Kenneth G. Kneas Construction Case Ready Facility Kneas Thesi… · Vaughn, Coltrane, Pharr, & ... John Sandrel, Innovative Refrigeration ... Microsoft PowerPoint - Ken Kneas Thesis

Case Ready FacilityHUMBOLDT INDUSTRIAL PARK

Hazelton, Pennsylvania

Presented By:

Kenneth G. KneasConstruction Management

Kenneth G. Kenneth G. KneasKneas

South East ProfileSouth East Profile


Thesis OutlineThesis Outline

Project OverviewProject OverviewIntroduction to ThemeIntroduction to ThemeDesign Alternative: Design Alternative: ThermomassThermomassInsulation Building SystemInsulation Building SystemSystem ComparisonsSystem ComparisonsDelivery System Evaluation Delivery System Evaluation


Project OverviewProject Overview

Meat Packaging and Processing Meat Packaging and Processing FacilityFacility250,000SF250,000SF85% 185% 1--Story Process, 15% 2Story Process, 15% 2--Story Story Executive Office Area and Worker Executive Office Area and Worker FacilitiesFacilitiesSteel Moment Frame Structure with Steel Moment Frame Structure with Insulated Metal Panel (IMP) VeneerInsulated Metal Panel (IMP) VeneerSubstantial RefrigerationSubstantial Refrigeration


Primary Project Team Primary Project Team ––Traditional Delivery SystemTraditional Delivery System

Project Owner/Developer: Project Owner/Developer: Jennings Jennings TookerTooker

General Contractor: General Contractor: SuittSuitt ConstructionConstruction

Architect/Engineer: Architect/Engineer: Vaughn, Coltrane, Pharr, & Vaughn, Coltrane, Pharr, & Associates Inc.Associates Inc.

Building Occupant: Building Occupant: Excel Foods, Inc.Excel Foods, Inc.


Project CostsProject Costs

Total Project Costs: Total Project Costs: $22.5 Million$22.5 Million

Site Work Contract:Site Work Contract:$4 Million$4 Million

Steel Contract: Steel Contract: $10 Million$10 Million

Building Costs: Building Costs: $18 Million$18 Million


3 Main Goals for Building 3 Main Goals for Building Construction ProjectsConstruction Projects

TimeTimeCostCost

QualityQuality

--A Project will only achieve 2 of these goalsA Project will only achieve 2 of these goals--Owner and Occupant Agreed upon the first 2 Owner and Occupant Agreed upon the first 2

–– Time Time andand CostCost


How Could this Project Have Been How Could this Project Have Been BetterBetter

Narrow margin for improvement in Narrow margin for improvement in terms of Cost and Timeterms of Cost and Time

–– Well run project, everyone happyWell run project, everyone happy–– Finished on time under budgetFinished on time under budget–– Finished within specified quality Finished within specified quality

requirementsrequirements

How could this project have been How could this project have been better?better?--Better Quality within the Finished Better Quality within the Finished ProductProduct


Area for Quality Improvement in Area for Quality Improvement in Excel Facility: IMP Wall SystemExcel Facility: IMP Wall System

Existing IMP System OverviewExisting IMP System Overview--MetlMetl--Span III Polyurethane Insulated Span III Polyurethane Insulated Cold Storage PanelsCold Storage Panels

--26 gauge steel both faces26 gauge steel both faces--3” Foam Insulation insert3” Foam Insulation insert--Attached to wall at columns and Attached to wall at columns and

horizontal Zhorizontal Z--girtsgirts--PrefabricatedPrefabricated


Problems with IMP Wall System Problems with IMP Wall System

Material ProcurementMaterial ProcurementPanel DamagePanel DamagePoor Aesthetic QualitiesPoor Aesthetic QualitiesBetter Thermal Properties with Better Thermal Properties with different Material Selectiondifferent Material SelectionDurability/LongevityDurability/Longevity


Proposed Better Design Solution: Proposed Better Design Solution:

TiltTilt--Up Sandwich Up Sandwich Panel SystemPanel System


TiltTilt--Up AdvantagesUp Advantages

Better Sanitation with ConcreteBetter Sanitation with ConcreteEasier Material AvailabilityEasier Material AvailabilityDurability Durability Fire ResistanceFire ResistanceLower Maintenance CostsLower Maintenance CostsLower Insurance RatesLower Insurance RatesBetter AestheticsBetter AestheticsLower Heating and Cooling CostsLower Heating and Cooling CostsBuilding SecurityBuilding Security


Introduction to Alternative for Introduction to Alternative for Existing IMP Wall SystemExisting IMP Wall System

THERMOMASS® THERMOMASS® Building Insulation Building Insulation SystemSystem

–– Site Site PrecastPrecast Sandwich Panel SystemSandwich Panel System–– Contains 2 concrete layers with an Contains 2 concrete layers with an

Insulation InsertInsulation Insert–– System held together with fiber composite System held together with fiber composite

connectorsconnectors


ThermomassThermomass System ComponentsSystem Components


Advantages Gained with the Advantages Gained with the ThermomassThermomass SystemSystem

Thermal Inertia that reduces Temperature swings and balances cooling loadsCan cause significant reduction in operation costs due to decreased utility billsWill not suffer from vapor problems caused by frost, ice, or condensation


Advantages Gained with the Advantages Gained with the ThermomassThermomass System Cont’dSystem Cont’d

Load-Bearing Wall System– Eliminates perimeter columnsPossible opportunity for off-peak operation only Composite Connectors do not allow heat and moisture to bridge across the wall and encourage concrete cracking and discoloration


Integration of Integration of ThermomassThermomass System System Into Existing Steel StructureInto Existing Steel Structure

Existing Structure AnalysisExisting Structure Analysis–– Steel Frame with Moment ConnectionsSteel Frame with Moment Connections–– Elimination of IMP and perimeter Elimination of IMP and perimeter

columns will compromise structural columns will compromise structural integrityintegrity

TiltTilt--Up Design SolutionUp Design Solution–– TiltTilt--Up Walls will act as shear wallsUp Walls will act as shear walls


ThermomassThermomass TiltTilt--Up Panel DesignUp Panel Design

Panel Design Dimensions:Panel Design Dimensions:



Maximum Loading Imposed on Maximum Loading Imposed on Members comes during Panel Members comes during Panel Lifting:Lifting:



Rebar Requirements in YRebar Requirements in Y--DirectionDirection



Wind and Shear Wind and Shear Loadings Imposed Loadings Imposed on the Building:on the Building:

Wind and Shear Wind and Shear Loadings Imposed Loadings Imposed on individual on individual Panels:Panels:



Rebar Requirements in XRebar Requirements in X--directiondirection–– #10 bars @ 12” #10 bars @ 12” o.co.c..


TiltTilt--Up Construction ProcessUp Construction Process

TiltTilt--Up Construction requires a well Up Construction requires a well thought out, efficient planthought out, efficient plan

Construction ZonesConstruction Zones–– Work divided into 10 different Work divided into 10 different

construction zonesconstruction zones


TiltTilt--Up Construction Process Up Construction Process ––Construction ZonesConstruction Zones


TiltTilt--Up Construction Process Up Construction Process ––Construction Zone TasksConstruction Zone Tasks

FRP Column FootingsFRP Column FootingsFRP TiltFRP Tilt--Up Wall FootingsUp Wall FootingsSteel Frame PreSteel Frame Pre--erection Assemblyerection AssemblySteel Frame ErectionSteel Frame ErectionFRP TiltFRP Tilt--Up Construction SlabsUp Construction SlabsFRP TiltFRP Tilt--Up Panels w/EmbedsUp Panels w/EmbedsLift Panels and Connect to Steel Lift Panels and Connect to Steel FrameFrame


TiltTilt--Up Construction Process Up Construction Process ––Notables Notables

Interior Steel Frame will be erected Interior Steel Frame will be erected before tiltbefore tilt--up panelsup panelsFinished slab will be poured around Finished slab will be poured around building pad perimeter for Tiltbuilding pad perimeter for Tilt--Up Up Wall FabricationWall FabricationPanel Erection will Require 2 Cranes:Panel Erection will Require 2 Cranes:–– 1 crane to lift Panel into position1 crane to lift Panel into position–– 1 crane to hold steel joist for 1 crane to hold steel joist for

connections to tiltconnections to tilt--up wall and steel up wall and steel frameframe


TiltTilt--Up Construction Process Up Construction Process ––ScheduleSchedule

A schedule was developed to provide for A schedule was developed to provide for the maximum of productivity during Tiltthe maximum of productivity during Tilt--Up constructionUp constructionActivities were lagged and overlapped to Activities were lagged and overlapped to eliminate stoppages of work floweliminate stoppages of work flowThe schedule was also calculated for each The schedule was also calculated for each different crew to ensure that no crews lay different crew to ensure that no crews lay idle at any point during constructionidle at any point during construction


TiltTilt--Up Construction Process Up Construction Process ––ScheduleSchedule

TiltTilt--Up Schedule Duration:Up Schedule Duration:

––10 Months10 Months


ThermomassThermomass TiltTilt--Up vs. IMP Wall Up vs. IMP Wall Systems Systems -- Final ComparisonFinal Comparison

Cost Comparisons between existing IMP Cost Comparisons between existing IMP and Tiltand Tilt--Up:Up:

–– Existing IMP System including SteelExisting IMP System including Steel$13million$13million

–– ThermomassThermomass Building System Including Building System Including SteelSteel

$17million$17million


ThermomassThermomass TiltTilt--Up vs. IMP Wall Up vs. IMP Wall Systems Systems -- Final ComparisonFinal Comparison

Schedule Duration Comparison:Schedule Duration Comparison:–– Existing IMP System Including Steel Existing IMP System Including Steel

ErectionErection8 Months8 Months

–– ThermomassThermomass10 Months10 Months


Thermal Property Comparisons Thermal Property Comparisons --ThermomassThermomass

Btu/hr/ft^2/F0.028U-Value

53.835.18000017Totals:

13.33.3333330.2040.0022" Concrete

0.520.8333330.222.003R-14 Board Insulation

40.0010.0000000.2040.001212" concrete

Weight (lb/Ft^2)

R-value (hr*ft^2*F/Btu

Specific Heat

(Btu/lb/F)Density (lb/ft^3)

Thickness (in.)

Wall Layers


Thermal Property Comparisons Thermal Property Comparisons --IMPIMP

Btu/hr/ft^2/F0.044U-Value

53.822.6500006.818Totals:

1.400.0001100.12489.000.03426 Gauge Steel

0.3021.634610.200.506.75R-22 Polyurethane

1.400.0001100.12489.000.03426 Gauge Steel

Weight (lb/Ft^2)

R-value (hr*ft^2*F/

Btu)

Specific Heat

(Btu/lb/F)Density (lb/ft^3)Thickness (in.)

Wall Layers


Cooling Load Savings with Cooling Load Savings with ThermomassThermomass

Cooling Load Design Calculations were provided Cooling Load Design Calculations were provided by Hourly Analysis Program 4.10 (HAP) for both by Hourly Analysis Program 4.10 (HAP) for both the IMP and the IMP and ThermomassThermomass systemssystems

69403420Wall TransmissionIMP39393420Wall TransmissionThermomass

Sensible (BTU/hr)

Wall Area (ft^2)Zone Loads

Wall System


Cooling Load Savings with Cooling Load Savings with ThermomassThermomass

As seen from the As seen from the HAPsHAPs CalculationsCalculations–– ThermomassThermomass produces a smaller cooling produces a smaller cooling

loadload–– Refrigeration system Could potentially Refrigeration system Could potentially

become downsized become downsized –– Possible savings in utility billsPossible savings in utility bills–– ThermomassThermomass provides a more efficient provides a more efficient

cooling systemcooling system


Delivery System AnalysisDelivery System Analysis

TiltTilt--Up Construction Process requires Up Construction Process requires much involvement from much involvement from management teammanagement team

Which delivery method would be the Which delivery method would be the best for the tiltbest for the tilt--up process?up process?


Delivery System Analysis for Delivery System Analysis for TiltTilt--Up RedesignUp Redesign

Traditional Delivery SystemTraditional Delivery System–– GC could self perform TiltGC could self perform Tilt--Up Up

ConstructionConstruction–– Save project costSave project cost–– GC would have more control of tiltGC would have more control of tilt--up up

constructionconstruction


Conclusions and ConsiderationsConclusions and Considerations

Was a TiltWas a Tilt--Up Redesign of the Wall Up Redesign of the Wall Systems a better solution for the Systems a better solution for the Excel Facility?Excel Facility?

Not reallyNot really

Why not?Why not?–– Panels are too large at 40’Panels are too large at 40’

UnUn--safesafeDifficult to ErectDifficult to ErectUneconomical DesignUneconomical Design


Conclusions and ConsiderationsConclusions and Considerations

Would the Would the ThermomassThermomass TiltTilt--Up Up Design be a good solution for Design be a good solution for refrigeration of cold storage facilities refrigeration of cold storage facilities in general?in general?

–– AbsolutelyAbsolutely


Contacts and ConsultantsContacts and Consultants

Dr. Riley, Dr. Riley, PSU AEPSU AEDr. Dr. HanniganHannigan, , PSU AEPSU AECindy Rouse, Cindy Rouse, ThermomassThermomassJan Wood, Jan Wood, SuittSuitt ConstructionConstructionButch Elliott, Butch Elliott, SuittSuitt ConstructionConstructionMarc Marc SodlSodl, , BovisBovis LendLend--LeaseLeaseJohn John SandrelSandrel, , Innovative RefrigerationInnovative RefrigerationJeff White, Jeff White, PSU AEPSU AELisa Lisa BornemannBornemann, , PSU AEPSU AEShawn Graham, Shawn Graham, PSU AEPSU AESeth Seth TakochTakoch, , PSU AEPSU AEJoe Joe DilennoDilenno, PSU AE, PSU AE


In Loving Memory of :In Loving Memory of :

Harvey E. Harvey E. KneasKneas, Sr., Sr.(Pop(Pop--Pop)Pop)

19181918--20032003


???? Questions ???????? Questions ????

Documents

Kenneth G. Kneas Construction Case Ready Facility Kneas Thesi… · Vaughn, Coltrane, Pharr, & ... John Sandrel, Innovative Refrigeration ... Microsoft PowerPoint - Ken Kneas Thesis