Council Rock High School South Seth Glinski Construction Management Spring 2003 Thesis

Council Rock High School South

Seth GlinskiConstruction Management

Spring 2003 Thesis

Seth GlinskiConstruction Management Option

Spring 2003 Thesis

Introduction Existing Conditions Structural Redesign Wall System Redesign Analysis Delivery Method

Analysis Recommendations

Agenda


Spring 2003 Thesis

IntroductionExisting ConditionsStructural RedesignWall SystemRedesign AnalysisDelivery Method

AnalysisRecommendations

IntroductionBuilding Overview

Building Architecture• 360, 000 SF Total Area• Two stories of classrooms• Large Auditorium and Gymnasium AreasSite Development• Full outdoor Tennis and Basketball Facilities• ¼ mile Track• Football, softball and baseball fields throughout site• Two road relocations


Spring 2003 Thesis

IntroductionConstruction Overview



Construction Started – July 2000Scheduled Completion – September 2002

Total Cost: $74 millionBuilding Only: $40 million

Design-> Bid-> Build


Spring 2003 Thesis

IntroductionSite Overview



•Northampton Township, PA

•Suburb of Philadelphia

•Surrounding Neighborhoods

•Formerly Farmland


Spring 2003 Thesis

IntroductionOwner Overview



- 95% of students pursue higher education- Mean SAT score of 531.7V, 573.1M- 28 National Merit commendations

Current High School – Designed for 2000 students

Current Enrollment - 3000

One of the most affluent school districts in PA


Spring 2003 Thesis

Existing ConditionsContract Overview

IntroductionExisting

ConditionsStructural RedesignWall SystemRedesign AnalysisDelivery Method


•Public Job

•Lump Sum

•Lowest Bidder


Spring 2003 Thesis

Existing ConditionsOriginal Estimate





Spring 2003 Thesis

Existing ConditionsOriginal Schedule




July 2000 – September 2002


Spring 2003 Thesis

Existing ConditionsOriginal Cash Flow Chart





Spring 2003 Thesis

Structural RedesignOverview of Original Design

IntroductionExisting ConditionsStructural

RedesignWall SystemRedesign AnalysisDelivery Method



Spring 2003 Thesis





Load-bearing CMU Block Walls

8” Hollow Core Plank

Concrete Slab


Spring 2003 Thesis





Why use this system?•Durability

•Acoustics

•Cost

•Ease Of Construction


Spring 2003 Thesis

Structural RedesignSteel Design




•Concrete Spread Footings

•Steel Columns

•Steel Beams

•Lightweight Concrete Slab on Metal Deck

•Metal Non-Loadbearing Studs

Steel System Elements


Spring 2003 Thesis





Assumptions•Live Load = 50 psf

•Dead Load = 30 psf

•Steel Strength = 50 ksi

•Concrete Strength = 3 ksi


Spring 2003 Thesis

Structural RedesignSteel Beam Layout





Spring 2003 Thesis






Spring 2003 Thesis

Wall SystemOverview



Option 1 : Non-loadbearing concrete block

Option 2 : Gypsum Wall Board

Time ??

Cost ??

Durability ??

Acoustics ??


Spring 2003 Thesis

Wall SystemFiberock



•Easy to Install•Ample Fire Rating

Very High Impact Abuse Resistant Gypsum Wallboard


Spring 2003 Thesis

Wall SystemAcoustics



TL = 10 log (1/ τ)

TL = Transmission Lossτ = Transmission

Coefficient.

•Good Acoustics Necessary to Provide an Appropriate Environment for Learning

•Sound Transmission Between Classrooms is Vital

Transmission Loss Equation


Spring 2003 Thesis

Wall SystemAcoustics



TL = 10 log (1/ τ)

TL = Transmission Lossτ = Transmission Coefficient.


Spring 2003 Thesis

Redesign AnalysisSchedule



Original Design – CMU/Plank Construction


Spring 2003 Thesis




Redesigned Steel Schedule


Spring 2003 Thesis




Start DateDec. 1Dec. 1

SystemOriginal

Proposed

Completion DateNov. 12May 21

•Proposed System Saves 6 months


Spring 2003 Thesis

Redesign AnalysisCost



Original Design Estimate


Spring 2003 Thesis




Steel Redesign Estimate


Spring 2003 Thesis




Original Design - $2,053,378Steel Redesign - $1,696,437

Savings = $356,941


Spring 2003 Thesis

Redesign AnalysisConstructability



Cranes?•Already 2 On Site•Needed for Plank Installation

Sequencing?•Divide by section•Divide by floor


Spring 2003 Thesis



Delivery Method AnalysisCouncil Rock Contract Structure

Pennsylvania State Law Requires CM

19 Prime Contractors


Spring 2003 Thesis



Delivery Method AnalysisContract Structure in Other States

General Contractor Runs Construction Process

Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC Contractors

Subcontractors

Owner Manages the Project Without Assistance


Spring 2003 Thesis



Delivery Method AnalysisAdvantages of CR’s Structure

•Construction Knowledge Brought to

the Owner

•Value Engineering During Design

•CM Doesn’t Hold Contracts

•Planning and Public Relations by the

CM

•Managing Change Orders, Submittals,

RFI’s

•Fulltime On-site Supervision

•Smaller Bid Packages Promote

Lower/Local Bids


Spring 2003 Thesis



Delivery Method AnalysisDisadvantages of CR’s CM Structure

•Contractor Bickering/ Finger-

pointing

•Lowest Bidder = Bad

Estimator

•Inability to Select Based on

Factors Other than Price


Spring 2003 Thesis



RecommendationsConclusion

Steel Redesign• Saves Time• Saves MoneyWall Redesign• Saves Time• Similar PerformanceConstruction Manager• Saves Money• Improved Management• It’s the Law


Spring 2003 Thesis



Acknowledgements

The Architectural Engineering Faculty of Penn State

The Architectural Engineering Class of 2003

Donald Alderfer

Ted Kryven

Michael Holland

My Family and Friends


Spring 2003 Thesis



Questions

Documents

Council Rock High School South Seth Glinski Construction Management Spring 2003 Thesis