Archive through February 11, 2011

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 312 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 11:09 am:    A large expanse of low E glass is being blamed for poor cell phone/radio reception on a project here in Columbus. I've been trying to do some online research and haven't been able to find much of anything that talks about it (except for a window shield coating). Can't find anything on the glass fabricator websites either (Viracon, Guardian, etc.). Has anyone else heard of this or know whether its true or not? Tracy L. Van Niel, FCSI, CCS (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 11:16 am:    Urban myth? Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 313 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 11:41 am:    Maybe, but a person speaking for the owner is blaming the low e glass and indicating that the architect and/or contractor should have known it was a problem. I was trying to research it to see if I could find additional information. Tracy L. Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 418 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 12:11 pm:    Tracy, In addition to researching Low-E as the cause perhaps expand your research to include other building materials, product, systems that are known to interfere with cell phone/radio reception. How can one product be pinpointed as the culprit? There must be millions of SF of Low-E glass that does not cause this phenomena. Structural steel, steel studs, lead sheilding, distance and direction to cell tower, mechanical equipment, etc? Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 314 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 01:16 pm:    Thanks, Wayne. That's my feeling exactly, because I would have to think there'd be plenty of 'warnings' out there if low e was the sole source of problems. But I also wanted to see if anyone else might have had a problem so the reason for the post. Tracy L. Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 370 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 04:46 pm:    Hire a radio engineer. Any building material will inhibit radio waves. I do not believe the window covering plays any significant role. These problems can be dealt with the installation of cell phone micro cells within the building to provide better reception. The question could be whether you had a responsibility to identify the need for such a system or to design it along with the telecommunication system within the building. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 402 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 04:54 pm:    What is the Owner's basis for this assumption to start with. I've stood behind many a low-e window with no problem. What is their evidence - I mean real data or "my wife's phone doesn't work when inside the building" Seriously. before you can refute an assertion you need to know what the data is. water on the window stool isn't a leak if it is in a circle and happens only on days when I place my coffee cup there. Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 315 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 - 10:35 am:    LOL, good analogy Marc. I'm not really sure to be honest. From what I'm hearing, nothing supports the claim anyway. But it prompted my curiousity when I read the article, so wanted to research it to see if it was really true. Tracy L. Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1107 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 - 04:45 pm:    I agree; urban myth. Half the time I hear owner complaints they are based on something "someone" read "somewhere" that can't ever be found again. Marc's right -- you need the real data showing that its a problem. If you really want to "research" things you won't get paid for, I can send a few topics your way... J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 - 04:59 pm:    OK; how many bars on the cell phone when you are in the building and 5 feet from the center of the window. My hunch is just as many bars as you would have outside the building (maybe more if the building has antennae inside the building), but possibly fewer that it takes to make a group of specifiers forget about nonsense such as this (and by bars, I mean the ones with seats). Helaine K. Robinson CSI CCS CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 373 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2011 - 11:45 am:    Experts: New courthouse's poor cell reception no shock. Sprint suggested fix in 2009 for 'green' side effect http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/02/02/copy/experts-courts-poor-cell-reception-no-shock.html Bill Coady (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2011 - 10:35 pm:    I can't provide the specifics some commentators are calling for but I can confirm that yes, low E glass can interfere with cell phone reception. In addition, as Wayne comments, many other building materials will interfere with cell phone transmission and reception. Buildings with a lot of steel (structural framing, re-bar, interior studs, etc) will tend to have less robust cell reception and transmission. It is not simply a function of the building having low E glass but low E glass is a contributor to the situation. This is not limited to a single type of low E or to a single company. It is combination of the window-to-wall ratio, the amount of other metals in the building, the distance of the cell phone from the exterior of the building, and other contributing factors. Many large manufacturing facilities, including some with very limited amounts of exterior glass walls but high amounts of steel and perhaps long distances from cell phone users to exterior walls, have solved the problem by installing boosters or repeaters within the building. Think warehouses, manufacturing facilities, and yes, even float glass plants. It is my understanding that many large airports have installed repeaters as well. My company's Science & Technoloy Center is not a mega-warehouse. It is a single story office building with fairly sizeable footprint and it has high quality low E glass as well as a lot of steel framing. The cell reception on the interior is marginal to lousy. I've personally experimented with cell reception in the building and found that it is about the same if I'm near the exterior windows or deeper in the building (surrounded by metal studs, trusses, etc.) I'm sure the scientists and engineers have developed their own personal "best cell phone reception/tramission locations" for the building. Again, low E glass, being essentially thin metal you can see through, can contribute to less than robust cell coverage on the interior of a building but usually there are other and potentially more significant contributing factors such as large volumes of steel in the structure. Bill Coady, Guardian Industries. bcoady@guardian.com John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1297 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, February 11, 2011 - 12:25 pm:    The building I worked in for 5 years was built in the early '70s, without low-e I suspect. Cell phone reception was not great. It was equally lousy in the plaza outside in front of the building. This location, I should note, was in Cambridge less than a mile from Harvard University and about one mile from MIT, so we're not talking about the boonies. I've never heard of this phenomenon before, but doesn't every material inhibit cell phone reception, including wet trees? And was quality cell phone reception part of the owner's program?