The Truth About Deception

Is it just me or do you think it is extremely difficult to get a straight answer these days? Life seemed to be so much simpler thirty years ago when business deals were done with a handshake and character was something one earned rather than purchased. Today I can reduce my age by ten years with a simple Botox treatment, and become a stallion with a little blue pill. I see the same smoke and mirror routine widely practiced in the replacement window industry. The enormous sum of money associated with replacement windows has created an industry that fuels deception and false truths. This is evidenced by the large number of FTC lawsuits against replacement window companies for false advertising last year.

There are two major advantages promulgated by the replacement window industry that fail to pass the reality test. The first is that energy efficiency garnered by replacement windows will have a positive payback over a short period of time. The other is that replacement windows are low maintenance and will have lower overall repair costs. Let us take a close look at both of these factors to see if they hold water.

Operational Costs

The operational cost of a window is defined as the cost of energy to heat and cool the area around the window. A more energy efficient window will have lower operational costs and this reduction is the crux of most window decisions. Since the major window manufacturers test their windows, they have published statistics on key energy efficiency metrics such as air infiltration, U/R values, and solar heat gain. Existing historic windows do not have such published statistics so it can be difficult to make a direct comparison.

Bailey Edward Architecture conducted a detailed study comparing two versions of restored windows to a leading manufacturer of aluminum clad wood windows to evaluate the actual operational cost difference. In this study, a replacement window was installed next to a restored single-pane wood double hung with a storm window and a restored wood double hung that was converted with insulated glass. All three window openings were tested by an independent testing laboratory that specializes in fenestration testing. The following were the results of the study:

Window Type               Air Infiltration          U Value                Solar Heat Gain

Existing with Storm                0.03                     0.441                            0.597

Restored with IG                   0.12                     0.362                            0.320

ReplacementWindow            0.01                     0.322                            0.329

Now these statistics may not mean much to the lay person, but they certainly refute the claims you see on the websites of major window manufacturers who claim 83% better energy efficiency. Bailey Edward applied the tested performance data of the three different windows to the actual energy costs of the building in question using historic heating and cooling costs. The results of this extrapolation showed that the existing window with a storm would have a total annual energy cost of $173,541. The restored window with an insulated glass conversion had total annual energy consumption of $170,395 and the replacement window had a figure of $171,880. This study effectively cuts through the misinformation promoted by the replacement window industry. There is no significant operational cost difference between restoring existing windows with a storm window or insulated glass and replacing the windows.

Maintenance Costs

Bailey Edward did an excellent job of analyzing the maintenance costs of the three different window types. Maintenance items like repairing a spring or cord, exterior painting, interior painting, caulking, and cleaning were all incorporated in the cost evaluation. These costs were totaled for a 50 year expected lifespan and then annualized for direct comparison. When these costs were summarized for the building in question, the existing window with a storm had the highest annual maintenance cost of $66,763 because of the increased cost of having to clean four surfaces of glass. There was virtually no difference in the annual maintenance costs of the restored insulated glass window and the replacement version with those units recording $50,642 and $49,071 respectively.

Another critical factor that isn’t widely known is that most replacement windows are designed so that it’s not possible to replace the insulated glass when it fails. They are designed to be replaced not repaired. The life expectancy of insulated glass is difficult to predict because it depends upon the size of the glass, temperature and atmospheric pressure fluctuations, wind loads, working loads, sunlight, and exposure to water and water vapor. The replacement industry warrants the glass for 20 years. On average you can expect a double seal insulated glass with a good desiccant to last 30 years. An old-growth wood window will last ten times that since it can be maintained. So why would someone want to replace a window with a 300 year lifespan with one that has only 30?

When one evaluates the true operational and maintenance costs of replacement windows compared to window restoration it’s clear that the case for replacement is weak. Restoring historic windows still makes economic sense in the long run. Unfortunately, window restoration just doesn’t have the sex appeal, marketing budget, or LEED backing of the replacement window industry. Instead of automatically giving old windows a shot of Botox by replacing them, why not restore them to their original beauty? That way they can age gracefully for another 50 years and maintain the authenticity of the structure.

YOU WOOD NEVER BELIEVE THIS

Last week I gave my 17-year-old daughter the speech about how when something looks too good to be true, it usually is. A teenager’s life is certainly challenging and doesn’t need to be complicated by Internet scams, Lance Armstrong-type role models, and cyber-boyfriends who don’t really exist. This made me think about a building material that has proven to defy this principle.

I have been in the wood window business for 26 years and have been very dismayed at the poor quality of manufactured windows in the United States. As a result, my company is constantly searching for better finishes, exterior cladding methods, preservative treatments, and more durable wood species. It was in this quest that we ran across a wood called Accoya. The website said the wood is guaranteed to last 50 years unfinished above ground and is more durable than teak. Normally I would have just laughed and then placed another order for mahogany, but the fact that the product has been used in Europe for the past 75 years piqued my interest.

Accoya is radiata pine that is subjected to a proprietary non-toxic process that permanently changes the molecular structure of the wood. Accoya is based on acetylated wood technology which is a process that impregnates wood with acetic anhydride, which is similar to a very strong vinegar. This produces a wood that smells like the salad I had last weekend. The process involves placing the lumber into massive pressure vessels and forcing acetic anhydride under immense pressure into the very core of the wood. This process is then reversed and a vacuum removes 99.7% of the liquid from the wood, leaving the radiata pine permanently altered. The resulting product is a wood that absorbs water, but doesn’t swell up in the process so its dimensionally stable, impregnable to fungi, and not attractive to insects. Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it?

The engineers at Re-View put the product through our own testing regimen to see if we might consider it for window fabrication. We took sample wood blocks of Accoya and tested the internal moisture content and measured the outside dimensions with a micrometer. We then submersed the wood blocks into a bucket of water for 30 days. When we removed the blocks and tested the moisture and dimensions, nothing had changed. That single test convinced our team that this wood had serious potential.

Our next step was to see how the wood reacted to all of the other products that come into contact with the wood. Of primary importance was how different finishes reacted to the acetylated wood. Sherwin Williams conducted a series of tests and determined that the best combination of exterior finishes was an oil-based primer with an acrylic latex intermediate and final finish. The wood was exposed to 1540 hours of testing in a humidity chamber and freeze/thaw cycles from -5F to 120F. The finishes passed with flying colors. One thing we did discover is that the wide grain pattern of the radiata pine is not very suitable for an interior stain application. Accoya has recently made improvements by introducing an acetylated alder option that stains much better than the radiata.

In addition to the testing of the finishes, our staff tested adhesives. We discovered that polyvinyl Acetate (PVA) based glue like the Titebond II and Titebond III, or the Gorilla Wood Glue products are not effective with Accoya. The best adhesive for joinery and glue ups of Accoya is a polyurethane-based glue. Gorilla Glue makes a good polyurethane adhesive so we had the company conduct adhesion tests using Gorilla Glue on a mortise and tenon joint. The polyurethane Gorilla Glue is a very effective bonding agent for the Accoya species.

Finally we tested different fasteners that are exposed to the Accoya. We found that only non-ferrous fasteners can be used with Accoya. The acetic anhydride used in making the wood will accelerate deterioration of typical steel or galvanized nails and screws. Since it is a good practice to only use stainless steel fasteners for exterior applications, this isn’t a problem.

Accoya is very nearly too good to be true. Our research, however, shows that this revolutionary wood provides the following:

1. Outstanding Durability – Accoya has a Class 1 rated durability that surpasses teak and has a 50 year warranty for above ground applications and 25 years below ground.

2. Dimensionally Stable – Since Accoya doesn’t absorb moisture, shrinking, swelling, and warping is dramatically reduced which makes it more compatible for fabrication and better performing in the field.

3. Insect Barrier – Since Accoya is indigestible to a wide range of insects including termites, it doesn’t need additional treatments that have a limited performance life.

4. Sustainable – Accoya comes from managed forests and is certified by FSC, PERC and other regional certification bodies.

5. Excellent Machinability – Accoya is made from either radiata pine or alder, both of which are great woods for machining.

Re-View has used Accoya on many national landmark projects. It is our intent to manufacture windows that will last 50-100 years, and we think Accoya is an excellent material to meet that goal. You can see some of the projects Re-View has done by accessing the following link: Re-View Facebook

The Dutch town of Sneek wanted the town's entry

bridge to be a symbol of its maritime history.  Accoya

was selected because of its incredible durability.

The "Moses Bridge" is crafted with Accoya because

it can withstand constant exposure to water.

Don't Follow the LEED

I have never been the type of person to enthusiastically join organizations. Whether it was a fraternity in college, business association, church, or country club, I always saw my membership as limiting my involvement in other groups. As is often the case, these groups tend to influence their members to adhere to their guiding principles and to compete with, rather than accept similar organizations that share compatible philosophies. This jaded viewpoint of mine has fueled a healthy skepticism that enables me to see through the groupthink dogma that is associated with even very highly revered institutions. One such organization that has received glowing praise over the past 12 years is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) that was established by the USGBC.

I think it is time for the construction industry to wake up and begin to think for ourselves again. Too many design and building professionals have drunk the LEED Kool-Aid and have lost their independence. What was originally drafted as an excellent format to realign our priorities towards energy efficiency and environmental stewardship has morphed into a strict guideline that is limiting creativity and compromising common sense in construction. Developers, architects, and contractors who have been challenged by the economic climate have embraced LEED as a means of differentiation. Others have jumped onto the bandwagon just so they wouldn’t be left behind. Now we have a massive fraternity of lemmings, blindly applying their points and paying their dues so they can add four letters to their business card and promote their projects in the marketplace.

It is difficult to be critical of a program like LEED and an organization like the USGBC. This program has had a profound effect on realigning priorities in the construction industry at a time when the United States needed to take serious action in changing the energy consumption and resource utilization of the built environment. By focusing the design community on five main categories of sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality, LEED has had a positive effect on influencing the industry to pay attention to a positive set of guidelines. But over the past couple of years, the LEED program has lost its effectiveness. The industry is tuned into the concept of stewardship and doesn’t need a Martha Stewart recipe for responsible design. And the USGBC leadership has morphed into a capitalistic juggernaut.

Architects, general contractors, manufacturers, forests, distributors, and owners have spent millions of dollars a year to secure and maintain certification in this club. The minimum cost for membership is now $1,500 for a small firm and the cost for manufacturers is staggering. USGBC annual revenues have ballooned to over $107 million dollars and the organization has registered a profit of just under $15 million. Not bad for a non-profit organization. They also have an astounding 36% of revenues allocated to administrative expenses and membership development costs. I tip my hat to the founders for being able to generate such a money making machine in the construction industry during the worst economic times since the great depression. Unfortunately, the immense wealth being amassed by the USGBC is tainting its mission in the same way money has undermined the character of professional sports. For example, the USGBC shelved a much needed revision to the LEED code last year either because of inertia or because of paybacks from contributing groups like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

And the membership costs levied by the venerable USGBC are just part of the equation. In the pursuit of gaining a Platinum status, the entire construction team is burdened by a massive documentation process that audits the intent of the project. The red tape involved in a LEED project makes our government look streamlined. Thousands of hours are spent on a typical project just to track and collect paperwork to justify behavior and intent. Many material costs are also increased because of the perceived value of the LEED certification. For example, we have seen FSC certified wood run 20% higher than the same wood from the same forest without the official certification paperwork. Do we really need to be adding nonsensical administrative costs to the construction process at this moment?

A single program is not capable of satisfying all our challenges in commercial construction. As the USGBC behemoth has grown over the past ten years, its followers have accepted the guidelines without consideration of whether there was a better way. Only recently have we seen opposition to some of the LEED claims and requirements. Henry Gifford has made a compelling argument that the energy saving claims made by USGBC are more a result of manipulating numbers than creating structures that are more energy efficient than the existing stock of buildings. The States of Maine and Georgia have made progress in striking down USGBC requirements of using strictly FSC certified lumber since this eliminates a high percentage of sustainable lumber found in the United States. And in the past year, the Department of Defense abandoned the LEED program for a code based upon ASHRE 189.1. Preservationists are also making compelling arguments to pay attention to the embodied energy of a building rather than replace all elements in the pursuit of superior R Value.

So I ask the design community to regain your independence. Don’t be beholden to a program that is tantamount to a 12-step program for responsible construction. The basis of your design should be predicated upon your inspiration and guided by the owner’s desires, intended use, budget, and presence in the community. Use your common sense rather than a checklist that gives you extra points for bike racks and preferred parking spots for battery powered cars. As was once said by Frank Lloyd Wright, “There is nothing more uncommon than common sense.”

Keeping it Real

I made the mistake of going Christmas shopping over the weekend and was forced to contend with the masses in the ritual of adorning the base of our tree with a bunch of stuff that nobody really needs. The experience made me think about the window industry. One outgrowth of our capitalistic society that I am disgusted with is the consumption-based mentality that has rapidly grown over the past fifty years. Manufacturers, advertisers, and the media have promulgated a lifestyle that is based upon fashion and instant gratification rather than substance. Just take a look at the hordes of people in the malls over the next couple of weeks if you don’t believe me. This boom of consumerism has given birth to a replacement society. When our cell phone breaks down, we replace it. When our television malfunctions, we swap it for a cheap replacement. Most of the clothing and furniture sold in the United States is cheap stuff manufactured in China that will need to be replaced before it goes out of style. And riding high on this trend for disposal is the window replacement industry.

Instead of pontificating about all the reasons one should restore historic windows rather than consider replacement, I'd like to address just one issue: replacement windows can ruin the look of a good building. Whether you are looking at vinyl, aluminum, wood, or steel replacement windows, there are very few manufacturers who offer acceptable facsimiles of the originals. These manufacturers contend with constraints that influence their engineering. Some are unable to replicate old windows because they use materials that cannot match the originals. Others are dedicated to sustaining a low price point and neglect to invest in suitable designs. And still others just don’t get it or don’t care to even pay attention. For the most part, the replacement window industry does a very poor job in offering products that look like the existing windows.

Even given vast improvements in UV inhibitors and advances in finishes, the vinyl window industry continues to produce primarily stark white products. Some manufacturers now offer a tan color. Talk about a segment that is mired in the Henry Ford era. They also contend with restrictions on size given the weak structural characteristics of the vinyl material and internal reinforcement. It is not uncommon to see two vinyl windows occupy an opening that once had a single double hung window simply because they cannot match the original window size. The vinyl window manufacturers are also under a great deal of pressure to maintain a competitive price point so most designs are very simplistic and ignore many of the profiles that add substance to the architecture.

The aluminum window manufacturers are very excited about the historic window arena given the state of the economy. They have become masters of attempting to make a standard window look custom. The formula they subscribe to is that you can make a standard window look like a replica by adding specially extruded trimmings to a basic window series. By applying a decorative brickmould and a surface-applied coped muntin bar to the window, it can now be promoted as “historic.” Most will even try to replicate the window lugs on the top sash by screwing a cast aluminum block to the lower corners of the upper sash. Unfortunately, the boxy appearance of the standard window design with stiles and rails that are much wider than the original completely alter the architecture. Many of these installations are set into an aluminum frame that is installed over the existing wood window frame, further infringing upon the sightlines of the original window.

The aluminum clad wood window manufacturers operate in a very similar fashion to their aluminum counterparts by taking standard products and adding trim such as brickmould and muntins that come close to matching existing designs. Stile and rail dimensions still fail to match. Their designs have size limitations on venting window units because of a an average sash thickness of only 1-3/8” and a cheap block and tackle balance system. This forces large units to become fixed or combined with other windows or infill. Most of the manufacturers have two options for replacement windows. One option is a package of two sash that are set in the original frame with a cheap plastic jamb liner that fails to match the existing finish. The other option is a window in a smaller frame that can be installed in the existing frame’s sash pocket just like a vinyl replacement window. The aluminum clad wood window manufacturers like to wrap the frame with aluminum break metal or profiled brickmould. This metal is often secured with exposed fasteners and caulking at all joints which attracts dust and fails within a couple of years. Often the break metal has a different finish than the window and fades at a different rate. Another disadvantage is a design that inhibits the ability to repair the window. If the glass breaks, the entire sash and often the entire unit must be replaced. So these manufacturers have successfully designed a bona fide “replacement window”.

So if you find yourself getting caught up in the spirit of consumerism this season and begin to have dreams of sugar plums and iPhones, remember that your work is your signature.  You really don't want to have your name associated with some of the common replacement window problems pictured below:

These stark white vinyl window replacements

had to be fixed windows since the window

opening is too big for a vinyl double hung.

 

 

 

And they even added decorative trim

to the infill for this aluminum window

replacement.  If you are going to ruin a 

building, you might as well do it with style. 

 

 

 

Note how these aluminum replacements

attempt to simulate a double hung

window with a fake horizontal rail.  I guess

if you are going to put an awning like

that over the entrance, it doesn't matter

what the windows look like.

Take a look at the aluminum window replacements on the

third floor compared to the original wood windows on

the second floor.  If this picture doesn't convince you of

how aluminum window replacements will change sightlines

than nothing will.

The reduced sightlines of an aluminum

replacement window don't look any

better from the interior.

This is a common situation where the

aluminum window manufacturer cannot

make a venting window of this size so

they settle on a fixed/hopper combo.

Look at the infill panels on these

aluminum replacement windows.

This aluminum clad wood window replacement shows how

the sightlines have been completely changed.  The aluminum

break metal has none of the profiles of the original millwork.

Also note how the window has faded at a different rate than

the break metal.

Note the exposed fasteners and dirty sealant

lines on this aluminum clad replacement window.

Observe the stark contrast in metal colors due

to using different finishes on the window and the frame.

Note the fake sash lug on the corner

of the upper sash.  Why even try to

match the original when it looks this bad? 

Architectural Felonies

I was looking at the construction documents for a county courthouse restoration project last week and was absolutely appalled at what the construction team was intending to do to this landmark property. Here is a building that was originally constructed in 1876 and is one of the most significant functioning courthouses in the State of Missouri. One would think that the restoration of such a building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places would respect the integrity of the design and the existing materials. Instead, the request for proposals was asking for the original wood double hung windows that span 14 feet tall to be replaced. These monumental windows are the signature of the building. They are without a doubt a defining characteristic of the architecture. The architect for this project specified a complete replacement with a fixed aluminum system with small operable awnings. The replacement will look like a flat storefront system instead of a double hung window. How does this happen? How does a significant piece of architecture that is listed on the Register get butchered like this?

I am not a bleeding heart, tree hugging, fanatic who feels that every building must be saved and that nobody should make design changes to current architecture. I like to think of myself as a pragmatist who is capable of rationally evaluating the social and economic impacts of various preservation strategies. I am also sensitive to changes in design that might be required for repurposing a building. But there is a problem when compromises are made to significant architecture that defines a community. Although we are supposed to have checks and balances to prevent this from happening such as the National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Officers, projects still fall between the cracks. So how does this happen? I think the following factors can contribute to what I would call an architectural felony.

1. Underfunded Budget

An underfunded budget is often responsible for compromises in the architectural details of a preservation project. It can initially be much less expensive to replace a historic wood window with a cheap vinyl unit than to restore the original. The low budget helps people ignore the fact that they are replacing a 100 year old window with a window that has a life expectancy of 20 years. I am constantly amazed at how lack of funds can inspire irrational behavior.

2. LEED Programs

Programs such as LEED promote a window replacement mentality for preservation projects. Since the USGBC is partially financed by building product manufactures, they encourage replacement with new materials rather than restoration. You can get points by replacing the windows with windows that have Energy Star Ratings, have a published U-Value under a certain amount, or utilize FSC lumber. Little consideration is given to options that enhance the energy performance of the existing windows. Also, this program ignores the costs of disposing of 100 year old windows with replacements that will last for only 20 years.

3. Anti-Terrorism Design

In the wake of the 1995 terrorist bombing of the AP Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the GSA adopted blast resistant standards for federal facilities. Since the window openings are vulnerable to blast exposure, the goal to upgrade the blast integrity of the fenestration often conflicts with the historic character of the windows. The design of blast resistant windows has no historic relevance and fails to match the existing systems. It is possible, however to make compromises where both agendas can be satisfied. Re-View has restored historic wood and steel windows and then installed a blast resistant storm window into the opening. We have also adapted existing windows with laminated glass.

4. Owner-Driven Preferences

Often the owners of the buildings and their maintenance departments get involved in the design phase of a preservation project and insert their agenda on the scope of work. This contingent usually is very focused on reducing maintenance costs and improving energy efficiency. There is a misperception that if one can replace the historic wood windows with aluminum or vinyl, you will never have to worry about painting again. Since this group has no formal preservation training, they tend to gravitate towards short-term solutions that have lower costs. These decision makers only hope that they will retire before the replacement windows have to be replaced.

5. Inexperienced Architects

There are a lot of very talented restoration architects in the United States. They achieved success by becoming students of the trade and learning on the job through the school of hard knocks. In these tough economic times, it is not uncommon to see architectural firms stretch beyond their competencies in the pursuit of other business opportunities. We often run into architects who have little to no experience on preservation projects. These newbies are inclined to utilize means and methods of new construction because that is their frame of reference. Inexpensive window replacements are a common specification item for inexperienced architects.

I guess I shouldn’t get upset about the windows on a single courthouse. Last year a tragedy occurred in Toledo, Ohio. The commissioners of the Seneca County Courthouse voted to demolish an architectural gem because it was less expensive to build a new courthouse. This signature building constructed in 1884 succumbed to the wrecking ball while protesters cried on the sidelines. One thing we could all learn from our friends in Europe is to show more respect for historic architecture. As preservationist we need to view ourselves as the stewards of the historic environment.

These magnificent double hung windows are
being replaced with aluminum storefront

Seneca County Courthouse Before Demolition

Seneca County Courthouse Demolition

Good Question!

Let's Not Get Too Testy

Testing in the fenestration industry has been practiced for many decades especially in the commercial sector. It has long been a common practice to conduct mockup tests on custom curtainwall designs that are project specific prior to fabrication and installation. These tests assure that the details as designed will perform as intended under the harsh realities of Mother Nature. The industry has also accepted testing of new window and door products to equip the consumer with an understanding of what they are actually purchasing. There is a big difference in structural, thermal, and air/water infiltration ratings for the hundreds of different window designs made from steel, aluminum, wood, vinyl, and fiberglass. Testing of these products enables one to determine the differences between various products. Architectural window testing has served the industry well in defining performance, influencing design, and establishing quality control. It is only natural, therefore, to be tempted to apply standardized tests to existing historic wood and steel windows for a preservation project. For this to be a rewarding experience, however, one must think before applying a boiler plate testing standard to a preservation project.

There are several agencies and organizations that are involved in the testing of windows and doors such as American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA), American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM), Window & Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). ASTM for instance has drafted testing methodologies for windows and doors that evaluate specific performance metrics for the specimen. For example, an ASTM E2068 rates the force required to open a window, ASTM E283 tests for air infiltration, and ASTM E547 evaluates the water resistance of the window system. These agencies often work together in defining new standards. Back in 2008, AAMA, WDMA, and CSA combined to draft a standard that is widely used in North America called the 101/IS.2/A440. A full battery of tests on a window will include evaluating the window’s resistance to forced entry, structural integrity, deflection of the window under structural loads, resistance to water and air, and the force required to open the window.

So if these agencies have contributed so much to understanding the integrity of newly manufactured window systems, one would think that you should be able to incorporate similar testing towards the evaluation of historic wood and steel windows. Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case. Most historic wood and steel windows that were manufactured 75+ years ago were not designed to pass modern-day testing standards. That doesn’t mean they are unsuitable for the structure, it just means they won’t pass many of the current test standards. Air infiltration and water resistance testing are most commonly requested on historic windows. I will save you $4,000 and a lot of headaches by informing you that a 75 year old wood double hung will fail an AAMA 502 water test. You can minimize this effect by installing storm windows, but a redesign of the sill and weather stripping must be done if you are going to achieve modern performance levels on a water test. It is important, therefore, to understand what are the realistic performance expectations of your existing historic windows prior to considering applying a testing criteria to the project.

There are situations where testing of historic windows makes sense. We have found testing to be very valuable when you have a situation where the entire window system must be replicated. In these cases where everything is going to be replaced with a custom, one-of-a-kind window, this distinct design should be tested. Re-View has manufactured thousands of complete replica window units that match the original drawings of a historic building. We recommend testing any new design that hasn’t be subjected to the testing criteria in the past as a means to insure that the product engineering performs as anticipated. Since the tests are designed to subject the window under peak stress conditions, product design deficiencies quickly rise to the surface. We learned a great deal about adapting the design of the sash, glazing, frames, finishes, and weather stripping as a result of our many test experiences.

I thought it might be helpful if I shared some actual lessons we learned while testing windows over the years:

• The area where our frame jambs meet the sill had to be completely redesigned after a test many years ago because water penetrated this joint. Originally our means of sealing this joint was similar to very widespread industry practices. If it weren’t for the water test, we wouldn’t have known that this joint is a common weakness in many window designs.

• One would think that windows fabricated by large international manufacturers would easily pass a random water test, but we had catastrophic failure on a field test of a frame design of a standard product offering from one of the largest wood window manufacturers in the world. So don’t completely trust published testing statistics on existing designs.

• We have experienced immediate failure on water testing of standard historic double hung windows because the rise in the sill isn’t high enough to withstand the rise in the water when it is put under pressure during the test. That is why you see modern windows with a sill design that rises above 1-1/2 inches.

• We experienced glazing leakage very early in our history during a test that influenced a total redesign of our glazing design and methods of application. The results of this test inspired us to invest in automated glazing equipment, purchase different types of sealant, and redesign the glazing rabbit on our sash.

• We discovered that ballistic glass will fail if you hit the same area with a second round.

• Our engineering team enjoys pushing the tests beyond the standard criteria. It is quite common for us to take the tests to another level to push the window to a point of failure. We have learned a great deal about structural issues and water penetrations by amplifying the testing way beyond the published standards. It can be pretty alarming to see a massive window specimen literally blow up before your eyes when exposed to pressures many times the test standards.

• We conduct accelerated testing of paint finishes whenever we evaluate a different species of wood or alternative finishes. We also incorporate adhesion testing of field applied finishes as a quality control mechanism. Our plant uses non-destructive paint mil thickness testing as another QC tool.

Take a look at our Facebook page to see pictures of many of the tests we have conducted on our historic window designs in the past:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.405489146173765.95095.118211914901491&type=1#!/media/set/?set=a.405489146173765.95095.118211914901491&type=1

Scantily Clad Windows

What many of our customers don’t know is that the ownership of Re-View cut our teeth in the window business by selling and installing aluminum clad wood windows. We have installed thousands of windows manufactured by the largest window manufacturers in the world, including Andersen, Pella, Marvin, Eagle, and Weather Shield. Over the past five years, these manufacturers have made significant efforts to market their products as replacements for historic wood windows. Designers who are attracted to the prospect of low maintenance and energy efficiency are buying the message and specifying aluminum clad wood windows as replacements for wood windows that have lasted for 100+ years. Unfortunately, there is a serious problems with using aluminum clad wood window replacements in historic applications.


The big selling point for the aluminum clad wood window manufacturers is the concept of a low maintenance exterior. Clad windows are designed with an exterior skin of aluminum applied to the exposed sash and frame parts that has a baked on finish applied at the factory. The manufacturers use either roll-formed cladding or extruded cladding on their windows. Roll formed cladding is very thin which makes it easy to bend and form into tight shapes and profiles. It is less expensive than extruded aluminum since the material is so thin. Extruded aluminum, on the other hand, is much thicker and must be extruded through a die to create a desired shape. Extruded cladding is more impervious to denting than roll formed cladding. The cladding is typically connected to the wood through a clip system or other mechanical methods.

The marketing tune played by the large manufacturers includes never having to paint your windows again. This is a very attractive message for schools, courthouses, and offices that don’t have annual maintenance budgets for finishing. Unfortunately, most of the major manufacturers have catastrophic errors in their cladding and sash designs that seriously limit their life expectancy. You may not have to ever paint the aluminum clad wood window, but you will have to replace it within a 10-30 year timeframe.

The cladding on the sash of most of the window manufacturers is sealed to the glass with either a glazing tape or butyl sealant. Both of these methods have a 10-year life span at best so at some point, water is going to penetrate this seal. Many of the manufacturers recommend applying a cap bead of silicone to the sash to prevent leaks. Unfortunately, none of the major wood window manufacturers incorporate water management into their designs. The glazing pocket is typically unfinished wood that has only been surface treated with a wood preservative. There are no weep holes built into the glazing pocket to allow water to escape. Once water breaches the main seal, it will be contained within its built-in sarcophagus, accelerating the wood rot process. This major design defect is the primary reason the wood window industry is under attack. Just get on Google and type in “class action lawsuit against wood window manufacturers” and you will see what I mean about the wholesale wood rot epidemic eating at the heart of the industry. These wood rot problems have also fueled the growth of aluminum, vinyl, and fiberglass window alternatives.

Another problem with aluminum clad wood windows is how the sash design does not allow for replacing the glass. Although there have been outstanding quality developments in insulated glass technology over the past ten years, you can be fairly certain that the seal will break sometime within the first 30 years. The clad wood window manufactures build the sash around the glass making it virtually impossible to replace the glazing. The main reason these manufacturers do not incorporate a reglazing feature in their designs is that the glass provides much of the structural integrity of the sash. Once the glass breaks or fails, the entire sash must be replaced. Since these companies change the designs of their window products approximately every five years, the entire window will have to be replaced if the design is obsolete. It is almost like the major wood window manufacturers have built in a mandatory replacement mechanism to help sustain their business model into the future.

When one looks at the epidemic levels of wood rot for aluminum clad wood windows and the inability to replace glass on these windows, it is obvious that replacing a 100 year old wood window is not be the best course of action.

You can access our Facebook page to see pictures of these clad wood window designs and resulting problems.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.386861071369906.89473.118211914901491&type=1#!/media/set/?set=a.386861071369906.89473.118211914901491&type=1