national cancer institute · national cancer institute rockville| maryland ae senior thesis |...

NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE

Rockville| Maryland

Penn State AE Senior Capstone Project

Justin A. Woishnis | Construction Option

Advisor: James Faust


Rockville| Maryland

Penn State AE Senior Capstone Project

Justin A. Woishnis | Construction Option

Advisor: James Faust

Project Introduction

Project Background

• Site Overview

• Building properties

Analysis #1: Solar PV Analysis

• Site/Roof Investigation

• Shading Analysis

• Energy Use Study

• Panel Selection and Layout

• System Costs

Structural Breadth

Analysis #2: Technology to the Field

• Material Tracking

• Case Study

• Feasibility

Analysis #3: Interior CMU Wall To Precast

• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate

• Precast Overview

• Precast Estimate

• Results/Feasibility

Analysis #4: Alternative Façade Sequence

• Initial Sequence

• New Façade Scheduling/Sequence

• Cost/Schedule Results

Summary of Conclusions/Recommendations

Acknowledgements

PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland

AE Senior Thesis | Justin A. Woishnis | Construction Management |

Project Size| 600,000 S.F. Base Building

575,800 S.F. Parking Garage

Building Function| Office/ Research

Contract Value | $96 Million

Contract Type| Design-Build

Total # of Floors | 8

Owner| The JBG Companies

General Contractor| DAVIS Construction

PROJECT OUTLINE


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

AE Senior Thesis | Justin A. Woishnis

Site Plan

PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland

Existing Site

Base Building

Parking Garage

New Parking Lot

During Construction

Construction Parking

Tenant Parking


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements


PROJECT OUTLINE

Features

Twin 7-story Towers w/

3-story Connector

Lower-Level including:

• Data Center

• Fitness Center

• Auditorium

Green Roof

Curtain Wall


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements


PROJECT OUTLINE

Core & Shell

Cast-In-Place Concrete

Structure

Post-Tension Beams

Precast Panel Facade

Batch Plant


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Tower Cranes


PROJECT OUTLINE

Problem Background

• LEED Gold Certification

• No Renewable Energy Sources

• Large Energy Consumption

Problem Solution

• Roof-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Array

• Large Available Roof Areas w/ Minimal Sun

Obstructions

Site/Roof Investigation

Blue- Available Roof

Area: 28,441 S.F.

Red- Penthouse

Area: 4,359 S.F.


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

ANALYSIS TOPIC #1

SOLAR (PV) ARRAY


PROJECT OUTLINE

Fall Equinox

September 22nd

Spring

Equinox

March 20th

Winter

Solstice

December 21st

Summer

Solstice

June 20th

10:00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM

Optimum Roof Area = 20,617 S.F.20,617 S.


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Shading Analysis


PROJECT OUTLINE

Initial Investigation:

• Full electricity Load = NOT FeasiblE

• 50% Electricity Load = NOT Feasible

• 10% Electricity Load = Still NOT Feasible

Revised Approach:

• Limit Energy Target

• All 24 Hour Lighting

• Main Lobby Entrance, Corridors, Elevator

Lobbies, Stairways and Exit Signs

Type Description Lamps West East West East Total

RC1 9" Aperture Semi-Recessed Downlight 1-F32WTRT 17 25 544 800 1344

RF1 6" Recessed Linear Light Fixture 2-F28T5 3 3 168 168 336

RC2 5 1/2" Aperture Downlight 1-F32WTRT 9 12 288 384 672

RM3 Adjustable Semi-Recessed Wall Washer 1-32W PMH 7 7 224 224 448

JL1C

Decorative Lit Panel w/ Remote LED

Driver/Transformer LED 4.5W/LF 4 4 360 360 720

PM1 Decorative Pendant 1-70W 1 3 70 210 280

JM2 Linear Light Fixture 3-CMH70 4 4 840 840 1680

JM1 Surface Mounted Lobby Fixture 14-CMH20 1 0 280 0 280

RM2 6" Lensed Wall Washer 1-70W, PAR30 3 4 210 280 490

RM1 6" Aperture Downlight 1-70W, PAR30 1 1 210 210 420

JL1A




3554 4172 7726

Watts Total

Exit Signs ( 2-way) 3.4 408

Exit Signs (1-way) 1.8 281

Elevator 2-F28 2352

Stairway 2-F28 4256

7297

15023

kW 15.023

Overall Total (Watts)

Count Watts

Main Lobby & Corridor Lighting

TOTAL

Type Description Lamps West East West East Total

RC1 9" Aperture Semi-Recessed Downlight 1-F32WTRT 17 25 544 800 1344


RC2 5 1/2" Aperture Downlight 1-F32WTRT 9 12 288 384 672

RM3 Adjustable Semi-Recessed Wall Washer 1-32W PMH 7 7 224 224 448

JL1C



PM1 Decorative Pendant 1-70W 1 3 70 210 280

JM2 Linear Light Fixture 3-CMH70 4 4 840 840 1680

JM1 Surface Mounted Lobby Fixture 14-CMH20 1 0 280 0 280

RM2 6" Lensed Wall Washer 1-70W, PAR30 3 4 210 280 490

RM1 6" Aperture Downlight 1-70W, PAR30 1 1 210 210 420

JL1A




3554 4172 7726

Watts Total

Exit Signs ( 2-way) 3.4 408

Exit Signs (1-way) 1.8 281

Elevator 2-F28 2352

Stairway 2-F28 4256

7297

15023

kW 15.023

Overall Total (Watts)

Count Watts

Main Lobby & Corridor Lighting

TOTAL


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Energy Use Study

U.S. DOE, Annual Energy Review

2009

Average Site Energy Intensity per

Square Foot calculated to be

19,344,000 kwh


PROJECT OUTLINE

Total Energy

Assumed 24 Hours/Day Lighting

Energy per Day

• 16 kW * 24 hours = 384 kwh/day

Energy per Month

• 384 kW * 30 days = 11,520 kwh

Energy per Year

• 384 kW * 365 days = 140,160 kwh

Solar Array designed to produce annual wattage of

at least 140,160 kwh

Determining # of Panels to reach output:

SAM (System Advisor Model)

• 372 Total Panels

• Produce 141,293 kwh

• 3 inverter units


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements


PROJECT OUTLINE

Typical Panel: 5’ spacing & 39° tilt

New SunPower Panel

Panel Section

SPR-305-WHT-U 305

(96 Cell Panels)

Rack System

SunPower T10 Solar Roof Tile

• 10° Tilt

• 11.35 inch Spacing

Sketch of Panel Layout

Shading Considerations:

• Penthouse, Davits, Parapets


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Panel Selection and Layout


PROJECT OUTLINE

Total Initial System Cost

(Prior to Rebates/Incentives)

Rebates and Incentives

• Federal Tax Credit: 30% of gross installation

• Montgomery County-High Performance Building Property

Tax Credit:

• LEED-NC Gold = 25% Exemptions Amount (5 year

term)

• Clean Energy Production Tax Credit

• $0.0085/kwh claimed against the state income

tax (5 year term)


Rockville| Maryland

Overall Total Incentive Amounts (5 Year Term) Total

MC- High Performance Property Tax Credit $1,562,500

Clean Energy Production Tax Credit $6,000

Total $1,568,500Payback Period Based on Rebates & Incentives:

• Approximately 3 Years

Incentive Name Description Cost Reduction Adjusted Cost

Initial Cost $1,186,033

Federal Tax Credit 30% of Gross Installation $355,809 $830,224

MC-High Performance Property Tax Credit 25% Exemption Amount $312,500 $517,724

Clean Energy Production Tax Credit $0.0085/kWh $1,200 $516,524

Final Cost $516,524

PV System Cost After Rebates & Incentives (1st Year of Installation)

Initial System cost for Installation

Including First Year Rebates & Incentives

Total Applicable Rebate & Incentive

Costs over 5 Years

Item # of Units Cost

Module 372 $338,344.19

Inverter 3 $52,920.00

Installation 7 $/Wdc

Total $1,186,032.41

Initial PV System Costs


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

System Costs


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Structural Breadth

Roof Structure Impact

Sources:

• Building Code Requirements for

Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and

Commentary

• 8.3- Methods of Analysis

• Pos. & Neg. Moments (int. & Ext. Face)

• 13.6- Direct Design Method

• Design Procedure for One-Way Flat

Slab Reinforcement

Exterior & Interior Bay

“Worst-Case Scenario”

Panel Weight = 52 lbs.

• Dead Load = 100 psf

• Live Load = 30 psf

• Panel Load = 3 psf

Wu = 0.172 ksf

One-way slab reinforcement Analysis

Rebar Spacing:

• Bottom Bars: 12” to 11”

• Top Bars: 8” to 7”

PT Beam Analysis: (Negligible)

• Panels Less than 3% Total Roof Load


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Summary & Recommendation

• Large Available Roof Spaces to Implement System

• 372 Panels

• High Efficiency

• Minimal Structural Impact

• Short Payback Period, Optimal to Install System


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Analysis Topic #2:

Technology Into the Field

Problem Background

• Large Quantity of Similar Materials

• Managing Deliveries/Materials

• Site Congestion

Problem Solution

• Research Technology Applications

• Tablet PC’s for Coordination &

Material Tracking

Possible Applications Overview

• Smart Box

• Tablet PC

• iPad

• Motion F5v


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Material Tracking

Tablet PC Ideas for Material Tracking

• Precast Panel delivery/Placement

• Punch-List Management

• Steel Erection/Placement

iPad used for construction practices

On-Site Tracking Software

Vela Systems mobile iPad App

• Record Site Conditions and Material Arrivals

• Model Viewing Capabilities

1. Proposed Delivery Date

2. Has Material Been Delivered?

3. Date and Time of Delivery?

4. Quantity?

5. Location on Site

6. Has Material Been Installed?


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Case Study

MetLife Stadium,

East Rutherford, N.J.

• $998 Million

• 2.2 Million s.f. Football Arena

• Skanska USA Building

• More than 3200 Precast

Concrete Pieces

• Utilized RFID tags for tracking

Benefits

• Aware of Status of all Precast members including:

• Production

• Delivery

• Site Preparation

• Installation Status

• Vela Systems and Tekla Corp. provide a Field BIM/Tablet

solution

• Each Piece Designed and Tracked for One Specific

Location

Results/Feedback

• Efficient Coordination of Fabricated Pieces

• Easily Identify jobsite Laydown area and Site

Accessibility upon Material Arrival

Estimated Savings

• Accelerated Schedule by 10 Days

• Generated $1 Million in Savings


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Feasibility

Implementing with Analysis Topic #4

• Short Interval Production Schedule (SIPS) for

Façade Re-sequence

• Increased need for Coordination

• Each Day will Require Specific Panels At

Designated Locations

• Tablet PC allows efficient communication

between Field Personnel and Manufacturer

Concerns

• RFID Tag Prices Outweigh Overall Benefit to Project

• Who will absorb the additional costs to pay for the

system?

Recommendation

• Application of RFID Tracking Systems Not Feasible

• Tagging more beneficial for larger-scale projects,

industrial construction or stadiums


PROJECT OUTLINE

CMU Overview

Fully Grouted and Reinforced CMU


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Analysis Topic #3:

Replacing Interior CMU Wall

w/ Precast

Problem Background

• Time-Consuming Installation Process

• Extensive Field Cutting Required

• Scaffolding Increases Safety Concerns

Problem Solution

• Improved Constructability

• Minimize Installation Cost

• Schedule Acceleration Dependent on Building

Enclosure (Analysis Topic #4)


Advantages:

• Durability

• High Strength

• Fire Ratings

• Low Maintenance

Requirements

PROJECT OUTLINE

Disadvantages:

• Very Labor Intensive

• Extensive Field-Cutting

• Corners/Angles

• Scaffolding Required


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Extensive Field-Cutting & Customized Corner Blocks

Non-Linear Wall increases quantity of corner connections


Information Summary

Size: 8” x 8” x 16”

Quantity: 6,544

Crew Size: 6

Daily Output: 80

Cost: $14/S.F.

PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

CMU Estimate

Total Square Footage = 5,817 S.F.

Material Cost Unit Quantity $/S.F. Total

CMU Block S.F. 5,817 14 $81,438

Duration Unit Quantity Daily Output Total (Days)

CMU Block Ea. 4,602 80 58

Material Cost

Duration of Installation

Quantity/Duration Estimate Takes into Account Space for 3/8” Mortar Joints


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Precast Overview

Advantages:

• Substantial Decrease in Installation Time/Cost

of on-site Labor

• Manufactured in Controlled Location

• Decrease in Potential Delays due to

Uncontrollable Site Factors

• Design-Build Delivery Method

Disadvantages:

• Long Lead Time for Engineering/Design

• Increased Coordination with MEP Engineers for

Penetrations

• Early Design of Steel Embed Connection Locations

• Designing to Withstand Blast Loading

Connection Detail of Precast to Concrete to Floor Slab


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Precast Properties

• Minimum 7” Thick Solid Precast

Panel

• Maximum Width = 12’-0”

• 5-6 Month Lead Time

Information Summary

Size: 12’ x 12’ x 7”

Daily Output: 15-20 Panels

Cost: $15/S.F.

Quantity: 41 Panels

(Based on S.F.)

Duration: 2.73 Days

Non-Linear Orientation of Wall requires

Numerous Customized “L”-Shaped Panels

New Total Quantity: 49 Panels

New Duration : 3.5 Days

Duration Unit Quantity Daily Output Total

Precast Panel Ea. 49 15 3.5 Days

Duration of Installation

Material Cost Unit Quantity $/S.F. Total

Precast Panel S.F. 5,817 15 $87,255

Material Cost

Precast Estimate


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Options to Minimize Effects

• High Early Strength Concrete Utilized for

Ground & 2nd

Level Slab

• Precast Walls As Additional Shoring

• Minimal Overtime Work To Remain on Schedule

Results/Feasibility

Project Effects

• Delay in 2nd

Level Slab

Construction

• Require Proper Curing of

Ground Level to Support

Wall loads

Material Duration (Days) Cost

CMU 58 $81,438

Precast 3.5 $87,255

SAVINGS 54.5 ($5,817)

Results

Material Cost and Duration Comparisons


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Site Logistics/Phasing Plan

• Visualize Relationship Between

Trades

• Precast Erection Begins At

North End of Lobby

• Concrete Crew Will Follow

Precast Installation

• Minimal Overall Conflicts


Screenshots


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Consideration

• Analysis topic #4 involves New Façade Erection

Sequence

• Enclose Lobby Early in Sequence to allow early

start of Interior Work

• Precast Costs outweighed by New Interior

Finishes Start Date

Summary/Questioning

• Precast Requires Increase in

Design and Coordination

• Lack of Incentive to utilize

Precast

• What makes the Delay for Precast

Worthwhile?

• Decision of Utilizing Precast

Dependent on Building Enclosure


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Problem Background

• Issues with Crane Limitations

• Overtime Costs Endured

• Excessive Crane Movement/Relocating

Problem Solution

• Increase Crane Capacities

• Create more stringent Productivity/Schedule Goals

• Develop New Crane /Façade Sequences for Maximum

Erection Efficiency

Analysis Topic #4:

Alternative Façade Sequence

Cranes unable to perform Numerous Picks


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Initial Sequence

200 Ton Crane

100 Ton Crane

1. Moves to SE Corner of West Building

• Formwork and Shoring not fully stripped on the east

building.

2. Moves to East Elevation of East Building

• PEPCO permanent power utility ductbank taking place

on the north end of site.

3. Moves to SE Corner of South Elevation

• Elevation coordinated and fabricated last


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Crane Moves

Short: 30 min.

Long: 1 Day

• Each Position based on

Specific Panel Weights

Overtime 10 Days

• Shockey’s 300 ton Crane

required to make Picks

Capacity $/day Duration Total

100 Ton 1300 1.38 $1,793

200 Ton 2300 3.94 $9,060

Overall Total $10,852

Cost of Crane

Type Time + 1/2 Hours Total

Crane Operator

38.50 1.5 80 $4,620

Foreman

30.55 1.5 80 $3,666

Layout (3)

32.45 1.5 80 $11,682

Welder (3)

42.31 1.5 80 $15,232

Rigger

33.63 1.5 80 $4,036

Truck Driver

20.62 1.5 80 $2,475


Overtime Costs

Costs Endured During Crane

Movements

Item Total

Overtime $41,711

Labor $3,670

Crane $10,852

Total Cost $56,234

Overall Costs

Type Duration Hours Total

Crane Operator

38.50 1.32 10.56 $407

Foreman

30.55 1.32 10.56 $323

Layout (3)

32.45 1.32 10.56 $1,028

Welder (3)

42.31 1.32 10.56 $1,340

Rigger

33.63 1.32 10.56 $355

Truck Driver

20.62 1.32 10.56 $218


Cost of "Down Time"- Crane Moves

Costs endured due to Overtime and

Productivity Loss

Crane and Labor Costs Display Money That Could be

Utilized for Erection


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

New Façade Scheduling &

Sequencing

Considerations

• Many Typical Panels

• Repetitive Nature of Façade and

Installation Practices

New Approach

• Develop SIPS for Façade to

Increase Productivity

• Push Precast Crew to work

Vertically

Short Interval Production Schedule (SIPS)

• Day-to-Day Labor Productivity Requirements


Trade Sequence

• Precast Erection

• Backwelding

• Punch Windows

• Caulking/Waterproof

Lower Level (LL) Precast

Floor 1-7 Precast (Typical Panels)

Backwelding/Final Welds

Punch Windows

Caulking/Waterproofing

Preview of SIPS


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Phasing Schedule

• First Complete Lower Level of

Building (Non-Typical)

• Apply SIPS to Levels 1-7 (Typical)

Basis of SIPS

• Elevations

• Crane Positions

• Bay Numbers

New Sequence of Panel Erection New Crane Positioning


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements Crane Operator Works Overtime

to Move Crane

Cost/Schedule Results

Crane Positioning

Capacity Distance No. of Moves Duration (Days) Total Days

200 Ton

Short 23 0.0625 1.438

Long 0 1 0

300 Ton

Short 2 0.0625 0.125

Long 0 1 0

Overall Total 1.563

Total Hours 12.5

Crane Moves/Relocation

Crane Operator Time + 1/2 Duration (Hours)Total

38.50 1.5 12.5 $722

Overtime Costs for Crane Moves

Overtime $41,711

Labor $3,670

Crane $10,852

Total Cost $56,234

Overtime $722

Labor $0.00

Crane $0.00

Remaining Total $55,512

Cost Difference

Substantial Savings with

Crane Utilization Plan

Building Original Duration Actual Duration New Duration Total

West 66 54 34 20

East 60 51 34 17

Connector 12 11 11 0

37

Precast Duration Summary

Total Savings (Days)

SIPS Results

• Saves 37 Days for Precast Erection

Type Duration Work Hours Total

Crane Operator

38.50 37 296 $11,396

Foreman

30.55 37 296 $9,043

Layout (3)

32.45 37 296 $28,816

Welder (3)

42.31 37 296 $37,571

Rigger

33.63 37 296 $9,954

Truck Driver

20.62 37 296 $6,104

$102,884

Labor Savings (Precast Crew)

Overall Total

WO GRUBB Crane Rental Costs Duration (37 Days) Total

200-Ton Crawler $20,000 1 Month $20,000

$6,700 3 Weeks $20,100

$2,300 2 Days $4,600

$44,700

Crane Savings

Overall Total

SIPS Results

• Labor and Crane Cost

Savings of $147,584


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Summary/Questioning

• Crane movements during overtime

• SIPS Schedule for East/West

Building

• Precast Erection Saves 37 days

• Schedule Reduction Saves

$147,584

Consideration

• Combined Use of Analysis topic #3 would prove beneficial

to overall project

• Due to Extensive level of coordination and material

procurement, Lobby South Elevation not Feasible for early

completion

• Confirmed as NOT FEASIBLE by DAVIS Project Engineer

1. Designing and Developing Drawings

2. Cutting Stone (Canada)

3. Shipping Stone (Canada to U.S.)

4. Formwork

5. Casting


PROJECT OUTLINE


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements

Summary of Conclusion/Recommendations

Analysis #1: Solar PV Array

• Rebates and Incentives allow System to be Desirable by

Owner

• 3-Year Payback Period

• Analysis #2: Technology to the Field

• Cost of Systems Does not Outweigh Project Benefits

Analysis #3: Replace Interior CMU Wall w/ Precast

• Substantial Decrease in On-Site Labor

• Deemed Beneficial Solely based on Building Enclosure,

otherwise no incentive to Implement

• Analysis #4: Alternative Façade Sequence

• SIPS Saves Substantial Time and Money

• Larger Crane Sizes increases Erection Efficiency


PROJECT OUTLINE

Academic Acknowledgements

Penn State AE Faculty

• Craig Dubler

• James Faust

• Kevin Parfitt

PACE Roundtable Industry Members

Special Thanks

National Cancer Institute

Family & Friends

Industry Acknowledgements

James G. Davis Construction

• Will Cox

• John Rappoport

• Todd Povell

Nick Carosi, IV- Arban & Carosi

Mark T. Taylor- The Nitterhouse Companies

Jerry D. Davis Jr.- W.O. Grubb

Kurt D. Maldovan- Balfour Beatty


Rockville| Maryland


Project Background

• Site Overview







• System Costs

Structural Breadth



• Case Study

• Feasibility


• CMU Overview

• CMU Estimate









Acknowledgements


THANK YOU

QUESTIONS?


Rockville| Maryland


APPENDIX


Rockville| Maryland

PV Rack Specifications


APPENDIX


Rockville| Maryland

PV Array: Constructability

Sunpower T10 Solar Roof Tiles

• Easy to Install without any need for mechanical roof

Attachments (non-penetrating)

• Large-scale roof tile Arrays can be installed efficiently and

commissioned quickly

• Low-profile design blends into flat roof construction,

operating within the electrical grid network

• Solar Roof Tiles will not interfere with roof drainage

(extremely flexible layout capabilities)

• All Panels Placed on One roof Area, minimizing Wire Runs


APPENDIX


Rockville| Maryland

Structural Load Calculations

Live Loads

Roof Live Load = 30 psf Roof Snow Load = 30 psf

Dead Loads

Roof Slab = 6” thick

[(6”)/(12)] x 150 pcf = 75 psf

Assumed Superimposed Dead Load = 20 psf

Total Dead Load = 95 psf (Used 100 psf)

Panel Loads

Panel Weight = 52 lbs per panel Trib. Area = 20’ x 20’

[(52 lb/panel) * (20 panels)] / (20’ x 20’) ]= 2.6 (Used 3 psf)

Total Loads

DL = 103 psf

LL = 30 psf

Wu = 1.2(0.103) + 1.6(0.030) = 0.172 ksf


APPENDIX


Rockville| Maryland

Property Tax Reduction

Cost of Project = $100,000,000

Property Tax Assumption = 1.25%

100,000,000 * .0125 = $1,250,000 Taxes/Year

LEED-NC Gold = 25% Exemption Amount (5 year term)

Cost Savings of Property Tax per Year = $312,500


APPENDIX


Rockville| Maryland

Crane and Erection Details

Capacity Distance No. of Moves Duration (Days) Total Days

100 Ton

Short 6 0.0625 0.375

Long 1 1 1

200 Ton

Short 15 0.0625 0.938

Long 3 1 3

Overall Total 5.313

Crane Moves/Relocation

WO GRUBB Crane Rental Per Month Per Week Per Day Mobilization

100-Ton Crawler $11,000 $3,700 $1,300 $10,000

200-Ton Crawler $20,000 $6,700 $2,300 $21,000

300-Ton Crawler $34,000 $11,300 $3,800 $31,000

Crane Pricing

WO GRUBB Crane Rental Per Month Per Week Per Day Mobilization

300-Ton Crawler $34,000 $11,300 $3,800 $31,000

100-Ton Crawler $11,000 $3,700 $1,300 $10,000

Difference of values $23,000 $7,600 $2,500 $21,000

Additional Costs Endured With Larger Crane

Average Daily Erection

Trade Original Quantity New Contract

Quantity/Agreement

Precast Panels 8-10 panels/day Per New Schedule/SIPS

Punch Windows 10-12 units/day Per New Schedule/SIPS

Curtain Wall 8 units/day Per New Schedule/SIPS

Niche/Recessed Bays 8 units/day Per New Schedule/SIPS


APPENDIX


Rockville| Maryland

SIPS

national cancer institute · national cancer institute rockville| maryland ae senior thesis |...

Documents