Children s Hospital of Pittsburgh s Clinical Services Building Pittsburgh, PA

Transcription

1 PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES! Children s Hospital of Pittsburgh s Clinical Services Building Pittsburgh, PA PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Final Thesis Presentation Gloria Brashear Advisor: Professor Horman 1

2 for General Contractors 900,000 SF hospital 6th floor atrium and rooftop garden vibrant use of colors on the interior and exterior family, healing, sustainability, and state of the art technology 40% of the total construction is renovations to a previously existing hospital. Video Courtesy of Astorino 2

3 for General Contractors 3

4 Owner: University of Pittsburgh PROJECT SCHEDULE BMPJD Notice of Award Award Packages Steel Erection Coordination Drawings 0 days 37 days 166 days 179 days for General Contractors Owner Rep: Of Oxford ddevelopment Co. Construction Manager: Dick Corp. Architect & Engineer: Astorino General Contractor: Barton Malow P.J. Dick, A Joint Venture Interior Demolition (Old Building) Plumbing Major Material Deliveries Telecommunications Construction Risers Mechanical Electrical Exterior Studs and Sheathing Roofing Vendor Selection Elevators Windows Doors Punchlist Helipad Full Enclosure Owner Deliver Medical Equipment Installation Testing Commission 25 days 251 days 136 days 556 days 134 days 194 days 229 days 126 days 250 days 234 days 475 days 147 days 208 days 373 days 57 days 0 days 0 days 36 days 9 days 15 days Substantial Completion Project Completion 0 days 0 days 4

5 Very complex schedule by floor and quad PROJECT SCHEDULE BMPJD Notice of Award Award Packages Steel Erection 0 days 37 days 166 days Coordination Drawings 179 days Telecommunications contractor and Steel contractor picked prior to General Contractor Interior Demolition (Old Building) Plumbing Major Material Deliveries Telecommunications Construction 25 days 251 days 136 days 556 days for General Contractors Trades work through the building in a spiral effect Overlap of trades due to continual work flow Risers Mechanical Electrical Exterior Studs and Sheathing Roofing Vendor Selection Elevators Windows Doors Punchlist 134 days 194 days 229 days 126 days 250 days 234 days 475 days 147 days 208 days 373 days Start Date: 12/22/05 Helipad Full Enclosure Owner Deliver Medical Equipment Installation 57 days 0 days 0 days 36 days Projected Completion Date: 12/22/08 Testing Commission 9 days 15 days Substantial Completion 0 days Project Completion 0 days 5

6 "The frog does not drink up the pond in which it lives." Chinese Proverb < Green building popularity p increasing, public has a vested interest Clinical Services Building designed to meet the LEED New Construction v2.1. Save 90 /sq. ft. annually Energy and other costs earn back investment in 2 2 ½ yrs. Certification process now 100% online Availability of online sample submission forms Research of LEED Pittsburgh General Contractor Survey LEED Submittals in Specifications LEED Submittal form 6

7 1. Familiarity of Contractors: Familiarity of Subcontractors: 4 5, MEP higher 3. Helpfulness and Familiarity of Architects: 6 7, large firms higher 4. Number of Green and LEED Projects Worked On: Most Difficult Credits: FSC chain of custody, harvest location, HVAC, commissioning, and materials/resources 6. Most Difficult Aspects of LEED : drywall recycling, education of the masses, inclusion in the bidding process, structure or defined steps 7. Client's Eagerness to Implement LEED : poor perception of cost, do not know all it entails 8. LEED in Construction Documents: need better definition Research of LEED Pittsburgh General Contractor Survey LEED Submittals in Specifications LEED Submittal form 7

8 Addendum to Specifications Section 05310: 1.02 SUBMITTALS Add: " F. LEED Submittal form for each specific material. 1. MR 3.1: 1:List ofproposedmaterials salvaged, reused, orrefurbishedrefurbished a. Identify material cost. 2. MR 4.1 and 4.2: List of proposed materials with recycled content. a. Indicate cost, post consumer recycled content, and postindustrial recycled content for each product having recycled content. 3. MR 5.1 and 5.2: List of proposed regionally manufactured materials and regionally extracted, harvested, or recovered materials. a. Identify each regionally manufactured material, its source, and cost. b. Identify each regionally extracted, harvested or recovered material, its source, and cost. " Research of LEED Pittsburgh General Contractor Survey LEED Submittals in Specifications LEED Submittal form 8

9 Research of LEED Pittsburgh General Contractor Survey LEED Submittals in Specifications LEED Submittal form 9

10 " If a picture contains one thousand words... A model contains one thousand pictures Edward McCracken (former CEO SGI) < grp.net/home_page.html> 25 yr. old idea in the making Automobile and airline manufacturing industries adopted virtual modeling successfully Acceptance, compatibility, and perhaps contractual reliability and responsibility essential for success Compatibility of software Owners do not understand investment and commitment Industry wide standards in the works with National Institute of Building Sciences. Research of Virtual Modeling Interview with MIS Project Leader with P.J. Dick, Inc. Software Review Research of BIM Consultants 10

11 Project Model Type Man Hours Completed By Office 3D 545 In House Research 5D 480 Out Sourced Modeling not used on Clinical Services Building Decide what general contractor wants with model Quality and reliability of the work product outweigh the additional cost of out sourcing Research of Virtual Modeling Interview with MIS Project Leader with P.J. Dick, Inc. Software Review Research of BIM Consultants 11

12 Vico vs. Autodesk Constructor vs. Revit Architecture Research of Virtual Modeling Interview with MIS Project Leader with P.J. Dick, Inc. Software Review Research of BIM Consultants 12

13 Vico vs. Autodesk Constructor vs. Revit Architecture Research of Virtual Modeling Interview with MIS Project Leader with P.J. Dick, Inc. Software Review Research of BIM Consultants 13

14 Vico vs. Autodesk Constructor vs. Revit Architecture Research of Virtual Modeling Interview with MIS Project Leader with P.J. Dick, Inc. Software Review Research of BIM Consultants 14

15 BIM Consultants Combine multiple fields of work Devote proper time required Reduce cost and coordination issues Improve construction inefficiencies Improve schedule and trade coordination Benefits outweigh cost Research of Virtual Modeling Interview with MIS Project Leader with P.J. Dick, Inc. Software Review Research of BIM Consultants 15

16 Background: Existing hood system outdated Manufacturer out of business Owner wants to salvage existing equipment Problem: Existing system and proposed system non compatible Initial cost increase with change in scope of work Schedule delays increasing 16

17 17

18 Model "CG3 BDL BDL" Water Wash Ventilator Proposal: Fully functioning kitchen hood system New hood and ductwork 18

19 Proposed Revision to Scope of Work: Existing Scope of Work: 19

20 18, friction per 100 ft of duct = 60x24 Attempts to reduce size failed Material Exhaust: Low Roof Exhaust: 5 th Floor Duct Insulation $15, $9, Ducts $76, $43, Louver $ $ Fan $2, $2, Exhaust Hood $61, $61, DAYS: TOTAL: $156, $118, Minimum separation distance between building and exhaust is 1/2 of L.: L = 0.09 Q ( DF U/400) <ASHRAE 62.1, Exhaust Ventilation> Q= exhaust air volume, 250 cfm per million BTU/h (per Appendix F3) DF = dilution factor, 15 (per Table F.2) U= 0 L = 43.8 ft. 1/2L = 21.9 ft. OK! SAVINGS on material: $38, SAVINGS on schedule: 20 days 20

21 Background: Topping showing visible fatigue between col. line K P and 1 5 Form deck corrosion Scope prescribes chip out of problem areas Problem: Mechanical and electrical penetrations causing corrosion All penetrations should be seen as potential hazards 21

22 Proposal: Ensure longevity of aesthetics and structural integrity New form deck 22

23 UF2X form deck 24 GA, 5 7 spans 4x4 W2.9 x 2.9 mesh United Steel Deck, Inc. Form Deck & Slab for Typical Bay Infill 7' O.C. Needed: 5" thick slab, 2" deck, 3" lightweight concrete Loading: Live Loads: Lab/Ward: 80psf <per Specifications> Dead Loads: Deck: 3 psf <per USD Design Manual> Concrete: 115 pcf x 3 in slab = 28.75psf <per USD Design Manual> Superimposed: 15 psf W = 1.4 (3psf psf + 15 psf) (80psf) W = psf United Steel Deck: concrete slabs on UF2X form deck, 24 GA, 5 7 spans 4x4 W2.9 x 2.9 mesh, Uniform Total Load = 212 psf psf < 212psf OK! 23

24 Material Impact Edge Forms $6, WWF $483, Concrete $108, Proposed cost compared with life cycle Original built in 1968 Placing Concrete $28, Less than 37 years later showed signs of fatigue Finishing $62, Form Decking $187, Additional MEP penetrations increase DAYS: 32 days/floor need TOTAL: $877, Structural integrityand future aesthetics guaranteed 24

25 Conclusion: Research 1: LEED Process: Change in submittals would close the information gap between subcontractors and architects : Outsourcing most beneficial option, if inhouse use of Vico software proves most user friendly : Re routing ductwork reduces cost by $38, and saves 20 days : Structural improvements increase building life cycle which outweighs cost of construction adding 32 days to the schedule for each floor 25

26 I would like to thank the following companies for their assistance with my senior thesis: Astorino Architect & Engineers Barton Malow P.J. Dick, A Joint Venture Brashear Construction Consulting, Inc. Jendoco Construction Corporation Mascaro Construction Company, LP Massaro Corporation Oxford Development Company University of Pittsburgh Medical Center I would also like to thank the following people for their support and guidance throughout my time at Penn State: Family and friends (the ones at home in Pittsburgh, and the ones that are here making State College my second home) Fellow AE students Penn State AE Faculty and Staff 26

27 27