Penn State Ice Hockey Arena Thesis Final Reportibuildthesis.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/9/5/8695657/main_arena_1-83.pdf · Penn State Ice Hockey Arena Final Report IPD/BIM Thesis 4/24/2012

Penn State Ice Hockey Arena Thesis Final Report

Penn State Ice Hockey Arena Final Report

IPD/BIM Thesis 4/24/2012

Page 2 of 310 Joe Buyer Steve Conroe Logan Gray Simi Veit

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 7

Main Arena Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 12

Structural Solution Executive Summary ............................................................................... 13

Main Arena Design Approach .............................................................................................. 16

Structural Roof System Concept ........................................................................................... 16

Structural Roof Components ................................................................................................ 18

Structural Student and an Integrated Approach ................................................................... 18

Design Results ..................................................................................................................... 19

........................................................................................................................................... 33

........................................................................................................................................... 33

........................................................................................................................................... 33

........................................................................................................................................... 33

........................................................................................................................................... 33

Mechanical Solution Executive Summary ............................................................................. 34

Lighting/Electrical Solution Executive Summary ................................................................... 51

Main Arena Design Approach .............................................................................................. 52

Lighting Platform Solution ................................................................................................... 53

Main Arena Event Lighting Solution ..................................................................................... 53

Main Arena Theatrical Lighting Solution .............................................................................. 56

Main Arena Total Illumination Solution - AGi32 Renderings ................................................. 58

........................................................................................................................................... 58

Main Arena 3D Studio Max Renderings ................................................................................ 59

........................................................................................................................................... 59

Main Arena Electrical Solution ............................................................................................. 60

........................................................................................................................................... 60

Main Arena Lighting and Electrical Conclusion ..................................................................... 61

........................................................................................................................................... 61




Main Arena Construction ..................................................................................................... 64

Main Arena Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 84

Design Intent for the East Facade ......................................................................................... 85

Structural Solution Executive Summary ............................................................................... 86

Structural Student and an Integrated Approach ................................................................... 88

Building Information Modeling ............................................................................................ 88

........................................................................................................................................... 88

Structural Design Process .................................................................................................... 89

......................................................................................................................................... 102

......................................................................................................................................... 102

Mechanical Solution Executive Summary ........................................................................... 103

Lighting/Electrical Solution Executive Summary ................................................................. 109

East Façade and Main Lobby Design Approach ................................................................... 110

East Façade Daylight Analysis ............................................................................................ 111

East Façade Interior Electric Lighting Solution .................................................................... 113

East Façade Exterior Lighting Solution ................................................................................ 118

......................................................................................................................................... 118

......................................................................................................................................... 119

......................................................................................................................................... 119

......................................................................................................................................... 119

East Façade Lighting and Electrical Conclusion ................................................................... 120

East Facade Construction ................................................................................................... 123

Conclusion for East Façade ................................................................................................ 132

......................................................................................................................................... 132

......................................................................................................................................... 132

Design Intent for the Community Rink ............................................................................... 133

Structural Solution Executive Summary ............................................................................. 134

Structural System Concept ................................................................................................. 136




Structural Design Process of Kingpost Truss ....................................................................... 137

Relocation of Rooftop Mechanical Equipment ................................................................... 142

Structural Design for Mechanical Equipment ..................................................................... 145

Mechanical Solution Executive Summary ........................................................................... 147

Roof and Clerestory Design ................................................................................................ 148

......................................................................................................................................... 148

Mechanical Equipment Relocation ..................................................................................... 150

Heating System Investigation and Design ........................................................................... 153

Lighting/Electrical Solution Executive Summary ................................................................. 156

Community Rink Design Approach ..................................................................................... 157

Community Rink Daylight Analysis ..................................................................................... 157

Community Rink Electric Lighting Solution ......................................................................... 160

......................................................................................................................................... 161

......................................................................................................................................... 161

Community Rink Electric Light Dimming Analysis ............................................................... 162

Electrical Room Layout ...................................................................................................... 164

Community Rink Lighting/Electrical Conclusion .................................................................. 165

Community Rink Construction ........................................................................................... 168

Conclusion for Community Rink ......................................................................................... 183

......................................................................................................................................... 183

Final Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 184

APPENDIX A: Additional Thesis Requirements .................................................................... 185

APPENDIX B: Manufacturer Catalogs ................................................................................. 186

APPENDIX C: Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet Calculations ...................................................... 193

APPENDIX D: Load Determination - Hand Calculations ....................................................... 196

APPENDIX E: Structural Design and Checks – Hand Calculations ......................................... 203

APPENDIX F: Glued Laminated Properties .......................................................................... 210

......................................................................................................................................... 210




APPENDIX G: Framing Plans ............................................................................................... 212

......................................................................................................................................... 216

APPENDIX H: Main Arena Nozzle Information .................................................................... 217

APPENDIX I: Community Rink Diffuser/Return Information ................................................ 218

APPENDIX J: SpaceRay Gas Fired Tube Heater Specs........................................................... 219

APPENDIX K: Trace Report- East Façade Original Design and Heights .................................. 221

Trace Reports-East Façade Azuria Vistacool ....................................................................... 221

Trace Reports-East Façade Pacifica Vistacool ..................................................................... 223

Trace Reports-East Façade Azuria Low-E ............................................................................ 223

Trace Reports-East Façade Utility Costs .............................................................................. 224

APPENDIX L: Trace Reports- Community Rink Original Design ............................................ 226

Trace Reports-Large Clerestories on 3 Sides ....................................................................... 226

Trace Reports-Small Clerestories on 3 Sides ....................................................................... 228

Trace Reports-East Only Clerestory .................................................................................... 228

Trace Reports- Community Rink Utility Costs ..................................................................... 229

APPENDIX M: Trace Reports-Main Arena Original Design @ 65F AHU-10 ............................ 231

Trace Reports-Main Arena Original Design @ 65F AHU-11 .................................................. 232



Trace Reports-Main Arena iBUILD Design @ 65F AHU-10 ................................................... 235

Trace Reports- Main Arena iBUILD Design @ 65F AHU-11 ................................................... 236



APPENDIX N: Fixture Schedule ........................................................................................... 239

APPENDIX O: Lighting Plans ............................................................................................... 240

APPENDIX P: Specification PDFs ......................................................................................... 241

APPENDIX Q: Elumtools Results ......................................................................................... 242

......................................................................................................................................... 242




......................................................................................................................................... 242

......................................................................................................................................... 243

......................................................................................................................................... 243

......................................................................................................................................... 244

APPENDIX R: Daysim Inputs and Results for East Façade Main Lobby ................................. 245

......................................................................................................................................... 249

......................................................................................................................................... 250

......................................................................................................................................... 250

......................................................................................................................................... 250

APPENDIX S: Daysim Inputs and Results for Community Rink ............................................. 250

APPENDIX Y: Team iBUILD Spring Schedule ........................................................................ 295

......................................................................................................................................... 295

APPENDIX Z: Team iBUILD LEED Scorecard ......................................................................... 295

......................................................................................................................................... 296

APPENDIX AA: Main Arena Construction Schedule ............................................................. 296

......................................................................................................................................... 297

......................................................................................................................................... 298

APPENDIX BB: Community Rink Construction Schedule ...................................................... 304

References ........................................................................................................................ 307




Executive Summary

The Penn State Ice Hockey Arena is a 224,000 square foot, 90 feet tall, and three-level building

that is being designed so that Penn State can have their first men’s and women’s NCAA Division 1

hockey teams. The planned arena is currently in the primary stages of construction, with hopes of

opening in the fall of 2013. The arena is currently being designed to hold a maximum capacity of around

6000 spectators in the main arena and 300 spectators in the community rink. The main arena will be

used primarily for NCAA hockey events and the community rink will act as the workhorse of the arena.

The main ice sheet must meet all NCAA standards in order for Penn State to host any NCAA Division 1

events at the arena, which will be its primary purpose. The community rink, on the other hand, will be

used for a range of services from hockey tournaments to recreational skating and will be supported by a

small staff of employees. The facility will be located on a 10.2 acre lot on the corner of Curtin Road and

University Drive near the Bryce Jordan Center on Penn State’s University Park campus. The surrounding

buildings are mainly sports complexes and do not have a definitive architectural style. As architectural

engineering students at Penn State University, team iBUILD plans to deliver the most efficient

engineering solutions for the project, while producing an iconic and nationally recognized facility for the

university.

There are three main floors that all serve separate purposes for the arena. The lowest level, the

event level, hosts the two ice sheets, all permanent employee offices, a cardio and weight training

facility, the ice support plant, and many other spaces that will maintain the arena by running its day-to-

day services. The second level, the main concourse level, is typical of most ice hockey arenas and

provides amenities to spectators and fans alike. Meaning, it is comprised of a large radial circulation

space that surrounds the seats, the press/broadcasting booth, storage, concessions, and restrooms. The

patron oriented spaces are designed and laid out to make the experience as enjoyable as possible for

the spectators. The top level, the club level, consists of suites, the main kitchen, a private dining space,

and the typical concourse and restroom spaces. The interior floor plans have been well thought-out

and were kept consistent with the design to date.

In order to produce a memorable and feasible space for all persons who will frequent or visit the

ice arena team iBUILD will be used building information modeling (BIM) technology and an integrated

project delivery (IPD) method to convey design solutions. Working in a collaborative environment in

combination with parametric based three-dimensional design software we believe that we expedited a

fluid design process which would lead to a streamlined construction phase for our design. Producing

photorealistic graphics and using engineering based assessments helped team iBUILD show how the

combination of BIM and IPD can benefit the industry, but more importantly how it would benefit Penn

State for this particular project.




As a collaborative group of engineering students, all hosting a different area of expertise, team iBUILD evaluated and devised the most effective design solution for three main features of the Penn State Ice Hockey Arena. These three spaces are:

1. The main arena

2. The eastern façade

3. The community rink

As a team we focused our efforts in a timeline based manner, giving more time and the

beginning portion of our design efforts to the most critical spaces. Five weeks was spent in the design

and coordination for the main arena, followed by three weeks for the eastern façade, and finally three

weeks for the community rink; it should be noted that team iBUILD will also design the spaces in that

order, as reflected on our schedule. It was a collective decision to focus our efforts in the fashion

previously stated because we believe that the main arena is the focal space for the owner and spending

a longer amount of time on it will produce a better end product and would serve as a learning tool in the

design of the spaces that follow.




Team iBUILD’s Mission Statement

iBUILD is an interdisciplinary team made up of four highly motivated students devoted to making the

design and construction process more efficient through the use of technical coordination and intelligent

collaboration. Our end product will be a state-of-the-art ice hockey arena that will give homage to old

hockey teams while enhancing the surroundings here at Penn State University.

BIM Goals and Uses

At the beginning of team iBUILD’s analysis of the new Penn State Ice Hockey Arena, the team developed

a BIM goals and uses plan for the project. As show in Figure 1 above, team iBUILD identified its overall

goal for the project. The overall team goal; that of an integrated design of the Penn State Ice Hockey

Arena was placed in the center of the map. Next, the team identified some of the major approaches that

would be taken to achieve the team goals. These approaches or “goal components” were then broken

into subcomponents, followed by key factors for achievement of the team goals, and finally, the team

member responsible for reaching each specific goal.

Figure 1: Bim Goals and Uses Map




The next step in the process was narrowing the team goals and identifying how BIM technologies could

be used to make the design and construction process more efficient. Table 1 below is a representation

of team iBUILD’s top priorities and some of the potential BIM uses.

Table 1: BIM Goals

Priority (1-3) Goal Description Potential BIM Uses

1-Most Important Value added objectives

1 Review architectural design features Design Authoring, Design Reviews

1 Increase effectiveness of design Engineering Analysis

1 Assess costs involved with design

changes

Cost Estimation, Design Reviews

1 Identify concerns and increase

efficiency during construction

Phase Planning (4D Modeling)

1 Eliminate conflicts in field among

disciplines

Clash detection, Coordination,

Visualization

The use of BIM technologies were crutial to the success of team iBUILD’s end goals for the analysis of

the Penn State Ice Hockey Arena. Table 1 details some of the ways that BIM was used throughout the

duration of our research. Without the use of BIM technologies to supplement, team iBUILD’s design

process would have been more difficult and less integrated. BIM tools were not only used to quickly

identify issues and inefficiencies in the design, but also as a method of correcting these issues in an

timely manner. Conflicts and clashes of the building’s systems were able to be eliminated prior to the

clash occurring in the field. This, in turn, would save a significant amount of time and money.

BIM Roles

In addition to identifying the BIM goals and uses, team iBUILD also specified each team member’s BIM

roles and responsibilities through the design process. The team held a discussion to determine individual

responsibilities and skillsets. The following were the conclusions of the team discussion related to BIM

roles:

The mechanical discipline on team iBUILD would accept ownership of the mechanical model in Revit

MEP and all of its components. In addition, this individual would also take lead of the Google Sketchup

concept models that would later be remodeled in Revit Architecture. The structural discipline and BIM

champion on team iBUILD would maintain ownership of the architectural and structural models in Revit

Architecture and Revit Structure. The lighting/electrical discipline took on the responsibility of the

lighting and electrical model in Revit MEP as well as the rendering model. This individual would be




responsible for exporting the linked Revit model into 3D Studio Max to perform renderings that would

be used for presentations. Finally, the construction management student took on the responsibility of

maintaining the coordination model. The linked Revit model would be exported to Autodesk Navisworks

to perform clash detection and 4D phase planning.

Integrated Project Delivery and Team Workflow

Integration and collaboration among the team members that comprised iBUILD was critical in achieving

the team’s goals for the project. Through the combination of an integrated team and the incorporation

of BIM technologies into the design and construction process, team iBUILD was able to operate in an

extremely efficient manner and deliver the best product to the end user.

Team iBUILD was comprised of a student in each of the architectural engineering disciplines, including:

structural, mechanical, lighting/electrical, and construction management. In order to perform well as a

team and achieve team goals, constant communication and collaboration was required. The team

discovered a number of ways to communicate throughout the duration of our research, including: group

text messaging through the application “GroupMe”, email and daily meetings that involved two or more

team members. Brainstorming sessions were incorporated into team meetings to develop design

concepts and identify/resolve project concerns.

In terms of workflow, team iBUILD created a schedule of tasks to be performed up unitl the completion

of the project. After multiple iterations as a result of team and faculty discussions, the schedule of tasks

was broken into the three sections. The three sections of the schedule represented each of the three

team analyses to be performed. Team iBUILD’s areas of analysis for the Penn State Ice Hockey Arena

were the main arena, the eastern façade and the community ice rink.

Team iBUILD was able to create a schedule of each individual’s analyses by determining the effects of

one individual’s tasks on another. The team had to identify which tasks had to be completed for other

tasks to begin. A logical approach was necessary in developing and scheduling tasks for each individual

team member. Refer to Appendix Y for the final revision of team iBUILD’s schedule.

The following work performed by team iBUILD was made possible the establishment of a team

workflow. A significant amount of time involving careful planning was necessary for the smooth

operation of the team. After individual tasks and team goals were strategically planned, the members of

team iBUILD were able to begin work on the three analyses. Maintaining individual progress was critical

to the success of the team as a whole. If one task were to fall behind, it was likely that another

individual’s work would be effected. Team iBUILD worked diligently to maintain the project schedule

and allowed for a successful end product.




Main Arena Executive Summary After an initial review of Penn State’s feasibility study for the ice hockey arena team iBUILD

chose focus design efforts for the main arena around four central concepts: 1. Provide a unique space

that pays tribute to the traditional hockey barn, 2. Deliver championship ice, 3. Meeting all NCAA

Division 1 requirements; all while 4. Providing an integrated solution that truly reflects the integrated

project delivery method approach used to deliver the project. However, there were some challenges

that needed to be overcome in order for team iBUILD to reach all goals outlined for the main arena.

By providing a unique space a unique structural roof system was used as an architectural feature

and the central means for hiding systems that are typically left exposed in an ice hockey arena. To have

championship ice the temperature of the ice must be kept very cold (20 degrees Fahrenheit), and to

have cold ice the temperature of the arena must be kept cold as well (58 degrees Fahrenheit). The

typical building is designed to have temperatures well above the 58 degree set temperature; therefore

the seating bowl was designed to provide localized comfort for the patrons who will be watching from

the seats within the stadium. To be able to consider an ice hockey arena division 1 caliber there are

certain light levels that must be met on the ice. Penn State specifically stated that there is NCAA and

broadcasting light levels that team iBUILD insisted on providing. Bringing all of team iBUILD’s goals

together came to fruition with the use of an integrated design feature in the main arena. This design

feature is the truss that looks similar to the bottom of a skate blade. Also, the truss would span the

width of the arena and has been designed to encompass all mechanical, electrical, and plumbing main

lines. Figures 2, 3, and 4 below show finished renderings of the main arena.

Figure 3. A view of the main arena from the student section.

Figure 2. A view of the main arena from a club box.

Figure 4. A view of the main arena from the east lobby entrance.




Structural Solution Executive Summary As outlined in the design intent, the truss will be a very integral and integrated feature in the main

arena. It is designed to house mechanical ductwork, electrical conduit, and plumbing mains; all while acting

as the main structural support for the roof system. This in itself shows how big of a factor collaboration was

throughout the design process for team iBUILD. Using integration concurrently with emerging BIM

technologies there were constant checks being done to ensure that no interferences occurred between all

team models. The structural engineering student performed structural modeling in SAP 2000 and attempted

to import modeled geometries and sections into Revit but was unsuccessful; probably because such complex

geometries were modeled. As a personal goal the structural engineering student aimed to utilize as much

BIM technology that is currently available to help fulfill the tasks laid out in team iBUILD’s proposal.

The structural contribution to the design of the main arena focused on the design of the main truss

and the frame that resists the resultant thrusts from the pin ended arched truss. As requested by faculty

advisors, the structural student carried out two design alternatives for the curved truss over the main arena.

The first design option for structural portion of the truss will feature two steel wide flange shapes acting as

the top chords, a wooden glued-laminated member acting as the web member and shear transfer

mechanism, and a steel bottom chord that will close the V-shaped truss. The second option, which will have

the same overall shape, will be designed using structural steel for every element of the truss and is designed

to be encased in a thin, glue laminate wood paneling. The two options were carried out allowing team

iBUILD to compare constructability, maintenance, and cost for the two systems.

The truss and supporting frames span 196 feet in the north and south directions over the main ice

sheet. The truss will have a curved shape with a rise of 20ft to the peak, providing a 74ft clearance over the

ice sheet. In a collaborative effort with input from the other design disciplines the structural student carried

out multiple design iterations achieving a safe and economical structural solution. The geometries used can

be seen in figures 5 and 6 on the following page.

To decrease member sizes in the curved truss over the main arena, thrust resisting elements were

incorporated into the existing gravity load and lateral load resisting frames of the main arena. This required

the gravity and lateral frames at these framing lines to be designed to resist this added thrusting/lateral

force. Without inducing a thrust into the arched truss the member sizes become extremely uneconomical

and could only be downsized when the frames were designed to resist the thrust from the arch.




20ft Rise

Figure 5 . The red frame lines shown above are those that will be used to resist thrust from the roof truss and external lateral loads applied to the building. The blue dots are the locations where the truss will be supported by the frames.

166ft Truss

Span

196ft System Span

Lateral Load Resisting Frames

Truss Support Locations

~35ft Typ. Spacing

Added Lateral Load

Resisting Frame Element

Truss Support Locations

196ft System Span

Figure 6. The red line elements are the added members that are responsible for resisting the thrust from the curved roof truss. The system span is 196ft, where 166ft is the span of the truss and the added supporting frame spans the additional 30ft.




Using glued-laminated timber as the web member in one design option and as an exterior

architectural panel in the second design option allowed team iBUILD to explore the option of using

locally harvested hardwoods as a structural and architectural feature in the main arena. Working

closely with the construction management (CM) student, the structural discipline used design values

based on the hardwood tree types being used in the fabrication process of the glued-laminated

members. Having the CM in design reviews throughout the process of the design allowed for constant

cost comparisons to be carried out and allowed the structural engineer to further develop the design

that was found to be more cost effective. Using the CM’s input all erection, scheduling, and fabrication

considerations were taken into account while the design process advanced. This includes: specifying

enough splice locations to facilitate the desired erection process, simplifying the manufacturing process,

and limiting the crane size needed on the job site. The structural discipline aided the CM’s plan to

perform a crane analysis for the trusses used in the main arena. Calculations were carried out to verify

and size of the crane needed to perform the erection process of the integrated truss.

This system will also require constant interaction with the mechanical engineering (ME) student

throughout the process of the design. An example of this is: the higher the peak of the roof becomes

the larger the volume of space within the main arena, which directly affects the demand load for the

ME’s mechanical systems. The size of ducts, which are to be housed within the truss frame, will also be

a major factor for sizing the truss because enough space must be left within the truss to allow for the

mechanical system to fit. There has also been a concern as to how to access mechanical equipment if a

problem arises and service needs to be done on the equipment within. Team iBUILD designed the truss

to have hidden access panels at strategic places in the span of the composite truss and designed the

truss with panels to hinge which allows for the equipment to be serviced if a problem does occur. With

the use of design review meetings and clash detection sessions between all parties, an optimum

solution was formulated for the structural system, but more importantly, for the University who will

benefit most as owner.




Main Arena Design Approach

In order to provide an aesthetically pleasing modern and clean look for the main arena an

integrated design approach was carried out. The central idea was to design a structural system that

houses all mechanical, electrical, and plumbing main lines within its core. The idea for housing all

systems was based on a design used in the Richmond Olympic Oval, which is located in British Columbia.

Once this initial architectural idea was formulated, team iBUILD worked collaboratively to design an

integrated system that will house all design disciplines’ main systems while keeping them hidden from

sight from the people within the arenas. The profile of the integrated roof truss will be that of the

bottom of a skate blade, which will give tribute to the main use of the arena, ice hockey. The ultimate

goal is to produce a roof that is very clean when looking at it from the inside of the main seating bowl;

all while housing the necessary MEP systems to make the main arena a division 1 hockey destination.

Structural Roof System Concept A triangular section curved arch roof system was designed to support all systems, components,

and loads that should be considered. A perspective of the truss and MEP systems within can be seen in

Figure 7 to the right. The main

intent was to design this curved

arch to span from frame to frame

over the main arena ice sheet. The

structural engineer of record

designed a girder truss system that

spans 196ft over the ice sheet and

seating bowl. Team iBUILD chose

to give the main arena a different

architectural look which changed

the overall structural system for

the roof over this space. Most

noticeably the span of the curved

truss itself was shortened to 166ft

which considerably decreases

member sizes in the truss designed.

The frames where the arch begins

and ends will be responsible for

taking the horizontal and vertical

load components produced by the

pinned support conditions that

exist at both ends of the arch, and

increases the span of the system to

the full 196ft over the space. The

pin-pin support condition was used Figure 7. Illustrates the geometries and major components used in the design of the truss that spans over the main arena ice sheet and seating bowl.




[schoolyardpuck.com, 2010]

in order to reduce the member sizes that would be needed within the truss itself by turning the moment

into an increased axial load; all the while transferring a horizontal thrust into the supporting frame

structures. Figure 8 below shows a typical section of the arch and supporting frames.

Figure 8 is a section of the frame and truss that span over the main arena ice sheet.

As proposed the structural portion of the arch would be designed using a variety of structural

shapes and materials. The primary members, their materials, and their shapes will be described in the

following. The top and bottom chords are designed to be bent A992 steel wide flange beams. The truss

as a whole is designed to take on the appearance of the underside of a hockey skate, and the bottom

chord is designed to have the profile of the blade itself. The bottom of a skate blade is actually concave

in profile; therefore In order to effectively and efficiently have this shape come alive the use of a wide

flange positioned about its weak axis will be used. Between the two vertical flanges there will be an

aluminum shape made to fill the space and take on the concave appearance. An image of the truss as a

whole and the bottom chord design can be seen in Figure 9 below, there has been a generic image of a

skate blade also provided in Figure 9 below so a visual comparison can be made.

166ft

196ft

Supporting

Frame

Figure 9 shows a graphic of a skate blade and the truss section in order to demonstrate the design intent for the geometries of the truss.




Structural Roof Components

The first part of the roof design is the long span metal deck. This product is manufactured to do

exactly what its name implies, which is span large lengths. Maximum snow, wind, and dead loads were

considered in the selection of the product and the proposed solution is spans from beam to beam in the

roof system. At the ends of each deck span, every 20 feet, there will be glued-laminated beams where

the deck will bear and be supported. The intermediary beams will also act as lateral bracing for the top

chords along the length of the span. These intermediate supports will span between the main

supporting structures (the curved arches) and will be made of Pennsylvania hardwoods that Rigidply

Manufacturers, our contact for cost analysis information, claims to be able to manufacture. The

purpose of using Pennsylvania hardwoods was to take advantage of a regional material and to explore

the possibility of using a product that is not used very often but can be found readily in Pennsylvania.

The use of these hardwoods was then explored as the web members in the curved truss that support

the entirety of the main arena roof system. This leads to one of the more complex aspects of the

structural system that will support the main arena, the integrated truss.

Structural Student and an Integrated Approach

In designing the truss, input from each member of the design team was considered. Fabrication

and erection sequencing was a major concern for both the

structural and construction management student. There was

thought of reducing the depth of the truss at the center of the span

and also thought of reducing the cross section of steel toward the

support locations; this could have been done but proved more of a

fabrication problem than worth. The amount of supplies that

would have been saved would not have outweighed the complexity

that would have been added to the cost in fabrication; actual cost

comparisons can be seen in the construction management section

for the main arena. Team iBUILD also proposed doing a cost

comparison using two different materials as web members;

therefore a common geometry was kept constant throughout the

design of both options. The geometries that were held constant

can be seen in Figure 10 to the right. There was also a considerable

amount of time spent analyzing the erection sequencing procedure

for the truss; and this will be discussed in greater detail later. In

working with the lighting/electrical student it became apparent

that supports were needed for lighting platforms. The structural glued-laminated beams spanning

between the trusses in the roof system were located in places where the lighting stages could most

effectively light the ice. Figure 11 below shows the glued-laminated beams and the lighting platforms.

84in

34in 34in

Figure 10 shows geometries held constant for the two alternative truss designs.




Loads Notes

Snow

Ground 40 psf

Balanced 33.9 psf

Unbalanced 61 psf max snow drift over 1/2 of the roof span (from eave to crest)

Sliding on Frame Roofs 75 psf over 15ft length

Drifting on Frame Roofs 73 psf over 15ft length

Wind

Wind Load (MWFRs) -40.0, -37.0, -25.6 psf these values are windward quarter, center half, leeward quarter respectively

Wind Loads (C and C) -35.6, -51.1, -80.7 psf Zone 1, 2, and 3 respectively

Dead psf

Corrugated Tin Roof 1 psf from AISC manual

Insulation 6 psf for 6" of Rigid Insulation

Roof Deck 8 psf from EPIC Deck spec sheets

MEP 3 psf

Truss Self Weight 464 plf for composite wood-steel truss

Truss Self Weight 276 plf for all-steel truss

Live

Scoreboard and Rigging 15000 lb (1 ) 15,000lb point load was applied at the center of each perlin

a total of (6) 15000lb socreboard loads were taken into account and turned into a

uniform load of 522lb/ft and considered in the design of the truss

ASCE 07-10 Design Loads for the Main Arena

Figure 11 is a perspective that shows the glue laminated purlins and the lighting platforms.

Design Results The first step in the design of the roof system over the main ice sheet was finding appropriate

design loads. ASCE 07-10 was used to find those loads and load combinations for the location and

geometries under consideration. Table 2 below displays the loads applied to the structure that was

designed. After finding the most extreme results the structural roof deck, the glued laminated

intermediate beams, the integrated roof truss, and supporting frames were designed.

[Type a quote from the document or

the summary of an interesting point.

You can position the text box

anywhere in the document. Use the

Drawing Tools tab to change the

formatting of the pull quote text box.]

[Type a quote from the document or

the summary of an interesting point.

You can position the text box

anywhere in the document. Use the

Drawing Tools tab to change the

formatting of the pull quote text box.]

Purlins

Lighting

Platforms

Table 2 shows the design loads calculated according to ASCE 07-10




Roof Deck:

As mentioned previously, the roof deck chosen is a long span deck system, manufactured by

Epic Metals. Epic Metals produces a wide variety of decking systems that are designed to span long

lengths while enhancing the architecture and acoustics of the space below. After finding the worst case

snow drift and wind loads the Archdeck PA Deck

System, which is capable of being bent in its strong

direction, was chosen. An image of the long span

deck can be seen in Figure 12 to the left. A copy of

the long span deck specification and technical

tables is located in Appendix B. The specified

rise/span ratio used is 20/166 or 0.12, therefore

based on manufacturer specifications the

maximum allowable service load for a 16 gage

steel system spanning 20ft is 83psf which is below

the maximum load of 71psf found for the service load combinations used in the main arena roof system.

[products.construction.com, 2012]

16 gage Rise/Span Ratio = 0.12

Figure 12 is a graphic showing the profile of Epic Metals Archdeck system and relevant properties.




Glued Laminated Purlins:

The intermediate beams (i.e. purlins) were designed as glued laminated beams using

Pennsylvania Red Oak at typical 20ft spacing. Using the Wood Handbook it was determined that under

the mechanical design conditions of 45% relative humidity and between a 50oF and 60oF set dry bulb

temperature the moisture content of the wood would be 8.7% which means that the moisture

adjustment factor does not need to be taken into account (this table can be seen in Appendix F). Using

AITC 119-96 it was determined that the proper glue laminated combination type symbol for use in

design is 20F-V2 (the tables used to determine this can be seen in Appendix F). It should be noted that

the same glue laminate properties as those used in the design of the main arena truss were used in the

design of these beams. The purlins that span 25ft or less are sized to be 12in wide by 20in deep and the

purlins spanning 36 feet are 18in wide by 26in deep. The purlins were designed using the worst case

load combination of Dead Load + Live Load, where the live load was a 15,000lb point load at the center

of the span (in case the arena is ever intended to hold other entertainment venues, and rigging locations

are needed). An image of the purlins and the designed sections can be seen in Figures 13 and 14 below.

Span Varies

Figure 13 shows a section of the purlins that are 36ft long on the left and a section of the purlins that span less than 25ft on the right. Figure 14 shows a perspective of the purlins




34in 34in

84in

Properties Top Chords Bottom Chord Web Members Truss as a Whole

(2) W12x53 W14x61 20F-V2 Glulam

Ax(in2) 15.6 17.9 Not Applicable 49.1

Ix(in4) Not Applicable 80257

As(in2) 63.5

Depth(in) 12.1 13.9 84

Width(in) 10 10

Length(ft) 172.4 172.4 172.4

Max Tension or Compression

N.A. (inches from top chord

centroid) 30.6

Composite Wood-Steel Truss

Truss with Web Members as Glued Laminated PA Hardwoods:

The design of the web members incorporated design values and

standards learned in the master’s level class BE 462 (Design of Wood

Structures). The depth of the truss was controlled by depth needed for

the glu-lam web members to resist the maximum shear load. These

wood web members were designed to have an 8-3/4” wide by 72” deep

cross section; this was needed in order to resist the maximum shear

force of 200 kips (expresses as unfactored service load combination). As

stated earlier, in order to compare the two options the depth of the

truss was kept constant between the all-steel truss and the composite

wood and steel truss. The design of the composite truss was modeled as

a line element in SAP 2000 with the wood properties imported as the

shear area of the member. A detailed section of the design and the

dimensions that stayed constant between the two design options can be

seen in Figure 15 to the right. The design of the composite truss and relevant

structural properties can be seen in the Table 3 and in Figure 16 below.

Hand calculations have been attached in the Appendix E that supports

some of the design for the composite truss over the main arena.

Figure 15 shows a section through the all-steel truss and the geometries held constant for both structural design options.

Table 3 shows relevant design properties used in the design of the composite truss that spans 166ft over the main arena.

Figure 16. Hand Sketch of Composite Truss Design.




Design of Web Members Using Steel Sections

A Howe truss formation was used to layout the steel web members in the truss over the main

arena, and a section through the truss can be seen in Figure 17 below.

Figure 17 shows a section through the all-steel truss and the layout of the web members.

In order to preliminarily size the truss and find initial sections a simple deflection versus

moment of inertia check was performed. For the initial design a moment of inertia of 100000 in4 was

used to limit deflection below an L/360 ratio. In order to achieve this value with the already computed

truss depth of 84 inches the total steel cross sectional area of 60in2 was needed for the top and bottom

chords. Knowing that these were the section properties needed, a 2 dimensional frame could be

modeled in SAP 2000 representing the geometries and design

loads. The initial 2D line element truss and frame made in SAP

2000 can be seen in Figure 18 to the right. It should be noted that

the truss was first modeled as a line item with equivalent steel

section properties of Ax = 60in2, As = 68.5in2, and Ix = 100000in4.

Once all the appropriate loads, geometries, and section

properties were inserted into the model moments and axial load

values could be found in order to determine preliminary top

chord and bottom chord sections.

Figure 18 shows the 2D line element structural model developed using SAP2000.




Joint Number Joint location Load Combination

Actual Deflection

(in) L/360 (in) Limit L/240 (in) Limit

92 Center of Span, Bottom Chord D+S+L 6.97 5.53 8.30

110 Center of Span, Top Chord D+S+L 6.96 5.53 8.30

92 Center of Span, Bottom Chord D+.75S+.75L 6.00 5.53 8.30

Maximum Deflections in Truss

The top chords were preliminarily designed using a wide flange section. Knowing the factored

axial load from the SAP 2000 2D model a W12x50 cross section was chosen to resist the maximum

compressive force. The bottom chord was designed using a wide flange section laid about its weak axis.

By using a typical shape a more stream-lined design and fabrication process can occur. The bottom

chord was preliminarily designed as a W14x109, which could take the maximum factored axial load that

was found using the 2D SAP model.

Using structural modeling

knowledge gained in the M.A.E. class AE

597A (Computer Modeling of Building

Structures) a 3-dimensional model was

developed in order to model the entire

structural system. The 3D model can be

seen in Figure 19 to the left. Once the

model had all design loads, load

combinations, and geometries inserted the

model could be fully developed. Multiple

iterations were carried out and an

optimized design for the truss and

supporting frames was found. The desired deflection limit was set to L/360, but in order for such a small

value to be accomplished much larger sections would have been needed in the truss; therefore it was

determined that an appropriate limiting deflection would be less that L/24 (Note: the span used in the

L/xxx equation was 166ft, where it may be appropriate to use 196ft, therefore the actual deflection

found using structural software may be considered a conservative value). Table 4 below shows the

maximum deflections found in the optimized 3D SAP model and the allowable deflection limits that

these values can be compared to.

Table 4 shows maximum deflections found in the final 3D structural model.

Figure 19 shows a developed two bay 3D SAP2000 model used to design all members in the steel truss.




Design Results for Steel Truss:

The top chords in the truss are designed as bent W12x53 members. The bottom chord in the

truss is designed to be W14x61 members laid about its weak axis. The top and bottom chords were

designed with internal web members that would brace them at every 20ft. The final design and

geometries used in the design can be seen in Figure 20 below. The following forces, expressed as

maximum factored loads in the top and bottom chords for a typical configuration, were found using the

3D structural model:

Top Chord Maximum Compressive Load, C= 321 kips

Top Chord Maximum Tensile Load, T= 138 kips

Bottom Chord Maximum Compressive Load, C= 370 kips

Bottom Chord Maximum Tensile Load, T= 364 kips

34in 34in

84in

Web Members as

Specified

W12x53

Top

Chords

W14x61

Bottom

Chord

Figure 20 shows the design sections used as the top and bottom chords and the geometries used for both design alternatives of the truss




Properties Top Chords Bottom Chord Truss as a Whole

(2) W12x53 W14x61 (4) HSS 6x6x5/16 (4) HSS 6x6x5/16 (4) HSS 6x6x3/8 (4) HSS 6x6x5/8 (4) HSS 8x8x5/16

Ax(in2) 15.6 17.9 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 49.1

Ix(in4) Not Considered Not Considered Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 80257

As(in2) Not Considered Not Considered

Depth(in) 12.1 13.9 84

Width(in) 10 10

Length(ft) 172.4 172.4 172.4

Maximum UBL (ft) 20 20 18.3 18.9 19.6 20.3 21.1

Max Compression (K) *Found Using

1.2D+1.6S+1.0L 321 370 31 86 131 166 191

Max Tension (K) *Found Using

1.2D+1.6S+1.0L 138 364

Nuetral Axis Location (inches

from top chord centroid) 30.6

Web Members

Steel Truss

The web members were not of constant cross sections; they decreased in size from HSS

8x8x5/16 towards the support ends to HSS 6x6x5/16 at the center of the span. Considering steel

connection designs the minimum thickness used in the design of all hollow structural web members in

the truss and throughout the rest of the arena was 5/16 inches (this allows for typical welded

connections to be called for by structural detailers). The larger member sizes were needed toward the

support locations because a much larger shear force exists there. Figure 21 below shows the truss with

the web members designed sections called out, and Table 5 below displays some relevant structural

properties and the design for the all-steel truss members.

Figure 21 is a section through the steel truss and the web member design sections.

HSS

6x6

x5/

16

HSS

6x6

x5/

16

HSS

6x6

x3/

8

HSS

6x6

x5/

8

HSS

8x8

x5/

16

Note: Web members cross sections

are mirrored about the center of the

truss.

Table 5 shows properties for elements in the steel truss design and properties of the truss as a whole.




Design of Supporting Frame:

While designing the truss the supporting frames also needed to be designed to take the

horizontal force that the truss puts into the frames. In order to efficiently design the frame and truss

they were developed at the same time in the structural SAP models. The initial thought was to design a

moment frame. The moment frame would have been the least disruptive on the interior architectural

layout but was found to be uneconomical because the member sizes in both the frame and truss would

have been very large in order to limit deflections below an acceptable value. The second attempt to

take the load out

of the frame was

another extreme

condition, a fully

braced frame.

This could have

produced an

efficient structural

solution, but was

too disruptive on

the interior architecture and thus dropped as a possible solution. An image of the braced frame studied

design can be seen in Figure 23 above. The preliminary moment frame design can be seen in the Figure

22 below. The design that was eventually developed consists of braces that run diagonally through the

frames and do very little to

disturb the interior

architectural layout that

was provided to team

iBUILD by the architect of

record for the project. The

final diagonal brace

locations and sizes can be

seen in Figure 24 below.

Figure 23 shows a complete braced frame that was preliminarily used to check thrust resistance capabilities.

Figure 22 shows a moments frame that was preliminarily used to check resistance capabilities.

Figure 24 is a section developed in structural modeling software that shows the added thrust resisting elements that fit within the architectural layout and provide a load path for the thrust from truss.

Note: The added thrust

resisting elements are

symmetric on both sides of

the arena; this provides a

more eve distribution of

forces.

Added Thrust

Resisting

Members




The braces were positioned to fit within interior walls on the event and main concourse levels that could

easily be framed around or left visible; this would be left to decide by the owner.

Architectural Considerations for the Added Frame Members:

It should be noted that on the club level the diagonals actually extend into the arena. This

differs from the architect and structural engineer of records design. Team iBUILD chose to frame

around these members in order to create what looks like a stand that the trusses sit on rather than

leaving the steel members exposed that are actually supporting the massive looking trusses. The idea

was generated during a BIM design review between team iBUILD and retired architect, Prof. Robert

Holland. The added diagonal support that is located within the arena was an addition but fits team

iBUILD’s design ideals. Also, it should be noted that the additional finishing around the truss framing

allowed for a space that could house the main run for mechanical duct work that feeds through each of

the trusses. Figure 25 below show how framing around the added structural support looks

architecturally and Figure 26 below shows the added space for the main duct run how it would be

concealed from the spectators’ line of sight.

Figure 25 shows the added finishes that conceal the frame elements that extend into the main arena.

Added Finishing to

Conceal Added

Frame Elements

Figure 26 shows the main duct run and how the added finishes conceal it.

Added Finishing to

Conceal Added

Frame Elements

Added Finishing to

Conceal Main Duct

Run




Figure 27 below shows the fully developed structural model and the relative maximum percent

capacities that all the members were subject to under their respective worst load case. Note: The

strength load cases used in the design of the structure can be seen in Figure 28 below.

Figure 27 is an image of the structural 3D model and the relative capacities of the designed members

Figure 28 displays the strength design combinations used in determining the appropriate sections for the truss and frames.




Truss Type Section Wood Weight (lbs) Wood Weight (tons) Steel Weight (lbs) Steel Weight (tons) Total Weight (lbs) Total Weight (tons)

Steel with Glulam Panels Ends 6051.24 3.03 8336.55 4.17 14387.79 7.19

Steel with Glulam Panels Middle 8068.32 4.03 11115.40 5.56 19183.72 9.59

Composite Glulam and Steel Ends 17649.45 8.82 6639.00 3.32 24288.45 12.14

Composite Glulam and Steel Middle 23532.60 11.77 8852.00 4.43 32384.60 16.19

Constructability Concerns:

With input from the construction management student it was made aware that a truss of this

size would have to be erected in sections rather than in just one lift. Along the length of the arch there

are three sections, meaning that there are two connection locations within the 166ft span. These

connections would have to be full penetration welded (i.e. a complete moment connection) after lifting

them into place. Below Figure 29 simplistically illustrates where the connections are along the span are

and what a generic connection might look like.

In order to understand how the truss would be erected the structural and construction

management students teamed up to deliver a crane analysis and 4D model of the main arena. The first

step was finding weights of the individual truss sections that would need to be lifted by a crane. The

weights calculated for both the composite and the all-steel truss can be seen in Table 6 below.

Middle Section

End Section End Section

Figure 29. The image above illustrates the sections that the truss was designed to be erected and manufactured as. The image to the left shows a simplistic detail illustrating what a connection might look like.

Table 6 shows the weights of the designed truss sections for both the all steel and composite truss.




Team iBUILD eventually ruled out using PA hardwoods as the web member for the truss. This

large reduction in weight when using steel as web members and only have a hardwood paneling is one

of the many reasons for the choice. After finding that the center section weighs approximately 9.59

tons a crane analysis was performed and it was determined that a 100 ton crane would be necessary to

erect the all-steel truss where a 150 ton crane would be needed to erect the composite truss center

section that weighs approximately 16.19 tons.

Coordination Effort:

In order to ensure that the designed structural system would fit seamlessly with the

architectural, mechanical, and lighting/electrical design the structural model had to be accurately

modeled in Revit Structure. Figure 30 below shows the structural model developed in SAP 2000 and

theRevit Structural model that was later replicated.

Figure 30. The image on the left shows the final 3D sap model and the image on the right shows the 3D Revit Structures model.




In order to ensure that all designs can co-exist all designs had to modeled in Revit then exported

into Navisworks where clash

detection was carried out. The

first step in this process was to link

all design models together to try

to deter clashes while designing

and modeling by using the

visualization benefits of building

information modeling. The linked

structural, mechanical,

architectural and

lighting/electrical models can be

seen in Figure 31 to the right.

Navisworks was then used to bring

all models together to ensure that

all models have been designed

clash-free. After running clash

detections between the lighting/electrical and mechanical designs versus the structural design for the

space in question there were zero clashes found.

Design Conclusions:

The truss designed using hollow-structural steel web members with a glued-laminated panel on

the exterior would make a better design solution than a truss designed using solid glued-laminated web

members. Issues relating to maintenance, erection, and cost were major factors in this decision made

by team iBUILD. The woods panels on the all-steel truss have been designed with access panels located

between the mechanical

diffusers which will allow for

the facility manager to do

maintenance on the MEP

equipment within the truss if

ever a problem arises.

Figure 32 to the right shows

the access panels within a

typical section of the truss.

A 50 ton deduction in crane lift capacity required would also be an outcome of using the all-steel truss.

This crane size deduction was found to equal $13,872 in construction cost using team iBUILD’s schedule

as a common schedule to compare the two ($88,434 for the 100 ton crane versus $102,306 for the 150

ton crane). The materials for the steel truss were also estimated to cost $1.88M where the composite

glulam and steel truss was estimated to cost $2.91M which is $1.03M less than the composite truss.

Figure 31 shows all design discipline models linked models together in a clash free integrated model.

Access Panels

Figure 32. Typical truss section showing the mechanical access panels.




The final structural design can be seen in Figures 33 through 36 below.

Figure 34. Roof Section

Figure 35. Site Plan

Figure 36. Roof Plan

Figure 33. Ice Sheet Plan

V-Truss Purlins




Mechanical Solution Executive Summary

The mechanical systems for the main arena focused on iBUILD’s team goals with a heavy

emphasis on collaboration and the universities desires for an NCAA Division 1 ice hockey facility. Within

the main arena there are a number of areas that were focused on in order to meet the above objective.

These areas are listed and described in the following paragraphs. As a team we looked at several

different systems before landing on the integrated roof truss. The inspiration came from several

different places. The first was Penn State’s feasibility study where we pulled out several different key

design guidelines to include an “intimate seating bowl with references to historic hockey barns.” The

second place of inspiration was our team goals which included building an iconic rink, designing with

integration in mind, housing championship ice, and meeting NCAA requirements.

The structural members for the main arena are a clean, integrated solution that corresponds

with the design goals and vision of the Penn State Ice Arena. It incorporates the mechanical ductwork

and sprinkler system inside, hiding the elements from the spectators. Careful design of the ducts

ensured that they fit inside the structure and worked efficiently. Care was also taken in the diffuser

selection. Higher velocities had to be used to reduce the duct sizing within the structural members. High

speed diffusing nozzles were used to ensure low NC for the main arena allowing for minimal noise

during peak loading and alternate ice use which might require minimal background noise.

The integrated roof structure is also an arch and creates a large volume to ventilate and

condition which required larger mechanical equipment and ducts. iBUILD’s solution to the problem of

spectator comfort comes in the form of another integrated product. Radiant heating panels have been

used in combination with raised aluminum risers manufactured by Structal. The system replaced the

more traditional precast concrete and incorporates both the structural and construction management

options in its design. The radiant heating panels will allow for localized comfort while allowing the air

over the ice to remain at a temperature suitable for maintaining championship ice. The risers are filled

with lightweight concrete for better structure and acoustical properties.

The equipment selection was also investigated. There are two different systems which were

investigated. The first is two air-handling units with desiccant wheels built into them for the

dehumidification process, and the other is a separate desiccant wheel which would service all three air-

handling units for both rinks. A cost evaluation was done to compare the two systems. An investigation

was also done into whether or not the two air-handling units could be cycled during periods of low use

while still meeting the ventilation requirements for the space.

iBUILD also got in touch with an ice manufacturer to talk about different ways to set up an ice

plant. An energy flow schematic was then developed showing the different ways that the heat rejected

from the ice could be used throughout the building. We were able to use the rejected heat from the ice

systems and incorporate it into the radiant systems and the HVAC system.




The main arena of the Penn State ice hockey arena was the largest focus of our integrated

design. As the mechanical lead for the team I had several areas of focus. Each of them are listed in this

section of the report and elaborated in great detail. Much of the information can be found here but

some of the documentation can also be found in the appendix. Some of these appendices will be

referred to throughout parts of the report.




Duct Sizing

Sizing the ducts for the main arena proved to be more challenging than I initially thought. To

start the design I gave Logan, our structural lead, a preliminary

duct size of 40” round that I thought would be the maximum

for each truss. Logan would then use this number to size his

truss members accordingly.

The first step in my determination of the duct sizing

was to build an accurate model of the main arena seating

bowl. The initial designs called for two separate zones each

supplied by their own air handling unit. Each unit had been

sized at 45,000 cfm for an arena total of 90,000 cfm. I first had

to figure out the volume of the main arena. I used the Revit

model to pull out dimensions and construct a mass model in

Sketchup that was able to help me determine the volume of

the main arena. The initial design volume turned out to be 2.6

million cubic feet. I then used the drawings again to get accurate construction materials.

The ASHREA Handbook in conjunction with research and advice from industry professionals

provided many of the ventilation requirements. ASHREA requires a ventilation rate of 7.5 cfm/person

and an area based ventilation rate of 0.06 cfm/sqft. I also was able to get a lighting power density of 0.8

W/sqft that Simi, our lighting lead, to use in the main arena templates.

The most difficult part of building the virtual model in Trace was figuring out how to include the

ice sheet. After doing some research I was able to find that an ice sheet will add approximately 40 tons

of cooling, but figuring out how to accurately model the cooling load in Trace proved to be a challenge.

My first attempts were to add it to the miscellaneous loads category under templates. This allowed me

to input the load as 40 tons and available 100% of the time. However after running the simulation and

looking at the results, it was clear that the cooling load was not being added to the space. After several

more failed attempts I then decided to model it as a 12” light weight concrete floor with a constant

temperature of 10 degrees F and the same area as the ice sheet. The external temperature was then set

to constant with a U-factor of 0.6 for ice. When the ice was modeled in this fashion it did show up the

reports and resulted in a noticeable decrease in cfm and tons of cooling.

The next step was to determine what set temperature they were using over the ice. Two

alternatives were made and then each set to a different temperature, 65, 60, and 55. The results

showed that the temperature being used for their design was 65 degrees F. Once an accurate model of

the main arena had been constructed, I could then model the changes in our design and calculate

accurate numbers.

40” Max

Figure 37: This shows the trus with the preliminary sized duct for Logan to size the members




With the truss being an arch, we knew it would add considerable volume to the main arena.

Logan and I worked very closely to come up with a rise that would minimize his lateral thrust while

keeping the added volume to a minimum as well. He and I modeled several different designs before

falling on a 20’ rise which would add 985,000 cubic feet, a 38% increase in volume.

The next step for me was to determine the set temperature I would use in the main arena that

would best maintain championship ice. Research showed that the ideal rink temperature is down in the

area of 40 – 60 degrees F but that higher temperatures were preferred for spectator comfort. Since I

would be designing and utilizing a local heat source for the spectators, we decided to go with a lower set

temperature in the neighborhood of 55 – 60 degrees F. This however caused problems during the

summer months when much more cooling was needed. We were able to solve this problem by using a

high set temperature of 65 degrees F in the warmer months when the season was over, and keeping

lower temperatures during the colder months. After talking to industry professionals I decided to use

45% relative humidity which gave a dew point of 49 degrees F. Anything lower than this would require

an active desiccant system.

After having all these parameters in Trace I could now get an accurate model for our new arena

design. The reports showed that the bowl would require a maximum of 103,000 cfm, or 51,500 cfm per

unit. This was more than the initial 48,000 cfm per unit that I had initially estimated for.

Figure 40: This table is a summary of the trace reports which can be found in the appendix section of the report. The top table shows iBuilds design and the bottom is the original design.

20’ Rise

Figure 38: Shows the rise in the roof from original design Figure 39: Show the roof as it sits on a mass model




Each unit was designed to have its own branch and supply half of the arena. The main duct run

of each would run the length of the building where the trusses connected to its supports. There each

branch would then enter the truss and go over the ice sheet. There are eight trusses in the main arena

and each of them would house a branch. I took my results of 55,000 cfm per unit and used to calculate

the air distribution to each truss. The two end trusses would each receive 3,000 cfm while the other

branches would receive 6,000 cfm each.

I used two different design guides when sizing the ducts, the first was less than 0.1” wg, which

gave a main speed of 2500 fpm and a branch speed of 1400 fpm, and the second was 2000 fpm when

sizing the main, and 750 fpm when sizing the branches. When using the first method, I found that the air

speeds were too great and would likely cause acoustical issues when being diffused, so this left me with

the second option of sizing using 2000 fpm in the main, and 750 fpm in each branch.

Figure 42: Shows a section of the ducts as it runs through the structure.

3,000 CFM

6,000 CFM

1,600 CFM

Figure 41: gives a graphical representation of air flow in the ducts as described above.




This still left me 13,000 cfm short. I could not size the branches any larger because they would

not fit in the truss, so I had to come up with another way to distribute the remaining cfm. After talking

with Logan about possible solutions to the problem we came up with a way to distribute the remaining

air without having to redesign the truss for larger duct sizes. Air would be distributed along the main

with two or three diffusers being located between each truss. Each of the diffusers would account for

800 cfm. This solution solved two problems in the process. The first being that it allowed us to distribute

all 55,000 cfm without having to redesign the truss and the second was that air has now being supplied

directly to the club level seats and club boxes.

Figure 43: Shows air flows in blue and the returns in yellow. The supply is high and returns are low.

Figure 44: Shows a section cut with air flow in blue and returns in yellow.

The last step now that the ducts were sized was to select a diffuser that would handle high

volumes or air and high velocities. Special consideration had to be given to the NC and noise that would

come from each diffuser. Because of the high volume and speeds, traditional grill diffusers were crossed

off for consideration. We decided as a team to go with a nozzle diffuser that would be able to handle the

high volume and speeds while still being visually appealing and relatively quiet.




Several different nozzles were considered before finally landing on a model made by Gilderts

which expanded as the air traveled through instead of constricting. This resulted in a 40% reduction in

speeds, throw, and noise. I selected a 400 mm diameter nozzle. With an air speed of 750

fpm it would give me a dBA of 35, the equivalent background noise found in a library.

Figure 47: Shows the completed duct design as it sits in the structure.

Figure 46: the nozzles used in the project.

Figure 45: Shows the nozzles in the main arena in blue through navisworks when doing clash detection.




The last thing piece of the truss which we completed was surrounding the issue of maintenance

within the truss. The three of us collaborated on a design that would allow sections of the glulam panel

to be lifted so someone could climb inside or preform maintenance from the outside. This can be seen

here in Figure 48 below.

Figure 48: Shows the access panels to allow for mainenance of MEP inside.




Radiant Heating Panels

The idea of spectator comfort was important to our team. We wanted to maintain

championship ice while still providing a suitable game environment for the spectators. As the semester

progressed, the idea of a radiant floor evolved and took on different shapes until we landed on final

product that worked and was still relatively easy to construct and maintain.

The initial idea was to have a radiant floor with piping embedded into the precast concrete

risers. This would provide a warm mass with heat rising to the spectators seats just above. But this

solution provided a number of problems. I talked with a few precast concrete manufacturers and they

assured me that it could be done but at a considerable price increase. Another problem was the

maintenance that might be required over the life of the system. With the piping being embedded in the

concrete there would be no way to perform maintenance without destroying or replacing the risers.

I found an alternative solution from Structal, a

steel manufacturer. They had developed an extruded

aluminum riser which could replace the much heavier

precast concrete risers while still maintaining the same

structural properties of precast concrete. The riser is 2.5”

thick and could be left hollow, or filled with

polyurethane insulation or lightweight concrete. When

filled with light weight concrete the riser would weigh 8

pounds per sqft as opposed to the 100 pounds per sqft

of precast concrete.

After talking with Structal about the

specifications and code requirements I found that the risers had actually been considered for the

original proposed design but because at the time they had no way of fireproofing the underside it fell

through. I was told that the risers could now be fireproofed by laying down metal decking under the

risers and spraying the underside with fireproofing. This solution to fireproofing the risers meets all code

requirements.

I worked closely with Steve and Logan on the selection of this product. Because the structure

weighs considerably less than precast concrete risers, it requires less structural support for the dead

weight of each section. The weight also provides considerable advantages to the CM as well. More risers

can be delivered by fewer trucks because many can be stacked and delivered. Another advantage is the

crane needed to set the risers in place. Because the risers only weigh 8 pounds per sq. ft. the crane

needed will be much smaller. Savings will also take place in the speed of the erection process. Structal

assures me that no special training or labor is required to places the risers. Each riser snaps in place to

the top of the preceding riser.

Figure 49: Shows an unfilled alluminum decking by Structal.




The idea remained the same in regards to embedding the radiant floor piping in the risers, but

this idea was also quickly shut down due to the complexity of embedding the piping in the risers. The

next idea looked at attaching the piping to the underside of the risers with an aluminum strip. The heat

would then be transferred through the floor and right to the spectators. I used a program called Viega to

help model the radiant design.

Initially this appeared to be a good solution, but before I could continue with the design I

needed to calculate the flux needed to provide the comfort we were targeting as a team. The goal was

to provide a seating bowl that would be warmer than the air over the ice and to use returns to keep the

heat from stratifying over the ice. The target temperature was to be around 68 degrees in the stands

while still having a temperature closer to 58 over the ice. I calculated the BTU’s needed to give this

warmth to be around 370,000 BTU’s per hour which is a flux of 11 BTU’s per hour per sqft.

I than ran several simulations in Viega under different assumption from piping sizing and spacing

to delta T and heated area. This gave me things like head loss and pumping requirements as well as flow

rates and fluid temp. Using the pumping requirements I then split the rink up into different zones and

found the most acceptable one for fluid velocity.

This idea however was traded for something that would have a faster response time. I then

began to engineer a product very similar to

baseboard heaters. I used Runtel as a design guide.

The idea is that by attaching a panel to the risers,

heat would radiate directly from the panels to the

backs of the spectators providing a faster response

time and a heating source that would be felt be

those watching the game.

The panels would be made of painted

aluminum and constructed to have a thin profile.

Pex piping would be used because of its cost and

Figure 50: Shows how the panels would be delivered and assembled on the job site.

Figure 51: This is a front view of the radiant heating panels




thermodynamic properties. A removable piece

would also exist at each connection point for

maintenance and pipe connection purposes. Finally

a seal would be placed on both ends of the panel to

keep spilled drinks from running between the riser

and the panel. The panels would be connected to

the riser via screws on the top and bottom of each

panel.

The panels were modeled as a grey body

using the following equation:

where ε is the emissivity, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature of the body in kelvin,

and A is the surface area of the body. The

answer is in watts which can then be

converted to BTU’s per hour.

By having two pipes at 6” spacing

and running water with a temperature of

140 degrees F with a delta T of 20 degrees F

through a 6’ long panel, I could achieve 457

BTU’s per hour per panel. With the seating

bowl being split into sections, it gives me a

flow of 1.06 gpm, which is an acceptable

fluid velocity. The total heat output from the

panels at its max design point is 460,000

BTU’s per hour and a flux of 15 BTU’s per hour per sqft.

Figure 52: This is a back view of the radient heating panels




Figure 53: Shows how the stands are split up into 9 sections for even pumping.

Figure 54: Shows how the panels would be assembled to the risers followed by seats.




This solution not only meets the requirements for spectator comfort, but also continues to

streamline the construction process. By offering a delta T of 15 degrees around the spectators, they will

be much warmer than in traditional ice arenas while still maintaining high quality ice.

Figure 55: The figure above and bellow are a crude “CFD” model of how temperature would be distributed in the main arena.




AHU Selection

Another area I researched was the air handling unit selection for the main arena. For this section

I first looked into different ways to dehumidify the rink. I then compared two different systems in Trace

and also looked into the practicality of using an economizer on these units for the months when the air

outside would fall into the air requirements for conditioning the arena space.

ASHREA describes two ways of dehumidifying the air in an ice rink. The first is through a

desiccant wheel and the second is through a dehumidification unit (DHU). As I talked to industry

professionals I found that the design of these units are done by dew point, however it does without

saying that the more humidity control, the pricier the system is going to be.

At a dew point of 45 degrees F, fog is eliminated from the surface of the ice, and air above the

ice is prevented from reaching 100% relative humidity. This can be done with mechanical dehumidifiers

which cost less than active desiccant. At a dew point of 40 degrees F, dripping is eliminated; the dew

point is below the coldest surface in the roof structure, as well as all the advantages for a dew point of

45 degrees F. The conclusion that I was able to draw from this information was that a dew point well

below 45 would give us the best results and the better ice. However this would only be attainable with

an active desiccant system.

The original design of the main arena uses DHU’s which have desiccant wheels built into the

units. These were the first units I modeled in Trace to get a base which I could compare other systems

to. I then used the design of the Boston University Ice Arena’s rink supply system as a comparison. They

used AHU’s which were attached to a separate desiccant wheel. This design would require more roof

space for units in our design and this would be something I would have to keep in mind when selecting a

system. The AHU’s for the BU arena are a return-bypass system. This means that money is saved by not

having to reheat the air with coils, but instead uses the return air to heat the supply.




Figure 56: The above image is a plan view of a return-bypass unit

I was told by Cannon Design that this was a more economical way to supply the main arena, but

after many failed attempts to model it accurately in Trace, I decided to just model a bypass system. The

results, which can be found in the reports, showed very little difference from the DHU’s currently

selected for the main arena. This combined with the extra space that would be required for a separate

desiccant wheel allowed me to cross this system off from consideration.

The final thing I looked into for the main arena was adding an economizer to the DHU’s. While I

realize that Pennsylvania is not in an area where economizers were traditionally used, I wanted to see if

the early spring month temperatures combined with the low temperature requirements for the main

arena would produce any savings. However after modeling the economizers in Trace I found that there

was a minimal decrease in utility costs.

With all of these things in mind I decided to stick with the DHU’s that are being used in the

original design. The units have desiccant wheels in them which allow them to reach the lower dew

points discussed earlier, and the amount of roof space available for the units also helped drive the

decision.




Figure 57: Here is a psychometric chart showing when air would be used by an economizer in blue.




Ice Plant Research

The last area of research for the main arena is the ice plant. At the onset of this project I was

under the impression that I was going to be able to model the entire ice plant. However I quickly learned

from industry professionals such as CIMCO that this would be almost impossible on my own. I found

that there are entire companies and industry professionals whose sole focus is designing these systems.

Through correspondence and research I found that a sheet of ice requires anywhere from 50 to

75 tons of cooling to operate and maintain the ice, to include recovering after resurfacing. This is the

equivalent to 900,000 to 1.2 million BTU’s per hour of heat rejection to the atmosphere. 200,000 to

400,000 BTU’s per hour are used in underfloor heating to prevent frost heave in the rink slab and in the

snowmelt pit. The balance of the heat can be used for a number of different ways to include hot water

preheat, space heating, and heating coils.

Based on the needs of the rink and the different ways to distribute the waste heat, I developed a

schematic energy flow diagram. This schematic system uses waste heat in hot water preheat, radiant

panel hot water preheat, underfloor heating to prevent frost heave, heating coils, and also distributed to

the cooling tower.

Figure 58: This is the energy flow schematic for the ice p lant.




Lighting/Electrical Solution Executive Summary

In order to make the main arena an iconic integrated space and meet NCAA Division One

requirements, multiple lighting and electrical systems needed to be considered. The first system was the

ice event lighting. To meet NCAA Division One national broadcasting requirements, there needs to be

precise illuminance levels and uniformity both horizontally and vertically. These values were measured

using AGi32 and 3D Studio Max. The design also had to avoid causing direct and reflected glare and

shadows for the players as well as the audience members. The 1000W metal halide fixtures are

mounted on strategically placed lighting platforms in order to get full coverage horizontally and

vertically. Lastly, in order to achieve the “black out scenario” there are shutters on the fixtures that close

in less than 3 seconds.

The next systems considered were the temporary lighting, theatrical effects, portable spotlights

still camera strobes, and scoreboard power loads. Since the arena may hold events such as concerts or

ice shows the electrical system needed to have the capability to power supplemental equipment that

may be brought in by outside tour companies. During the blackout there will be theatrical effect lighting

that is controlled from the control booth, mounted on the lighting stage system, along with a series of

high power camera strobes for still camera photography. An allowance was made in the power

distribution system for all of these elements as well as typical scoreboard power loads.

Throughout the stands there is house and emergency lighting. The house lighting is provided by

LED floodlights aimed at the stands from the platforms. This house lighting is a source of general

illumination (approximately 10 to 20 fc) to be used for spectator arrival, departure, maintenance, and

cleanup. As requested in the feasibility statement, the student section was designed to be brighter (2:1

ratio) than the rest of the stands to put focus on “Section E”. There are additional emergency LED

floodlights mounted to the lighting platforms, which provide emergency lighting of at least 8 fc.

The total design is less than ASHRAE 90.1 2010 power density requirements for the ice and the

stands, 3.01 w/sq. ft. and .43 w/sq. ft. respectively. Branch circuits, were designed to reflect the lighting

design and meet NEC 2011 requirements. The power distribution system for the arena lights was also

modeled in Revit. The loads from the electrical system design of the main arena was later used for

designing the size of the overall electrical system.

Most coordination for the lighting and electrical design of the main arena occurred with the structural

discipline. The location of the light stages and the total distributed weight of the light fixtures were the

main items that required specific communication. The integrated truss enclosing most of the feeders

that supply power to the different lighting systems required coordination as well. The feeders took up a

small compartment of the truss yet still needed to be coordinated using BIM with the structural and

mechanical discipline to avoid clashing.




Main Arena Design Approach

Since the main arena is the center focus of the whole building, the lighting and electrical design

for the main arena required multiple lighting solutions in order to bring the integrated and iconic vision

of the state of the art hockey barn to life. The goals were to make the space intimate yet intimidating,

have homage to a hockey barn, create a focus on the student section, and meet NCAA D1 requirements.

The lighting design criteria included (1) precise uniformity, (2) avoiding reflected and direct glare, (3)

modeling of faces and objects, and (4) establishing focal points and hierarchy in the space.

Figure 59 and 60 are original schematic

design ideas showing the hierarchy of

the space and where light needs to go.

In order to create a focus, the ice is

approximately ten times greater than

the stands, and the student section to

the west is twice as bright as the normal

stands.

Figure 5959. Spatial hierarchy of the main arena.

Figure 60. Original schematic design of main arena.




LLD 0.8

LDD 0.88

BF 1

Total LLF 0.704

Light Loss Factors

Type Manufactuer Description

F1, F1A Sportsliter Solutions Event flood lights with 1000W MH Arc stream aligned

lamp. Reflector is anodized aluminum creating two

seperate parabolas of light. The aluminum housing has

a black finish with a clear tempered flat lens. Fixture is

UL rated for damp location. Fixture has attached

motorized shades for instant on/off effect. Mounted at

57' and 55' above ice on lighting truss

Lighting Platform Solution

After analyzing the space requirements and design considerations, the lighting/electrical and

structural discipline collaborated with the other disciplines as to where the fixtures in the main arena

were going to be mounted. In order to keep the integrity and embody the simple elegance of the

integrated truss, iBUILD chose not to use catwalks. The solution entailed carefully placing “lighting

platforms” on either side of the arena between the trusses as seen in the images below.

Since the fixtures are aim and set, so iBUILD decided this was a feasible solution. Re-lamping

would be the only time someone would need to access the fixtures. In that case they would use a cherry

picker in order to reach it; similar to the rest of the MEP systems.

Main Arena Event Lighting Solution

Due to our proposed schedule and time constraints, the lighting design developed

simultaneously as the rest of the arena geometry. An AGi32 model was created based on the

information available from the structural engineer about the space. iBUILD needed to mount the

fixtures high enough to get the required vertical footcandles as well as avoid direct glare without being

obtrusive or distracting. The selected fixtures are 1000W metal halide flood lights, specially designed for

arenas. The combination of two separate parabolas in the reflector minimizes glare for both the players

and spectators. By providing a narrow vertical beam and a wide horizontal beam, the fixtures can be

mounted on either side of the playing surface, eliminating the need for supplemental lighting at the

ends. Also in order to achieve the “black out scenario” there are shutters on the fixtures that close in

less than 3 seconds with little to no light leak in order to avoid waiting for re-strike time.

Figure 6161. Location of lighting platforms. Figure 602. Lighting platforms hanging off the purlins.

Table 7. F1 and F1A Fixture Information

Table 8. F1 and F1A Light Loss Factors




Walls 0.5

Stands 0.5

Ceiling 0.7

Lighting Platform 0.5

Truss 0.3

Ice 0.9

Reflectances

Allowed by

ASHRAE 90.1 3.44 (Ice and Stands)

Actual 2.102851698

Lighting Power DensityDesign Criteria: NCCA National

Broadcasting

NCAA Standard

Intercollegiate

Play

IES

Reccomendations

Horizontal fc 125 100 150

Horizontal

uniformity

1.5:1 2.5:1

1.7 and CV:0.13

Vertical fc 75 40 40

Vertical uniformity -

-Center Main Camera 1.5 - -

End Camera 2.5 - -

Figure 64. AGi32 rendering with calculation points for standard intercollegiate play

Event Lighting Calculations:

The first two systems designed were for NCAA standard intercollegiate play and national

championship final site event broadcast lighting.

Figure 62 displays an example of the fixture layout on a lighting stage. Each lighting platform has

multiple lights mounted to it, some of which are located at 55’ and others at 57’ above the ice. The

fixtures are each carefully aimed and zoned together in order to achieve the precise uniformity.

Referring to Figure 62 and 64, The

solid lines are associated with zone ‘a’

(purple) fixtures which stay illuminated for

both standard intercollegiate play as well as

broadcasting events. The dashed lines are

associated with zone ‘b’ (blue) fixtures that

turn on to provide supplemental lighting for

broadcast lighting. And the red lines are

associated with zone ‘c’ (orange) fixtures that

turn off in order to maintain the precise

horizontal and vertical uniformity required

for national championship events. Figure 64 is

an AGi32 rendering showing how iBUILD met

the design criteria by achieving an average

horizontal iluminance of 101fc, an average

vertical illuminance of 92.8fc, a ratio of max

to min of 1.75 and a coefficient of variation of .13.

purple: zone a, blue: zone b, orange:

zone c

Table 11. Reflectances entered into AGi32.

Table 9. Main arena event lighting design criteria Table 10. Main arena lighting power density

Figure 62. Elevation of fixtures mounted on lighting platform and color-coded by zone.




Evavg: 182 fc Max:min 1.41 CV: .09

Evavg: 93.7 fc Max:min 1.58 CV: .15

Figure 65. AGi32 calculation points on ice for final championship site event broadcasting.

Figure 66. AGi32 calculation points for center camera.

Figure 67. AGi32 calculation points for end camera.

Ehavg: 144.5fc Max:min: 1.44 CV: .09





F13 Robe ColorSpot 575 Movable light that includes two separate gobo wheels

and two separate color wheels. Contains a dichroic

glass reflector and 15, 18 and 22 degree remotely

adjustable angles.

Main Arena Theatrical Lighting Solution

The next set of systems considered were the theatrical effects, portable spotlights, still camera

strobes, and scoreboard power loads. Since the arena may hold events such as concerts or ice shows the

electrical system needs to have the capability to power supplemental equipment that may be brought in

by outside tour companies. This is all powered from the show power room located on the event level.

There are 3 distribution panels located in the show power room on the event level that provide power

for these electrical loads. (1) 480Y/277 800A 14KAIC and (2) 208Y/120 400A 22KAIC are both connected

to the first main switchboard, and (3) 208Y/120 1000A 22KAIC is connected to the second main

switchboard.

During the blackout there will be theatrical effect lighting that is controlled from the control

booth, mounted on the lighting platform system, along with a series of high power camera strobes for

still camera photography. The theatrical effects are accomplished by a series of ColorSpot 575.

It was discovered that an outside theater and broadcast professional would need to be consulted to

figure out the best locations for the special photography lighting, but space was left available for these

fixtures on the lighting platforms and panel boards.

Table 12. F13 Fixture information




LLD 0.7

LDD 0.88

BF 1

Total LLF 0.616

Light Loss Factors


F4, F4A, F4B Lumenpulse Lumen Beam XL - dimming LED Flood light. 40°, 10° + LSL

and 10° optic Die-cast aluminum housing with black

finish and a clear tempered glass lens. Rated IP66. UL

listed

LLD 0.7

LDD 0.88

BF 1

Total LLF 0.616

Light Loss Factors


F2 Lumenpulse Lumen Beam XL - dimming LED Flood light. 10° + LSL

optic Die-cast aluminum housing with black finish and a

clear tempered glass lens. Rated IP66. UL listed


F3 Kurt Versen A4248 5" dia. conoid directional downlight with soft sheen

pewter cone and LED Par lamp. UL listed

Main Arena General House Illumination Solution

General house illumination for spectator arrival, departure, maintenance, and cleanup is

achieved by 140W Lumenbeam XL LED floodlights with a horizontal spread lens mounted to the

underside of the lighting stages. The luminaires are aimed to different sections of the stands providing

an average of 12 fc. On the outer ring of the main arena there is a walkway that patrons walk around to

find their seats. 21W LED downlights are spaced every 6 feet, providing an average of 8 fc. In case of an

emergency there are 140W Lumenbeam XL LED flood lights designated for emergency and provide the

stands with an average of 8 fc as well. (see lighting plan in attached appendix O)


As requested by the feasibility statement, there is added focus on the student section also known as

“Section E”. The student section is about two times brighter than the rest of the stands. This is achieved

by using a variety of 140W Lumenbeam XL LED fixtures with different candela distributions as the risers

steepen and the distance of the mounting height from the stands increases.

In order to achieve uniform illuminance down the student section it was necessary to use multiple rows of fixtures with different beam angles and candela distributions as seen in Figure 69.

F4 F4A F4A F4B F4 - 40° Optic F4A - 10° + LSL Optic

LLD 0.7

LDD 0.88

BF 1

Total LLF 0.616

Light Loss Factors

Table 15. F2 Light Loss Factors


Table 2. F3 Light Loss Factors

Table 4. F4, F4A, F4B Fixture information Table 3. F4, F4A, F4B Light Loss Factors

Figure 639. Section cut of illuminated student section

F4B - 10° Optic F4 - 40° Optic F4A - 10° + LSL Optic

Figure 68. F4, F4A, F4B Beam angles




Figure 64. AGi32 pseudo color rendering of luminance of main arena with general illumination only.

Main Arena Total Illumination Solution - AGi32 Renderings

Figure 65. AGi32 pseudo color rendering of luminance of main arena with only event illumination.

Figure 7366. AGi32 color rendering of main arena as typical event with student section illuminated.

Figure 72. AGi32 pseudo color rendering of luminance of main arena as typical event with student section illuminated.




Main Arena 3D Studio Max Renderings

The lighting design for the main arena was truly an exercise using AGi32 since this type of design

requires accuracy and precision. However, in order to get quality renderings with geometry from the

Revit model, it was necessary to explore exporting it as an FBX from Revi, importing it to 3D Studio Max,

and re-aiming the lights as accurately as possible.

Figure 75. Checking light levels with a light meter in 3D Studio Max

Figure 67. Event lighting being aimed in 3D Studio Max

Figure 7669. Rendering made in 3DS Max looking from student section Figure 68. Rendering made in 3DS Max looking from a club box




Main Arena Electrical Solution

iBUILD sized panel boards (found in appendix T) and branch circuits to meet NEC 2011

requirements for the lighting design of the main arena, which were modeled in Revit. Feeders were fed

through the integrated truss to bring power to fixtures mounted on the north lighting platforms. This

was a very interesting and challenging exercise due to the necessary coordination with the structural

and mechanical discipline. In order to make the whole system as clean as possible, iBUILD wanted to

hide the feeders behind the purlins that the lighting stages hang off of and then feed them into the

trusses. Once we started modeling, we discovered there was not enough room inside the truss above

the ductwork in order for this to be successful, so we had to bring the feeders back down the side of the

trusses and then enter at a lower point.

Feeders tucked behind

purlins clashing with

ductwork

Figure 78. Revit image of conduit/ mechanical equipment clash.

Figure 79. Revit drawing of solution to feeder and duct clash. Figure 8070. Navisworks image of feeders running out of truss around structure and mechanical equipment.




Main Arena Lighting and Electrical Conclusion

The lighting and electrical solution for the main arena closely coordinated with the structural

and mechanical disciplines in order to achieve the goals and design criteria for the space. The location of

the light stages and the total distributed weight of the light fixtures were the main items that required

communication with the structural engineering student. Due to the fact iBUILD chose not to use a

catwalk system; it was definitely a challenge to achieve accurate and uniform light levels. After many

hours of working with AGi32, the lighting/electrical engineering student was able to reach an acceptable

solution that met the NCAA criteria. The other challenge of the main arena was coordinating with the

mechanical ductwork through the integrated truss. This is where BIM became very useful in the design

process. Since the ductwork and structure were already modeled in Revit, the feeders had to be

designed around them. By taking this design initiative, when the model was run in Navisworks, there

was zero clashing between the disciplines. In a real project, having access to these softwares could save

millions of dollars during construction and make the whole process flow a lot smoother.




Construction Executive Summary

The responsibility of the construction manager on this project was to analyze and manage the

construction considerations throughout the design and construction of this facility. As part of an

integrated team, the construction manager on team iBUILD had ability to bring construction expertise to

the table, encouraging alternate thought processes throughout the design of the facility. These alternate

thought processes included the effect of design decisions on cost to the project, as well as schedule and

constructability. The construction manager also helped facilitate information exchange throughout the

design and construction process by remaining involved in all design decisions and performing clash

detection and solutions with the help of the each of the disciplines.

As described in the design intent, the primary investigation of the main arena was the design and

construction of the integrated truss system that is used to support the roof above the primary ice sheet

for Division 1 hockey at Penn State. In order to make this design a reality, various construction

considerations were considered and analyses were performed. These analyses included: material

selection, procurement, and LEED opportunities related to the former; a detailed cost estimate of the

integrated truss and supporting frames; an in-depth crane analysis; 4D planning and sequencing of the

truss erection; and concluded with a study on value engineering based on design decisions.

The initial analysis of the construction manager on team iBUILD was to perform research into different

material options and sources for the members within the integrated truss system. The construction

manager worked closely with the design team for material selection, and then analyzed the proximity of

materials in relation to the site, the details and requirements of the fabrication process including

subcontractor involvement, the capabilities of manufacturers, and the material delivery process. This

analysis occurred concurrently with an investigation of LEED, ensuring that sustainability was a driving

factor, specifically through the use of materials and resources. Throughout this process, the construction

manager worked closely with the rest of the integrated design team by communicating the importance

of material selection. The selection of these materials had an influence on each of the disciplines, such

as structural capabilities, acoustical properties, resistance to decay, fabrication, cost, and delivery, as

well as having a positive impact on the environment.

The second analysis that was performed was a detailed cost analysis of the integrated truss system and

supporting frame. This was made possible through the use of Autodesk Revit, RS Means Building

Construction Cost Data, manufacturer’s quotes, and Microsoft Excel to organize the information. The

cost analysis also included the procurement of the materials, fabrication, and installation costs. To

develop a cost analysis of the integrated truss and supporting frame, the construction manager was

involved in all communication and required extensive collaboration among the disciplines. The

construction manager required specific information from each of the members of team iBUILD, including

mechanical, lighting, and electrical system layout and requirements, in addition to member sizes and

connection requirements from the structural discipline. With the understanding that the integrated




truss system was a very custom building component, the construction manager contacted several

industry professionals for their guidance and expertise to achieve the most accurate cost estimate.

The next step in making the design intent of the main arena a reality to the end user was to develop an

understanding on how this integrated truss system would be built. The construction manager on team

iBUILD worked closely with the integrated design team, specifically the structural engineering student in

a two part analysis. The first was that of performing an in-depth crane analysis. This consisted of

collaboration with the structural discipline in determining the type of crane, crane load requirements for

erection, and connection details. To determine the optimum splice locations for the trusses, the CM

worked closely with the structural and mechanical disciplines, while focusing on maintenance

capabilities of the components within. The construction manager then developed a preliminary schedule

and sequence for the crane that would be utilized for erection using construction scheduling software,

namely Microsoft Project, and performed iterations in order to maximize the efficiency of this process.

This analysis was combined with the use of 4D modeling software, namely Navisworks, which served as

the second piece of the two part analysis. The use of Navisworks’ 4D modeling capability of the crane

sequence helped team iBUILD understand the impact of design decisions to the crane schedule and thus

the impact on the overall building schedule. By adding the 4th dimension of time to the modeling

process, the construction manager had the ability to make iterations to the crane sequence in order to

make the erection process more efficient, while maintaining the safety of the workers on site.

The final analysis that the construction manager on team iBUILD performed was identifying and

researching final value engineering opportunities for the main arena. In terms of value engineering,

opportunities were identified for the main arena in order to achieve the highest value to the owner for

the lowest possible cost.




Main Arena Construction The responsibility of the construction management discipline on the Penn State Ice Hockey Arena

project was to analyze and manage the construction considerations throughout the design and

construction of this facility. The construction management discipline was able to bring the influence of

construction to the integrated team iBUILD and encourage alternate thought processes. The

construction manager was able to demonstrate the importance of design decisions and the effect of

these decisions on the cost, schedule and constructability of the project. Close collaboration was

required with each of the disciplines being represented on team iBUILD in order to achieve the optimum

design and construction solutions.

As mentioned in the design intent, team iBUILD took on the challenge of researching and analyzing

alternate design solutions for the roof structure above the main ice sheet in the new Penn State Ice

Hockey facility. To demonstrate the importance of an integrated design and construction team, team

iBUILD made the decision to analyze a complex roof structure that was based on the composite glulam

and steel arch system used on the Richmond Olympic Speed-skating Oval in Richmond, British Columbia,

Canada.

iBUILD Roof Structure Design #1

The first task of the construction management discipline for the main arena analysis was to investigate

the materials used for the alternative design for the roof structure. After performing research into a

variety of different structural roof systems, team iBUILD made the collaborative decision to begin

analysis into a V-shaped composite glulam and steel arch system to support the roof above the main

arena. One of the main attractions to this system for team

iBUILD was that it demonstrated the necessity for integration

and collaboration among all disciplines involved for its

success. The composite glulam and steel roof system allows

for a pleasing aesthetic for the occupants by concealing the

MEP systems within the cavity formed by these arches. See

Figure 81 for the initial design of the arches above the main

arena.

Team iBUILD’s roof system design consisted of the composite

glulam and steel arches that would span across the short

direction of the arena and would be connected in the

perpendicular direction by glulam purlins.

After the structural discipline performed various calculations and iterations for the members that

comprise this system, it was determined that twelve inch thick glulam members were required along

with a W14x90 bottom chord and two W12x40’s as top chords that would be connected by HSS tubing

as cross bracing.

Figure 81: iBUILD Roof Structure Design #1




The next step in this process for the construction management discipline was to determine where these

materials could be fabricated, the lead time on these materials, and any other details/complications

involved with the fabrication process of these custom composite arches. The construction management

disciple then began research into different manufacturers of these materials, while paying attention to

the proximity of the manufacturers in order to decrease transportation costs and environmental impact.

Prior to attempting contact with industry professionals, the construction management and structural

disciplines had to determine proper sectioning of the composite arches for erection, manufacturing, and

delivery purposes. It was determined that the composited glulam and steel arches would need to be

sectioned into three pieces. The total span for each arch is 166 feet in horizontal distance. Therefore, for

efficiency of erection, it was determined that the end sections would each represent 3/10 of the total

span and the middle section would represent 4/10. Therefore, the end sections would each be

approximately 50 feet in horizontal distance and the middle sections would be approximately 66 feet in

length. For ease of manufacturer pricing, the assumption of three equal sections was assumed, each at a

length of 60 feet to account for the radius. See Figure 82 below for CAD drawing of the initial design.

Figure 82: Example Glulam Arch

The construction management discipline began by locating a glulam fabricator in order to identify design

considerations that may have been overlooked as well as for cost and delivery information. After several

forms of correspondence between the construction management discipline and the glulam

manufacturer, it was determined that a significant cost reduction would occur if the thickness of glulam

was reduced to a standard size. Edge gluing would be necessary to achieve a 12 inch cross section.

Therefore, team iBUILD decided to explore the option of reducing the cross section of the glulam

members to a more standard thickness, such as that of 8 ¾ inch, per recommendation of the glulam

manufacturer. It was determined that 48 radiused glulam members would be required:

166’




Team iBUILD’s design intent from the beginning was to incorporate Pennsylvania’s supply of hardwoods

into the design of the roof structure for the main arena. Therefore, a collaborative decision was made to

utilize that of Red Maple for the glulam members. Team iBUILD was aware that other options for wood

products that would be more readily available and have better structural design values, such as

southern yellow pine, but the decision was made to incorporate PA hardwoods for aesthetic value as

well as that of reduced environmental impact.

Another consideration for the glulam manufacturer was that of the cutouts for the mechanical diffusers.

This required collaboration among the construction management, structural, and mechanical disciplines

on team iBUILD in order to properly engineer the system as a whole. The spacing of the diffuser cutouts

had to occur in locations that would not conflict with splice locations for erection purposes. In order to

ensure the problem would not occur in the field, team iBUILD utilized Autodesk Revit platforms to

model the mechanical components within the truss and link these to the structural model to achieve the

optimum design solution. The conclusion was that 104 cutouts for diffusers would be required. The

middle six arches would have a total of 16 cutouts for diffusers (eight per side – evenly spaced). The

arches on each of the far ends of the arena would only have eight total cutouts and would be located on

the side facing the ice.

iBUILD Roof Structure Design #2 and Value Engineering Analysis

Following more discussions with industry professionals, it was recommended that team iBUILD could

explore the design of a steel truss system with architectural glulam paneling versus structural glulam

members connected by steel bracing. As a result of these discussions, team iBUILD took the initiative to

redesign the roof structure with that of steel arches and architectural glulam paneling in order to

perform a value engineering analysis of the roof structure. The steel arches with glulam paneling would

achieve the same aesthetic as the composite glulam and steel arches and would most likely result in a

cost reduction.

In terms of the structure that would connect the composite glulam and steel arches to one another,

team iBUILD decided to continue the glulam theme for the roof structure. After conducting structural

analysis, it was determined that glulam purlins would connect between each composite arch.

After all design considerations were finalized, the construction management discipline contacted the

glulam manufacturer with the project specifications. After back and forth correspondence, a quotation

was produced for each of team iBUILD’s design for the glulam components in the roof structure. The

quotation included that of the composite glulam and steel arches versus that of the steel arches with

glulam panels, as well as the glulam purlins. See Tables 19 and 20 below for a breakdown of the cost of

the structural glulam members for both of team iBUILD’s designs for the roof structure:




Table 19: Glulam - iBUILD Design #1

Composite Glulam and Steel Arches

Description Quantity Unit Cost / Unit Total Cost

Structural Glulam Members

8 ¾” x 84” – 60 ft 2880 LF $531.60 $1,531,008.00

Diffuser Cutouts – 18 in. dia 112 EA $200.00 $22,400.00

Shop Drawing / Engineering Fee - LS - $50,000.00

Delivery - - - Fee Waived

Subtotal: $1,601,408.00

Glulam Purlins

18” x 26” – 35 ft length 18 EA $10,516,80.00 $189,302.40

12” x 20” – 23 ft length 45 EA $4,811.37 $216,511.65

Subtotal: $405,814.05

Glulam TOTAL: $2,007,222.05

Table 50: Glulam - iBUILD Design #2

Steel Arches with Glulam Panels


Glulam Veneer Panels

3” x 84” – 60 ft 2880 LF $141.76 $408,268.80

Diffuser Cutouts – 18 in. dia 104 EA $200.00 $22,800.00

Shop Drawing / Engineering Fee - LS - $5,000.00

Delivery - - - Fee Waived

Subtotal: $434,068.80

Glulam Purlins

18” x 26” – 35 ft length 18 EA $10,516,80.00 $189,302.40

12” x 20” – 23 ft length 45 EA $4,811.37 $216,511.65

Subtotal: $405,814.05

Glulam TOTAL: $839,882.85

Assumptions for Tables 19 and 20:

Source of above cost information – academic quotations from industry professionals

Cost / Unit includes the cost of labor and material for fabrication

Glulam Purlins – Shop drawing fee not included

Structural Glulam Members – Shop drawing/engineering fee details full composite arch (steel

included) and connections

Glulam Veneer Panels – Shop drawing/engineering fee details glulam panels because the panels

only act as a veneer (ie. the members do not work with the steel to achieve structural value)

Due to quantity of project, glulam manufacturer waived delivery costs




After obtaining academic industry quotations for the

glulam members for both of team iBUILD’s alternative

designs for the roof structure above the main arena, the

construction management discipline then sought out cost

information from the steel manufacturer.

The construction management discipline contacted a steel

manufacturer within the state of Pennsylvania and

informed the manufacturer of both of team iBUILD’s

designs for the roof structure. The information that was

requested of the manufacturer was that of the cost of

fabrication of the steel components in each

truss, including labor, material, and shop

drawing / engineering fees associated. Just

as well, information regarding lead time,

delivery costs and coordination information

with the glulam manufacturer was

requested. The construction management

discipline took the opportunity to conduct a

face-to-face meeting with the manufacturer

to obtain the relevant information.

Figures 83 and 84 were utilized to convey

to the steel manufacturer the details of

team iBUILD’s roof structure design #2. At

the conclusion of the meeting, a quote for

the steel components in both designs was

provided, as well as information on lead

time, delivery costs, and coordination with the glulam manufacturer.

The steel manufacturer provided a quotation of $3500 - $4500 per ton of steel. For the purpose of this

analysis, the larger of the values was utilized to create the estimate. The steel manufacturer described

that the order would apply to standard shipping rates with no required escorts or permits assumed. The

steel manufacturer quoted the standard shipping rate for team iBUILD’s designs to fall in the range of

$1500 - $2000 per load. Regarding the steel top and bottom chord’s for iBUILD’s design #1, each load

would be comprised of the necessary steel to complete one arch (ie. eight total loads). Regarding the

completed steel sections for iBUILD’s design #2, each load would be comprised of one steel arch section

(ie. 24 loads due to 24 total steel arch sections). The arches would be fabricated at a rate of one section

per week (ie. three weeks per each arch, 24 weeks total). See Tables 21 and 22 below for a breakdown

of the cost of the structural steel members for both of team iBUILD’s designs for the roof structure:

Figure 83: Section of steel truss with glulam veneer produced from Autodesk Revit

Figure 84: Screenshot of steel truss with glulam veneer from SAP 2000




Table 21: Cost of structural steel members in iBUILD's design #1



Structural Steel Members

Steel top and bottom chords 88.52 Ton $4,500.00 $398,340.00

Shop Drawing / Engineering Fee - LS - -

Delivery 8 Load $2,000.0 $16,000.00

Structural Steel TOTAL: $414,340.00

Table 22: Cost of structural steel members in iBUILD's design #2



Structural Steel Members

Steel Arches 111.15 Ton $4,500.00 $500,192.96

Shop Drawing / Engineering Fee - LS - -

Delivery 24 Load $2,000.0 $48,000.00

Structural Steel TOTAL: $548,192.96

Assumptions for Tables 21 and 22:

Source of above cost information – academic quotations from industry professionals

Cost / Unit includes the cost of labor and material for fabrication

Shop drawing / engineering fee included in cost / unit

Steel arch sections will be shipped to glulam shop at the completion of each arch section;

fabricate one section per week

No escorts / permits associated with delivery assumed

The remaining portion of the cost estimate for each system was that of the curved roof deck. After

research into steel decking manufacturers, the construction management discipline on team iBUILD

found a manufacturer from Pennsylvania that fabricates a roof deck that is designed to be bent in the

rigid direction. The design of team iBUILD’s roof structure is such that the composite glulam and steel

arches span the short direction of the ice with purlins that span from arch to arch. Therefore, the radius

for the roof deck system above the main ice arena will be in the rigid direction of the decking, which will

span from purlin to purlin. One benefit of the decking bending in the rigid direction will be to allow for

proper drainage of any water that that may infiltrate through the roofing material above rather than

that water collecting in the grooves created by the decking. After all of the structural calculations were

performed, it was determined that an appropriate roof deck related to team iBUILD’s design for the roof

structure was that of a 16 gage deck that is capable of spanning 20 feet with a rise to span ratio of 0.12.

Just as well, the chosen galvanized, 16 gage Archdeck PA contains added acoustical performance by way

of acoustical batts within and is finished with the manufacturer’s standard shop primer on the bottom

plate.




The construction management discipline provided the roof deck manufacturer of all the necessary

specifications in order to obtain a cost estimate for the labor and material related to the fabrication as

well as the costs associated with delivery. After back and forth correspondence with the metal deck

manufacturer, a quotation was provided detailing an academic cost estimate for iBUILD’s design. See

Table 23 below for a breakdown of the cost information of the curved roof deck:

Table 23: Curved Roof Deck for iBUILD's design #1 and 2

Curved Roof Deck


Archdeck PA – 16 gage – 6 in. 57627 SF SF $ 8.54 $ 492,292.00

Roof Deck TOTAL: $ 492,292.00

Assumptions for Table 23:

Curved Roof Deck – Total cost information of the curved metal decking was obtained in lump

sum form. The total cost was the divided by the total area of coverage to obtain the cost per

square foot value

Curved Roof Deck – Shop drawing fee not included

Curved Roof Deck – Delivery costs included in lump sum cost

After all of the cost information was obtained related to labor, material, fees and delivery, the

construction management discipline then compiled the information to create a cost comparison

between both of team iBUILD’s alternative designs for the roof structure above the main arena. See

Tables 24 and 25 for as summary including all of the costs associated with both designs:

Table 24: Total cost of iBUILD's design #1


Description Total Cost

Glulam Purlins $ 405,814.05

Curved Roof Deck $ 492,292.00

Structural Glulam Members $ 1,603,408.00

Structural Steel Members $ 414,340.00

TOTAL: $ 2,913,854.05




Table 25: Total cost of iBUILD's design #2

In conclusion, the value engineering analysis of team iBUILD’s initial design was successful. Team iBUILD

developed improved design, that of a steel arch system with glulam paneling, as a result of close

collaboration with one another as well as with the necessary dialogue and feedback from Penn State

Architectural Engineering professors and industry professionals. The total cost reduction, due to the

value engineering analysis, of the steel arch system with glulam paneling versus that of the composite

glulam and steel arches was that of $1,033,486.24.

Material Procurement

Another component of the design process that plays a major role in achieving the optimum design and

construction solution is the procurement of the materials. An understanding of manufacturer’s abilities

and material availability is key to ensuring the project can be completed on or ahead of schedule. It is

important to understand the lead times related to materials, fabrication, and delivery in order to

properly plan for the arrival of the materials to the site. If the construction manager is aware of the

minimum and maximum length of time between the time when an order is placed until that of delivery

to the site, the construction manager will then be able to schedule backward to determine the latest

date at which the materials should be ordered. Just as well, the construction manager need also

understand where the materials could be located if the materials were to arrive to the site ahead of

schedule. It is important for the construction manager to maintain a close line of communication with

manufacturers to ensure materials are on site at the time that they are needed.

Due to the importance of the material procurement process to the success of a project, the construction

management discipline of team iBUILD sought out information related to material procurement from

each of the glulam, steel, and roof decking manufacturers in order to determine the total lead time

between the time at which shop drawings begin up until the completion of the fabrication process.

Reference Table 26 and Figure 85 on the next page regarding the lead time information for team

iBUILD’s value engineered design for the roof system above the main arena. Please note that the

information in Table X and Figure Y was obtained through dialogue with industry professionals.


Description Total Cost

Glulam Purlins $ 405,814.05

Curved Roof Deck $ 492,292.00

Glulam Veneer Panels $ 435,668.80

Structural Steel Members $ 548,192.96

TOTAL: $ 1,880,367.81




Table 26: Lead Time information for steel truss with glulam panels

Lead Time Information

Description Lead Time

Curved Roof Deck

Shop Drawings 4 weeks

Fabrication 6 weeks

Total: 2.5 months

Glulam Members

Geometry Submittal 2 weeks


Red Maple (raw material) 12 weeks

Fabrication 4 weeks

Total: 4 – 5 months

Steel Members


Fabrication 24 weeks

Total: 8 months

Timeline After Completed Design (2 weeks/cell)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Curved Roof Deck

Shop Drawings

4 weeks

Fabrication 6 weeks

Glulam Members

Geometry Submittal

2 weeks

Shop Drawings

4 weeks

Red Maple 12 weeks

Fabrication 4 weeks

Steel Members

Shop Drawings

8 weeks

Fabrication 24 weeks

Figure 85: Lead time durations from time of completed design

As displayed in Figure 85, the shop drawing process for the manufacturer can begin after the architect /

engineer has completed the design. The manufacturers will begin to fabricate only after the approved

shop drawings have been received. Due to the long lead time for the red maple raw material, the glulam

manufacturer would place the order for the material at the commencement of the shop drawing

process. The longest lead item for the steel arch system with glulam paneling would be the steel




members. According to the steel manufacturer, a conservative estimate for the fabrication time for each

steel arch section would be that of one section per week. After discussing the fabrication process with

both the steel and glulam manufacturers, it was determined that the best method of fabricating one

complete section of steel arch with glulam paneling would be as follows. At the completion of the

fabrication of each steel arch section, the section would be delivered to the glulam shop for the

installation of the glulam paneling. This was deemed the best solution for this custom arch system. The

steel manufacturer would not want to be held liable for any damages done to the glulam if this process

were reversed. It was deemed most appropriate to deliver the steel sections to the glulam manufacturer

upon fabrication, and then install the glulam paneling to the steel. The glulam manufacturer has the

expertise and experience on handling and maintaining the quality of the glulam members, which will

serve as the exterior finish to the completed arch system from within the arena. The glulam

manufacturer also has the experience and expertise to properly package and prepare the completed

arch sections for delivery to the site to prevent damage.

Please note that the primary purpose of Figure 85 is to display the lead times of each item rather than

serve as a schedule for the procurement process. This information would then be utilized to back-track

to determine the appropriate date to begin communication with the fabricators.




Crane Analysis and 4D Truss Erection Sequence

In order to properly perform a crane analysis, it is important to understand the logistics of the given site.

To determine the longest crane pick, i.e. maximum pick radius for the crane, the laydown areas must be

established. Also, it is important to understand the access into and out of the site as well as the path of

the crane. For the purpose of the main arena analysis, a site plan of the Penn State ice hockey arena was

created for the construction of the main arena roof trusses (See Figure 86).

Figure 71: Main Arena Roof Truss Erection Site Plan

As shown in Figure 86, the truss erection sequence would occur from that of project east and would

proceed westward. This was determined to be the most appropriate solution for the truss erection

sequence after multiple iterations of site planning. The construction management discipline sought the

expertise of construction management firms as well as Penn State Architectural Engineering professors

in order to determine the optimum solution for the truss erection sequence. From the advice received

from various industry professionals, it was recognized that if the truss erection began from the west and

proceeded eastward, the construction of the eastern portion of the ice arena would be delayed until the

completion of the truss erection process. This would occur so that the crane would be able to work its

way out of the site in a direction from west to east as well as leaving access for material deliveries

through that section of the building. Therefore, interior finishes for the main arena would be delayed




until the structure and east façade were completed. It was determined that by proceeding from east to

west, construction of the eastern structure and façade could occur before or during the main arena truss

erection sequence. This method would not inhibit on the construction of the east façade and the

interior finishes would then have the ability to commence upon the completion of the main arena roof

structure. One possible disadvantage of the truss erection sequence proceeding from east to west is

that a portion of the community rink structure at the south side of the site would need to be left

incomplete to allow for the removal of the crane as well as material deliveries.

The site plan displayed in Figure 86 is a top-down screenshot of the site from Autodesk Navisworks.

Navisworks served as a primary tool for site planning for the construction management discipline

because it allowed for visualization of spatial limitations. The structural and mechanical models of the

main arena were imported into Navisworks, thus providing the construction management discipline with

a scaled model for site planning. The truss sections could be placed on the ground within the model and

show the amount of space required for the laydown areas. The location of the shoring towers and the

crane could also be displayed. After multiple iterations, appropriate laydown areas could be established

on the north and south sides of the crane path. The crane would move in the direction of the red arrow

(east to west) and deliveries would occur from the south side of the site and could be unloaded via the

crane from the west. Access to the site would be from the site gate at the southeast. Utilizing the

measurement capabilities within Navisworks, it was determined that the maximum radius that would be

necessary to perform the longest pick would be that of approximately 70 feet. The crane would lift the

arch sections into place from one location until one complete arch was erected. After which, the crane

would move to its next location, keeping the same distance of 70 feet away to complete the next arch.

When choosing a crane type to perform the erection of the main arena roof structure, there are many

factors to consider. Such factors include: lifting capacities, crane speed capacities, operator visibility, the

transport costs associated with moving the crane onto and off the site, travel lanes, placement of the

crane on the site, critical lifts based on distance and weight, the location of laydown areas, the crane

foundation and many more.




Critical Lift Analysis

The first step in determining the type of crane to be used is to perform a critical lift analysis. A takeoff of

the steel and glulam weights for the members that comprise both of team iBUILD’s roof structure

designs is displayed in Table 27.

Table 27: Weight comparison of arch sections for team iBUILD’s roof structure designs #1 and 2

Truss Type Section

Wood Weight

(lbs)

Wood Weight (tons)

Steel Weight

(lbs)

Steel Weight (tons)

Total Weight

(lbs)

Total Weight (tons)

Steel with Glulam Panels

Ends 6051.24 3.03 8336.55 4.17 14387.79 7.19

Steel with Glulam Panels

Middle

8068.32 4.03 11115.40 5.56 19183.72 9.59

Composite Glulam and Steel

Ends 17649.45 8.82 6639.00 3.32 24288.45 12.14

Composite Glulam and Steel

Middle

23532.60 11.77 8852.00 4.43 32384.60 16.19

As shown in Table 27, the critical lift will be dependent on the design chosen for the roof structure. The

critical lift for iBUILD design #1 (the composite glulam and steel arch system) is the middle section of the

arch with a total weight of 32,384.6 lbs. or 16.19 tons. The critical lift for iBUILD design #2 (the steel

arch system with glulam panels) is also the middle section of the arch with a total weight of 19,183.72

lbs. or 9.59 tons. The next step is to perform the geometric calculations that are based on the longest

pick to determine the minimum boom length and boom angle required to perform the pick. The

following is a list of assumptions related to the critical lift. Please also reference Figure 72.

Critical Lift Assumptions:

Need to erect middle arches at 84 ft. above ground

Allow Y = 10 ft. (for hang distance)

Allow X = 6 ft. (boom origin at approx. 6 ft. above ground level)

84 ft. to the bottom of middle arch

84 ft. + 10 ft. = 94 ft. total height from ground minimum

94 ft. – 6 ft. = 88 ft. from boom origin to boom tip in y-direction

Allow for a swing radius of 70 ft. need approx. 68 ft. for longest pick

882 + 702 = (boom length)2 minimum boom length = 112.45 ft

Minimum boom angle = tan-1 (88/70) = 51.5o

Max lifts: 19,183.72 lbs. and 32,384.60 lbs. @ 68 ft. distance




Figure 72: Critical Lift Geometry

After the critical lift geometries have been established, specifications of particular cranes could then be

researched. As mentioned previously, a crane type with mobile capabilities was preferred for this

application. Table 28 below provides a summary of the different options for cranes that were

researched.

Table 28: Crane options for the erection of both of team iBUILD's roof structure designs

Crane Type Brand Ton Boom

Length (ft) Radius

(ft) Boom Angle

(degrees) Height above

ground (ft) 360 degree rating (lbs)

Hydraulic Crawler

Terex American HC 110

110 120 70 56.7 107 20970

Hydraulic Crawler

Terex American HC 165

165 120 70 58.3 110 41230

Hydraulic Crawler

Liebherr LR 1100

100 125 70 55.9 110 25466

Hydraulic Crawler

Manitowoc 555 150 130 70 57.4 115.5 39000

Hydraulic Truck Crane

Grove TMS9000E

110 116.2 70 52.96 102.7 21200

All Terrain Crane

Demag AC160 200 118.4 72 52.5 110 39500

All Terrain Crane

Grove GMK5175

175 131 70 57.7 120.7 41400

http://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/crawler-crane-charts/HC110.pdf




http://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/crawler-crane-charts/Liebherr-LR1100-Technical-Data.pdf

http://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/crawler-crane-charts/Liebherr-LR1100-Technical-Data.pdf

http://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/crawler-crane-charts/Manitowoc-555_Product_Guide.pdf

http://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/truck-crane-charts/Grove-TMS9000E.pdf

http://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/truck-crane-charts/Grove-TMS9000E.pdf

http://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/all-terrain-crane-charts/Demag-AC160.pdf

http://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/all-terrain-crane-charts/Grove-GMK5175_175T.pdf

http://www.bigge.com/crane-charts/all-terrain-crane-charts/Grove-GMK5175_175T.pdf




All of the options displayed previously in Table 28 meet the critical lift requirements. The most

appropriate crane for the erection of team iBUILD’s design #1 is that of the Manitowoc 555 Hydraulic

Crawler crane because it is the smallest scale crane that meets all of the requirements for the critical lift.

Just as well, the most appropriate crane for the erection of team iBUILD’s design #2 is that of the

Liebherr LR 1100 Hydraulic Crawler crane for the same reasons. After performing a crane analysis for

both of team iBUILD’s designs for the roof structure, it can be concluded that an added benefit of the

value engineered steel arch system with glulam paneling would be that of a reduction in crane size

needed to perform the structural erection. A reduction in crane size allows for added cost savings to the

project. The Table below provides cost savings information related to the reduction in crane size as a

result of team iBUILD’s value engineered design for the main arena roof trusses.

Crane Comparison

Description Quantity Unit Rental Rate/Unit Total Cost

100 ton Crawler 17 week $ 5,202.00 $ 88,434.00

150 ton Crawler 17 week $ 6,018.00 $ 102,306.00

Cost Savings: $ 13,872.00

Percent Difference: -14%

Truss Erection Sequence

Now that the crane has been sized, a 4D model of the truss erection sequence could be created. The

first step in creating a 4D model of the truss erection sequence was to develop a construction schedule.

See Figure 88 below for a portion of the schedule that is repeated for each truss.

Figure 88: Example sequence for main arena roof truss erection




As displayed in Figure 88, the delivery of the end sections of the arches would occur on a Monday. That

same day, the end sections would be picked off of the delivery truck and moved into the appropriate

laydown location. Immediately following the shake-out of the arch end sections, MEP installation within

the arches would occur. A maximum of five days of the schedule would be attributed to the MEP

installation within the arch sections (ie. Monday through Friday of a given week). Upon the arrival of the

weekend, a crew would be compensated for the task of demobilization and relocation of the shoring

towers from their previous location. It was determined that two shoring towers would exist on the site

at a given time and every other weekend throughout the duration of the truss erection sequence would

be utilized for the relocation of the two shoring towers. Each shoring tower would consist of a top and

bottom half (ie. two sections per shoring tower – four total shoring tower sections). The demobilization

of the shoring towers would occur on a Saturday and would be relocated/re-erected on a Sunday. This

will allow for the erection of the left end section of the arch to occur the following Monday. The erection

of the arch section and connection to the structure would take approximately two days. At which time,

the right end section could be erected and connected to the structure. The middle section of the arch

would be erected on a Friday and the connection to the end sections would occur through the weekend.

Figure 89 below displays the construction activities that would occur the following week. The glulam

purlins would be delivered on a Monday and would be picked off of the delivery truck and moved into

the temporary laydown location on site. That same day, the glulam purlin erection would begin and

would occur through to the middle of the week. At which time, the curved roof deck would be delivered

to the site and moved into its temporary laydown area on site. The curved roof deck would begin to be

erected that same day and the time allotted would be until Friday of that week. After the curved roof

deck installation is completed, the de-mobilization and relocation of the shoring towers would occur

through the weekend.

The above explanation encompassed that of a three week process that would be performed until the

completion of the main arena roof structure. Reference Appendix AA for the entire schedule for the roof

structure. The sequence would overlap such that on the same Monday that purlin erection is occuring,

the next set of arch deliveries would occur. Reference Figure 90 below for a visualization of the schedule

overlap.

Figure 89: Example schedule of typical week to construct purlins and decking




Table 29 below provides a summary of the above information which would occur in a finish-start

fashion. The truss erection sequence for the main arena would begin on Monday, August 27, 2012 and

would be completed by Friday, December 21, 2012. In conclusion, the schedule for the main arena truss

erection would take approximately four months to complete, at a total duration of 85 work days.

Table 29: Example of repeated sequence for the main arena roof structure erection

Main Arena Roof Structure Assembly and Erection Cost:

Another consideration related to the role of construction management was the assembly and erection

costs related to the main arena roof structure. After performing research into each of the construction

tasks and multiple discussions with industry professionals, crew sizes were determined for each of the

trades involved with the assembly and erection of the main arena roof trusses. The man hours were

calculated based on the scheduling assumptions that were previously stated. Table 30 below provides a

breakdown of the costs associated with assembly and erection. The assumptions related to the cost

information are listed below Table 30.

Main Arena Roof Structure Erection

Task Description Duration

Arch section deliveries and MEP installation 5 days

Demobilization and relocation of shoring towers 2 days

Erection and connection of one complete arch 6 days

Purlin and roof deck installation 5 days

Figure 90. Excerpt from schedule




Table 306: Main Arena Truss Assembly and Erection Costs

Main Arena Truss Assembly and Erection Costs

Description Count Quantity Unit Labor Cost Equipment Cost Total Cost

Sheet Metal Crew 2 320 hour $ 56.54 $ - $ 36,185.60

Electrician 2 128 hour $ 56.45 $ - $ 14,451.20

Iron Worker Crew 6 384 hour $ 61.48 $ - $ 141,649.92

Carpenter Crew 4 112 hour $ 50.08 $ - $ 22,435.84

Metal Decking Crew 4 112 hour $ 61.48 $ - $ 27,543.04

Crane Rental - 100 Ton Crawler 1 17 week $ - $ 5,202.00 $ 88,434.00

Crane Operator 1 680 hour $ 53.40 $ - $ 36,312.00

4'x4'x6' Rental per frame per month 24 3.75 month $ - $ 12.81 $ 1,152.90

Screw Jack Rental per jack per month 8 3.75 month $ - $ 5.34 $ 160.20

Add for erecting each frame - 192 EA $ 10.28 $ - $ 1,973.76

Add for dismantling each frame - 192 EA $ 8.26 $ - $ 1,585.92

Total Assembly and Erection Cost: $ 371,884.38

Construction Duration: 17 weeks

Assumptions for Table 30:

Material costs for mechanical and electrical components within trusses are not included

Assume (2) electricians @ 8 hours/day x 2 days/truss x 8 trusses

Assume (6) iron workers @ 8 hours/day x 6 days/truss x 8 trusses

Assume (2) sheet metal workers @ 8 hours/day x 5 days/truss x 8 trusses

Assume (4) carpenters @ 8 hours/day x 2 days/arch-to-arch connection x 7 connections

Assume (4) iron workers @ 8 hours/day x 2 days/arch-to-arch connection x 7 connections

Assume (4) iron workers @ 8 hours/day x 2 days/arch-to-arch connection x 7 connections

Assume (1) crane operator @ 8 hours/day x 5 days/week x 17 weeks

Assume shoring towers --> 70 feet tall each @ 6 feet tall/frame --> requires 12 frames/shoring tower

Erecting and dismantling of shoring towers --> 12 frames/tower x 2 towers x 8 relocations

Table 31 below is a table that combines all of the cost information related to team iBUILD’s design of the

main arena roof structure. This information includes assembly and erection costs, material and labor

costs associated with fabrication and delivery, and the cost of the additional supporting structure.

Table 317: Total Cost of team iBUILD's design for the main arena roof structure

Total Assembly and Erection Cost: $ 371,884.38

Total Material Costs: $ 1,879,967.81

Additional Support Structure: $ 86,420.00

Total Main Arena Roof Structure Cost: $ 2,338,272.19

Comparison to Original Roof Structure Design of the Main Arena:




Although it was not the goal of team iBUILD to compare to the original design of the roof structure, the

construction management discipline elected to perform a cost comparison of team iBUILD’s roof

structure design of the main arena to that of the original roof structure design detailed in the design

documents. Table 32 below provides a summary of the costs for each design (refer to Appendix U for

the complete estimate and quantity takeoffs).

Table 32: Main Arena Structure Cost Comparison to Original Design

Main Arena Structure Cost Comparison

Original Roof

Structure Steel Arches with Glulam

Panels Cost Difference

Glulam Total - $ 839,482.85 $ (839,482.85)

Roof Deck $ 171,075.78 $ 492,292.00 $ (321,216.22)

Structural Steel Members $ 1,683,600.00 $ 548,192.96 $ 1,135,407.04

Additional Support Structure - $ 86,420.00 $ (86,420.00)

TOTAL: $ 1,854,675.78 $ 1,966,387.81 $ 111,712.03

As displayed in Table 32, team iBUILD’s main arena roof structure has been calculated to cost

$111,712.03 more than that of the original roof structure design for the main arena. Team iBUILD’s end

goal was not to work towards an improvement to the existing design at the time the documents were

provided, but rather to create an original design and value engineer the team’s ideas. This cost

comparison was performed upon request.

Figure 91: View of both the original design (left) and team iBUILD's design (right) of the main arena roof structure




Team iBUILD’s Sustainability Efforts

Rather that conducting a comprehensive LEED study for the entire building, team iBUILD decided to

simply make sustainability a driving factor through the design process. This decision was deemed most

appropriate because the team did not conduct analysis on the building as a whole, but rather focused

attention on three of the building spaces. To state differently, rather than performing a LEED analysis

and validating LEED credits to be awarded to the project, the team elected to make efforts towards

sustainability for each of the three spaces that are being analyzed.

Team iBUILD’s sustainability efforts for the main arena analysis primarily focused on selecting regional

building materials. This effort was driven by a number of reasons. By specifying regional materials that

were grown, harvested, and/or manufactured within 500 miles of the project site, transportation costs

as well as harmful emissions being released into the atmosphere as a result of travel, are being kept to a

minimum. Team iBUILD conducted research into a variety of different manufacturers when selecting the

structural materials for the roof truss components. Both the sources for the glulam and structural steel

components of the main arena roof trusses originate within a 500 mile radius. For example, the Red

Maple glulam wood paneling for the trusses is a Pennsylvania hardwood, as well as being Forest

Stewardship Council (FSC) certified. Selecting regional materials for the main arena roof structure design

was the primary sustainability effort of team iBUILD for the main arena analysis.

Documents

Penn State Ice Hockey Arena Thesis Final Reportibuildthesis.weebly.com/uploads/8/6/9/5/8695657/main_arena_1-83.pdf · Penn State Ice Hockey Arena Final Report IPD/BIM Thesis 4/24/2012