The Value of Civil Engineering Researchto Building Design & Construction Practitioners

Perspectives, Cases, and Commentary

Robert K. Tener, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCEExecutive Director, Charles Pankow Foundation

Claremont, California

TOP TEN CPF ISSUES, 2009 2010

Research grants - no funding capability for new awards

Two

approved

grant

awards

on

hold

+

new

Research

Need

Statements

arriving

Research program strategies going forward: weak consensus re directions

Design Management initiative – must advance

5th Board member selection – must advance

Need to constrain 2009 expenditures; economize operating costs

CJP Legacy Project -- must maintain progress

Disseminate & diffuse 7 new research products: need a plan

Advisory Council roles going forward: how add value to CPF program of work?

Non-research grantmaking – how much to expend 2009?

CJP assets remain: little progress, storage draining $1,075/mo.

+

OPPORTUNITIES AT HAND, SUMMER 2009

Seek new, interim source(s) of research co-funding

Press forward with Design Management project

Develop strategic research focus by formally identifying our “Customers”

i.e., whom do we intend CPF products to serve?

and how can we best communicate with them?

Formulate CPF research directions for 2010 - 2011 & out:

what about BIM? DBIA? ACI?

retain “Two Goal Strategy” through ______ ?

Capitalize on proven Allies; focus on collaborating with them (i.e., hunker down)

Assess diffusion of research products & their impacts with CPF “Customer” sets

Decide about Foundation Source & feasible successor admin resources

PURPOSES TODAY

• Illustrate current research programs that are delivering high value products to building design & construction project teams

• Characterize why they work well

• Commentary for CE academics

CONTEXT

• Building design & construction sector of U.S. construction industry

• Viewpoint: Delivering needed new knowledge from applied R&D

• Current view (2006 – 2010 +)

• Three case institutions:

Construction Industry Institute (CII)

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI)

Charles Pankow Foundation (CPF)

THE CONTINUUM OF INNOVATION

Product/Component/

System Develop-

ment

Proofs/Pilots/

Approvals

Users Adopt/

Commercial

Utilization

Applied Research

Users Adopt/

Commercial

Utilization

Operations & Mainten-

ance

CPF’s Focus

Dissemin-ation & Diffusion

Basic Research

The Six Key Factors That

Drive High-Value Applied R&D

• Need-based research

• “Industry Champion” as user/driver

• Industry stakeholders co-funding ($$$ + in-kind)

• Robust practitioner / P.I. collaboration

• Deliverables useful @ Day 1 (“codifiable”)

• Proactive dissemination & diffusion

• Knowledge creation through CII research to define best practices, breakthroughs, and industry norms.

• Knowledge dissemination through CII research publications, implementation guides, educational materials, workshops, and conferences.

• Knowledge management, organization, and assessment of relevance of the 450-plus CII documents and publications.

• Knowledge assessment of the impact of CII practices through the benchmarking and metrics program.

CII: A Leader in the Construction Industry

Through these knowledge processes, CII enhances the business effectiveness, sustainability, and global competitiveness of CII members and lifting the construction industry.

CII OVERVIEW(Appreciation to Wayne Crew, Director, CII)

• 1983 Origin: Industry Needs (CICE Study)

• First to bring research to engineering-construction world

• CII philosophy: Results/Performance Oriented

• Safety + Costs + Schedule + Quality

• High level of knowledge transfer to industry

• Benchmarking & Metrics measure results • Member - based programs (114 industry members today)

• Heavy industrial construction = historic core

• $35,000 ~ $40,000 annual member firm dues

• “Building Sector Community of Practice” = recent, growing

CII OVERVIEW (cont’d)

• Owner / contractor member balance & influence• High member involvement in R&D work – as the

“customer”• 23 universities involved in current research (43 total

since 1983)• Widely disseminated research products • *See CII “Product Library:” 450+ products• Dissemination: conferences, web, educational, etc.• www.construction-institute.org

Value of CII Best Practices - Budget (Contractors)Note: Average Budget =58 Million, submitted after 2002 (n=81)

Bet

ter

Value of CII Best Practices – Schedule (Contractors)Note: Average Planned Duration=109 weeks, submitted after 2002 (n=81)

Bet

ter

Safety Performance – TRIR Trend

5.906.30

14.30 14.20

13.0012.20

11.80

9.909.50 8.80 8.60 8.30 7.90

13.10

10.60

7.10 6.80 6.40

0.580.88

7.196.12

5.324.31

3.44 3.002.66 2.30

1.60 1.59 1.671.03 1.02 1.23 1.16 0.72

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

325 413 477 497 527 613 644 770 518 765 995 936 1,117 1,073 1,129 1,195 1,333 1,297

Year and Work Hours (MM)

To

tal R

eco

rdab

le In

cid

ence

Rat

e

Industry*

CII

*OSHA Construction Division, NAICS 236-238, SIC 15-17 Reflects OSHA Reporting Change

> 10 Times Safer

CII / CPF CO-FUNDED CURRENT RESEARCH

1. University of Colorado-Boulder: “Enhancing and Expanding Innovation in the Construction Industry”• P.I.: Paul Chinowsky; Industry Champion: CII Advisory

Committee (10 firms)• $235,000; completes late 2009

2. Penn State: “Project Execution Planning for BIM”• P.I.: John Messner; Industry Champions = Victor Sanvido

(Southland Ind.) & Deke Smith (bSa)• $282,000; completes 2010

PCI R&D COMMITTEE OVERVIEW(Appreciation to Doug Sutton, Chair, PCI R&D Committee)

• PCI: unique, hybrid trade/professional association; 55-year history

• Precast/pre-stress producers, suppliers, professionals

• Members’ voluntary participation resources most ongoing activities

• Small, dedicated professional staff coordinates projects

• Goal: to benefit entire construction industry

• N.B.: When precast concrete chosen by building design &

construction team HIGH potential for value-adding innovating on

project!

• www.pci.org

CHARACTERIZE PCI R&D PROGRAM & PROJECTS

• PCI Members believe in importance of ongoing knowledge development & transfer to practice

• Emphasis on the “D” end of the R&D spectrum

• Producer members always looking for ROI from research

• Far-sighted R&D projects not precluded

• Continually evolving, strong relationships among academics (institutions, DH’s, PI’s) & practitioners

CHARACTERIZE PCI R&D PROGRAM (cont’d)

• Robust linkages, precast producer / design professional / academic essential • Every research project active, engaged Advisory

Cmte• Comprising producer, professional, supplier, and

academic members, passionate to advance the topic• Advisory Committees report regularly to R&D

Committee, which reports to the PCI Board of Directors

• PCI’s direct funding leverages additional funding and/or in-kind participation by producers, suppliers, non-profit organizations, government agencies, etc.

*The rule for PCI R&D Committee projects

PCI PROGRAM METRICS

• PCI R&D Committee currently sponsoring or co-sponsoring 20+

research projects.

• Annual PCI R&D funding >$600,000/year in recent years

• Typical co-funding from external sources ~5:1

• Ongoing partnerships with Lehigh/ATLSS and Univ. Illinois/

MAE Centers

• R&D Committee: 17 academics, 15 design prof’s, 11 precast

producer prof’s/rep’s, + 5 others.

• Typical meeting attendance (2X / year): ~ 30 academics, 15

design prof’s, 15 producer/engineers, + 10 others

PCI DISSEMINATION & DIFFUSION

• Publication of research results required as a

deliverable

• Especially in PCI Journal; + PCI Design

Handbook; PCI Standard Design Practice

• Follow-up diffusion activities in many cases

(e.g. codification, etc.) under PCI TAC

CPF/PCI CO-FUNDED RESEARCHFive projects; total CPF awards = $1,178,000; + >$1,564,000 co-funding

1. Univ. of Arizona: “Design Procedure for Precast Diaphragm System for High Seismic Zones”

• P.I.: Robert Fleischman, Industry Champion = PCI R&D (Tom D’Arcy et.al.)

• $410,000 CPF + >$1,300,000 by others; completes mid-2009

2. Georgia Tech (through NIBS): “Building Information Modeling for Architectural Precast Concrete”

• P.I.: Chuck Eastman; Industry Champion = Earle Kennett, Vice-Pres., NIBS

• $158,000 CPF + $41,000 by others; completed 2008

3. Univ. of Notre Dame: “Hybrid Precast Wall Systems for Seismic Regions”

• P.I.: Gino Kurama; Industry Champions = PCI R&D Committee (Walter Korkosz, CEG)

• $165,000 CPF + $75,000 by others; completes 2010

4. Georgia Tech: “National BIM Standard for Precast Concrete”

• P.I.: Chuck Eastman; Industry Champions: Mike LaNier, PCI R&D

• $340,000 CPF + $29,000 by others

5. Univ. of Nebraska – Lincoln : “Shallow Hollow Core Floor System”

• Co-P.I.’s: Maher Tadros & George Morcous; Industry Champion = Mark Lafferty, PCI R&D

• $105,000 CPF + $119,000 by others

CHARLES PANKOW FOUNDATION

MissionThe Charles Pankow Foundation exists to advance innovations in building design and construction, so as to provide the public with buildings of improved quality, efficiency, and value.

CPF DEFINED

• Private, independent, non-profit, public benefit, philanthropic foundation

• Exclusively for scientific, educational, other charitable purposes

• 501(c)3 organization under IRS code

• All research products must be “in the public domain”

Charles J. Pankow, 1920 - 2004

• Purdue BSCE 1947; Hon. Doctorate 1983

• Design-Builder, 1950’s lifetime

• Founded Charles Pankow Builders 1963

• Consummate innovator: concrete forming (patents); pre-casting; hybrid

moment-frame; project automation; Concrete Construction HB chapters

• Leader in ACI, ASCE, DBIA, SEAOC, others

• Honors & Awards; NAE 1997 & others

• Instilled his firm’s culture: “Find a better way”

• Advocated greater R & D investments in building industry

• Formed Foundation to carry out his vision

RESEARCH PROGRAM FOCUS

• Deliver innovative products, components, & systems to meet defined needs for better buildings

• Research products provide immediate, practical benefit to building design & construction teams

• Involve a committed industry champion in each project

• Apply CPF funding to leverage co-funding

• Provide research products that can be capitalized on through integrated project delivery

CPF GOAL AREAS = 2

RESEARCH AREA 1: Structures

Goal: Improve the quality, efficiency and value of large buildings by advancing codifiable innovations in structural components and systems.

RESEARCH AREA 2: Project Teams: Tools & Practices

Goal: Improve the performance of building design & construction teams by advancing integration, collaboration, communication, and efficiency through innovative new tools and technologies, and new means and methods for project team practices.

2006-09 RESEARCH GRANTMAKING

• 22 research grant awards:

* 16 to universities, 6 to non-profit research orgns

* 13 in structures; 9 in project teams

* of 13 structural projects, 10 high seismic zones

• $4.3 million in grant awards; typical grant $150-300K

• Industry Champion involved on every project

• Final Reports posted: www.spur.org/pankowreports

• Details of each grant: www.pankowfoundation.org

KEYS TO EARLY CPF PROGRESS

1. Our CPF Advisory CouncilRebekah Gladson, DBIA Victor Sanvido, Southland Industries Tom Gunkel, M.A. Mortenson Ron Skaggs, HKS Inc.Ron Klemencic, MKA Assoc’s Charles Thornton, Thornton-Tomasetti Patrick MacLeamy, HOK Hans VanWinkle, CII Dir.-EmeritusJeffrey Russell, Univ. Wisc. Tom Verti, PankowJoe Sanders, Pankow

+ Incoming Class: Steve Baldridge, Glenn Bell, Greg Gidez

2. Industry Champions: the concept & the people

3. Our Research Focus (mantra: “red zone to end zone”)

4. “Research Need Statement” as basis

5. Alliances with: PCI, CII, ATC, DBIA, NIBS, ACI

(N.B.: NO ASCE Institute… )

INDUSTRY CHAMPIONS & P.I.’S, ILLUSTRATED

• DSDM Diaphragm Panels: R Fleischman Tom D’Arcy + PCI R&D

• Metal Shear Panels: B Stojadinovic Steve Tipping, S.E.

• Reinforced Concrete Link Beams: J Wallace Ron Klemencic

• Dual-plate Composite Core Walls: Kreger+Bowman Ron Klemencic

• Thin Shear Walls in High Seismic Zones: J Restrepo Bob Englekirk

• Perf. Based Seismic G/L’s for Tall Bldgs: J Moehle/PEER Ron Hamburger et. al.

• Hybrid Precast Wall Systems, Seismic Regions: Y Kurama Walt Korkosz, PCI

• Improved Concrete Tolerance Mgmt: C Milberg Eldon Tipping &

ACI 117

OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEPT. HEADS

Ally faculty with (an) industry institution(s): professional, trade

e.g. CII, PCI, DBIA, ATC, ACI, AGC, etc. (bldgs)

Dept Advisory Committees:

* Recruit practitioners who are innovators & research advocates

* Get their input re real needs for applied, practice-oriented R&D

Mentor junior faculty: Engage them with practitioners

Bring innovator CE practitioners into classrooms

A Commentary

Basic science research is important, but practice oriented research is of at least equal importance. Current metrics for promotion and advancement of engineering faculty are definitely tilted in favor of “pure” research that is disconnected from marketplace implications. Some institutions even go so far as to weight research funding according to its “pure science” character. Academic researchers should be encouraged, not discouraged, from conducting research on practice-oriented problems.

WRAP

Discussion?

* * * * *Robert K. Tener, P.E., Ph.D., F.ASCE

Executive Director, Charles Pankow Foundation

223 West Foothill Blvd., 2nd Floor

Claremont, California 91711

909/624-1800

rktener@pankowfoundation.org

HURDLES & OBSTACLESWhy is applied R&D to advance innovation in building design &

construction so sparse?

1. Lack of research funding from institutional entities

2. Lack of practitioner demand for R&D within industry complex set of root causes, including –

• Owners: little interest in technical solutions, just concentrate on “The Deal” and minimizing up-front costs

• Contracting community: more focused on managing risk than pursuing creative new thinking

• Highly competitive industry: constrains levels of excess profits that could allow a builder to make strategic investments in innovation

• Building codes: overly prescriptive, with hugely cumbersome code change processes

• Litigious society: punishes any performance outside of tested norms

• Uneducated consumers: occupants of buildings don’t know what might be possible, so don’t know what to ask for

• Financing entities: design/build tried and true building systems or else no financing

HURDLES & OBSTACLES (cont’d)

Why is applied R&D to advance innovation in building design & construction so sparse?

3. The inertia of the status-quo, which for our industry is exemplified by the motto: “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it!”

4. Project teams’ behavior characterized by –

• Schedules & budgets are too tight to take a chance on something new• Lack of resources including staff time• Lack of a strategy for innovation within firm• Owners do not recognize the value

5. Just the tip of the iceberg / analysis . . . .

* * * * *