Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape ArchitectureThe Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PASpring 2005
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction
•Building Background
•Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design
•Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management
•Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing
•Conclusions
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Building Background
Function: Provides studio and office space for the Schools of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, as well as, critiquing and jury spaces, galleries, a library, and a model shop.
Size: 111,000 SF
Cost: $27,550,000
Schedule: October 2003 to April 2005
Delivery Method: Traditional – General Contractor
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Building Background
Architectural Features: Green Design and Functionality
Large, Open Studio Spaces
Ribbon Interior Spaces
Raised Access Flooring
Exposed Systems
Exterior Sunlight Fins
Copper Façade
Cantilevered Section
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction
•Building Background
•Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design
•Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management
•Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing
•Conclusions
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design
•The Structural Truss
Four Story
Thirty Foot Cantilever
Exposed structure
•The Problem
Over-Sized Members
Detailed Connections
Difficult Erection
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
AssumptionsStructural Cords
Connections
Columns
Façade
Member Sizes
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Calculations
Roof and Floor Loads
Roof girders down to First floor girders
Diagonal braces removed
Columns
Foundations
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Re-design Effects
Overall Steel tonnage
Steel Erection ~ reduced by two weeks & $45,000
Foundation Additions ~ four added
Schedule Impacts ~ reduced by two weeks
General Conditions ~ reduced by $32,700
Visual Implications ~ no severe change
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Results
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Current State
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Post Re-Design
For
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Conclusion
Offset by Added Foundations Cost
Minor Compared to Overall Building Costs
Reduced Project Budget by $148,382
Reduced Project Schedule by Two Weeks
Caused no significant visual implications
For
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction
•Building Background
•Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design
•Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management
•Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing
•Conclusions
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management
•The Waste Management InitiativeIn 1996, 136 Million Tons of
Construction and Demolition Debris were produced.
•The ProblemCostScheduleRecycling Percentages
•The Case Study Approach
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
The Case Study Approach
State College, PAThe Stuckeman Family BuildingS.A.L.A. First L.E.E.D. Certified Building for the countyHigh Rate of Construction – Low Tipping Fees
Cleveland, OHThe Case Western Reserve University North
Residence VillageFirst L.E.E.D. Certified building for the cityExtremely Low Tipping FeesMaking Progress
Cleveland, OHPacific Lutheran’s Morken Center for
Learning and TechnologyHundreds of Green buildings in the CityWell Developed Recycling CultureLarge Competition Among Recyclers
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Influencing Factors
103
19
45
2
110
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Number of Projects
WA OH PA
L.E.E.D. Projects
Registered Projects Certified Projects
•Initial L.E.E.D. Decision
•Public Perception
Workforce
Owners
Government
•Co-Mingled vs. Source
Separated
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Recycling Company Availability
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Waste Management Schedule
•Field Workers ~ Average of 2 to 5 minutes per day
~ Approximately 9 to 22 days per year
~ Two to Four Weeks to the project Schedule
~ Could result in $26,000 in added labor costs
•Superintendents ~ Average of 15 to 20 minutes per day
~ Approximately 65 to 87 hours per year
~ Could result in $1,740 in added G.C. costs
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Waste Management Costs
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Solution
•Pre-Construction Investigation
•Detailed Waste Management Plan
•Extensive Worker Training
•Early involvement of Waste Management company
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Conclusion
•Could delay project up to 2 weeks.
•On an average project size of 100,000 sf, the differences in recycling costs for the designated areas could be as much as$20,250.
•Added to the lost labor costs calculated above brings the grand total for an average project to $47,990.
•Differences between recycling cultures can be prevented by taking the proper steps.
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction
•Building Background
•Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design
•Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management
•Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing
•Conclusions
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing
•Raised Access Flooring and L.E.E.D.
Easy Installation
High Flexibility
Return Air Plenum
•The Problem ~ Coordination
•The 3D and 4D Model Approach
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Model Area with Actual Drawing inserted.
Pedestals are layed out, followed by ductwork.
3D Model
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Pedestals are installed and leveled.
Chilled/hot water piping and electrical conduit is installed.
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Wire cable tray is installed.
Floor tile is installed.
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
4D Model
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Conclusion
•Construction Manager and Subcontractor EvaluationsUseful in envisioning MEP systemsEffective in determining conflictsNot Practical for Construction Site Coordination
effortsMore practical for Design Coordination applicationsMore practical and effective on MEP-intensive projectsPrefer experienced personnel vs. computer programs
•Final VerdictEffective, but not practical for Construction Site
Coordination Efforts
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction
•Building Background
•Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design
•Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management
•Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing
•Conclusions
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Conclusions
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
•Accepting the Value Engineering Re-Design of the Structural Truss would have reduced the schedule by two weeks and saved approximately $148,382.
•Although the differences in recycling cultures can affect a project drastically, proper pre-planning of the Waste Management Program can minimize the disparity.
•The use of 3D and 4D models for the coordination of under-RAF systems is effective in determining conflicts; however, is not considered practical in the construction coordination venue.
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Questions
?
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Steel Calculations•Steel Tonnage
~$2,500/ton estimated from average in RS Means~$2,500/ton X 38.62 tons = $96,550
•Steel Connections~Estimated to be 10 percent of the affected structural tonnage~112.78 tons X 0.10 = 11.3 tons~11.3 tons X $650/ton = $7,332~ $650/ton is actual steel costs, not including erection
•Two Weeks Deleted From Schedule~$4,500 per day for crane and erection crew~10 days X $4,500/day = $45,000~Additional $10,000 for Temporary Shoring
•Added Foundations~Mini-Pile Depths Estimated by Averaging Nearby Pile Depths~38 foot depth X $ 63.16/foot = $2400~14 piles X $2,300/pile = $33,600~4 additional Pile Caps X $2,400/pile cap = $9,600
•General Conditions~Two weeks removed from project schedule~$3,270 per day from General Conditions Estimate~$3,270/day X 10 days = $32,700
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Waste Management Labor Costs
•Field Workers ~ Average of 2 to 5 minutes per day
~ 2-5 minutes/day X 260 work days = 1300 minutes
~1300 minutes / 60 min/hr = 22 hours
~ 2 foremen per trade X 10 trades = 20 foremen
~ 20 foremen X 22 hours X $30/hour = $26,000
•Superintendents ~ Average of 15 to 20 minutes per day
~ 15-20 minutes/day X 260 work days = 5200 minutes
~5200 minutes / 60min/hr = 87 hours/year
~ 87 hours / 24 hours/day = 3.625 days
~ 3.625 days X $480/day = $1,740
TOTAL = $26,000 + $1,740 = 27,740
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Example Project Calculations (Seattle)
•Average project size assumed to be 100,000sf.
•Waste generated is typically 1% of building square footage. ~100,000sf X 1% = 1,000lbs. of waste
•75% of Waste to be recycled.~75% X 1,000lbs. = 750lbs. of waste
•Average cost of recycling fees calculated to be $34/ton.~$34/ton X 8 tons/container = $272/container~$272/container + $40 average transport fee= $312/container~$312/container X 8 tons container = $39/ton~$39/ton X 750 tons = $29,250
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management
The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor
The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Example Project Calculations (State College)
•Average project size assumed to be 100,000sf.
•Waste generated is typically 1% of building square footage. ~100,000sf X 1% = 1,000lbs. of waste
•75% of Waste to be recycled.~75% X 1,000lbs. = 750lbs. of waste
•Average cost of recycling fees calculated to be $40/ton.~$40/ton X 8 tons/container = $320/container~$320/container + $207 average transport fee= $527/container~$527/container X 8 tons container = $66/ton~$66/ton X 750 tons = $49,500
Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management