wilsdorf hall materials science engineering & nanotechnology building university of virginia

Wilsdorf HallWilsdorf Hall Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology BuildingMaterials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building

University of VirginiaUniversity of Virginia

Leaha MartynuskaLeaha MartynuskaConstruction Management OptionConstruction Management Option

Senior Thesis 2005Senior Thesis 2005The Pennsylvania State UniversityThe Pennsylvania State University

Department of Architectural EngineeringDepartment of Architectural Engineering

Wilsdorf HallWilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building--- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology BuildingUniversity of VirginiaUniversity of Virginia

Leaha Martynuska Leaha Martynuska Construction Construction Management Option Senior Thesis Management Option Senior Thesis 20052005

AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions

ProjectProjectOverviewOverview

CM In-HouseCM In-HouseBuilding Building CommissioningCommissioning

Virtual MEP Virtual MEP CoordinationCoordination

UnderpinningUnderpinningConstructabilityConstructability

ReviewReview

Agenda Project Overview

Depth Analysis: CM In-House Building Commissioning

Breadth Analysis: Virtual MEP Coordination

Breadth Analysis: Underpinning Constructability Review



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Project Overview

Location: University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA

Building Occupant: UVA School of Engineering and Applied Science

Building Function: --- Nanotechnology Laboratories --- Faculty Offices --- Conference Rooms --- Computer Labs and work-study areas

Size: 80,000 gsf

Cost: $28,000,000

$350.00 / s.f.



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Project Overview

Project Delivery Method: Owner’s Agent

Building Features: --- Physically Joins Existing Material Science & Chemistry Buildings

--- two floor atrium, café, and courtyard

Dates of Construction: --- Start Date: June 2003 --- Anticipated Completion: March 2006 --- Underpinning Failure Delay: 2 months --- Current anticipated completion: May 2006



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Construction Features:

--- Five total levels, three above grade

--- 300ft permanent retaining wall

--- Extensive vibration control in sub-basement

--- 5 individually ducted fume hoods

--- Structural Steel Frame with cast in place concrete slabs

--- Brick and architectural pre-cast concrete facade

Project Team:

--- Construction Manager: Barton Malow

--- Architect: VMDO Architects, P.C.

--- Owner: University of Virginia

--- Mechanical/Electrical Engr.: BR+A Consulting Engrs

--- Structural Engineer: Fox and Associates

Project Overview



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Site Plan

Chemistry Addition

Albert Small Bldg

Mat Sci

Chemistry Building

ChemEMechanical

Engineering Bldg

N

Key------- Construction Fence- - - Building Footprint

New Pedestrian Route

Primary Road Access

Secondary Road Access

Temporary Transformers

Site Trailers

Site Storag

e

Pump Truck

Chemistry Addition

Albert Small Bldg

Mat Sci

Chemistry Building

ChemEMechanical

Engineering Bldg

NN

Key------- Construction Fence- - - Building Footprint

New Pedestrian Route

Primary Road Access

Secondary Road Access

Temporary Transformers

Site Trailers

Site Storag

e

Pump Truck

--- Underpinning Required

--- Relocation of Chilled Water Lines

--- Traffic redirection



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

CM In-House Building Commissioning

Proposal: A CM is qualified to perform in-house building commissioning vs. hiring a 3rd party commissioning agent

Methods:

--- Research Case Studies

--- Interview Industry Professionals

Results:

--- Benefits of CM In-House Building Commissioning

--- CM In-House commissioning department set-up guidelines

--- CM In-House Commissioning Plan



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Commissioning

Commissioning Cost

Building Commissioning(HVAC, Controls, Electrical)

Less than 0.5% - 1.5% of Total Construction Cost

HVAC and Automated Controls System Commissioning

Less than 1.5% - 2.5% of Mechanical System Cost

Electrical Systems CommissioningLess than 1.0% - 1.5% of Electrical

System Cost

“The basic purpose of building commissioning is to provide documented confirmation that building systems function in compliance with criteria set forth in the Project Documents to satisfy the Owner’s operational needs”

Average Commissioning Costs:

Commissioning Ensures a Building is:

--- Designed --- Tested

--- Installed --- Started



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

CommissioningAll systems must be commissioned because all are integrated and a deficiency in one may result in the performance or failure of another.

Commissioning Benefits:o Reduced energy useo Improved indoor air qualityo Improved occupant comforto Improved environmental conditionso Improved system and equipment functiono Improved building operation and maintenanceo Improved building productivityo Smoother building turnovero Better start-up documentationo Better operator training and Owner knowledge of their systems



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Why Owners Commission

81%

80%

53%

41%

37%

25%

Ensuring SystemPerformance

Potential EnergySavings

Improve ClientSatisfaction

Utility Funding

Research

Improve Comfort



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Benefits of In-House Building Commissioning

o Understand the construction schedule

o Risk involved ensures an excellent building turnover

o Provide services on all building systems, not just controls

o Qualified to gain LEED points

o Extensive background on all building systems



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

In-House Commissioning Department set-up guidelines

o Must remain a separate entity

o Commissioning practices must be understood and practiced properly

o Members of the department must be certified commissioning agents

o Department must consist of staff specializing in each building system

o Organized plan must be followed



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

CM In-House Commissioning Plan

Task 1: Planning Phase

--- Develop Project Objectives

--- Choose Team

--- Develop Commissioning Schedule

Task 2: Submittal Review

--- Review system submittals

Task 3: Construction Inspections/Start-ups

--- Develop pre-functional tests and checklists

--- Inspections, site visits

--- Review and attend system start-ups and tests

Task 4: Functional Performance Tests

--- Coordinate FPT and test plans

--- Witness FPT

--- Document FPT Results

Task 5: O & M Manuals and Training Review



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Virtual MEP Coordination

Methods:

--- Research Case Studies


Results:

--- Advantages of 3D MEP Coordination

--- 3D MEP Coordination Process

--- 3D MEP Model Checklist

--- 3D Model Cost and Schedule Analysis

--- Problems with 3D MEP Coordination

Proposal: 3D models are more effective when coordinating MEP systems than traditional coordination methods.



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

3D MEP Coordination

Provides in One Drawing:

--- Material Lists

--- Fabrication Drawings

--- Assembly Drawings

--- Construction/Scheduling Coordination



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Advantages of 3D MEP Coordination

o Problems can be solved in the early phases of design And construction

o Multiple coordination plans can be viewed before selecting the most efficient

o Navigation through the model is possible allowing errors to be found

o Plans can be tested before construction

o Different views of the model can be seen



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

3D MEP Coordination Process

HVAC Subcontractor creates background for all

other MEP Contractors

Mechanical Subcontractor adds HVAC system

Plumbing Contractor adds plumbing system

Sprinkler Contractor adds sprinkler mains/branches

Electrical Subcontractor adds main electrical feeds

Finished drawings are reviewed by all contractors

involved, the architect and the project manager`

Conflicts are identified & documented by all parties

Solution is developed & documented by all parties

Coordination Meeting



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

3D MEP Model Checklist

Level of Detail: The level of detail needs to be determined because items can be modeled in varying levels of detail. For example a piece of mechanical equipment could be modeled as a 3D box or to show all access point, switches, etc.

When to complete 3D model: The sequence and timing of the model needs to be coordinated with the construction process, from design to turnover.

Project Staff: Each person needs to understand the goals, the level of 3D modeling required, and the amount of information sharing needed.

Design Background: The coordinate system, file name, layers, etc.. must be set up early in the design process.



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

3D Model Cost and Schedule Analysis

Average Added Cost due to MEP Coordination Conflicts in the Field

3D Coord. Cost Savings

(60% Prevented)

MEP Conflict Costs after 3D Coordination

Plan and Spec – Hardly any Precon. Coord. (3 projects)

$385,000 ($231,000) $154,000

Limited Preconstruction Coordination (4 projects)

$200,000 ($120,000) $80,000

Full Preconstruction Coordination (4 projects)

$150,000 ($90,000) $60,000

Design – Build MEP Coordination (3 projects)

$50,000 ($30,000) $20,000

Schedule:

--- Total Hours Saved: 38

--- Saves more than time, saves stress & conflict

Cost:



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Problems with 3D MEP Coordination

New to the Industry

Not all contractors have the capability or knowledge of using 3D Cad

Trades not using 3D CAD may not know how to read drawings on a computer



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Underpinning Constructability Review

Methods:


Results:

--- Constructability review

--- CM role in underpinning process

Proposal: Review constructability of underpinning system and determine factors leading to failure



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Underpinning Constructability Review

o Underpinning Tests

--- Concrete Strength - Passed

--- Tieback Tests - Passed

--- Additional Tiebacks were installed to reinforce the system - Passed

o Legal Battle

--- Inadequate Designs

--- Intersection of soil planes



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

CM Role in Underpinning Installation

o Safety

o Know consequences of actions (have a plan)

o Check installation

Factors Affecting Underpinning

o Size and depth of excavation

o Soil conditions

o Ground Water

o Surface drainage conditions

o Weather and moisture conditions



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions





ReviewReview

Acknowledgements

o The Penn State AE faculty and staff

o Barton Malow Company

o University of Virginia

o The Foreman Group

o My family and friends



AgendaAgenda

QuestionsQuestions



Virtual MEPVirtual MEP CoordinationCoordination


ReviewReview

Questions

?