iii. building background...deck system. stephen chesko construction management the stuckeman family...

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

- Page 7 -

III. Building Background

Building Name: The Stuckeman Family Building for the School of Architecture

And Landscape Architecture Location: University Park, PA. The site is located in the center of North

Residence Halls. Building Occupant Name: The Pennsylvania State University School of

Architecture and Landscape Architecture Occupancy or Function Types: Business/College, Library, Shop Size (Total Sq. Ft.): 111,000 Gross Square Feet Number of Stories: The Stuckeman Family Building features four

above ground levels and a basement encompassing half the building footprint.

Dates of Construction: October 2003 to April 2005 Actual Cost Information: $27,550,00 (not including owner changes) Project Delivery Method: Traditional – General Contractor Primary Project Team:

Owner The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA www.psu.edu

Owner's Representative

Office of the Physical PlantTim Heltman – Project Manager

University Park, PA www.opp.psu.edu

Concept Architect Overland Partners

San Antonio, TX www.overlandpartners.com

Design Architect WTW Architects

Pittsburgh, PA www.wtwarchitects.com


- Page 8 -

Landscape Architect LaQuatra Bonci and Associates

Pittsburgh, PA

Engineering Concept Arup

www.arup.com

MEP Engineer H.F. Lenz Company

Johnstown, PA www.hflenz.com

Structural Engineer Whitney, Bailey, Cox, & Magnani, LLC

Pittsburgh, PA www.wbcm.com

General Contractor The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company

Baltimore, MD www.whiting-turner.com

Architecture (Design and Functional Components)

The architectural and functional design of the Stuckeman Family Building follows two underlying principles; "green" design, and functional space. Both the interior and exterior design are intended to optimize the specific uses of the building while strictly adhering to the L.E.E.D. certification requirements. The basement is home to all incoming service feeds, the electrical service rooms, and a model shop. The ground level contains gallery space, classrooms, jury spaces, department offices, and an architectural library. The remaining three floors above each contain a typical office core for staff and faculty, leaving the majority of the floor area for open studio space. All three levels of studio and critiquing space are open above and below to each other, creating a large flowing volume. Every aspect of the design is focused on creating a space conductive to functional design studio. Raised access flooring is utilized in all studio spaces to allow flexibility with floor layouts. Many surfaces have been left without elaborate finishes, and the structural system has been left exposed, all to foster an atmosphere for design studio similar to that of the former studios in the Architectural Units.

Major National Model Codes: BOCA 1996, PA L&I, and IBC 2000 Zoning and Historical: N/A


- Page 9 -

Demolition

Demolition for the Stuckeman Family Building site included the demolition and removal of a small masonry and concrete building formerly used as the Old Credit Union Building. Three large concrete barriers used for the storage of gravel and salt were also demolished and removed from the site. Four basketball hoops were removed and salvaged for later use, and a small shed was removed and given to a charitable organization. Pavement removal and some minor scrubbing were also part of the demolition.

Support of Excavation

The basement excavation was supported by the use of excavation benches. Sufficient room was available to use this excavation support system. Because of the site’s elevation, site dewatering was not required.

Foundations

The foundation system comprised of 7 inch steel mini-piles driven to bedrock sockets and then fully grouted. Above the mini-piles were cast-in-place concrete pile caps.

Structural System

The structural system for the Stuckeman Family Building is particularly unique. The building rests on a substructure of 8” friction mini-piles. The mini-piles are steel tubes, filled with mortar, and typically in clusters of four. Above the mini-pile clusters are concrete pile caps. The structural system for the Stuckeman Family Building is a braced moment frame, featuring a four story, 40 foot cantilever section. The steel structure for the cantilevered section of the building is similar to that of a steel truss bridge. Additionally, the entire structure of the building is also architecturally exposed on the interior. Also adding to the intricately of the structure is the presence of tube-steel fins. Every elevation of the building features both horizontal and vertical fins designed to block the sun during particular times of the day. These fins are composed of double structural tubes that had to be welded into place. The double tube design allowed for a thermal break within the fin to prevent penetration of cold temperatures into the building. Pre-finished acoustical metal decking was utilized in the composite deck system.


- Page 10 -

Cast in Place Concrete

Concrete cast-in-place basement walls; formed with standard vertical forms and placed with a concrete pump truck. The floor slabs were 6” thickness with 6x6 W2.9xW2.9 welded wire mesh reinforcement. Elevator pits, interior knee walls, and exterior site walls were also poured with standard formwork and a concrete pump truck.

Masonry

The masonry is a non-load bearing, veneer system. In addition to normal masonry at exterior wall locations, the Stuckeman Family Building also has large CMU-backed masonry piers extending from the ground to the fourth floor. Another masonry feature of the building is areas where masonry walls extend from the exterior into interior spaces. The masonry veneer is typically attached to the by a hook and eyelet masonry tie system. Scaffolding used for the project included metal scaffolding and planks for the brick piers and smaller areas, and hydraulic scaffolding for the larger straight runs of wall.

Curtain wall

The only exterior curtainwall in the building is located at the end of the studio sections. The curtainwall system is composed of aluminum vertical and horizontal frames supporting large square glass panels. Multiple interior partitions also utilize an aluminum and glass curtainwall system.


- Page 11 -

Building Envelope

The Stuckeman Family Building's exterior envelope is designed specifically to meet the L.E.E.D. requirements for the project. The envelope is divided into two distinct façades; the east side of the building being more traditional brick and glass walls, and the west side of the building being covered in a copper cladding. The large glass windows spanning the brick piers on the east side of the building help light the interior studios, as well as, meet the L.E.E.D. requirements for lighting and heating via sunlight. The west façade utilizes horizontal and vertical fins to block sunlight at undesirable times during the day, and an exterior sheathing consisting of recycled copper. The copper is pre-patined by a proprietary process to achieve the "green" look without having to wait years for the natural reaction to occur.


- Page 12 -

Electrical System

The electrical system features a 750 kVA utility transformer located in an outside enclosure and individual interior 112.5 kVA transformers servicing each floor with 480/270V and 208/120V power. Power intended for mechanical and elevator equipment is supported through a 5 kV, 3 phase emergency power system which passes through a fusible load interrupter. From the interior transformers, power is fed to lighting and service panelboards. The interior lighting is comprised of linear indirect strip fixtures that are controlled by a system that adjusts the amount of light projected, based on the light levels of the individual rooms.

Lighting System

The majority of the building utilizes a direct/indirect pendant strip lighting system. A unique aspect of the building lies in the lighting control system. The lighting control system monitors the amount of natural light received from the outside and is then able to adjust interior light levels according. This system is able to save considerable amount of energy.

Mechanical System

The mechanical systems for the building are all fed from the campus central plant loop. From these feeds the building receives high pressure steam for the heating system and chilled water for the cooling system. The steam pressure is reduced and then the steam is channeled into a plate frame heat exchanger. The hot water loop is then distributed through the building for the air distribution units and radiant perimeter heating. The chilled water is pumped to the interiorly housed air handling units. There are a total of six interior air handling units that feed both constant and variable volume distribution boxes. The air handlers are serviced by three Glycol Heat Recovery units. All mechanical equipment for the Stuckeman Family Building is located in four interior mechanical rooms. Two split level mechanical rooms are located at each end of the building, serving two floors each. Power controlled windows at the top and bottom of the building open and close automatically based on indoor and outdoor temperatures. Students can further control their environment by opening and closing vents located in the raised access flooring at each studio workstation. The fire suppression system is a typical wet pipe system with exposed, high-coverage-area sprinkler heads and smoke evacuation fans at the low roof level.


- Page 13 -

Fire-Protection System

With multiple changes in building usage types and fire-ratings, and the presence of wide-open floor to floor openings, the fire-suppression system for The Stuckeman Family Building had to be over-designed to meet fire codes. The Stuckeman Family Building is a fully sprinklered building, utilizing an automatic, wet-type Class 1 fire-suppression sprinkler system. High deluge sprinklers are used throughout the building, as well as back-up standpipes in each of three stairs towers. The building also makes use of a Multiplex Emergency Voice Alarm/Communication system that is integrated with a campus-wide alarm communication system. The alarm system employs both thermal and photoelectric sensors to detect fires, and both audio and visual notification devices to alert building users.

Transportation System

The Stuckeman Family Buildings utilizes two passenger elevators and one service elevator. The passenger elevators service all five levels, whereas the service elevator only travels from the basement to the first floor. The service elevator is intended to allow materials to be brought down from the loading dock on the ground level to the model shop and MEP equipment rooms in the basement. Both passenger elevators are dual roped hydraulic elevators with a capacity of 3,000 lbs. and a travel rate of 100 f.p.m.. The dual roped hydraulic system is an elevator system designed to allow the cab to move the full height of travel with the hydraulic piston only having to move half the height. The service elevator is a dual holeless hydraulic elevator with an operating capacity of 5,000lbs. and a travel speed of 95 f.p.m.. A dual holeless hydraulic system is an elevator system which utilizes hydraulic pistons adjacent to the cab, therefore eliminating the need to have to bore a piston shaft.

Telecommunication System

The Stuckeman Family Building requires a great deal of tele/data infrastructure due to the fact that each work station in all studio spaces, each office, and each computer station in the computer lab must each have multiple tele/data ports to achieve the level of technology desired for the building. The system is distributed from two main intermediate distribution frame rooms through the studio space via wire basket trays. The current design calls for the use of 4 pair CAT 6 wiring throughout the building.


- Page 14 -

Security System

The security measures for The Stuckeman Family Building are typical of the campus standards for Penn State. The building features electronic card readers at exterior doors, as well as specific sections of the building. The building is also equipped with security cameras at key locations, specifically entrances and corridors.

Specialty Systems

A unique system tied into the mechanical system is the use of Remote Operated Power controlled windows at the top and bottom of the building. The mechanical controls system monitors indoor and outdoor temperature conditions and is able to open and close these windows automatically when conditions are ideal. This system reduces heating and cooling loads significantly when possible and saves a great deal of energy usage for the building.


- Page 15 -

Project Delivery System

The Pennsylvania State University chose to bid The Stuckeman Family Building competitively and award it as a lump sum contract. The winner of the bid was also designated as a General Contractor for the project. The reason for this type of delivery system was due to the fact that the Stuckeman Family Building, unlike most other projects on campus, is funded by private donations as opposed to government funding. Each architectural and engineering firm was contracted with a negotiated fee. The chart below on the following page depicts the organizational structure for the project and the associated contract types between companies.


- Page 16 -

Owner The Pennsylvania State

University

Contact: Tim Heltman

Concept Architect Overland Partners

Contact: Jim Shelton

Design Architect WTW Architects

Contact: Joe Nagy

MEP Engineers H.F. Lenz Company

Contact: John Short

Structural Engineers Whitney, Bailey, Cox, & Magnani

Contact: Mike Wuerthele

Landscape Architect LaQuatra Bonci and

Associates

Contact: Joe Hackett

General Contractor The Whiting-Turner

Contracting Company

Contact: Chuck KonKolics

Sitework Stone Valley Const.

Contact: Mike Croyle

Mini-Piles Moore Concrete Pumping

Contact: Dave Zlokas

Concrete Poole Anderson Const. Contact: Dave Weidel

Masonry Harris Masonry

Contact: Jerre HArris

Steel Ohio Steel

Contact: Robert Eaton

Copper/Roofing RH Marcon Inc.

Contact: Fritz Wild

Drywall Wyatt Incorporated

Contact: Fred Episcipo

Mechanical/Plumbing Bryan Mechanical

Contact: Tony Vrbin

Fire Protection Quick Response

Contact: Bill Yeckley

Electrical State College Electrical

Contact: Gene Hawkins

Contract Key: Fee Lump Sum


- Page 17 -

Contractual Relationships

Owner/Architect Contractual Relationship WTW Architects, the design architect on the project, was contracted by The Pennsylvania State University by a Lump Sum Fee contract. For the agreed fee, WTW Architects provided Bid and Issued for Construction Drawings, aid in coordination issues, and any necessary information for Requests for Information, clarifications, Project Progress Meetings, etc. Any additional design required for modifications to the drawing set are done under the negotiated fee amount.

Owner/General Contractor Contractual Relationship

The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company holds a Lump Sum contract

with The Pennsylvania State University. This contract also designates Whiting-Turner as a General Contractor on the project, which is unique from the Penn State norm of Construction Managers on DGS projects. As a Lump Sum – General Contractor, Whiting-Turner is responsible for specifically what is designated in the drawings.

General Contractor/Subcontractor Contractual Relationship

All subcontractors on The Stuckeman Family Building were procured

through a competitive bid environment. Although this is sometimes not the best way of securing quality contractors, it is sometimes necessary when the contractor holds a General Contractor contract with the Owner. All contracts between the General Contractor and subcontractors, save one, were typical lump sum contracts. The remaining contract, Mechanical/Plumbing, was also a lump sum contract, but differed from the rest because it was designated as Design-Build.

General Contractor Selection

The Pennsylvania State University bid The Stuckeman Family Building competitively in August of 2003. This competitive bid differed from the typical competitive bid at Penn State for a few distinct reasons. The first reason for the oddity is the source of funding for the project. The majority of projects at Penn State are funded by State and National funding through the Department of General Services, and therefore must be bid competitively according to State Law. The funding for The Stuckeman Family Building is from private funding, and allowed Penn State to use methods that they typically do not implement. This was first evident in the use of an outside consultant aiding in the bidding process. The actual bidding/awarding process itself also varied from normal. After review of all bids received, it was determined that every bid was well over the budget and timeframe for the project. All of the contractors agreed that they could not meet the proposed schedule of 12 months for the project; however, the budget for the


- Page 18 -

project could possibly be met with an extensive Value Engineering effort. The Owner then narrowed the field of bidders to two and met with them individually to initiate a detailed Value Engineering evaluation of the project. After the two remaining bidders had time to produce an extensive list of V.E. items, the Owner chose which items were feasible to accept and still not affect the overall design or intent of the building. After deciding that the project budget could be achieved with the approved Value Engineering items, the Owner gave the remaining two contractors the chance to resubmit a final bid for the project. In October of 2003, the project was awarded to The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company.

Bonds and Insurance

Because of the delivery method and source of funding for the project, no Bonding requirements were in place for subcontractors on The Stuckeman Family Building. Whiting-Turner has taken the initiative to bond subcontractors as they see fit. Insurance, on the other hand, was under strict requirements. The Pennsylvania State University is currently utilizing an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (O.C.I.P.) due in large part to the shear volume of construction currently taking place on campus. The O.C.I.P. program is therefore required of subcontractors by contract. Special bonding and insurance also needed for the Design-Build portion of the mechanical/plumbing systems contract. Appropriateness of contract and delivery system

With a minimal project budget as a driving factor; The Pennsylvania State University decided to choose a General Contractor delivery system. A General Contractor delivery method typically secures the lowest initially proposed cost for a project; however, can sometimes be less beneficial budget-wise in the long run. The problem with the chosen delivery method for The Stuckeman Family Building is not the application of the delivery method to the project, but rather the acceptance of the delivery method into the accepted project management environment. Since the large majority of campus projects are delivered under a Construction Management/Construction Agency method, the management for Penn State has grown accustom to the benefits of these methods. Many times, the Penn State construction management system has a difficult time trying to adjust to a General Contractor system when problems arise such as design omissions, owner initiated changes, and daily project procedures. Disregarding the owner delivery method issues, the actual application of the General Contractor method to The Stuckeman Family Building project has not had affected any aspect of the project negatively.


- Page 19 -

Local Conditions

The site is located in between an art museum and student housing; therefore, noise levels and construction hours must be monitored closely. Site parking is scarce, but ample parking is available at a designated lot on campus. A shuttle bus is available for use between the extra parking lot and the site. The local labor forces are somewhat small, but nearby cities such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are able to contribute enough skilled labor to more than fulfill the requirements. Local conditions dictate that stone is present at very shallow depths; however, soil boring test reports show that the soil in the site is mostly clay to a depth of 50 feet where a shelf of stone occurs.


- Page 20 -

Client Information

The Pennsylvania State University is going forth with the construction of the Stuckeman Family Building for the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture to unite all of the departments of the College of Arts and Architecture into a single location on campus. The addition of a new building for the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture also adds to the reputation and respectability of the program. For the construction of the building, Penn State’s concerns are those of most large-scale owners; cost, schedule, and safety. Since the project is being funded by private donations, the budget for the project must remain extremely tight. Schedule for any university work is always of the utmost importance, since buildings must be done in time for the arrival of students. As with most large-scale owners, safety is of great concern. With a hefty volume of work taking place on the campus, safety must be monitored closely to assure the success of the projects and the safety of the workers. With the added concern of an Owner Controlled Insurance Program, Penn State takes safety very seriously. On top of these concerns lies an enormous concern for this project specifically; the certification of the finished project as a L.E.E.D. Gold project. Guaranteeing that the project reaches the Gold certification level is important to the university for not only the obvious reason of pleasing its donors, but to also set a standard for future campus projects to come. Setting a high standard of green design and construction can save the university a great deal of money in construction and building operation costs. Although there are no sequencing or joint occupancy requirements for the project, the final completion date must be held firm to allow sufficient time for the university to move into the building before the arrival of students for the Fall of 2005 semester. The keys to completing the project to the owner’s satisfaction are developing a parade of trades that allows strict coherence to the developed schedule, executing a complete and thorough safety plan, and maintaining the highest quality of work.


- Page 21 -

Staffing Plan

Staff Organizational Chart The above staff organizational chart shows the project staffing for The Stuckeman Family Building and their associated relationships. The Superintendent, Assistant Project Manager, Project Engineer, and Project Intern all report directly to the Project Manager. The Project Manager in turn reports to the Senior Project Manager for Whiting-Turner and the Project Manager and Construction Supervisor for Penn State. All team members for Whiting-Turner consult the L.E.E.D. Certified Professional for topics regarding the L.E.E.D. aspect of the project.

Project Manager

Chuck KonKolics

Senior Project Manager

Jim Fenstemacher

Superintendent

Greg Davis

L.E.E.D. Certified Professional

Rick Warhall

Assistant Project Manager Bryan Acri

Project Engineer

Trey Windstead

Project Intern

Stephen Chesko

Penn State Project Manager

Tim Heltman

OPP Construction Supervisor

Dan Breon

Relationship Key: Consults: Reports To:

Whiting-Turner: Penn State:


- Page 22 -

Staffing Structure The staffing on the project is structured like most typical projects, with some additional support for the L.E.E.D. aspect of the project. The Senior Project Manager oversees the entire project and is reported to directly from the Project Manager. The Project Manager is in charge of day-to-day operations, as well as overseeing the rest of the staff. On this particular project, the Project Manager has also assumed the responsibility of managing the MEP contracts. Directly below the Project Manager are the Superintendent, the Assistant Project Manager, the Project Engineer, and the Project Intern. The Superintendent is responsible for all field operations, managing the safety program, and field coordination. The Assistant Project Manager and Project Engineer are responsible for managing the remaining construction contracts, as well as many other tasks associated with construction management. The Quality Control Management Program, Safety Program, and L.E.E.D. adherence is executed by all of the members of the project team.

The original bid proposal called for a Senior Project Manager, a Project Manager, an Assistant Project Manager, a Superintendent, and two Project Engineers. Since the project encountered an intensive Value Engineering effort and ultimately a large cut in bids to meet the project budget, Whiting-Turner needed to cut out one of the Project Engineers. This would typically leave a project understaffed; however, on this project, Whiting-Turner was able to compensate for the removal of the Project Engineer by hiring a Project Intern that happened to be at the experience level of a Project Engineer. This meant that they got the workload of a Project Engineer at the minimal cost of a Project Intern. The current project team, although undoubtedly understaffed, has been able to keep ahead of the workload.


- Page 23 -

Design Coordination

The design for The Stuckeman Family Building has made MEP coordination an intricate process. Although the building utilizes the campus's central plant utilities, which sometimes lessens the amount of MEP equipment on a project, different design aspects of the building have compounded the already difficult task of MEP coordination.

Systems included in the design coordination on this project include:

chilled water and chilled water return for the cooling system, high pressure steam and condensate return for the heating system, sprinkler piping, HVAC ductwork, storm water, waste piping, tele/data conduit, electrical conduit, and the structural system. A large amount of coordination is also required for the equipment layout in the four main mechanical rooms.

Contractually, Whiting-Turner has included that all subcontractors on-site must participate in the MEP coordination effort if asked upon. Specifically, the mechanical/plumbing contractor was contracted as a design-build project; therefore, coordination was a top priority from the beginning of their design.

The greatest challenges on The Stuckeman Family Building lay in the specific design aspects as mentioned above. The first aspect of the design to drastically affect the coordination effort was the decision to have all mechanical equipment located in the interior of the building, in four large mechanical rooms. Each mechanical room is staggered in respect to the normal floor heights so that each mechanical room services two floors. Any time you house all of the mechanical equipment internally, you increase the coordination required exponentially. Since the mechanical rooms are also split-level, ductwork and piping must enter and exit the room at multiple elevations. This makes equipment and piping layout a careful exercise.

Another design aspect that compounded the coordination effort was the addition of a dual storm leader system (as pictured on the following page). Building code mandates that roof drainage systems have a secondary system to remove water from the roof in case the primary system became clogged or backed-up. Typically, this is addressed by adding a keyway in the roof parapet wall so that water drains from the roof if it reaches a designated overflow level. The design on The Stuckeman Family Building called for a secondary storm leader system running in parallel with the primary system. The already strenuous task of coordinating the piping of a single storm piping system was therefore doubled with the addition of a second pipe. Since storm leaders, by nature, begin at the ceiling level, the coordination problem is heightened even more with the fact that there are no ceiling plenums to run the storm leaders.


- Page 24 -

The final and most influential design aspect of The Stuckeman Family building was the utilization of a raised access flooring system and an exposed deck ceiling. This drastically affects the MEP systems in two specific ways. The first affect being that with an exposed deck ceiling, there is no ceiling plenum space where duct, piping, and wiring are typically run. Pipes and conduit needing to be run at ceiling height must be kept to a minimum, and must be concealed however possible. Electrical conduit for lighting fixtures had to be run under the raised access flooring on the level above and core-drilled through to the light fixture locations. On the fourth floor, this was achieved by running the conduit through the flutes of the roof deck and insulating over it. The second affect of this design is that the majority of the MEP systems must now be run under the raised access flooring. A great effort must be put forth to layout all of the systems under the tight floor space, while considering the layout of floor pedestals. The design for the large studio spaces calls for floor ventilation, electric, and tele/data boxes at each workstation. All of these boxes must be coordinated with ductwork, piping, and conduit running under the floor as well. How will a coordinated MEP Plan be reached? The MEP Coordination Plan followed a specific pattern designated by Whiting-Turner. Since the mechanical and plumbing systems for the job were design-build, the subcontractor designing the systems was responsible for initial coordination. This sometimes included designing the systems to coordinate with conflicting systems. After the design of the mechanical and plumbing systems was complete, the subcontractor produced preliminary coordination drawings for the building. These buildings were distributed by Whiting-Turner to the architect, engineers, owner’s representative, and all affected subcontractors. To also help


- Page 25 -

the coordination process, foreman for the affected subcontractors were also allowed to view the preliminary drawings and give their input. After the initial review period, coordination meetings were scheduled in which all subcontractors, architects, and designers would be in attendance. These meetings were held at the mechanical/plumbing subcontractor’s office since it was located in a central location to all of the other attending parties. These coordination meetings continued weekly until a plan was reached that all agreed would be sufficient. The coordination drawings were again printed and distributed to all parties for any final revisions. The final coordination set was then compiled and distributed through the subcontractors. Remaining coordination issues are dealt with as they arise. Have any field conflicts arisen with structural and MEP system? As with all projects, conflicts will arise between the structure and MEP systems. Since The Stuckeman Family Building heavily utilizes natural lighting, ceiling heights must remain as high as possible. In most cases there is no ceiling plenum at all. When situations occur where there is no room for pipes and duct to pass beams, a few solutions exist and are discussed between the architect and contractor. One possible solution is a beam penetration, which requires additional reinforcement of the beam. Whiting-Turner typically tries to keep beam penetrations to an absolute minimum.


- Page 26 -

Critical Industry Issues

During the first session of the PACE seminar, a discussion was held on Emerging Markets: Healthcare and Labs. Two main topics emerged from this discussion: the highly intensive work associated with healthcare facilities, and the importance of owner-contractor relationships. Healthcare and laboratory facilities are typically MEP intensive projects that require a great deal of planning and detail to accomplish. Added onto this workload are other problems associated with the industry such as inexperienced owner's, every changing technology and equipment, and user-based changes. To deal with these ailments, construction management and owner relations methods must be adapted to the environment. Also vital to the success of these projects is the owner-contractor relationship. Managers of these facilities are typically unknowledgeable about construction, and because of the nature of the industry, are very untrusting of construction firms. The best solution to this problem is a strong relationship between the two.

The second session included an exchange on Green and High Performance

Buildings. This meeting had a wide variety of opinions on the topic and quickly jumped from item to item. Some of the major issues discussed were the true motivation behind owner's desiring L.E.E.D. certified buildings, the future of L.E.E.D. certifications, the effectiveness of L.E.E.D. in achieving "green" projects, and the possibility of determining numbers to attach to L.E.E.D. ratings. Some of the industry professionals believed that the motivation for building L.E.E.D. facilities will change once the initial enthusiasm settles; and an important topic to research for when this takes place would be a better way to market green buildings to owners. The majority of the professionals agreed that a system in which you could compare the costs to upgrade to different L.E.E.D. ratings would be extremely beneficial in this effort. Another key topic of discussion was the effectiveness of L.E.E.D. regulations on achieving a truly "green" facility. Many attendees believed that more times than not, L.E.E.D. regulations are stepped around or cheated just to achieve a rating level instead of actually doing what is right for the environment. A lot of concern was raised about what the Green Building Council could do to deal with this problem, and if this would affect how long L.E.E.D. ratings will stay in the market. What surprised you about the discussion at this meeting?

One of the most noticeable aspects of each of the discussions I attended was the amount of emotion and concern that the industry people expressed. It was surprising to see the reaction to certain topics of discussion and the vast opinions within a small room. Being able to see opposing sides of certain topics was interesting to witness. Having seen both sides of the discussion gave me a wider array of routes to focus my research.


- Page 27 -

What issues might affect or be applied to your project?

The Green and High Performance Building topic of the second session I attended was directly linked to my proposed topic for my thesis research. The discussion on the L.E.E.D. aspect of Green and High Performance Building is directly correlated to my topic of the affects of a L.E.E.D. rated recycling and waste management program on a construction project. At one point during the session, the conversation actually focused on L.E.E.D. waste management programs and it's effectiveness. From the discussions of industry professionals I was able to get insight on their feelings on my research topic, and what information produced by research would be beneficial. Who are the key contacts that you met that might be able to advise you in your area of interest?

A few of key contacts whom shared an interest in Green and High Performance Buildings that I had the chance to meet at the PACE conference were: Chris Hewitt - ASCI

Michael Slattery - Forestry Construction


- Page 28 -

Temporary Utilities

Trailers

As shown on the Site Plans in Section 2, a trailer area was established in the Northeast corner of the site. Included in this area was a triple-wide trailer for Whiting-Turner, a small trailer for the Penn State site manager, and single-wide trailers for the sitework, concrete, and steel contractors. The mini-pile crew was small enough that they did not require a private trailer. Both Whiting-Turner’s and the PSU manager’s trailers were equipped with running water and sewage from the nearby utility branches. All trailers onsite were connected to the temporary power panel and each required a 208/120 - 20A power feed.

Sitework The site clearing and excavation only required temporary power for the sitework contractor’s trailer. The only other temporary measures required were the installation of site fencing to protect pedestrians and a clear access road to the excavation.

Piles

The pile drilling and grouting operations required temporary water and electric service. The pile drilling equipment required a constant water supply via a 2” diameter hose, and the grout mixing tower required both water and electric feeds. To accommodate for the temporary power requirements at the location of the grout mixing tower, an additional temporary electrical panel was placed adjacent to the tower. This also eliminated the risk of having traffic cross temporary power lines.

Concrete Basement Walls

The concrete basement walls were poured in early January, mandating the use of temporary heating measures. To achieve this, the forms were covered in heavy-duty plastic tarps to form a tent and then propane pot heaters were utilized to provide the heat. The pot heaters were feed from two nearby portable propane storage tanks. Twenty-four hour supervision of the heating operation was also required as to prevent the propane heaters from catching the tarps on fire. All tools and equipment used for the formwork, pouring, and finishing were either gas or battery powered and did not require electrical service.


- Page 29 -

Steel

The mobile crane used for steel erection was self-sufficient and did not require any temporary utilities. The crane used typical dunnage for the outriggers since the ground was dry and solid. Portable gas generators provided power for welding where needed.

Floor Slabs

Steel erection for The Stuckeman Family Building started in March, thus pushing the pouring of concrete floor slabs into the warmer months and eliminating the need for temporary heating. The concrete was brought into the building via a concrete pump truck. Mechanical concrete screeds and floats were all powered by gasoline engines.

Interior Concrete Work

The majority of the interior concrete work was completed during the warmer summer months and did not require temporary heating. The temperatures remained low enough that the areas did not need to be cooled or heavily ventilated. All work was also executed during daylight hours, so temporary lighting fixtures were not installed until after the structure and interior concrete work was complete.

Utilities Costs

The specifications declare that the contractor must follow the Penn State Contractor’s Manual for all issues pertaining to temporary utilities. The Manual states that the contractor is allowed to connect to and utilize any of the campus-provided utilities services at a specified cost and rate.


- Page 30 -

Site Plans of Existing Conditions The included site plans are as follows:

Temporary Utilities and Facilites Plan

Site Utilities Plan

Excavation Site Plan

Structural Site Plan

Finishes Site Plan


- Page 31 -


- Page 32 -


- Page 33 -


- Page 34 -


- Page 35 -


- Page 36 -

Project Cost Evaluation

• Construction Cost: $22,500,000 / 112,000 SF = $200.89/SF • Total Project Cost:

$27,550,000 / 112,000 SF = $245.98/SF

• Mechanical System Cost: (Material & Labor)

$4,500,000 / 112,000 SF = $40.18/SF

• Electrical System Cost: (Material & Labor) $3,500,000 / 112,000 SF = $31.25/SF • Structural System Cost: (Material & Labor) $4,000,000 / 112,000 SF = $35.71/SF • Design Cost: Not Available • D4Cost Estimate: $22,468,021 (See Appendix C for breakdown) • R.S. Means Estimate: $ 13,958,582 (See Appendix D for breakdown)

The R.S. Means square footage estimate was considerably low for a handful of reasons. The first being that the estimate did not consider the expensive copper façade, mini-pile foundation, or steel truss section. Other items that made it differ in comparison to the R.S. Means model were raised access flooring, computer labs, and library.


- Page 37 -

D4 Cost Estimate

The following steps were taken to produce the results below:

• The search was narrowed to Educational facilities. • Only buildings between 3-5 stories were utilized. • A total square footage range of 100,000-200,000 was used. • 4 buildings similar to The Stuckeman Family Building in cost,

size, and use were selected and averaged. • The location was changed to Altoona, PA and recalculated. • The size was changed to 112,000 SF and recalculated.

Code Division Name % Sq.

Cost Projected

00 Bidding Requirements 1.23 2.47 276,133 Bidding Requirements 1.23 2.47 276132.9701 General Requirements 7.07 14.18 1,588,182 General Requirements 7.07 14.18 1588181.9902 Site Work 6.40 12.83 1,437,393 Site Work 6.40 12.83 1437393.0403 Concrete 16.58 33.26 3,725,165 Concrete 16.58 33.26 3725164.6504 Masonry 7.39 14.82 1,659,935 Masonry 7.39 14.82 1659935.3205 Metals 7.11 14.26 1,596,757 Metals 7.11 14.26 1596756.8606 Wood & Plastics 0.84 1.69 188,749 Wood & Plastics 0.84 1.69 188749.4807 Thermal & Moisture Protection 2.70 5.41 606,304 Thermal & Moisture Protection 2.70 5.41 606303.9308 Doors & Windows 6.65 13.35 1,495,198 Doors & Windows 6.65 13.35 1495197.8109 Finishes 6.66 13.36 1,496,008 Finishes 6.66 13.36 1496007.9410 Specialties 0.44 0.87 97,794 Specialties 0.44 0.87 97793.8411 Equipment 3.80 7.63 854,451 Equipment 3.80 7.63 854451.3712 Furnishings 0.97 1.95 217,960 Furnishings 0.97 1.95 217960.4713 Special Construction 0.58 1.17 130,614 Special Construction 0.58 1.17 130614.2314 Conveying Systems 1.42 2.84 318,056 Conveying Systems 1.42 2.84 318056.4215 Mechanical 20.25 40.63 4,550,891 Mechanical 20.25 40.63 4550891.0816 Electrical 9.92 19.90 2,228,430 Electrical 9.92 19.90 2228430.09 Total Building Costs 100.00 200.61 22,468,021


- Page 38 -

Means Calculations

2-3 Story College Classroom Building:

$117.17/SF x 112,000 SF = $13,123,488 Basement: $23.25/SF x 15,000 SF = $348,750 Elevators: 3 elevators x $48,525 ea. = $145,575 6 stops x $3,800 ea. = $22,800 Sub-Total: $13,123,488 + $348,750 + $145,575 + $22,800 = $13,640,613 Total: $13,640,613 x 0.95 (location factor) = $12,958,582


- Page 39 -

Assemblies Estimate

The following assemblies estimate was conducted on the substructure and structure of The Stuckeman Family Building. Specifically the estimate includes: mini-piles and foundations, basement construction, steel structure, metal decking, and concrete floor slabs. Excluded from this estimate are exterior walls and shell, exterior tube steel for façade structure, roofing, and interior work.

CostWorks 2004 - The Stuckeman Family Building for the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture

Description Qty Unit Mat. Inst. Total Steel Mini-Piles 68 Ea. $246,500 $197,200 $443,700Pile Caps 68 Ea. $21,420 $30,940 $52,360Basement Excavation and Backfill 15,600 S.F. $39,156 $92,820 $131,976Grade Beams 777 L.F. $56,721 $80,031 $136,752Foundation Walls 404 L.F. $18,584 $53,328 $71,912Foundation Damproofing 404 L.F. $347 $3,798 $4,145Subdrainage Piping 370 L.F. $1,143 $1,066 $2,209Slab on Grade 27,752 S.F. $41,350 $58,557 $99,907Steel Wide Flange columns, 40PLF weight 784 V.L.F. $23,520 $5,096 $28,616Steel Wide Flange columns, 72PLF weight 2,281 V.L.F. $128,877 $14,256 $143,133Steel Wide Flange columns, 109PLF weight 296 V.L.F. $25,308 $1,850 $27,158Steel Wide Flange columns, 132PLF weight 378 V.L.F. $37,044 $2,363 $39,407Steel Wide Flange columns, 211PLF weight 52 V.L.F. $8,164 $325 $8,489Wide Flange Beams and Girders 115,256 S.F. $1,141,034 $841,369 $1,982,403Steel Fireproofing 6,791 V.L.F. $41,765 $73,682 $115,447Cellular Composite Deck 81,700 S.F. $399,513 $268,793 $668,306Roof Deck 33,556 S.F. $47,314 $22,818 $70,132

Totals $ 2,277,761 $ 1,748,291 $ 4,026,052

The R.S. Means estimating numbers given were updated to the year 2004 and to the location of State College, PA. All work was assumed to be Union labor as well. Categories Used: Steel Mini-Piles: 4-Pile Clusters, Friction Type, 50’ Long Pile Caps: 4 Piles, 5’6”x5’6”x36”, 80 Ton Capacity Basement Excavation and Backfill: 16’ Depth, Clay Excavation Grade Beams: 30’ Span, 24”x52” Foundation Walls: Cast-In-Place, 14’ Wall Height, Pumped Foundation Dampproofing: Bituminous, 1 coat, 12’ High Subdrainage Piping: PVC, 6” Diameter Slab on Grade: 5” Thick, non-industrial, reinforced


- Page 40 -

Structural Steel: Wide Flange, Weights and Capacities vary Beams and Girders: Wide Flange, Composite Deck and Slab, 25’x30’ Steel Fireproofing: Sprayed, 3hr Rating Steel Decking: Cellular Deck, 12’ Spans, 20 ga. Roof Decking: Standard Deck, Double Span, 12’ Spans, 20ga. (See Appendix A for a detailed summary and calculations.) Discussion:

The total of $4,026,052 for the substructure and superstructure may still

overlook some of the material on the project. Conservatively, an additional 10% would be added to the Structural Steel Estimate because it fails to take into account the large truss section at the Southwest corner of the building. This truss section includes large cross-members similar to a bridge truss that were not available in the R.S. Means estimating software. The added 10% of Structural Steel costs would bring the total to $4,248,973.

$2,229,206 x 10% = $222,921 $222,921 + $4,026,052 = $4,248,973

The Structural System Estimate in Technical Assignment #1 produced a

number of exactly $4,000,000; however the actual costs for the structural system, concrete, and mini-piles would far exceed both estimated numbers. This can be attributed to items not included in both estimates, such as interior concrete work and the enormous costs for materials and labor for the South façade tube steel.

Since one of the heavily underestimated facets of The Stuckeman Family Building was the complexity and the amount of detail needed for the completion of the structure. To achieve a better understanding of the scope and perhaps uncover possible redesign areas, a detailed estimate of the steel structural system should be conducted.


- Page 41 -

Detailed Systems Estimate

To prepare a detailed estimate that will be practical for future investigation into the structural system, specific assumptions and omissions were made. Assumptions:

• All steel is assumed to be ASTM A572, Grade 50. • All connections are assumed to be typical unless otherwise noted

in the estimate. • The Unit Cost of $2500/ton was formulated by calculating the

cost/ton for differing size beams and columns in R.S. Means and then taking an average. The average cost per ton was calculated to be approximately $2,400. The number was the rounded up to $2500/ton to account for the atypical erection process and differing connection types. The entire truss section had to be suspended in the air using temporary jack stations.

Omissions:

• All tube steel for the façade and window frames were omitted from the detailed estimate as the scope of the tube steel will remain unchanged. The exclusion of tube steel also eliminated the amount of inaccuracy in the estimate, since each tube was welded into place, and accordingly, was difficult to estimate labor durations for.

• Metal decking, reinforcing steel, and concrete slabs were omitted from the detailed estimate since the slab square footages will remain unchanged through the redesign of the structural system.

• Mini-piles, concrete foundations, and concrete basement walls were omitted from the estimate.

All omissions to the detailed estimate are deemed acceptable as they will remain unchanged in a redesign of the structural truss system.


- Page 42 -

The Stuckeman Family Building Structural Steel Estimate

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Low Roof High Roof Truss

Braces Columns

Tonnage 32.87 99.45 33.92 86.24 50.6 74.55 18.67 116.63

$/Ton $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00

Cost Per Area $82,175 $248,625 $84,800 $215,600 $126,500 $186,375 $46,675 $291,575

SUBTOTAL $1,282,325

Shear Studs $12,278

TOTAL $1,294,603

(Please see Appendix A for the estimate calculations per level.)

Square Foot Cost $1,294,603 / 112,000 SF = $11.56 / SF


- Page 43 -

General Conditions Estimate

The General Conditions Estimate was developed by applying unit rates to the different General Condition items associated with The Stuckeman Family Building project. The unit rates were estimated and then compared to the unit rates provided by R.S. Means 2005. The unit rates were adjusted accordingly and applied to the General Condition items to produce the following estimate. Not included in this estimate are office overhead and project fees.

The Stuckeman Family Building

General Conditions

Item Rate/HourDaily Cost Project Cost

Project Manager $60.00 $480.00 $172,800.00 Assistant Project Manager $50.00 $400.00 $144,000.00 Project Engineer $40.00 $320.00 $115,200.00 Superintendent $60.00 $480.00 $172,800.00 Project Intern $20.00 $160.00 $57,600.00 Field Carpenter $35.00 $280.00 $100,800.00 Trailers $7.50 $60.00 $21,600.00 Vehicles $15.00 $120.00 $43,200.00 Travel $7.50 $60.00 $21,600.00 Telephones $3.25 $26.00 $9,360.00 Computers $9.25 $74.00 $26,640.00 Safety $4.00 $32.00 $11,520.00 Dumpsters $20.00 $160.00 $57,600.00 Office Supplies $4.50 $36.00 $12,960.00 Drawings and Specs $4.00 $32.00 $11,520.00 Postage $3.00 $24.00 $8,640.00 Small Tools & Equipment $3.00 $24.00 $8,640.00 Sanitary Facilities $4.00 $32.00 $11,520.00 Utilities $20.00 $160.00 $57,600.00 Fences $25,000.00 Surveys $25,000.00 Insurance $60,000.00 TOTAL $1,175,600.00

iii. building background...deck system. stephen chesko construction management the stuckeman family...

Documents