol to inspect the bus and Auto prior to entry into US.

THE PURPOSE OF STUDY

The purpose of this study was to identify the root cause of moisture infiltration into the Blaine border station building at Pacific Highway, Blaine Washington.

The internal GSA team was assigned to identify the possible locations where the moisture infiltration was occurring and to propose corrective actions. To accomplish these tasks, the team was prepared to cut into the exterior wall of the building, above the ceiling tiles, to identify the various layers used during the construction. The goal was to compare the finished product with the as built documentation.

DATE OF VISIT

The building was visited on the evening of January 31st. The weather was cloudy, and temperature was in upper 40s. We arrived at the site in mid afternoon (around 3PM), visited with the building’s Assistant Property Manager and the Building’s Operation and Maintenance

Manager, to coordinate access and tour the facility. We reviewed particular issues they had faced over the years with them and captured thermographic images of the façade from inside and outside. These images and their locations within the building as listed in Appendix A.

BUILDING ENVELOPE DESIGN CONCEPT

We reviewed the as built documentation found in our files, and evaluated the applicable drawings and details that show the various exterior wall construction types. The as build documents were found through a short-cut at the following link “I:\public\Buildings\WA\Blaine”.

The as-built files are dated 6/13/2002, which is potentially the date it was saved on the GSA servers. These are autocad drawing files and were reviewed using TrueView software.

The building’s envelope design consists of opaque surfaces and aluminum curtain wall structure that has both visual glass and translucent fenestration. Many different assembly details are provided on the Architectural drawings; however, there are three different details that summarize the majority of perimeter wall construction types at Pac Highway border station.

These include the following:

1. Aluminum curtain wall system

This type of exterior wall is shown at all four exposure of the structure and consists of fenestration encased in aluminum framing. Two types of fenestration are shown:

Double pane windows consisting of ¼” clear glass panes with ½” air-gap.

Translucent polycarbonate fenestration (such as that manufactured by Kal-Lite®).

After reviewing the as-built documents and the Architectural details, we suspect that the original Architectural design intent was to install two layers of translucent panels within the aluminum curtain wall system. This is demonstrated in the As- Built architectural detail (Detail 8/A4.3 of Architectural As Build drawing A5.1).

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 8

It should be noted that the thermal performance of the aluminum curtain wall systems is generally lower than conventional walls (i.e. concrete intermixed with windows), due the exposure of the aluminum frames to the ambient air. In an example, presented in

ASHRAE Fundamentals, an aluminum curtain wall system uses thermal double pane glass, with the center of glass having an R-value of 2.5 (typical ASHRAE 90.1 glass), and aluminum frame at R-value of 0.57. In this example, a 4’x4’ section of the wall was evaluated to show that a combined assembled R-value of 1.69.

2. Lap Joint Metal Siding

This type of exterior wall consists of an assembly that includes the following material, as demonstrated in the Detail 18/A4.3 of Architectural As Build drawing A5.1:

Corrugated metal siding at the exterior layer Building paper

20mm (3/4”) layer of plywood on 152mm (6”) metal stud system.

Layers of R-19 Batt insulation in between metal stud system

Interior layer consisting of painted 16-mm (5/8”) gypsum wall board.

3. Wood Siding and Trim

This type of exterior wall consists of an assembly that includes the following material and similar to the Detail 18/A4.3 of Architectural As Build drawing A5.1:

Corrugated metal siding at the exterior layer Building paper

20mm (3/4”) layer of plywood on 152mm (6”) metal stud system.

Layers of R-19 Batt. insulation in between metal stud system

Interior layer consisting of 16mm (5/8”) gypsum wall board.

4. Roof

The building roof was designed as the following assembly, from exterior to interior:

24-mm (.95”) Corrugated steel roofing

Water repellent layer

Nail base insulation R-27.3

Corrugated steel roof deck, over structural steel beams

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 9

The following details were extracted from the as built drawings mentioned earlier, and provide a visual reference of the intended construction of the building.

Detail 18/A4.3 of Architectural As Build drawing A5.1

Detail 8/A4.3 of Architectural As Build drawing A5.1

Detail 8/A4.3 of Drawing A5.1 As Built drawings Detail 54/A4.5 of Architectural As Build drawing A5.3

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 10

BUILDING ENVELOPE CONSTRUCTION

The process of verifying the construction quality and its compliance with the Architectural design intent simply involved visual inspection of the construction quality, and capturing thermal images of the façade form inside and outside of the building, to identify gaps in construction.

We planned to open the wall structure from inside, and above the ceiling tile and to seal it back up prior to our departure. Our goal was to evaluate the construction assembly from the warm side of the wall to cold, and to locate a moisture barrier on the warm side of the wall insulation, and immediately behind the GWB.

We visited an office, on the third floor, at the northwest corner of the Cargo building. This office was vacant and provided us with un-impeded access to review the interior construction.

Above the ceiling tile we noted that the insulation was exposed. Over the insulation, the contractor apparently had glued a reflective building paper, which has now peeled off and is lying on top of the ceiling tiles. According to the O&M, they found a lot of this type of material sucked into the return section of the air conditioning system.

We also noted signs of water intrusion on the interior side of the plywood layer of the wall assembly (behind the fiberglass insulation). This indicates that either the exterior moisture barrier was not installed, or was installed and has now failed.

Picture-1 view of plywood layer of the exterior wall before insulation

In the same office, we also noted signs of moisture behind the glass and at the window sill.

The source of this moisture is unknown; however, we believe that this moisture seeped-in through the window gaskets. Per the building property manager and the O&M, the window gaskets for the aluminum curtain wall were not designed to resist the northwest weather

Sign of moisture behind the insulation and on the interior side of the plywood construction.

This location is behind cedar wood cladding

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 11 conditions, and that their exposure to the Northwest climate has contributed to their pre-mature failure. We could not verify the condition of the window gaskets of this location due to its height, but looked at similar window rubber gaskets at other locations, and noticed ¼” gaps between gasket sections, as well as some deterioration that could be contributed to pre-mature failure.

The method of installation of the wood cladding involves galvanized nails that are exposed to weather instead of hidden from view. It is possible that the exposure of these mounting nails to outside weather is allowing water to seep to interior layers.

Sign of moisture inside the building and behind double pane window, directly below where the above picture was taken. This moisture build up is potentially due to failed seals at windows that allow rainwater to seep in

Exposed nails that hold the cedar cladding is going through the building paper, and potentially causing water infiltration.

Envelope Study, April 2013

We were not able to verify the exterior construction since it would cause damage to the building facade, beyond our ability to repair. We visually evaluated the quality of the building exterior construction as we walked around the building. This type of construction is the same for both the Cargo building and the Auto-Bus building. According to our estimates, and using the as-built drawings to measure, we estimate that 60% of the building’s façade is aluminum curtain wall system, and approximately 45% of that consists of translucent wall paneling.

Single Pane translucent panel below the double pane glass window Aluminum curtain wall with combination of visual glass and translucent fiberglass panel

Cedar wood siding

The exterior wall of the cargo building where aluminum curtain wall and corrugated steel sidings come together

Lap joint corrugated steel construction quality lacks proper sealing of the joints panel Corrugated steel lap- Aluminum curtain wall with combination of visual glass and translucent fiberglass joint siding Close up view of the gap at the joint, which is approximately ¼”

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 14

Roof

To understand the true nature of the methodology used to install the existing roof at the Blaine

LPOE, the roof must be removed, layer by layer, which was not be feasible due to the nature of our study. Therefore, we visually inspected and evaluated the roof construction.

The original concept of the roof structure, according to the Architectural details, shows the exterior corrugated steel surface attached to the interior roof deck by screws, sandwiching rigid insulation in between the two layers. The details show roofing felt was to be installed on top of the rigid insulation. The type of screw specified for this type insulation would use a rubber gasket that gets squeezed between the screw-head and the roofing metal. Over-tightening of these screws would cause the rubber gasket to not perform as intended and would lead their pre-mature failure. Obviously, under-tightening would leave a gap where water can easily penetrate through the roof.

In discussions with the O&M staff, they have observed water dripping from the roof deck at the screws locations. They have caulked around the screws on the roof top, which has helped, but, this issue still exists at other spots of the roof.

The installation technique of this type roofing should have employed corrugated steel outer roofing that is overlapped with a neoprene or butyl mastic layer between the two layers. Then the two sections would be screwed together with 4” long screws that penetrate both layers on the roof, through the insulation and building paper, and the roof deck. The type of screw used for this type of installation, would have a rubber gasket that separates the screw-head from the surface of the roof. This gasket provides water proofing of the roof surface. However, care must be taken when mounting these screws. If the screws are over-tightened, then the rubber gasket is deformed, will not provide a tight water seal, and will fail pre-maturely.

We believe that the screws that hold the roof structure together have been over-tightened.

The roof of the Auto-bus building is shows below. The roof of the cargo building is similar.

The roof surface steel is attached to the structure using gasketed-screws

Above the ceiling tile and below the roof deck

Picture of a stained ceiling tile in a perimeter office

Underside of the roof deck, above the third floor ceiling tiles do not show any screw holes. We suspect that water is penetrating the building through the gaps between the roof-deck panels An example of the leaky roof that has stained the ceiling tile in an office

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 16

THERMAL IMAGING ANALYSIS

Thermal images were captured from both inside and outside of the building on the night of

January 31st, 2013, which shows several areas where moisture is penetrating the exterior wall.

The outside temperature was in mid 40s, the weather was cloudy, but dry. The images were captured using a Flir Model No E60bx series thermal imaging camera. Thermal images were captured of the façade, as well as electrical panel to observe hot spots where possible. The building HVAC system was operating at the time, and in heating mode.

Thermal imaging shows differential temperature between different objects, and the objects with warmer temperature show as orange to yellow, with yellow being warmer than all other objects in the image. Colder objects show as light blue to dark blue.

Typically, when capturing images from inside, the blue images show more prominence, since that is the source of colder air infiltration or a source of colder surface that. The opposite is true when evaluating an externally captured image.

The images were captured from inside of an office that indicates the precise location of air infiltration, which in this case is at the underside of the window sill. This means that the window frame was not properly sealed. In this image, you can see the wall studs, which is colder than the insulated sections between the studs. The aluminum curtain wall is colder than the insulated wall below it, which is an indication of thermal performance between the two wall structure types.

In the images below, taken from the roof of the Auto-Bus building, at the locations where the roof screws are penetrating through, the heat loss appears to be more prominent that other areas of the roof. The heat loss at the roofing screws could be either conductive or convective heat loss. Convective heat loss would be an indication of locations where water would be penetrating into the building.

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 17

The parallel orange lines are the areas of the roof where heat is escaping. The screws that penetrate the roof surface are showing as warmer than any other surface of the roof. The heat loss through the screws is not necessarily convective heat loss, but perhaps due to the fact that the screws are closer to the source of heat and therefore cause higher heat loss than the rest of the roof surface.

Another image of the roof structure, below, near where the mechanical equipment is located, shows the structural beam directly below the roof surface. This type of heat loss through the roof, can be attributed to conductive heat losses through the beam, and where the roof insulation is at its minimum (or non-existant).

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 18

In the images below, captures the warehouse building heat losses from the top of the wall structure and the top of the roll up doors. The heat loss from the top of the roll up door is convective and very similar to the heat loss from the top of the translucent window panels. This could mean that the heat loss through the window panels is also convective.

Similarly, in the images below, you can observe the convective heat losses from the top of the double doors of the warehouse building, at the loading dock.

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 19

The images captured from the cargo building’s aluminum curtain wall system, shows some yellow spots, which could be conductive heat losses. This image shows a lot of conductive heat loss at the aluminum curtain wall system as well.

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 20

Other images that show moisture intrusion are shown below:, 2nd floor SE corner

Another spot where moisture has seeped into the building is at the Gymnasium, against the corner wall. The coldest spot, wheer the structural steel is connected to the aluminum curtain wall system is where moisture appears to be seeping into the building. This image also shows the performance of the Kal-Lite® translucent panel.

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 21

SOLUTIONS

Through our observations and discussions with the Building O&M and the Assistant Property

Manager, we have summarized the envelope issues of this building as follows:

Lack of moisture barrier on the interior side of the wall composition

Failing window gaskets

Lack of insulation behind translucent fenestration

Leaking roof

Potentially failing building paper behind wood cladding

Poor installation quality of the corrugated steel cladding

1. Lack of Moisture Barrier

Building envelopes in the Pacific Northwest are subject to cold weather and moisture throughout the year. According to International Building Code (IBC), Section 1405, any structure that can potentially be subject to colder temperatures, must have vapor retarders (Class I, or Class II) installed at the interior side of the exterior walls. This will prevent the accumulation of condensation inside the exterior walls.

Option-1

Per 1009 IBC, section 1405.3.1, Class III vapor retarders are allowed to be used in such environment, which provides more flexibility. In this case, a layer of latex paint may be used to serve as a vapor retarder. However, this application would require that the exterior cladding to be vented and allowed to dry. We are not certain that the existing exterior walls of the Pac-Highway building are vented, and have included the cost of installing a vented cladding in the price for this option. This option proposed to remove the exterior cladding, examine the building paper, and replace if it has failed, and re-install the exterior cladding while providing ventilation air to allow the structure to dry. Then provide an oil based paint at the interior surface of the perimeter wall. This option has the advantage of the least amount of disturbance to the building occupants; however, has the higher cost of installation. The cost of this option is estimated at

$3,193,598 for Cargo building and 441,045 for the auto-bus building.

Option-2

This option would remove all exterior wall gypsum wall boards, install a moisture retarder on top of the insulation, and then re-install gypsum wall board on top of the moisture retarder. Then apply the finishing paint. The cost of this application is estimated at $1,958,966 for the Cargo building, and $316,406 for the Auto-Bus building.

2. Failing window gaskets

The windows gaskets of the Pacific Highway Border Station are getting brittle and showing signs of wear, only after a short while of being exposed to the Pacific Northwest weather conditions. This is causing the gaskets to crack and allow moisture intrusion at some locations. This option proposed to remove the fenestration from the aluminum

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 22 curtain wall system, remove and dispose of the failing rubber gaskets, and re-install the fenestration back in place. The cost of this improvement is estimated at $906,361 for the Cargo building and $468,301 for the Auto- Bus building.

3. Lack of insulation behind Translucent walls

The translucent wall is a single-pane fiberglass fenestration, which does not provide thermal resistance to outside conditions. Therefore, during colder weather conditions, this surface has the potential for condensation at the interior side of the building. We propose that as part of a comprehensive corrective action, to correct this issue and change the translucent panels within the aluminum curtain wall systems, to a more suitable assembly, listed as follows:

Option-1

In this option, we propose the replacement of the single pane translucent panels with similar color and shape double pane translucent panels to maintain the original architectural look of the building. This would include the removal of the panels and their gaskets, replacing the gasket and the translucent panel with new gasket and thermally insulating translucent panels. The total cost of this option for Cargo building is estimated at $863,402 and $82,485 for Auto-Bus building.

Optoin-2

As an enhanced option, the translucent panel can replaced with double pane thermally insulating glass, with the frosted glass at the interior pane. This option would maintain the architectural look of the building as close to original as possible, while providing better thermal protection. The total cost of this option for the Cargo building was estimated at $963,488 and $168,501 for the Auto-bus building.

Optoin-3

As a third option, we propose to replace the existing translucent panels and convert them to opaque walls. This would include the following:

Install double panel thermally insulating glass in place of the translucent panels.

Provide an opaque surface at the interior side of the fenestration, such as paint.

Install insulation behind opaque surface. To increase the thermal performance of the structure.

Install a layer of moisture barrier.

Install 16-mm painted Gypsum board behind the insulation, to match the interior building paint.

This option changes the architectural look of the building, however, improves the thermal performance of the perimeter walls. This option is not estimated since it would be more expensive than the previous options, and would alter the look of the buildings.

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 23

4. Leaky opaque walls

As mentioned earlier, we could not evaluate the installation of the opaque perimeter walls from outside. This would involve the removal of the exterior cladding, the evaluation of the building paper or moisture proofing, if installed, and the identification of source of leakage to interior layers of the wall.

This evaluation would likely damage the exterior cladding to the point that it cannot be reused, which would introduce the replacement of the exterior opaque walls. The price of this installation was estimated at $2,379,945 for the Cargo Building, and $430,984 for the Auto-Bus building.

5. Leaking Roof

Metal roofs propose the longest roof life available in the industry. However, the mounting practice used at the Pac Highway complex has shortened the life expectancy of the roof. We propose three potential solutions to correct this issue:

Option-1

Remove all screws and reinstall screws, with proper torque. This approach, although lower in cost, will not be a permanent solution, as the gaskets will fail again and need to be replaced. We estimate that this option will provide a decent roof for approximately 5-years as the gaskets, which are exposed to elements will fail again. The installation cost for the Cargo building was estimated at $1,436,960 and $139,396 for the Auto-Bus building.

Option-2

This option would provide a more permanent solution and proposed to remove the outer layer of the roof, remove and replace the roofing felt, and install roofing clips and bearing plate with new screws, long enough screws to penetrate through the roof deck and the insulation. Mount the outer layer of the roof to the roofing clips. This option will provide a new roofing mechanism. This option is more permanent and should last longer than the previous option, possible for as long as 50-years. The cost of this installation was estimated at $2,065,521 for the Cargo Building, and $319,054 for the Auto-Bus building

Optoin-3

As a more permanent solution, we propose that the roof structure be removed, and replaced with a more permanent surface, which includes the following:

Install a layer of hardy boards at the roof deck

Install a layer of rigid insulation on top of the hardy-board

Install a layer of vapor barrier on top of the rigid insulation

Install a layer of 24-mm corrugated steel metal roofing and secure this layer to the hardy-board, using capped screws rated for high wind.

This option will provide a sealed water proof surface that will be rated for 50-years. The cost of this option was estimated at $1,913,343 for the Cargo building and $525,895 for the Auto-Bus building.

Envelope Study, April 2013 Page 24

APPENDIX A, THERMAL IMAGES

Typical office on the Third Floor Southwest Side of Cargo Building Arrow shows location of cold air infiltration

Appendix A

Air infiltration Cold air radiated from widow sill and metal studs

Cold air radiated off window sill and metal studs

Auto Bus Building RoofAuto Bus Building Roof

Auto Bus Building RoofAuto Bus Building Roof

Kal Light over Auto Bus SkylightKal Light over Auto Bus Skylight

Kal Light, metal roof support above skylightskylight

Torch down roof on Auto Bus BuildingTorch down roof on Auto Bus Building

Northwest Side of Warehouse

Northwest Corner of the buildingNorthwest Corner of the building

Loading DockLoading Dock

Loading DockLoading Dock

East Side of Loading DockEast Side of Loading Dock

Entrance to Cargo Building from Loading DockDock

Northwest Side of Cargo BuildingNorthwest Side of Cargo Building

Cargo BuildingCargo Building

Cargo Building Cedar Lap SidingCargo Building Cedar Lap Siding

Northeast Side of Cargo BuildingNortheast Side of Cargo Building

CDP Booth on Northeast Side of

East Side of Cargo BuildingEast Side of Cargo Building

Top window of Southeast Side of Cargo BuildingBuilding

Southeast Corner of Cargo BuildingSoutheast Corner of Cargo Building

Cedar Siding on the Southeast side of

Entrance on the Southeast Side of Cargo BuildingBuilding

Breezeway Connection Between Cargo Building and Warehouse on the South SideBuilding and Warehouse on the South Side

Outside Air Vent on the Southeast Side of WarehouseWarehouse

South side of WarehouseSouth side of Warehouse

Southwest Corner of WarehouseSouthwest Corner of Warehouse

Southwest Corner Warehouse Kal LightSouthwest Corner Warehouse Kal Light

West and Southwest Corner of WarehouseWest and Southwest Corner of Warehouse

GSA Office on West side of WarehouseGSA Office on West side of Warehouse

GSA Office from the West Side of Warehouse

West Side of Auto Bus BuildingWest Side of Auto Bus Building

Auto Bus BuildingAuto Bus Building

Southwest Side Kal Light of Auto Bus BuildingSouthwest Side Kal Light of Auto Bus Building

Southwest Side of Auto Bus BuildingSouthwest Side of Auto Bus Building

CBP Booth on the South Side of the Auto Bus BuildingCBP Booth on the South Side of the Auto Bus Building

CBP Booth on South Side of Auto Bus BuildingCBP Booth on South Side of Auto Bus Building

South Side of Auto Bus BuildingSouth Side of Auto Bus Building

East Side of the Auto Bus BuildingEast Side of the Auto Bus Building

East Side of the Auto Bus BuildinfgEast Side of the Auto Bus Buildinfg

Northeast Corner of Auto Bus BuildingNortheast Corner of Auto Bus Building

North Side of the Auto Bus BuildingNorth Side of the Auto Bus Building

Northwest Corner of the Auto Bus BuildingNorthwest Corner of the Auto Bus Building