1 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "1 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ"

Bertina Beasley
5 years ago
Views:

1 Project Team Facade Façade Redesign 1 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

2 Building Statistics Facade Façade Redesign The New York Times Building o 620 Eighth Ave. Times Square o Midtown Manhattan, New York, NY Building Owners o The New York Times Company: Floors 2-27 o Forrest City Ratner Companies: Floors Building Cost o Assumed construction cost of $ 1 billion (2007) o New York Times Portion: $ $ 624 million Building Function o Class A Office Building o Retail Space on Ground Floor 2 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

www.international-pc.com/ Building Architecture o 52 story office building, 745 tall o Unique façade with ceramic rod shading system o 1.

3 Building Architecture o 52 story office building, 745 tall o Unique façade with ceramic rod shading system o 1.5 million square feet Vertical Transportation o 28 elevators serving the tower o High speed smart design (1,600 ft/min) o Cutting edge call system Mechanical o 6250 ton chilled water system o 1.4 MW cogeneration system o District steam heating o UFAD / VAV air distribution Lighting/Electrical o 18,000 Luminaires o Fixtures Controlled by a Digitally Addressable Lighting Interface (DALI) o 5 Transformers with Room for Expansion Structural o Composite Beam & Girder Floor System o Steel Braced Frame Lateral Force Resisting System o Outriggers on 28 th & 51 st Mechanical Levels o Exposed Pretension Exterior Steel Rods o Exposed 30 x30 Built-up Steel Columns o Thermal Trusses on 51 st Mechanical Floors 3 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

4 Project Team Architects CM Structural Renzo Piano Building Workshop FXFOWLE Architects AMEC Construction Mgmt. (Core & Shell) Turner Construction (NYT Interiors) MEP Thornton Tomasetti Flack and Kurtz Project Milestones o August 23, 2004 Excavation Begins o July 2006 Topping Out Ceremony o November 19, 2007 Grand Opening of the New York Times Building 4 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

5 Redesign Goals Increased Profitability Operating Costs Leasable Space Increased Marketability Sustainability Iconic Image Redesign Strategies Decrease floor to floor height to allow for an additional rentable floor Redesigning core to add additional rentable space on each floor Improve the sustainability profile 5 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

6 IPD / BIM Goals Integrated Project Delivery Building Information Modeling (BIM) Project Goal Setting BIM Use Analysis BIM Uses Analysis Design Authoring Design Review 3D Coordination Phase Planning 6 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Façade Redesign Façade Goals: o Increase Thermal Efficiency o Maintain or Exceed Daylighting Performance o Maintain Iconic Image Transparency Lightness Innovative Design Redesign Opportunities: o

7 Façade Redesign Façade Goals: o Increase Thermal Efficiency o Maintain or Exceed Daylighting Performance o Maintain Iconic Image Transparency Lightness Innovative Design Redesign Opportunities: o Explore Double-Skin Façade o Explore Alternate Shading Techniques Maintaining the Image o Double-Skin Façade of the London Bridge Place Innovative Contemporary Sustainable o A Glass Tower With a Distinct Identity shardlondonbridge.com 7 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

8 System Description 2 6 Ventilated Cavity System Using Two Skins of Glass 1 Interior Insulating Glazing Curtain Wall 5/8 Exterior Laminated Glazing Unit Horizontal Louvered Shading System 8 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

9 System Description 9 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

10 Façade Daylight Analysis Daylight Autonomy: Double-Skin with Louvers Daylight Autonomy: Ceramic Rods 10 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

11 Façade Daylight Analysis Single Floor Lighting Power Consumption Maximum Potential: 71 kwh Rod Design: 27 kwh Louvered Design: 28 kwh Both Designs: 60% Energy Savings 11 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

12 Thermal Loads Existing HVAC Envelope Loads: o Peak cooling: 58% o Peak heating: 75% Double-Skin Façade Thermal Efficiency: o Decreased U-value o Decreased Shading Coefficient Existing Façade Double-Skin Façade U-Value Shading Coefficient BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

13 Thermal Loads Existing HVAC Envelope Loads: o Peak cooling: 58% o Peak heating: 75% Double-Skin Façade Thermal Efficiency: o Decreased U-value o Decreased Shading Coefficient Savings: o Energy (21%) 13 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

14 Thermal Loads Existing HVAC Envelope Loads: o Peak cooling: 58% o Peak heating: 75% Double-Skin Façade Thermal Efficiency: o Decreased U-value o Decreased Shading Coefficient Savings: o Energy (21%) o Cost ($800,000 / year) 14 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

15 Thermal Loads Existing HVAC Envelope Loads: o Peak cooling: 58% o Peak heating: 75% Double-Skin Façade Thermal Efficiency: o Decreased U-value o Decreased Shading Coefficient Savings: o Energy (21%) o Cost ($800,000 / year) o Emissions (23%) 15 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

16 Serviceability and Maintenance 2 6 accessible cavity Louvers support walking loads 16 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

17 Cost Comparison: Double-skin façade up front cost: $18.7 million increase Annual energy savings: $800,000 Simple payback period : years Original Façade System $ 83,527,260 Proposed Double Façade $ 102,273,745 Upfront Cost Increase $ 18,746,485 Annual Energy Savings $ (800,000) Simple Payback Period Years 17 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

18 Façade Lighting Redesign 400W Floodlight N E W S 250W Floodlight 18 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

19 Façade Lighting Redesign 19 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

20 Façade Lighting Redesign 400W Floodlight N E W S 20 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

21 Façade Lighting Redesign 21 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

22 Façade Lighting Redesign 400W Floodlight N E W S 22 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

23 Façade Lighting Redesign 23 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

24 Goals: o Increase rentable floor space o Decrease floor-to-floor height Redesign Opportunities: o HVAC (UFAD/VAV to Chilled Beams) o Structural Floor System (Castellated Beams) 24 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Structural Analysis Initial Study o Investigate the required depth for interstitial space Assumptions: o Loading conditions were the same as in the existing building o

25 Structural Analysis Initial Study o Investigate the required depth for interstitial space Assumptions: o Loading conditions were the same as in the existing building o UFAD System would be removed Result: o 28 Deep Castellated Beam Required Existing 30-0 x 40-0 Perimeter Bay 25 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Structural Analysis Initial Study Investigate the required depth for interstitial space Assumptions: Loading conditions were the same as in the existing building UFAD System would be

26 Structural Analysis Initial Study Investigate the required depth for interstitial space Assumptions: Loading conditions were the same as in the existing building UFAD System would be removed Ceiling Plenum: 3 10 Raised Floor: 6 Concrete Floor: 5 1/4 Castellated Beam: 28 Max Clearance: 5 Ceiling to Chilled Beam: BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

27 Structural Composite Castellated Beams Allow for Coordination within Interstitial space 27 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

28 Structural Composite Castellated Beams Allow for Coordination within Interstitial space Metal Deck Long Span Metal Deck Dovetail Ribbed Composite Metal Deck Long Span Metal Deck (LS) Dovetail Ribbed Composite Metal Deck (DT) 28 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

29 Structural Configuration 1: o Maximize Span o Minimize Number of Members Configuration 1: 15-0 Span Typ. (Shoring Required) 29 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

30 Structural Configuration 2: o Minimize Shoring Configuration 2: 10-0 span Typ. 30 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

31 Structural Total of 6 Main Option Investigated Typical Gravity Loading o Superimposed Dead Load - 20 psf o Live Load 50 psf (+ 20 psf partitions) Member Depth o All Met 28 Depth Parameter 31 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

32 Structural Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity: o 0.5% g Peak Acceleration (AISC Design Guide 11) 32 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

33 Cost Comparison of Floor Configurations System Steel Framing Concrete Floor Reshoring Total Lightweight Concrete - Config. 1 $ 7,920,000 $ 82,160,000 $ 2,490,000 $ 92,580,000 Normalweight Concrete - Config. 1 $ 7,920,000 $ 61,950,000 $ 2,490,000 $ 72,370,000 Lightweight Concrete - Config. 2 $ 8,540,000 $ 82,160,000 $ - $ 90,700,000 Normalweight Concrete - Config. 2 $ 8,540,000 $ 61,950,000 $ - $ 70,490,000 Floor Configurations Conclusions Existing Floor Configuration o Configuration #2 10 ft. typical spans o Wide-flange Beams o Typical Composite Metal Deck New Floor Configuration o Castellated Beams o Configuration #2 10 ft. typical spans o Dovetail deck 33 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

34 Structural Member Check Cantilever & Overhang o Used New Loading Conditions o Verified Existing was Adequate or Resized Appropriately 34 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

35 HVAC Redesign Multiservice Chilled Beams: o Integrated design BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

36 HVAC Redesign Multiservice Chilled Beams: o Integrated design Typical Layout: o 155 beams per floor 36 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

37 HVAC Redesign Multiservice Chilled Beams: o Integrated design Typical Layout: o 155 beams per floor Savings: o Energy (10-16%) 37 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

38 HVAC Redesign Multiservice Chilled Beams: o Integrated design Typical Layout: o 155 beams per floor Savings: o Energy (10-16%) o Cost ($47,000 / month) 38 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

39 HVAC Redesign Multiservice Chilled Beams: o Integrated design Typical Layout: o 155 beams per floor Savings: o Energy (10-16%) o Cost ($47,000 / month) o Emissions (8-16%) 39 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

40 Office Lighting Redesign Integrated 35W T5 Direct Pendant 4 T5HO Direct/Indirect Pendant 4 Recessed Cove W N S E 40 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

41 Office Lighting Redesign 41 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

42 Office Lighting Redesign 42 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

43 Office Lighting Redesign 43 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

44 Office Lighting Redesign 44 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

45 Cost of Proposed Floor System o Cost addition of extra floor New Floor System Structure $ 2,988, Raised Floor $ 885, HVAC Cost $ 3,328, Plumbing Cost $ 303, Electrical Cost $ 2,915, Communications $ 1,027, Interiors $ 607, Furnishing $ 215, $ 12,268, BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

46 Cost of Proposed Floor System o Cost addition of extra floor o Additional SF of leasable area Additional Rent Annually 21,000 SF $ 60 / SF Year $ 1.26 million Year 46 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

47 Cost of Proposed Floor System o Cost addition of extra floor o Additional SF of leasable area o Chilled beam cost savings 47 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

48 Cost of Proposed Floor System o Cost addition of extra floor o Additional SF of leasable area o Chilled beam cost savings o Overall cost comparison Additional System Cost $ 12,268,000 Additional Rent $ 1,260,000 Energy Savings $ 565,800 Payback Period 6.72 years 48 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Lighting / Electrical o Construction Management o Outcome 49

49 Integrated Design o Constructability o BIM Use Analysis o 3D Coordination o Parties Involved o Structural o Mechanical o Lighting / Electrical o Construction Management o Outcome 49 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

50 Goals: o Increase rentable floor space o Explore trade issues (Concrete vs. Steel Core) o Explore cost for core redesign Redesign Opportunities: o Reconfigure core layout structurally and architecturally o Decrease footprint of the structural core o Service Spaces 50 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

51 Core Configuration Maintain structural symmetry o Reduces torsional effects due to lateral loads o Center of geometry converges with center of pressure, center of mass, and center of rigidity CG 51 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

52 Core Configuration Maintain flexibility of space Existing Configuration Example: Floors New Configuration 52 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

53 Elevator Configuration Existing Configuration Feasibility Study: Elevator Reduction 26 Passenger Elev. 2 Service Elev. 22 Passenger Elev. 2 Service Elev. 53 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

54 Core Configuration Existing Configuration Final Configuration 26 Passenger Elev. 2 Service Elev. 26 Passenger Elev. 2 Service Elev. 54 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Architectural Configuration Existing Core Configuration New Core Configuration Floor Occupant Existing Leasable Area New Leasable Area (SF) Difference (SF) (SF) 50 FCRC 21,943 22,126 183 49 FCRC

55 Architectural Configuration Existing Core Configuration New Core Configuration Floor Occupant Existing Leasable Area New Leasable Area (SF) Difference (SF) (SF) 50 FCRC 21,943 22, FCRC 21,943 22, FCRC 21,943 22, FCRC 21,943 22, FCRC 21,943 22, FCRC 21,943 22, FCRC 21,650 22, FCRC 21,650 22, FCRC 21,650 22, FCRC 21,650 22, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 21,244 21, FCRC 20,429 20, ,371SF 478,235 SF 5,864 SF 44 ft 44 ft 48 ft 40 ft 48 ft 55 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

56 Core Configuration 32 ft 36 ft 47 ft 43 ft Existing Lobby New Lobby Rendering 56 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

57 Service Space Configuration Service Elevators 70 SF 11 ft 57 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Service Space Configuration Bus Duct Vs Conduit Analysis Existing Conditions in NYT Portion 18 3 1/2 Conduit Feeders Powers Lighting and Appliance Panels 6 3 1/2 Conduit Feeders

Mechanical Equipment Panels Bus Duct Vs Conduit Analysis Total Cost System Bus Duct: Conduit: $1.75 million $1.

58 Service Space Configuration Bus Duct Vs Conduit Analysis Existing Conditions in NYT Portion /2 Conduit Feeders Powers Lighting and Appliance Panels 6 3 1/2 Conduit Feeders Powers Mechanical Equipment Panels Proposed Redesign Amp Aluminum Bus Duct Feeders Powers Lighting and Appliance Panels Amp Aluminum Bus Duct Feeder Powers Mechanical Equipment Panels Bus Duct Vs Conduit Analysis Total Cost System Bus Duct: Conduit: $1.75 million $1.2 million Space Comparison Minimal difference between required space Benefit of Bus Duct Feeders Possibility Steel-technology.com of Expansion Without Adding Additional Feeders Steel-technology.com 58 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

59 Lateral Force Resisting System Concrete Shear Wall Core w/ Outriggers on the 28 th Mechanical Floor 59 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

60 Lateral Force Resisting System Initial Design Parameters Assumed Serviceability Governed Design SRSS Period of Vibration o 10% of 10.8s (Existing Design) Serviceability Limit States Under Wind Load - Lawrence G. Griffis (AISC 1993) Lateral Drift & Deflection o Wind - H/450 = (Existing Design) D+0.5L+0.7W (ASCE 7-05, CC.1.2) o Seismic 0.015h sx 1.0 E Design checked for Strength 60 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Beams o 36 Depth o Width Dependent upon Support 61 BIM TEAM 3: MATT

61 Lateral Force Resisting System Roof Level 53 Level 30 Concrete Compressive Strength 8 ksi 10 ksi Shear Wall Thickness Coupling Beams o 36 Depth o Width Dependent upon Support 61 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ Level 40 Level 30 Base East/West North/South

62 Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Wall Design: Lobby Level W N S E 62 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

63 Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Wall Design: Level 2 Level 28 W N S E 63 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

64 Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Wall Design: Level 29 Roof W N S E 64 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

65 Lateral Force Resisting System Outrigger Design: 28 th Mechanical Floor 65 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

66 Lateral Force Resisting System Outrigger Design: 28 th Mechanical Floor 66 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

67 Lateral Force Resisting System Outrigger Design: 28 th Mechanical Floor 67 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

8s (Existing Design) Lateral Drift & Deflection o Wind - H/450 = 19.

68 Lateral Force Resisting System Serviceability Governed Design Assumption Confirmed SRSS Period of Vibration o 10% of 10.8s (Existing Design) Lateral Drift & Deflection o Wind - H/450 = (Existing Design) o Seismic 0.015h sx Strength Check Members Adequate 68 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

69 Cost and Schedule Changes Cost of concrete core vs. existing steel core General conditions changes o Superstructure schedule o GC cost changes o Constructability Overall Cost Analysis Item Quantity Cost Steel Core $ (37,171,395) Concrete Core 21,500 CY $ 18,676,730 Crane Addition 2.5 Month $ 81,700 Temporary Heating 2 Winters $ 4,000,000 Upfront Savings $ (14,412,965) *Additional Rent 5,864 SF $ 351,840 per year Annually 69 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Constructability Overall Cost Analysis 11/17/04 12/27/04 02/21/06 03/18/05 05/16/05 04/13/05

07/29/05 09/09/05 10/21/05 01/13/06 12/02/05 05/20/05 03/10/05 08/09/05 09/26/05 07/04/05

70 Cost and Schedule Changes Cost of concrete core vs. existing steel core General conditions changes o Superstructure schedule o GC cost changes o Constructability Overall Cost Analysis 11/17/04 12/27/04 02/21/06 03/18/05 05/16/05 04/13/05 07/25/05 10/05/05 12/07/05 02/09/06 02/03/06 04/24/06 02/07/05 03/21/05 05/02/05 06/13/05 07/29/05 09/09/05 10/21/05 01/13/06 12/02/05 05/20/05 03/10/05 08/09/05 09/26/05 07/04/05 11/02/05 12/08/05 Steel Erection Concrete Erection 70 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ Existing Steel Core Proposed Concrete Core

71 Cost and Schedule Changes Cost of concrete core vs. existing steel core General conditions changes o Superstructure schedule o GC cost changes o Constructability Overall Cost Analysis Item Quantity Cost Steel Core $ (37,171,395) Concrete Core 21,500 CY $ 18,676,730 Crane Addition 2.5 Month $ 81,700 Temporary Heating 2 Winters $ 4,000,000 Upfront Savings $ (14,412,965) *Additional Rent 5,8464 SF $ 351,840 per year Annually 71 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

72 Cost and Schedule Changes Cost of concrete core vs. existing steel core General conditions changes o Superstructure schedule o GC cost changes o Constructability Overall Cost Analysis Item Quantity Cost Steel Core $ (37,171,395) Concrete Core 21,500 CY $ 18,676,730 Crane Addition 2.5 Month $ 81,700 Temporary Heating 2 Winters $ 4,000,000 Upfront Savings $ (14,412,965) *Additional Rent 5,8464 SF $ 351,840 per year Annually 72 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

73 Lobby Lighting Redesign 9 Recessed Downlight N 8 Recessed Directional Downlight W 4 Recessed Cove E S 73 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

74 Lobby Lighting Redesign N W E S 74 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

75 Lobby Lighting Redesign N W E S 75 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

76 Lobby Lighting Redesign N W E S 76 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

77 Lobby Lighting Redesign N W E S 77 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

78 Lobby Lighting Redesign 78 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

79 Existing System / Goals Existing System: o 1.4 MW Internal Combustion o 40% power capacity for NYT o 250 ton absorption chiller Redesign Goals: o 100% power capacity for NYT o Increased energy cost savings o Decreased energy associated emissions o All met! 79 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Redesign Considerations Utility Data / Spark Gap Utility Yearly $/Unit Reference Natural Gas $1.392/Ccf New York State Public Service Commission Electric $0.

80 Redesign Considerations Utility Data / Spark Gap Utility Yearly $/Unit Reference Natural Gas $1.392/Ccf New York State Public Service Commission Electric $0.249/kWh New York State Public Service Commission Steam $18.36/Mlb Consolodated Edison Water $2.31/per(748gals) New York City Water Board Spark Gap Fuel Cost / (MMbtu) Natural Gas $ Electricity $ Steam $ Gap $ Space Constraints (3000 ft 2 total) 80 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

81 Redesign Consideration Redesign Considerations: o Building thermal and electrical loads 81 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

82 Redesign Alternatives Prime Movers Gas Turbines IC Engines 82 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

83 Redesign Alternatives Prime Movers Recipricating Engine(s) kw kw Energy / Emissions Max Power Output 1,400 4,200 2,700 2,700 (kw) Yearly Power Output 7,030,255 12,101,254 22,731,012 18,388,809 (kwh) 11,358, Max Thermal BIM TEAM Rejection 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ 9,340 28,020 15,240 18,940 (Mbh) kw kW kw Gas Turbine(s) kW Make, Model Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, DM5496 Caterpillar, G3516 LE Solar, Saturn 20 Fuel Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Total Floor Area (ft 2 ) Total Weight (lbs) Prime Movers CHP System Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 1,600 4,800 2,970 2,735 35, ,020 63,720 50,340 Existing System: 1,400 kw IC Engines

84 Redesign Alternatives Prime Movers Recipricating Engine(s) kw kw Energy / Emissions Max Power Output 1,400 4,200 2,700 2,700 (kw) Yearly Power Output 7,030,255 12,101,254 22,731,012 18,388,809 (kwh) 11,358, Max Thermal BIM TEAM Rejection 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ 9,340 28,020 15,240 18,940 (Mbh) kw kW kw Gas Turbine(s) kW Make, Model Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, DM5496 Caterpillar, G3516 LE Solar, Saturn 20 Fuel Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Total Floor Area (ft 2 ) Total Weight (lbs) Prime Movers CHP System Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 1,600 4,800 2,970 2,735 35, ,020 63,720 50,340 Alternative 1: 4,200 kw IC Engines

85 Redesign Alternatives Prime Movers Recipricating Engine(s) kw kw Energy / Emissions Max Power Output 1,400 4,200 2,700 2,700 (kw) Yearly Power Output 7,030,255 12,101,254 22,731,012 18,388,809 (kwh) 11,358, Max Thermal BIM TEAM Rejection 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ 9,340 28,020 15,240 18,940 (Mbh) kw kW kw Gas Turbine(s) kW Make, Model Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, DM5496 Caterpillar, G3516 LE Solar, Saturn 20 Fuel Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Total Floor Area (ft 2 ) Total Weight (lbs) Prime Movers CHP System Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 1,600 4,800 2,970 2,735 35, ,020 63,720 50,340 Alternative 2: 2,700 kw IC Engines + 1,300 kw IC Engine

Redesign Alternatives Prime Movers Recipricating Engine(s) 2-700 kw 6-700 kw Energy / Emissions Max Power Output 1,400 4,200 2,700 2,700 (kw) Yearly Power Output 7,030,255 12,101,254 22,731,012

86 Redesign Alternatives Prime Movers Recipricating Engine(s) kw kw Energy / Emissions Max Power Output 1,400 4,200 2,700 2,700 (kw) Yearly Power Output 7,030,255 12,101,254 22,731,012 18,388,809 (kwh) 11,358, Max Thermal BIM TEAM Rejection 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ 9,340 28,020 15,240 18,940 (Mbh) kw kW kw Gas Turbine(s) kW Make, Model Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, G3516 LE Caterpillar, DM5496 Caterpillar, G3516 LE Solar, Saturn 20 Fuel Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Total Floor Area (ft 2 ) Total Weight (lbs) Prime Movers CHP System Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 1,600 4,800 2,970 2,735 35, ,020 63,720 50,340 Alternative 3: 2,700 kw IC Engines + 1,300 kw Gas Turbine

87 Redesign Alternatives IC Engine: Cooling Load Potential Gas Turbine: Excess Thermal 87 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Redesign Alternatives Energy / Emissions Max Power Output (kw) Yearly Power Output (kwh) Max Thermal Rejection (Mbh) Usable Heat Rejection (Mbh/year) Fuel Consumption (scf/kwh) Max Fuel Consumption

88 Redesign Alternatives Energy / Emissions Max Power Output (kw) Yearly Power Output (kwh) Max Thermal Rejection (Mbh) Usable Heat Rejection (Mbh/year) Fuel Consumption (scf/kwh) Max Fuel Consumption (scf/hr) Emissions Reduction (lbs CO 2 e/year) Energy / Emissions CHP System Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 1,400 4,200 2,700 2,700 12,101,254 22,731,012 18,388,809 7,030,255 11,358,554 9,340 28,020 15,240 18,940 66,509,219 80,267,534 73,141,027 81,940, ,485 52,455 32,692 36,045 16,215,680 30,459,556 24,641,004 10,442, BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Redesign Alternatives Costs Installed Costs ($) Maintenance Costs ($/kwh) Maintenance Costs ($/year) Building Energy Costs ($/year) Total Energy Cost Savings ($/year) Payback Period (years) Energy

89 Redesign Alternatives Costs Installed Costs ($) Maintenance Costs ($/kwh) Maintenance Costs ($/year) Building Energy Costs ($/year) Total Energy Cost Savings ($/year) Payback Period (years) Energy Costs CHP System Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 $5,600,000 $16,800,000 $10,800,000 $12,100,000 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.015 $60,506 $113,655 $91,944 $205,530 $11,310,248 $9,766,130 $10,443,122 $10,649,749 $2,272,786 $3,816,905 $3,139,912 $2,933, Total Energy Costs: $13.5 million for SHP 89 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

90 Redesign Alternatives Costs Installed Costs ($) Maintenance Costs ($/kwh) Maintenance Costs ($/year) Building Energy Costs ($/year) Total Energy Cost Savings ($/year) Payback Period (years) Simple Payback Period CHP System Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 $5,600,000 $16,800,000 $10,800,000 $12,100,000 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.005 $0.015 $60,506 $113,655 $91,944 $205,530 $11,310,248 $9,766,130 $10,443,122 $10,649,749 $2,272,786 $3,816,905 $3,139,912 $2,933, BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

91 Redesign Alternatives Summary Overall Comparison Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Energy Cost Source Energy Emissions Payback Period System Footprint Alternative 2: 2,700 kw + IC Engines 1,300 kw IC Engine 91 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Redesign Alternatives Summary Overall Comparison Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Energy Cost Source Energy Emissions

92 Redesign Alternatives Summary Overall Comparison Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Energy Cost Source Energy Emissions Payback Period System Footprint Alternative 2: $10 million in savings over 20 years 92 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

93 Integrated Project Delivery Process 93 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

94 BIM Goals Building Information Modeling Process: BIM Goals Group Goals: o Enhance communication and information flow o Visualize project changes BIM Use Analysis Workflows 94 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

95 BIM Goals Building Information Modeling Process: BIM Goals Group Goals: o Enhance communication and information flow o Visualize project changes BIM Use Analysis Workflows 95 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

96 BIM Use Analysis Building Information Modeling Process: BIM Goals Group Goals: o Enhance communication and information flow o Visualize project changes BIM Use Analysis Workflows BIM Uses Analysis Design Authoring Design Review 3D Coordination Phase Planning 96 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

97 BIM Workflows Building Information Modeling Process: BIM Goals Group Goals: o Enhance communication and information flow o Visualize project changes BIM Use Analysis Workflows 97 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

98 Increased Profitability Operating Costs Leasable Space Increased Marketability Sustainability Iconic Image $ 98 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

99 Increased Profitability Operating Costs Leasable Space Increased Marketability Sustainability Iconic Image Additional Square Footage 26,864 SF Additional Rent $ 1,601, BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

100 Increased Profitability Operating Costs Leasable Space Increased Marketability Sustainability Iconic Image % Million Energy lbs Reduction CO 2 e 100 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

101 Increased Profitability Operating Costs Leasable Space Increased Marketability Sustainability Iconic Image BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

102 Increased Profitability Operating Costs Leasable Space Increased Marketability Sustainability Iconic Image BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

103 Increased Profitability Operating Costs Leasable Space Increased Marketability Sustainability Iconic Image BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

104 Increased Profitability Operating Costs Leasable Space Increased Marketability Sustainability Iconic Image Façade Upfront Cost $ 18.7 million Annual Energy Savings $ 800,000 Payback Period 23.4 years Floor System Upfront Cost $ 12.3 million Annual Energy Savings $ 565,800 $ Annual Added Rent Payback Period $ 1.24 million 6.72 years Core Upfront Cost ($ 14.4 million) Annual Added Rent $ 351,840 Payback Period NA 104 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

105 Increased Profitability Operating Costs Leasable Space Overall Building Upfront Cost Annual Added Rent Increased Marketability $ Sustainability Iconic Image Annual Energy Savings Payback Period $ 17 million $ 1.6 million $ 2.2 million 4.5 years BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

106 Lessons Learned BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

Façade Redesign Acknowledgements Thank you to the following for all the support, assistance and guidance: Architectural Engineering Faculty and Staff IPD/BIM Thesis Advisors: Kevin Parfitt Bob

107 Façade Redesign Acknowledgements Thank you to the following for all the support, assistance and guidance: Architectural Engineering Faculty and Staff IPD/BIM Thesis Advisors: Kevin Parfitt Bob Holland Mechanical Thesis Advisor: Jelena Srebric, Ph.D. Structural Thesis Advisor: Andres Lepage, Ph. D Lighting/Electrical Thesis Advisors: Kevin Houser, Ph. D Theodore Dannerth Construction Management Thesis Advisors: Chimay Anumba, Ph. D Jim Faust CHP Instruction: James Freihaut, Ph.D. Sponsors and Consultants Project Sponsors: Leonhard Center Thornton Tomasetti Project Participants: The New York Times Company WSP Flack + Kurtz Turner Construction CHP Contacts: Dave Yanni Director, Business Development and Operations, Endurant Energy, LLC Randy Musselman Engineering, Cleveland Brothers, Power Systems Division High-rise Consultant: Bob McNamara Fellow BIM Teams for their support in this collaborative process THANK YOU to All of our friends and family for their love and support! 107 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ

108 Façade Redesign Questions/Comments 108 BIM TEAM 3: MATT HEDRICK KYLE HORST CASEY LEMAN ANDRES PEREZ