cee143/243 feb 14 - stanford university › class › cee111 › w910mar11.pdf · task4 task22...
Post on 26-Jun-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
CEE 111/211 March 6 1
CEE 111/211 Agenda March 6
Notices
– Next Thursday, March 8, two sister teams dry run and critique draft-1 of final presentation
Reference
– Thursday 15 March: Final presentations
– Q9 due before midnight Friday March 23
Target value design and TEI
VDC checklists
History: From PUFF to ICE and the future…
Reflections
*05-07-01
Finish
Final Program
Confirmation with
Pharmacology
Final Program
confirmation with LAR
KPFF
SRG Lab Task 37 Task 44 Project Mgt AEI Core Task 41 Task26 H Block Crew Task 23SRG / AEI
TechnicalAEI Core and
SRG LabHDCCO Costing
SRG
TechnicalKPFF
AEI Core
and TechHDCCO Core
Code Rev
ConsultantSolvent Tarter
H Block Crew
& Tech
SRG
Landscape
Tele Data
DesignCode Rev
Furniture
37.
*Reprogram
B#15 Shafts
34. *Finalize
Pharmacology
Program
33. *Finalize
LAR Program
32. *Finalize
Bio-Organic
Chemistry
Program
35. *Finalize
Protein Chemistry
Program 20. *Determine Scope of
package D including vivarium
changes
45. *Complete all
Basement/LAR Drawings
41. *Reprogram
bookends B#13 and
B#15
36. *Analyze
structural impacts
12. *Complete UG
utiliites
25. *Do Central Plant
design changes
19. *Determine vertical
utilities
22. *Complete catwalk drawings
52. Finalize landscape
26. *Finalize B#13 and
B#15
Exiting/architecural H
occupancy concept
*Lab and
vivarium
Programming
Complete
27. *Finalize B#13,
15 Shaft Size &
MEP Room
Locations
31.* AEI &
SRG
Determine
Design $/Time
Impact of
Change
23. *Reprogram
B#13 and B#15
Exterior Architecture
Bookend
Programming
Accepted by Genentech
Notice to proceed on
structural changes
Architect
program/MEP
oncepts
Established
By Design
Team
29. *Document
lab plan
1. *Redesign main MEP
distribution systems
SRG Management AEI Management
Genentech PM
SRG Lab Plan
Ken Mouchka
Task 27Task 38
Organization
5. *Finalize lab & Equipment
plans
Task 29
Task 28
30. *Approve
Change to
Design
Contract
21. *Prepare Plan Views for
Review of Concept w/City
39. *Finalize MEP
distribution and
section
Task4 Task22
Review 80%
documents
48. *Develop exiting
plan
49. Develop
reflected ceiling
plan
Turnover
reflected
ceiling plan to
AEI
Detailed Design 80 PC
Complete
3. Complete Tele Data Design
42. *Develop
Execution
Strategy
44. *Complete
B#14 Officing
Planning
18. *Detailed Lab
Program
Documentation
47. *Develop lab
DD plan
28. *Determine
segregation of lab
and tech space
G accept lab
equipment matrix
*Package B structural
modifications (CCD3A)
13. *Code Consultants
Review Concept for final
city Presentation
14. *HDCCO update Estimate of cost
of Program
Review skin changes w/db team
Lab Planning Program
Meetings with
Pharmacology
Lab planning Program Meeting with Protein
Chemistry
BMS Controls Meetings
(Weekly)
Lab Planning Program meeting with Bio
Organic 80% Drawing Review
Tele Data Coordination MeetingsSteel Detailing
Meetings
Genentech 80% Detailed Design
Review
Final Program
Confirmation with Officing
Weekly
Coordination
Meeting
Lab Planning Program
Meetings with Directors
50. Designate size, location of
13 MEP, teledata rooms
54. KPFF design
stairs for 13/1438. *SRG
Reprogram 13/14
interface, exiting,
stairs
43. *Changes in Steel
Forwarded to Steel
Detailers
46. *RA Furnture
Concept Complete
MEP, Teledata room design
*Design Budget &
Schedule for Changes
Approved
*Notice to proceed
with detailed design
24. *Complete B13,4 H
block occupancy
requirements on MEP
systems
17. *Risick
reprogram solvent
distribution and waste
Issue 80%
MEP CDs
(20) Incorporate
80% MEP review
comments
(19) Genentech review
80% drawings
53. Incorporate
comments, complete
Architectural detail
2. Initial redesign MEP branch
lateral distribution
G accept
13/14
Interface
*City Accept
exiting
*Package C
skin
modifications
55. KPFF design
stairs for 15/14
40. *SRG
Reprogram 15/14
interface, exiting,
stairs
B13 MEP HVAC,
conduit, piping mains
completed
MEP 80% Review
comments
incorporated
Package D and UG
addendum issued:
underground utilities,
vivarium catwalk
10. Draft Alternate means
15. Jeff reprogram HMIS
(3) *AEI design MEP
HVAC, Conduit &
piping mains B13
16. *HDCCO Determine
Schedule Impact
City Approval of
Alternate Means
for Program
8. Review Alternate
Means w/impact on LEL
and LFFH
(21-4) Finalize MEP Details,
update specs and p&ID's
(8) *Revise
MEP loads, MEP
Equipment
schedules
finalized
(13,15,16) MEP specs, P&ID's,
control sequences
Work Process
Meetings
(6) Coord B13 MEP
floor section
4. complete all Interior Architcture
*Cal OSHA Recommend
Determination of LFFH
51. Designate size, location
of 14 MEP, teledata rooms G accept
15/14
Interface
*Accept project
scope:budget
by Genentech
*City Approval of
H Concept
*Exterior
Programming
Accepted by Genentech
*Turnover lab and
vivarium DD plan
to AEI
CEE 143/243 March 6 2
Assessment Q1
Option d) was not included in my answer because the behavior is not included in breakdown structures.
CEE 143/243 March 6 3
Assessment Q3
These can all be found in Table 1 of the Kunz paper
CEE 143/243 March 6 4
Assessment Q5
a,b,c,d are all found on pages 43 and 44 of the document. Therefore, E is the correct answer.
CEE 143/243 March 6 5
Assessment Q7 - ignore
WBS should include generic tasks to create deliverables and services
CEE 143/243 March 6 6
Assessment Q9 - ignore
a) False: Risk depends on both likelihood and impact, so low-
frequency can still have high risk, e.g., earthquake in California
b) False: likely situations may have low impact and low risk
c) False: client will be unhappy if bad outcome occurs, even if
decision was rational
d) False: Assessment often is qualitative
VDC/BIM guide to manage the continuing creation and use of your BIMs and to evaluate its effectiveness in practice
At about LOD-B, summary of your VDC models (including product,
organization and process)
Functions - purposes of the models and predictive analyses for
different project stakeholders and tools they use
Content – Product breakdown structure (PBS) – types of BIM space,
component & system objects to enable design reviews and analyses
• Properties of Product objects
Team – Organization breakdown structure (OBS) – types of teams that
create, review and analyze models
• Properties of Organization objects
Process – Work breakdown structure (WBS) – types of tasks -- and
workflow to model and do analyses, including important process steps
and tools as needed to create, review and analyze models
• Properties of Process objects
Checklist of a few steps to create, review and analyze BIMs and
checks to make before the start of each step
7
Example component object property specification
Additional component object attributes
(potential)
– Values: set point; min/max normal;
latest
– Inlets; outputs
– Task(s) to design, fabricate, install,
commission, operate
– Location in building
– Required/actual frequency of
maintenance
– Fabrication/commissioning/
maintenance requirements
– Multipliers
CEE 111/211 8 Feb 27
http://www.tricare.mil/ocfo/_docs/HBC-Meeting-2-FINAL.pdf
Example component object property specification
Issues to consider in choosing properties:
Data workflow: applications and analyses
– Source data, e.g.,
Project functional specification
BIM for construction
Operations, e.g., FM, Logistics
management
– Consumer(s) of data, e.g., Project
functional specification
BIM for construction
Operations, e.g., FM, Logistics
management
Interoperability of design BIM with other tools
– Direction: uni/bi-directional
CEE 111/211
9 Feb 27
http://www.tricare.mil/ocfo/_docs/HBC-Meeting-2-FINAL.pdf
Checklist types
Routine operations
Emergency procedures
VDC guideline for class
project:
– Routine: create and use
models and analyses
– Emergency procedure: at
least one to detect; manage
risks
CEE 111/211 10 Feb 27
United Airlines, 1 Dec 2006
Checklist to develop checklists:
At a coarse level of detail,
summary of your VDC
Functions
Content – Product
breakdown structure (PBS) –
and predictive analyses
Team – OBS and analyses
Process – WBS and
analyses
Checklist of a few
– Steps to create, review.
Analyze, use models
– Checks to make before
the start of each step.
CEE 111/211 11 Feb 27
http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/guidelines_cdc.pdf
In-class exercise: checklist for your project
At LOD A+, summarize and discuss your VDC:
Functions of your models and analyses
Content – Product breakdown structure (PBS) – and predictive
analyses
Team – OBS and analyses
Process – WBS and analyses
Checklist of a few
– Steps to create, review. Analyze, use models
– Checks to make before the start of each step.
Target Scheduling and total economic impact analysis:
part of target value design
Note: TEI model on web updated 4 March 2012
13
(c) 2012 14 Feb 27, 2012
Assumptions, subject to question ….
Target value design gives a method to estimate cost
& revenue of different design options
Rate
Baseline
($K) Change
Year-1
(K$)
Year-2
(K$)
Revenue 100,000 1.0% 101,000 101,000
Cost of contracted work 85% 85,000 -2.1% 83,729 83,729
Cost of self-performed work10% 10,000 2.0% 12,120 12,120
Gross Margin 5,000 5,151 5,151
Sales, G&A 2% 2,000 2,020 2,020
IT investment 100 0
Amortized costs of IT/yr 50% 50 50
Net income 3,000 3,081 3,081
Time to payback (years) 1.2 1.2
Net Income change (%) 2.7 2.7
(c) 2012 15
Va
lue
High
Low Low High
Project Definition Clarifies Target behavior values – Status of the project wrt goals and objectives
Target
Behavior value 1.Specify value
proposition of each performance metric: Value vs. metric value curve
2.Set target performance value
3.Identify impact of performance change
• upside opportunity
• downside risk
Linear value
curve
Energy/Schedule
Goals of project definition
Effective project definition is actionable:
– It creates data, models, analyses and predictions that are
sufficiently descriptive and predictive to be
Believable
Accepted as relevant to controllable project factors
Understandable to different stakeholders who can act
– It enables:
Designers, engineers and builders to work the details
Senior managers to choose an option
CEE 111/211 16 Feb 27
Benefits:
net
revenue
growth/yr
Costs:
Investment +
DBC impacts
TEI:
payback
(yrs)
Option 1: Invest 7.0 6.0 1.1
Option 2: no invest 0.0 0.0 0.0
Impacts - Summary
1.Specify value proposition of each performance metric: Value vs. metric value curve
2.Set target performance value
3.Identify impact of performance change
4.Specify boundaries of good, OK, bad performance
– Green, yellow, red
Va
lue
High
Low Low High
Broad inner bands for green, yellow
(c) 2012 17
Project Definition Clarifies Target behavior values – Status of the project wrt goals and objectives
Linear value
curve
Va
lue
High
Low
Energy/Schedule Low High
Assessed design quality for
predicted energy
(c) 2012 18
Va
lue
High
Low Low High
Assessed design quality for
predicted energy
Tight inner bands for green, yellow
1.Specify value proposition of each performance metric: Value vs. metric value curve
2.Set target performance value
3.Identify impact of performance change
4.Specify boundaries of good, OK, bad performance
– Green, yellow, red
Project Definition Clarifies Target behavior values – Status of the project wrt goals and objectives
Energy/Schedule
(c) 2012 19
High
Low Low High
Target cost
Asymptotic
value curve
1.Specify value proposition of each performance metric: Value vs. metric value curve
2.Set target performance value
3.Identify impact of performance change
4.Specify boundaries of good, OK, bad performance
– Green, yellow, red
Va
lue
Project Definition Clarifies Target behavior values – Status of the project wrt goals and objectives
Behavior
(c) 2012 20 Behavior
Low High
High
Low
Target cost
Inverted “U”
value curve
1.Specify value proposition of each performance metric: Value vs. metric value curve
2.Set target performance value
3.Identify impact of performance change
4.Specify boundaries of good, OK, bad performance
– Green, yellow, red
Va
lue
Downside risk
Upside
opportunity
Project Definition Clarifies Target behavior values – Status of the project wrt goals and objectives
(c) 2012 21
High
Low Low High
Target
schedule
“U” shaped
cost curve
1.Specify value proposition of each performance metric: Value vs. metric value curve
2.Set target performance value
3.Identify impact of performance change
4.Specify boundaries of good, OK, bad performance
– Green, yellow, red
Cost
Project Definition Clarifies Target behavior values – Status of the project wrt goals and objectives
Schedule
Incremental cost of
schedule compression
Incremental cost of
schedule delay
Owner revenue/cost change of a new facility| change in target value design
(c) 2012 22 Feb 27, 2012
Implications for duration 18 6 mos
Implications for duration 18 24 mos
Owner revenue/cost change of a new facility| change in target value design
(c) 2012 23 Feb 27, 2012
Early or late occupancy augments or diminishes first year net
revenue funds to pay back investment
Assumptions
Target options
(e.g.,
Construction
duration)
Marginal
gross
revenue wrt
initial target
Marginal DBC
cost wrt target
Gross y1
revenue
(before
investment
payback)
Marginal y-1
revenue w/
investment
payback
Investment
payback (yrs)
Target reach goal w/investment 6 8.0 5.0 14.8 7.0 1.1
12 4.0 1.0 10.8 3.0 2.7
Target value (initial) 18 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0
24 (4.0) 0.0 3.8 (4.0) (2.0)
Assumptions
w/o
invest-
ment w/invest-ment
Facility D-B-C cost (M$) 40 40.0
Gross revenue/year (M$) 8 8
O/M rate/year 2% 1.9%
Net rental w-O/M 7.8 7.8
Investment (M$) 0.0 1
Calculated
Reasons for little work toward dramatic schedule reduction?
Strong cost and risk focus (vs. value focused)
Unclear facility value proposition for owners and contractors:
– Value for facilities for different construction durations,
discount rates, investment levels
– Incremental costs of given schedule reductions
(c) 2012 24 Feb 27, 2012
IT investment by Owner in a new building built in Year-1
Benefits:
net
revenue
growth/yr
Costs:
Investment +
DBC impacts
TEI:
payback
(yrs)
Option 1: Invest 7.0 6.0 1.1
Option 2: no invest 0.0 0.0 0.0
Target
options (e.g.,
Construction
duration)
Marginal
gross
revenue wrt
target
Marginal DBC
cost wrt target
Gross y1
revenue
(before
investment
payback)
Marginal y-1
revenue w/
investment
payback
Investment
payback (yrs)
Target reach goal w/investment 6 8.0 5.0 14.8 7.0 1.1
12 4.0 1.0 10.8 3.0 2.7
Target value (initial) 18 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0
24 (4.0) 0.0 3.8 (4.0) (2.0)
Assumptions
w/o
invest-
ment w/invest-ment
Facility D-B-C cost (M$) 40 40.0
Discount rate of money 10% 10%
Gross revenue/year (M$) 8 8
O/M rate/year 2% 1.9%
Net rental w-O/M 7.8 7.8
Investment (M$) 0.0 1
Impacts - Summary
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
0 10 20 30
Construction duration (months)
Marginal DBC cost wrt target
Marginal DBCcost wrt target
(5.0)
0.0
5.0
10.0
0 10 20 30
Construction duration (months)
Marginal y-1 revenue w/ investment payback
Marginal y-1revenue w/
investmentpayback
(3.0)
(2.0)
(1.0)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
0 10 20 30
Construction duration (months)
Investment payback (yrs)
Investmentpayback (yrs)
Target value design to TEI
(c) 2012 25 Feb 27, 2012
Automatic copy Owner TEI Analysis
Target value design analysis
In-class exercise
For your project:
Create two TEI analyses for your owner with assumptions
1. Good investment return
2. Poor return
Create and explain a TEI model for GC and assume:
– Upside incentive for target value improvement| owner investment
choice; downside penalty (possibly)
CEE 111/211 26
VDC and IPD
Specify Project goals
Design project
Product model: BIM+
Organization model
Process model:
Plan/schedule
Analyze, evaluate project
Task Project Artifact
Build project
High Performance
Building
Method
ICE
ICE Visualization Simulation
M-B Analysis
Production Management
Integrated product, organization, process and metrics-driven
project management
Legend
Information flow
Predictive/performance metrics
ICE
Integrated model-based management framework for design, analysis, evaluation, construction and operations
27
(c) 2012 28 Feb 27, 2012
The Big Idea
Total Economic Impact studies provide a very simple way to help
– Judge the relative economic desirability of alternative project investments
– Set specific measurable business objectives for project investments
Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) is use of integrated multi-disciplinary performance models of design-construction projects to support (explicit, public) business objectives
AEC IT investment by General Contractor
Rate
Baseline
($M) Change
Revenue 100,000 22%
Cost of work 85% 85,000 -2.0%
CM, Design, GC fees 10% 10,000 2.0%
Gross Margin 5,000
Sales, G&A 2% 2,000
IT investment 1,000
Amortized costs of IT/yr 33%
Net income 3,000
Time to payback (years)
Year-1
122,000
101,260
14,640
6,100
2,440
333
3,327
3.1
3-year
payback
Benefits:
net
revenue
growth/yr
Costs:
Investment +
DBC impacts
TEI:
payback
(yrs)
Option 1: Invest 7.0 6.0 1.1
Option 2: no invest 0.0 0.0 0.0
Impacts - Summary
Your assessment
Reflective Positive: What
surprised or encouraged you
positively?
Reflective Negative: What
surprised or encouraged you
negatively?
Decisional: Suggest next steps
CEE 111/211 29 Feb 27
CEE 111/211 March 6 30
This quarter we will …
Do MDA with VDC and the ABC of your
POP - FFB based on a PBS, OBS and
WBS using ICE, DEEPAND and
MACDADI in CEE 111/211 …
Goal: 2015
Schedule 1 y Design; < .5 y Construct
Cost Variance < 5%
Function/ Scope 0 variance, by POE
Safety Better
Sustainability 25% better than 2002
Globalization >= 50% of supply and sales
VDC Big Ideas
Build project models early and often, before committing large money or time
What – Product, organization, process;
– Function, form, behavior
How: – Detailed: to show the product, process, organization entities
that use > 10% of project time, money
– Virtual: in the computer
– Visual: multi-discipline, multi-view, for multiple stakeholders
– Integrated: relating the product, organization and process
– Objective-based: set and track explicit public objectives
CEE 111/211 March 6 31
CEE 111/211 March 6 32
The “plus” of Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering builds the world’s fixed physical wealth, efficiently and sustainably – Buildings, plants, infrastructure
– Physical systems Water and sewage
Transportation
Energy production and transport
Telecommunications
Plus-Delta of Civil Engineering
Provides fixed physical
assets and wealth
High global demand for
infrastructure and
housing
Opportunity to impact
global climate challenge
significantly
CEE 111/211 March 6 33
Plus-Delta of Civil Engineering
Provides fixed physical
assets and wealth
High global demand for
infrastructure and
housing
Opportunity to impact
global climate challenge
significantly
Low productivity
compete with other ways
to spend $
High energy use and
rising energy costs
Structural reliability <<
societal need (Chile)
Persson, Sustainable City of Tomorrow
Guilllermo Gomez, PUChile
US Department of Commerce,
compiled by P. Teicholz
CEE 111/211 March 6 34
Fundamental issue: outcome reliability
Structures (Chile, post-earthquake) -- good:
– ~500K/~5M homes damaged or destroyed: <2σ
– ~4 joint failures /~100 in (collapsed) buildings: 2σ
– 4/~10,000 post-1985 buildings collapsed in major
damage area: >3σ
Energy – not good:
– 20/20 buildings used more energy than predicted –
Malmo, Sweden, 2001 (range 70 – 340% greater)
– 121 LEED buildings use 30% more energy per square
foot than average for U.S. buildings
Neither structure nor energy performance meets societal
needs
CEE 111/211 March 6 35
Fundamental issue: process reliability
Structures (Chile, post-earthquake)
– ~4 joint failures /~100 in (collapsed) buildings: 2σ
Sources of failure - infrequent but important problems: quality
of joint construction, material composition, soft story design,
asymmetrical designs
Energy:
– ↑ prediction variability:
↑ Inter-tool with same designer
↑ Inter-consultant with same tool
– ↑ component performance variability, e.g., infiltration from
leaky building joints (Malmo)
Structure and energy performance:
– Good (historically), but
– Neither meets societal needs
CEE 111/211 March 6
36
AEC Problem: Productivity (1964-2011)
Incremental, local innovations drove productivity trends for
AEC since 1950s
Fewer workers available in aging societies to “buy” new
infrastructure cost pressure
Other ways to spend money become relatively more
competitive with AEC, e.g., health, education, retirement
savings, travel, manufactured goods cost pressure
Most of the AEC workers of 2015 are in practice today
CEE 111/211 March 6 37
CIFE 2015 Breakthrough objectives
Manage projects and the business to maximize measurable business objectives, e.g., – Schedule
– Cost
– Scope
– Safety
– Sustainability
– Globalization
CEE 111/211 March 6 38
CIFE Breakthrough Goals
39
Controllable Process
[Conformance to plans]
Outcome
[Performance]
Product, organization,
process designs
Latency: mean <= 1; 95% within 2
working days
Safety: 0 lost hours
Coordination activity:
planned, explicit, public,
informed > 90%
Field-generated Requests for
Information: 0
Schedule: 95% on-time
performance
Facility managed
Scope: 100% of items
with > 2% of value, time,
cost or energy
Rework volume: 0 (for field
construction work); objective = 10-
20% (virtual work)
Cost: >= 95% of
budgeted items within 2%
of budgeted cost
Prediction basis: > 80%
of predictions founded
*Function (quality) conformance
(%): >= 99%
Delivered Scope: 100%
satisfaction
Design versions: 2 or
more >= 80%
Schedule conformance (%): >=
80%
*Sustainability: >75%
better energy, water,
materials, than 2002,
profitably
Staff trained in VDC: >=
4/project
Cost conformance (%): >= 95%
(Multiple) Predictable performance objectives: *Changed in 2010
CEE 111/211 March 6 40
Will current practice get us there?
CEE 111/211 March 6 41
ICE Stations for Sustainable Design
Architecture
Mechanical – electrical – plumbing systems
Construction
Energy
Operations and maintenance
Organization
Process
Structure
Data integrity
Facilitation
Biology, Chemistry, Physics
Ecological Services
Economics
Ethics
History
Law
Medicine
Political science
Sociology
42
Etc.
Models: Easy
Analyses: Not hard
Analyses: Harder
BIM
Energy
Structure
Spaces
Schedule
3D Clashes
QTO QTO Cost
4D
LCC
VDC BIM and analyses require and use lots of tools
CEE 111/211 March 6 42
43
POP model content
Columns:
– Functions
Program Function, Schedule, Cost, Sustainability, ….
– Scope (Forms) (design choices)
L-B: x10
Product forms = content of a “BIM”
– Behaviors (predicted, observed)
Functional performance
Cost
Value
Schedule
…
Rows
– Product
– Organization
– Process (design +
construction)
Template CEE 111/211 March 6 43
CEE 111/211 March 6 44
CEE 211 Agenda March 6
– Notices
– VDC summary
– Success criteria for projects
– History: From PUFF to ICE and the
future…
– Reflections
*05-07-01
Finish
Final Program
Confirmation with
Pharmacology
Final Program
confirmation with LAR
KPFF
SRG Lab Task 37 Task 44 Project Mgt AEI Core Task 41 Task26 H Block Crew Task 23SRG / AEI
TechnicalAEI Core and
SRG LabHDCCO Costing
SRG
TechnicalKPFF
AEI Core
and TechHDCCO Core
Code Rev
ConsultantSolvent Tarter
H Block Crew
& Tech
SRG
Landscape
Tele Data
DesignCode Rev
Furniture
37.
*Reprogram
B#15 Shafts
34. *Finalize
Pharmacology
Program
33. *Finalize
LAR Program
32. *Finalize
Bio-Organic
Chemistry
Program
35. *Finalize
Protein Chemistry
Program 20. *Determine Scope of
package D including vivarium
changes
45. *Complete all
Basement/LAR Drawings
41. *Reprogram
bookends B#13 and
B#15
36. *Analyze
structural impacts
12. *Complete UG
utiliites
25. *Do Central Plant
design changes
19. *Determine vertical
utilities
22. *Complete catwalk drawings
52. Finalize landscape
26. *Finalize B#13 and
B#15
Exiting/architecural H
occupancy concept
*Lab and
vivarium
Programming
Complete
27. *Finalize B#13,
15 Shaft Size &
MEP Room
Locations
31.* AEI &
SRG
Determine
Design $/Time
Impact of
Change
23. *Reprogram
B#13 and B#15
Exterior Architecture
Bookend
Programming
Accepted by Genentech
Notice to proceed on
structural changes
Architect
program/MEP
oncepts
Established
By Design
Team
29. *Document
lab plan
1. *Redesign main MEP
distribution systems
SRG Management AEI Management
Genentech PM
SRG Lab Plan
Ken Mouchka
Task 27Task 38
Organization
5. *Finalize lab & Equipment
plans
Task 29
Task 28
30. *Approve
Change to
Design
Contract
21. *Prepare Plan Views for
Review of Concept w/City
39. *Finalize MEP
distribution and
section
Task4 Task22
Review 80%
documents
48. *Develop exiting
plan
49. Develop
reflected ceiling
plan
Turnover
reflected
ceiling plan to
AEI
Detailed Design 80 PC
Complete
3. Complete Tele Data Design
42. *Develop
Execution
Strategy
44. *Complete
B#14 Officing
Planning
18. *Detailed Lab
Program
Documentation
47. *Develop lab
DD plan
28. *Determine
segregation of lab
and tech space
G accept lab
equipment matrix
*Package B structural
modifications (CCD3A)
13. *Code Consultants
Review Concept for final
city Presentation
14. *HDCCO update Estimate of cost
of Program
Review skin changes w/db team
Lab Planning Program
Meetings with
Pharmacology
Lab planning Program Meeting with Protein
Chemistry
BMS Controls Meetings
(Weekly)
Lab Planning Program meeting with Bio
Organic 80% Drawing Review
Tele Data Coordination MeetingsSteel Detailing
Meetings
Genentech 80% Detailed Design
Review
Final Program
Confirmation with Officing
Weekly
Coordination
Meeting
Lab Planning Program
Meetings with Directors
50. Designate size, location of
13 MEP, teledata rooms
54. KPFF design
stairs for 13/1438. *SRG
Reprogram 13/14
interface, exiting,
stairs
43. *Changes in Steel
Forwarded to Steel
Detailers
46. *RA Furnture
Concept Complete
MEP, Teledata room design
*Design Budget &
Schedule for Changes
Approved
*Notice to proceed
with detailed design
24. *Complete B13,4 H
block occupancy
requirements on MEP
systems
17. *Risick
reprogram solvent
distribution and waste
Issue 80%
MEP CDs
(20) Incorporate
80% MEP review
comments
(19) Genentech review
80% drawings
53. Incorporate
comments, complete
Architectural detail
2. Initial redesign MEP branch
lateral distribution
G accept
13/14
Interface
*City Accept
exiting
*Package C
skin
modifications
55. KPFF design
stairs for 15/14
40. *SRG
Reprogram 15/14
interface, exiting,
stairs
B13 MEP HVAC,
conduit, piping mains
completed
MEP 80% Review
comments
incorporated
Package D and UG
addendum issued:
underground utilities,
vivarium catwalk
10. Draft Alternate means
15. Jeff reprogram HMIS
(3) *AEI design MEP
HVAC, Conduit &
piping mains B13
16. *HDCCO Determine
Schedule Impact
City Approval of
Alternate Means
for Program
8. Review Alternate
Means w/impact on LEL
and LFFH
(21-4) Finalize MEP Details,
update specs and p&ID's
(8) *Revise
MEP loads, MEP
Equipment
schedules
finalized
(13,15,16) MEP specs, P&ID's,
control sequences
Work Process
Meetings
(6) Coord B13 MEP
floor section
4. complete all Interior Architcture
*Cal OSHA Recommend
Determination of LFFH
51. Designate size, location
of 14 MEP, teledata rooms G accept
15/14
Interface
*Accept project
scope:budget
by Genentech
*City Approval of
H Concept
*Exterior
Programming
Accepted by Genentech
*Turnover lab and
vivarium DD plan
to AEI
CEE 111/211 March 6 45
History of IT in engineering construction
Numeric, database support + Symbolic analysis
• VDC + ICE now enables rapid multi-disciplinary multi-user model-based design and analysis
Next: sustainable building methods – Breakthrough performance including
sustainability
– Using VDC + ICE and other methods
CEE 111/211 March 6 46
The early days: < ~1950
Manual, closed-form analysis for design and
engineering < ~ 1950
First computer applications supported
structural analysis (Logcher, Fenves @ MIT):
numerical structural analysis (vs. closed form)
database systems
CPM emerged in 1960s (Fondahl @ Stanford)
CEE 111/211 March 6 47
Non-numeric (symbolic) analysis
PUFF = First “expert
system,” 1977
Given measured
data
Produce a diagnosis
CEE 111/211 March 6 48
Non-numeric (symbolic) analysis
PUFF = First “expert
system,” 1977
Example rule (medicine)
IF: mmf/mmf-predicted between
35, 45, and
Fvc/fvc-predicted > 80
Then: Suggestive evidence (.5)
for moderate OAD, and
Definite that Reduced mmf
indicates moderate airway
obstruction
Percent agreement
MD-1:
MD-2
MD-1:
PUFF
MD-2:
PUFF
Normal 92 95 92
OAD 94 99 94
RLD 92 99 85
DD 90 91 85
Total
(S.D.)
92
(1.63)
96
(3.83)
89
(4.69)
CEE 111/211 March 6 49
Non-numeric analysis
Early expert systems
ES
Measured (observed) patient data
If-Then rule “interpreter”
Diagnostic rules
Diagnostic report
CEE 111/211 March 6 50
Non-numeric analysis
Early expert systems (> 1977) Built on “heuristics” – rules of thumb, or experiential
knowledge
Widely used today: spell-checkers; tax advisors; automated pipe routing
Seemed true: – Requires non-numeric (symbolic) content
– Performance exceeds human
– Knowledge provides power
– (Symbolic) explanation crucial and possible
– Power in LISP or reasoning method
But … use still limited (e.g., AEC) – Fragile in a changing, nuanced world
– Knowledge acquisition bottleneck fatal
ES Measured
patient data
If-Then rule “interpreter”
Diagnostic rules
Diagnostic report
CEE 111/211 March 6 51
Non-numeric analysis
Early expert systems (> 1977) Built on “heuristics” – rules of thumb, or experiential
knowledge
Widely used today: spell-checkers; tax advisors; automated pipe routing
Seemed true: – Requires non-numeric (symbolic) content
– Performance exceeds human
– Knowledge provides power
– (Symbolic) explanation crucial and possible
– Power in LISP or reasoning method
But … use still limited (e.g., AEC) – Fragile in a changing, nuanced world
– Knowledge acquisition bottleneck fatal
ES Measured
patient data
If-Then rule “interpreter”
Diagnostic rules
Diagnostic report
CEE 111/211 March 6 52
Multidisciplinary Design and Analysis
Given
Goal = “extreme collaboration”
(1 week)
Excellent POP software
Collocated team
iRoom
Good generic POP model
SD (DD) phase
CEE 111/211 March 6 53
Integrated Concurrent Engineering (ICE)
Dependence on model-based analysis using multiple theoretically founded methods – Product
Areas; quantity “schedules” or take-offs
Energy
Structures
– Organization VDT/SimVision
– Process CPM
VDT/SimVision
CEE 111/211 March 6 54
PUFF ICE
PUFF ICE
Reasoning Automated rule
interpretation
Manual synthesis +
automated
Goal Analysis Synthesis
Knowledge Heuristic rules of a single
domain
Multiple theoretically
founded symbolic models
Method Apply (heuristic) if-then
rules
Many: social + multiple IT
Measured
Performance
> 90% accuracy (better
than human)
Latency O(10**4)
Duration O(10**2)
Use method Automated, single user Manual, + automated,
multi-user social
Explanation Text description Cross-referenced Text +
numeric + graphic
CEE 111/211 March 6 55
Meanwhile
Demand for built environment
Rising wealth: > $10T new construction in next decade
Demographics:
– 1B population growth in next decade
– Public health issues
Sustainability now an issue
Design – Construction methods
IT: 3D CAD, 4D, VDC, BIM, PCs, large databases, internet
Performance analyses
Molecular biology for diagnosis, analysis, possible remediation
Green methods: DOE-2, GBS, e+, LEED, …
New materials
Governance now an issue
CEE 111/211 March 6 56
Vision of Sustainable Built Environment Program at Stanford
The Sustainable Built Environment Program
(SBE) focus
– Fixed physical wealth
– Processes of engineering and design
– Societal goals
Economy
Equity
Ecology
CEE 111/211 March 6 57
Vision
Medicine
Environmental
science
Law,
psychology
and
political
science
Civil
engineering and
architecture
Business
and
economics
Leadership
Sustainable Built
Environment Program
Urban
studies
CEE 111/211 March 6 58
Vision
Students learn VDC modeling and analysis
tools and methods +
– Formal and social methods
– Underlying scientific and social drivers and
constraints
– Practice
To learn apply appropriate tool(s) to chosen
specialties
CEE 111/211 March 6 59
Vision
SBE graduates will become leaders in many
fields
– Architecture
– Civil engineering
– Environmental science
– Law Politics
– Business
–Public policy
–Software development
–Teaching
–Research
CEE 111/211 March 6 60
SBE Vision
Half of all Stanford graduates have a substantial
ICE experience related to sustainable building
while at Stanford
– They play the role they are learning
– Co-developing their work with other stakeholders
quickly and well
CEE 111/211 March 6 61
Skills for success
Good engineer: design, analyze, manage
Research methods
Communication – Written/Oral
– Programming
– Colleagues, sponsors, stakeholders
Integrated use of quick-response, careful analysis, reflection
CEE 111/211 March 6 62
The Next Architect (Engineer, Constructor)
AEC changes
– From solitary design process “Design is fast
becoming a team sport and a social art”
– Explain thought processes in two dimensions
(technology enabled) explanations in three and
four, very quickly
– Breathtaking speed
From The Next Architect by Cramer and Simpson
CEE 111/211 March 6 63
The Next Architect (Engineer, Constructor)
“Leadership is the process by which each of the
participants is inspired to give his or her best effort in
service of the grater good.”
From The Next Architect by Cramer and Simpson
CEE 111/211 March 6 64
The Next Architect (Engineer, Constructor)
“The Next Architect understands that a different sort
of language is needed to truly communicate design
intent.”
From The Next Architect by Cramer and Simpson
CEE 111/211 March 6 65
The Next Architect (Engineer, Constructor) asks
1. What are the three most important changes I need to make in the next six months?
2. What did I do today to help my clients succeed?
3. Am I using the latest technology?
4. What am I doing to attract the best talent to my firm?
5. Who am I mentoring? Are they getting what they need from me?
6. Who is in my network? Who isn’t? Who should be? How will I make that happen?
7. Do my project teams know what I expect of them? How do I know?
8. A I truly satisfied with the quality of the work that our firm is doing?
9. Do I pay attention to finances? Are all projects in my firm profitable?
10. What will I be doing differently a year from now? Five years from now?
From The Next Architect by Cramer and Simpson
CEE 111/211 March 6 66
Speculations: VDC
Symbolic Model • Objectives • Testing • Representation • Reasoning • User Interfaces • Systems Interfaces
Pro
ject P
hase
Discipline
VDC will enable a small number of stakeholders
to do rapid multidisciplinary design
CEE 111/211 March 6 67
2009?, … 2015?
2009?, … 2015?
What do you have? … What do you want?
Reflections +/∆ Analysis
CEE 111/211 March 6 68
top related