1. Metro Nashville Schools
Koreteck Presentation
Koreteck solid core insulated wall panel systems
May 13, 2010

2. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
This one hour presentation provides for an understanding of sustainable wall construction using basic
panelized wall units vs. other modular products. The featured sustainable wall units presented will be
Koreteck solid core insulated panels.
Specifically we will give a brief description of Koreteck solid core insulated wall panel systems and then
discuss comparative data for Koreteck vs. cmu, insulated concrete forms, insulated tilt up wall construction,
and autoclaved aerated concrete panels. This data will compare each different wall system as they pertain to
wall costs per square foot, steady state R-values, installation rates, and cooling and heating loads.
Sustainable interior finish systems for the Koreteck panels will also be presented by Gigacrete natural mineral
cement-based interior wall coatings.
Following lunch we will walk outside and inspect a Koreteck wall mock-up with a brick veneer exterior and a
Gigacrete interior finish system.

3. Building Panelization
Cole Elementary School

4. DAY 1

5. Sustainability Studies
DAY 2

6. DAY 3

7. DAY 4

8. DAY 5

9. DAY 6

10. DAY 7

11. DAY 8

12. DAY 9

13. DAY 10

14. DAY 11

15. DAY 12

16. DAY 13

17. DAY 14

18. DAY 15

19. DAY 16

20. DAY 17

21. DAY 18

22. DAY 19

23. DAY 20

24. DAY 21

25. DAY 22

26. DAY 23

27. DAY 24

28. DAY 25

29. DAY 26

30. DAY 27

31. DAY 28

32. DAY 29

33. DAY 30

34. DAY 31

35. Sustainability Studies
PANEL LAYOUT

36. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
Climate Zones
Zone 1 is less than 2,000 CDD and greater than 7,000 HDD.
Zone 2 is less than 2,000 CDD and 5,500 – 7,000 HDD.
Chicago, IL – Zone 2 Zone 3 is less than 2,000 CDD and 4,000 – 5,499 HDD.
Zone 4 is less than 2,000 CDD and less than 4,000 HDD.
Austin, TX – Zone 5
Zone 5 is 2,000 CDD or more and less than 4,000 HDD.

37. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
Wall Systems Comparison / Life Cycle Overview
Koreteck Wall Systems
vs.
Xella AAC, CMU, Thermomass, and Polysteel Wall Systems

38. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
Wall Systems Comparison / Life Cycle Overview – Koreteck wall systems
vs.
Xella AAC, CMU, Thermomass, and Polysteel wall systems
1. Illustrations of one typical wall section in a Chicago, Illinois and Austin, Texas store
incorporating the use of each different product in their construction
2. Summary sheet
• Wall Costs per square foot
• Steady State R-Value
• Installation Time
• Cooling and Heating Loads

39. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
Section II
Wall Type 1
Koreteck
Wall Type 1

40. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
CMU XELLA AAC
Wall Type 1

41. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
Thermomass Polysteel
Wall Type 1

42. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
Summary Sheet
Wall Costs (per sq. ft.)
CMU XELLA AAC KORETECK Thermomass Polysteel
Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago
Wall Type 1 $27 $41 $35 $50 $34 $46 $42 $50 $37 $58
R-Value (Steady State)
Wall Type 1 3.23 (0.310) 13.68 (0.073) 34.73 (0.029) 12.63 (0.079) 24.04 (0.042)
Installation Time (1 Man Day production)
Wall Type 1 79 sq. ft. 235 sq. ft. 244 sq. ft. 100 sq. ft. 86 sq. ft.
Cooling (Tons Per Hour) for the entire building envelope
Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago
53.3 50.7 21.1 18.1 17.3 15.7 21.8 18.8 18.6 16.3
Heating Loads (MBH) for the entire building envelope
Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago Austin Chicago
758 1326.3 238.8 434.5 153.0 268.3 255.9 457 182.9 316.6

43. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
Section IV
Conclusions

44. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
IV. Conclusions
1. Individual Rankings
2. Overall Rankings

45. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
Individual Rankings
Initial Wall Costs (lowest to highest)
1. Concrete Masonry Units
2. Koreteck Insulated Metal Panel System
3. Xella Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels
4. Polysteel Insulated Concrete Forms
5. Thermomass (tilt-up)
R – Values (Steady State) (best to worst)
1. Koreteck Insulated Metal Panel System
2. Polysteel Insulated Concrete Forms
3. Xella Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels
4. Thermomass (tilt-up)
5. Concrete Masonry Units
Installation Rates (lowest to highest)
1. Koreteck Insulated Metal Panel System
2. Xella Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels
3. Thermomass (tilt-up)
4. Polysteel Insulated Concrete Forms
5. Concrete Masonry Units
Thermal Performance (best to worst)
1. Koreteck Insulated Metal Panel System
2. Polysteel Insulated Concrete Forms
3. Xella Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels
4. Thermomass (tilt-up)
5. Concrete Masonry Units

46. Wall Systems Comparison
Sustainability Studies
Overall Rankings – Pros and Cons
Pros: Cons:
• Second least expensive of all 5 materials • Cannot Handle Shear Loading; Building must be
braced
Koreteck Insulated Metal • Best Steady State R-Value
1st Panel System • Fastest Installation rates
• Exposed insulation on both sides of the panels
which must be covered
• Highest Thermal Performance • Requires additional misc. steel supports
• Third least expensive of all 5 materials
• Third Best Steady State R-Value • Cannot Handle Shear Loading; Building must be
2nd Xella Autoclaved Aerated • Second Fastest Installation rates braced
Concrete Panels • Third Highest Thermal Performance • Requires additional misc. steel supports
• Material can be painted or exposed
• Second Best Steady State R-Value
• Exposed insulation on both sides of the walls
• Second Highest Thermal Performance which must be covered
Polysteel Insulated Concrete
3rd Forms
• Installation of forms can be expedited by • Fourth least expensive of all 5 materials
panelizing them in the factory prior to erection
• Fourth Fastest Installation rates
• Third Fastest Installation rates • Casting slabs must be constructed and then
• removed
4th Thermomass (tilt-up) Walls can be constructed on the ground
incorporating all finish materials prior to • The most expensive of all 5 materials
erection • Fourth Best Steady State R-Value
• Product can be pre-cast or tilt-up • Fourth Highest Thermal Performance
• Worst Steady State R-Value
• Least expensive of all 5 materials • Worst Installation rates
5th Concrete Masonry Units
• Can be readily supplied • Worst Thermal Performance
• Most Wasteful