marymount university 26th street project€¦ · presentation outline project overview marymount...

Marymount University

26TH STREET PROJECT

BENJAMIN J. MAHONEY | CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT1FINAL PRESENTATION | APRIL 13, 2010

Presentation Outline


26TH STREET PROJECTBENJAMIN J. MAHONEY | CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FINAL PRESENTATION | APRIL 13, 2010


I. Project OverviewII. Introduction to AnalysesIII. Analysis I: Short Interval Production SchedulingIV. Analysis II: MEP CoordinationV. Analysis III: Green Roof Design

Structural BreadthStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth

VI. Lessons LearnedVII. AcknowledgementsVIII. Questions

2

Project OverviewPresentation Outline



Project Overview

Location4763 Old Dominion DriveArlington, VA

OwnerMarymount UniversityCatholic University


I. Project OverviewII. Introduction to AnalysesIII. Analysis I: Short Interval Production SchedulingIV. Analysis II: MEP CoordinationV. Analysis III: Green Roof Design Catholic University

3,600 Students.Project Goals

Expand Academic SpacesExpand Student HousingExpand Parking Capacity

y gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth

VI. Lessons LearnedVII. AcknowledgementsVIII.Questions

3




Project Overview

Occupancy TypeResidential, Business, Storage/Garage & Assembly

Size267,000 Square Feet

Number of Stories(4) Below Grade Parking (3) Above Grade + Penthouse


I. Project OverviewII. Introduction to AnalysesIII. Analysis I: Short Interval Production SchedulingIV. Analysis II: MEP CoordinationV. Analysis III: Green Roof Design (4) Below Grade Parking, (3) Above Grade + Penthouse

Construction DatesApril 2009 – September 2010

Building Cost$42 Million

Delivery MethodDesign‐Bid‐Build w/ CM Agent



4




Project Overview

Residential Facility62 Units Housing 239 Students77,000 Square Feet

Academic Facility52,000 Square FeetLaboratories Classrooms Offices


I. Project OverviewII. Introduction to AnalysesIII. Analysis I: Short Interval Production SchedulingIV. Analysis II: MEP CoordinationV. Analysis III: Green Roof Design Laboratories, Classrooms, Offices

Below Grade Parking Garage138,000 Square Feet



5

Project TeamPresentation Outline



Project TeamPresentation Outline


Owner: Marymount UniversityOwner's Representative/CM: Stranix Associates

General Contractor: James G. Davis Construction Corp.Architect: Davis, Carter, Scott LTD.

Structural Engineer: Structura, Inc.MEP Engineer: GHT Limited

PROJECT TEAM



6

Civil Engineer: VIKALandscape Architect: Lewis Scully Gionet

LEED Consultant: Sustainable Design ConsultingCast‐In Place Concrete Subcontractor: Brothers Concrete Construction, Inc.

Pre‐Cast Concrete Subcontractor: Arban & CarosiMechanical/Plumbing Subcontractor: Tyler Mechanical Contracting, Inc.

Electrical Subcontractor: Power Design, Inc.




Introduction to AnalysesPresentation Outline


Introduction to Analyses

Analysis I: Short Interval Production SchedulingAnalysis II: MEP Coordination TechniquesAnalysis III: Green Roof Design



7




Analysis I: Short Interval Production SchedulingPresentation Outline


Analysis I: Short Interval Production Scheduling

Problem Statement:The repetitive nature of the activities involved with this phase of theproject provides an opportunity to attempt to bring the efficiencies ofthe “manufacturing process” to the construction industry.



8

Goal:This type of work will allow the workforce to maximize theirproductivity, without sacrificing quality. In turn, this will create aschedule that is more predictable, easier to track, and easier tocommunicate.




Current Project SchedulePresentation Outline


Current Project Schedule

February 2010 – September 201026Week Duration

Dependent upon the Building Dry MilestoneFebruary 19, 2010

Involves all Interior Finish Activities for the Residential Facilityy gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


9




Current Project SchedulePresentation Outline


Current Project Schedule

February 2010 – September 201026Week Duration

Dependent upon the Building Dry MilestoneFebruary 19, 2010

Involves all Interior Finish Activities for the Residential Facilityy gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


10




Development of a SIP ScheduleLevel Zones OccupancyG3 5 26G2 7 36

Building Zones



Development of a SIP Schedule

Break the Building down into Zones/Sections52 Zones, In Total1 Zone ~ 900 Square Feet

G2 7 36G1 7 36L1 9 42L2 12 53L3 12 53

Totals 52 246



11




Development of a SIP Schedule Number Color Critical ActivityNumber Color Critical ActivityPresentation Outline




Determine the Sequence of the Critical Path

Number Color Critical Activity

1 Frame Metal Studs

2 Rough‐In MEP

3 Preform In Wall QC

4 Hang/Tape/Finish GWB

5 Prime Walls

6 Point‐Up Drywall

7 Paint Final Coat


1 Frame Metal Studs

2 Rough‐In MEP



5 Prime Walls


7 Paint Final Coaty gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


12

8 Install Ceramic Tile

9 Install Plumbing Fixtures

10 Install Millwork & Countertops

11 Install VCT & Carpet








Development of a SIP Schedule Number Color Critical ActivityNumber Color Critical ActivityPresentation Outline




Determine the Sequence of the Critical PathLevel Resources to Ensure Consistent Durations


1 Frame Metal Studs

2 Rough‐In MEP



5 Prime Walls


7 Paint Final Coat


1 Frame Metal Studs

2 Rough‐In MEP



5 Prime Walls


7 Paint Final Coaty gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


13












Development of a SIP SchedulePresentation Outline




Determine the Critical Path of the ScheduleLevel Resources to Ensure Consistent DurationsCreate the SIPS Scheduley g

Structural BreadthMechanical Breadth


14

Create the SIPS Schedule




SIP SchedulePresentation Outline


SIP Schedule

Typical Zone Duration17Working Days

February 2010 – August 201024Week Duration



15




Conclusions & RecommendationsPresentation Outline


Conclusions & Recommendations

Activity Shortened by 10 Working Days (8% Reduction)Reduces General Conditions CostsDelays or Stoppages will be Accounted For

Potential for Early Project CompletionAvoid Liquidated Damages

Schedule can be Utilized as Visual Tooly gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


16

Schedule can be Utilized as Visual ToolExtremely PredictableEasy to CommunicateEasy to Track




Analysis II: MEP Coordination TechniquesPresentation Outline


Analysis II: MEP Coordination Techniques

Problem Statement:The coordination of the MEP Systems have the potential to beextremely problematic. The practice of 3D Coordination has provenitself to be an extremely effective and efficient alternative to 2DCoordination. However, it has yet to become an Industry StandardP ti



17

Practice.

Goal:Generate a survey that will help establish motives as to why thispractice is not being utilized more frequently within the Organization,and more specifically the Construction Industry




Current MEP Coordination MethodPresentation Outline


Current MEP Coordination Method

Project Team Utilized “Traditional” Coordination2D Composite Drawings

Very Time ConsumingGenerating Composite DrawingsApproval ProcessCoordination Meetingsy g



18

Coordination MeetingsMultiple Parties InvolvedClashes are Inevitable

Generate Unnecessary Change OrdersCause Schedule Delays




3D MEP CoordinationPresentation Outline


3D MEP Coordination

Computer Software the Combines 3D Modeling & Clash DetectionNumerous Initial and Long‐Term Benefits

Initial BenefitsEfficient Coordination of an Intricate SystemProvides a 3D Model that is Easily Visualizedy g



19

Provides a 3D Model that is Easily VisualizedIncreased Interaction Between trades




3D MEP CoordinationPresentation Outline


3D MEP Coordination

Numerous Initial and Long‐Term Benefits

Long‐Tem Benefits3D Model can be Utilized for Digital FabricationEvaluating Model Promotes an Increased ProductivityDecreases the number of RFI’s and Change Ordersy g



20

Decreases the number of RFI s and Change OrdersOwner Provided with a Higher Quality ProductPhysical Model serves as a 3D “As‐Built”




MEP Coordination SurveyPresentation Outline


MEP Coordination Survey

Distributed to Representative from James G. Davis ConstructionGenerated Ten ResponsesIncluded Project Engineers to Senior Vice Presidents

Completely Anonymous10 Total Questions

4 Questions Regarding 2D Coordination

Num. Current PositionYears of

Experience1 Senior Project Manager 122 Project Engineer 33 Project Manager 134 Virtual Construction Manager 25 Project Engineer 46 Project Executive 11

Survey Participants

Num. Current PositionYears of

Experience1 Senior Project Manager 122 Project Engineer 33 Project Manager 134 Virtual Construction Manager 25 Project Engineer 46 Project Executive 11

Survey Participants



21

4 Questions Regarding 2D Coordination6 Questions Regarding 3D Coordination

j7 Senior Vice President 328 Project Engineer 119 Project Executive 1210 Senior Vice President 19

j7 Senior Vice President 328 Project Engineer 119 Project Executive 1210 Senior Vice President 19




MEP Coordination Survey ResultsPresentation Outline


MEP Coordination Survey Results

Questions Regarding 2D MEP Coordination

What resources are typically involved with the MEP Coordination process?What is the typical turn‐around time for receiving “approved”

it d i ?y gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


22

composite drawings?Is there money allocated in your budget for MEP Coordination?




MEP Coordination Survey ResultsPresentation Outline


MEP Coordination Survey Results

Questions Regarding 3D MEP Coordination

Are you aware if any trades are beginning to model equipment / components in 3D?What trade would be most likely to accept / reject the change to 3D MEP C di ti ?



23

MEP Coordination? What have been reasons for not pursing 3D MEP Coordination on projects that you have been involved with in the past?




Organizational ImpactsPresentation Outline


Organizational Impacts

80% of Employees feel that that they can successfully manage the 3D MEP Coordination processJames G. Davis is currently utilizing 3D Coordination on 3 projects

Committed to utilizing it on major projects in the futureTo ensure that the Projects are Successful, a new role within the Organization has been developedy g



24

Organization has been developed.




Integrated Construction Engineer (ICE)Presentation Outline


Integrated Construction Engineer (ICE)

Educational program that provides employees with the adequate knowledge base to successfully manage 3D Coordination effortsCurrently, 11 ICEs within the Organization

Former Project EngineersFormer Asst. SuperintendantsFormer Layout Engineersy g



25

Former Layout EngineersMain Role: Guide project teams through this processRemain intact within Project Teams







Project Team Guidelines Seek assistance from an ICEStart the Coordination Process as soon as possibleIf possible, involve the Engineer / DesignerEstablish a clear order of CoordinationForeman should be involved during clash resolutiony g



26

Foreman should be involved during clash resolution




Analysis III: Green Roof DesignPresentation Outline


Analysis III: Green Roof Design

Problem Statement:Design a Green Roof that will increase the thermal efficiency of the building’s envelope, improve stormwater management, and increase the durability of the roofing membrane.



27

Goal:Increasing the thermal efficiency of the building’s envelope will help to reduce the overall loads on the HVAC System. The higher initial costs of a Green Roof are expected to be offset by the extended lifecycle and energy savings.




Current Roofing SystemPresentation Outline


Current Roofing System

White, Fully Adhered, Thermoplastic Polyefin (TPO) MembraneCovers Entire Roofing Area

Residential Facility Roof Area ~ 11,500 Square FeetAcademic Facility Roof Area ~ 16,900 Square Feet

Membrane adhered to Extruded Polystyrene Insulationy gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


28




Green Roof SelectionPresentation Outline


Green Roof Selection

Extensive V. Intensive Green RoofsExtensive

LightweightLow Maintenance CostsNo Irrigation Required

Intensivey gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


29

IntensiveBetter Insulating ValueBetter Stormwater ManagementGenerally Accessible




Marymount University Green RoofPresentation Outline


Marymount University Green Roof

Sika Sarnafil Extensive Green Roof SystemLightweight System will have Minimal Impact on the PT Roof DeckIndigenous Vegetation Requires no IrrigationMaintenance Costs Comparable to Existing Roofing SystemSoil Cover Protects the Membrane from Ultra‐Violet LightPotential Reduction in Energy Costsy g



30

Potential Reduction in Energy CostsReduction in Stormwater Run‐Off




Green Roof: Structural BreadthPresentation Outline


Green Roof: Structural Breadth

Original Design CriterionAcademic Facility

Slab Thickness = 9” Post‐Tensioned ConcreteLive Loads = 30 PSFf’c = 5,000 psiy g



31

Residential FacilitySlab Thickness = 7” Post‐Tensioned ConcreteLive Loads = 30 PSFf’c = 5,000 psi




New Design Criterion TOTAL DEAD LOAD ‐ Residential Facility Green RoofTOTAL DEAD LOAD ‐ Residential Facility Green RoofPresentation Outline


New Design Criterion

Loads:Framing Dead Load = Self‐WeightSuperimposed Dead Load = 40 psf (Green Roof)Live Load = 30 psf (Section 1607.0, IBC)Snow Load = 20 psf

Concrete:

Mark Density Total (lbs.) Total (psf)Growth Media 85.00 327618.33 28.333Separation Layer 0.03 38.54 0.003Drainage Pannel 60.00 115630.00 10.000XPS Insulation 1.80 6937.80 0.600Waterproofing Membrane 0.14 1618.82 0.140

40

11563.00 1.0011563.00 0.17

TOTAL11563.00 1.0011563.00 0.33

TOTAL DEAD LOAD Residential Facility Green RoofArea (sf.) Area Comparison11563.00 0.33


40

11563.00 1.0011563.00 0.17

TOTAL11563.00 1.0011563.00 0.33

TOTAL DEAD LOAD Residential Facility Green RoofArea (sf.) Area Comparison11563.00 0.33

Mark Density Total (lbs ) Total (psf)Area (sf ) Area ComparisonTOTAL DEAD LOAD ‐ Academic Facility Green Roof

Mark Density Total (lbs ) Total (psf)Area (sf ) Area ComparisonTOTAL DEAD LOAD ‐ Academic Facility Green Roofy g



32

Concrete:f ’c = 5,000 psi

Rebar:fy =60,000 psi

PT:Un‐Bonded Tendons = ½”, 7‐Wire Strands


40TOTAL16896.00 1.00

16896.00 0.1716896.00 0.33

Area (sf.) Area Comparison16896.00 0.3316896.00 1.00


40TOTAL16896.00 1.00

16896.00 0.1716896.00 0.33

Area (sf.) Area Comparison16896.00 0.3316896.00 1.00




Two-Way Post-Tension DesignPresentation Outline


Two-Way Post-Tension Design

Slab Design:Slab Thickness = 8”Bottom Bars = #5 @ 10 in. O.C.Top Bars = 6 ‐ #5 @ Int. Supports

= 6 ‐ #5 @ Ext. SupportsPT Tendons 22 Un bonded Tendonsy g



33

PT Tendons = 22, Un‐bonded TendonsSupporting Columns: OKResidential Columns Extended




Green Roof: Mechanical BreadthPresentation Outline


Green Roof: Mechanical Breadth

Annual Energy SavingsQ = Area (ft2) * (Cumulative Ann Savings) * (Hr/Day) * (Day/Yr)Q = (28,450 ft2 ) * (1.9 BTU/HR*ft2) * (24 Hr/D) * (365 D/Yr)Q = 473,521,800 BTU/Year

Annual Energy Savings $2 705y gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


34

Annual Energy Savings = $2,705




LEED NCv2 2 AnalysisPresentation Outline


LEED NCv2.2 Analysis

Green Roof Direct ImpactsSustainable Sites

Credit 5.1: Site DevelopmentCredit 6.1: Stormwater Design

Water EfficiencyCredit 2 0: Innovation Wastewater Technologiesy g



35

Credit 2.0: Innovation Wastewater TechnologiesInnovation & Design Process

Credit 1.4: Green Roof DesignProject Score = 33

LEED Silver




Cost ImpactsPresentation Outline


Cost Impacts

Green Roof Cost Impacts

TPO Membrane Extensive Green RoofCost $11.00/SF $20.00/SF

Roofing System Cost ComparisonTPO Membrane Extensive Green Roof

Cost $11.00/SF $20.00/SF

Roofing System Cost Comparison



36

Lifecycle 15 Years 40 YearsInitial Cost $312,950.00 $709,000Energy Savings ‐ $2,705

Lifecycle 15 Years 40 YearsInitial Cost $312,950.00 $709,000Energy Savings ‐ $2,705




Schedule ImpactsPresentation Outline


Schedule Impacts

Existing Fully Adhered, White, TPO Roofing Membrane62 Days

Sika Sarnafil Extensive Green Roof69 Days



37




M A E RequirementPresentation Outline


M.A.E. Requirement

Incorporation of a Green Roof System

AE 597D: Sustainable Building ConstructionLEED Analysis

AE 542: Building Enclosure Science and Designy gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth

VI. Final ConclusionsVII. AcknowledgementsVIII.Questions

38

AE 542: Building Enclosure Science and DesignEvaluation of the Building Envelope







Financial ImpactsIncreased Thermal Efficiency Generates $2,705 AnnuallyHigher Initial Costs offset by Lifecycle Costs30 Year Return on Initial Investment

Sustainable Impactsy gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


39

Sustainable ImpactsReduces Overall Load on the Mechanical EquipmentExtended LifespanLEED Silver Status




Lessons LearnedPresentation Outline


Lessons Learned

Analysis I: Short Interval Production SchedulingA repetitive schedule is an efficient scheduleReduces the total duration and generates savings

Analysis II: MEP Coordination TechniquesEmployees need to be educated on new technologiesy g



40

Employees need to be educated on new technologiesVery time & resource extensive process

Analysis III: Green Roof DesignHigher initial cost can be offset by durabilityDifferent systems have varying levels of sustainability




Special ThanksPresentation Outline


Special Thanks

Penn State FacultyMr. James FaustDr. Chris MagentDr. David RileyMr. Craig Dubler

Marymount UniversityDr. Ralph KidderMr. Upen MalaniDr. James Bundschuh

St i A i ty gStructural BreadthMechanical Breadth


41

Davis ConstructionErik KanieckiRami NatourAaron Galvin

Stranix AssociatesMs. Bhavna Mistry Lee

OthersMaddieMy Family & Friends






QUESTIONS?



42

marymount university 26th street project€¦ · presentation outline project overview marymount...

Documents