Masonry Magazine October 1975 Page. 10
See These Leading Firms At The '76 MCAA Trade Show
AA Wire Products Co.
Allwash of Syracuse, Inc.
Anchor Manufacturing Company
Automatic Devices
Badger Dynamics, Inc.
Bil-Jax, Inc.
Bouwman Scaffold Co., Inc.
Brick Institute of America
Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen
International Union
CNA/Insurance
Champion Hoist Company
Christensen Diamond Products, U.S.A.
Construction Machinery Company
Corann Corp.
F. W. Dodge Division, McGraw-Hill Information Systems
Dur-O-Wal
E&R Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Essick Manufacturing Company
Robert G. Evans Company
Gilson Brothers Co.
W. R. Grace & Co.
Howmet Corporation, Southern Extrusions Division
International Harvester
International Masonry Institute
Kem-O-Kleen, Inc.
Koehring Construction Equipment Division
Mayco Pump Corp.
Melroe Division, Clark Equipment Co.
Morgen Manufacturing Co.
National Concrete Masonry Association
National Lime Association
Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp.
Pettibone Corp.
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
Prime-Mover Co.
Lull Engineering Co., Inc.
Stone Construction Equipment, Inc.
Strong Manufacturing Company
Texas Refinery Corp.
Thomsen Div., Royal Industries
WACO Scaffolding & Shoring Co.
Western Products
Williams Products, Inc.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
TOWN & COUNTRY HOTEL
MCAA Convention & Show
February 7-11, 1976
It's good old-fashioned American business sense to spend your dollars with firms that have an interest in your common welfare. The policy of the established mason contractor who patronizes manufacturers that support MCAA programs follows the line of sound business management and is a credit to the industry.
A Study of the Relative Economic Performance of MASONRY VS. GLASS OFFICE BUILDING
New and exhaustive research by the Texas State Building Materials and Systems Testing Laboratory has established that office buildings with brick exterior walls are much more energy conserving and provide greater return on investment than the same buildings with all-glass walls.
Comparing a typical office building having 15 stories with exterior walls of 80% brick (20% window area) to an all-glass exterior building, the research determined:
The brick building will out-perform the glass building as follows:
1. The brick building saves 9% in initial construction cost. (In this study $848,735)
2. The brick building saves nearly 34% in cash equity required.
3. The brick building reduces heating and air conditioning bills by 9.8%.
4. The brick building's annual operating costs are nearly 4% less. ($29,436 savings the first year)
5. The brick building's maximum rate of return on investment is 28% higher.
6. The brick building's rental income is the same as the glass building.
The report examines in detail the economic performance and energy usage of ten different exterior wall types for a typical hypothetical high-rise office building to be built in Dallas, Texas for occupancy in the summer of 1975. The statistics shown above are a comparison between two of those facades. (1) An all-glass exterior (70% insulating double pane reflective (metallic) plate glass with 30% glass spandrels); and (2) a brick building (80% conventional brick masonry walls with 20% tinted plate glass windows.)
The Texas State Building Materials and Systems Testing Laboratory (TSBMSTL) is a testing and evaluation facility created by an Act of the 1971 Texas Legislature to assist local governments, the construction industry, and the public through the evaluation of materials and methods in the building industry. Its research and laboratory operation is governed by one representative from each of nine participating state universities.
Some other key conclusions of the report are:
Heating and air conditioning operating costs attributable to windows are 2.4 to 3.5 times greater than for brick walls. (The best window walls require about 2½ times as much energy as brick masonry walls.)
(Continued on page 29)
masonry • Nov./Dec., 1975