cee143/243 feb 14 - stanford university › class › cee111 › w910mar11.pdf · task4 task22...

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


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


*Turnover lab and

vivarium DD plan

to AEI

http://www.stanford.edu/class/cee111/Agenda.htm

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









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

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



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


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







Energy/Schedule

(c) 2012 19

High

Low Low High

Target cost

Asymptotic

value curve






Va

lue


Behavior

(c) 2012 20 Behavior

Low High

High

Low

Target cost

Inverted “U”

value curve






Va

lue

Downside risk

Upside

opportunity


(c) 2012 21

High

Low Low High

Target

schedule

“U” shaped

cost curve






Cost


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)



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


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


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)



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


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


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


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


*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


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


Diagnostic rules

Diagnostic report

CEE 111/211 March 6 51


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


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

http://www.stanford.edu/group/CIFE/images/VDC2.mov

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


“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.”


CEE 111/211 March 6 64


“The Next Architect understands that a different sort

of language is needed to truly communicate design

intent.”


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?


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

cee143/243 feb 14 - stanford university › class › cee111 › w910mar11.pdf · task4 task22...

Documents