The Katzen Arts Center

1
(No Transcript)
2
(No Transcript)
3
The Katzen Arts Center Washington, D.C.
Introduction
Excavation Support System Analysis
MEP Coordination
LEED Certification Analysis
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Questions
The Pennsylvania State University Senior Thesis
Spring 2005
Jessica A. Potkovick Construction Management
Option
4
INTRODUCTION
5
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Location 4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20016 Function
Academic Space, Performance Center, Gallery Size
330, 000 SF Stories 6 Stories Cost 41,
000,000 Project Delivery CM _at_ Risk Construction
Dates May 1, 2003 May 15, 2005
6
PROJECT TEAM
Building Occupant American University Architect
/Engineer Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Consultants
EDAW, Inc. (Landscaping) Alpha Corporation
(Civil) Cagley Associates,
Inc. (Structural) Miller,
Beam, Paganelli, Inc. (AV Acoustic)
Fisher Dachs Associates (Theatre)
Claude R. Engel Lighting Consultant
(Lighting) Construction Manager Holder
Construction Company
7
ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING SYSTEMS

• Architecture
• Gateway to Campus
• Layout Primarily Linear with Serpentine Effect
• Three Building Components
• Two Rotundas
• Roof Terrace/Roof Garden
• Water Feature
• Façade Limestone Veneer with CMU Backup,
  Ground Face CMU, or Aluminum Storefront
• Skylights

8
ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING SYSTEMS

• Structural
• Cast-in-Place Concrete
• Lighting/Electrical
• LED Emergency Lighting and Parkpack in Parking
  Levels
• Academic Fluorescent, Recessed Parabolic
  Lights
• Gallery Low Brightness, Recessed Fluorescent
  Wall Wash and Downlights
• Performance Directional Downlights and
  Ellipsoidal Spotlights
• Power 3 phase, 4 wire Switchboard Operating at
  3000A, 480/277V
• 75kVA, 480-120/280V Phase Transformer
• Two 3 phase, 4 wire Panelboards at 480/277V and
  120/277V
• Mechanical
• VAV and Constant Air Systems
• Six AHUs, Two Cooling Towers, Two Chillers,
• Location Parking Level 1 (Central Plant), 3rd
  Floor (Secondary Plant)

9
EXCAVATION SUPPORT SYSTEM ANALYSIS
10
EXCAVATION SUPPORT SYSTEM ANALYSIS

• Background
• Original Excavation Support System
• Issue
• Current Excavation Support System
• Goals
• Investigate Original and Current Excavation
  Support Systems
• Determine the Impact of Switching Systems
• Analyze other possible solutions in terms of
  constructability, cost, and schedule in order to
  recommend a solution for detailed analysis.

11
ORIGINAL EXCAVATION SUPPORT SYSTEM

• Soldier Piles
• Tiebacks
• Timber Lagging

12
CURRENT EXCAVATION SUPPORT SYSTEM

• Posts and Soldier Piles
• Bracing
• Timber Lagging

13
IMPACT

• Schedule
• Division of Component A into two Parts
• Interrupts Excavation Flow
• Slower Excavation Period
• Deconstruction of Bracing Required
• Cost

Additional Requirements Cost
Piles 20,815.28
Reaction Post 45,909.36
Web Stiffeners 2,340.00
Mobilization 248.50
Subtotal 69,313.14
Total Cost (w/Location Factor) 67,164.43
14
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS

• Steep Angle Tiebacks
• Soldier Piles (Driven Close)
• Sheet Piles
• Slurry Wall
• Sheet Piles Slurry Wall
• Secant Piles
• Purchase Property
• Purchase Property and Sell Back

15
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

• Disadvantages
• Soil Bearing Capacity
• Additional Cost
• Additional Construction Time
• Site Constraints

• Advantages
• Potential for Payback
• Constructability Plan Remains the Same

16
CONCLUSION

• Current Excavation Support System
• Had Major Impact on Constructability
• Little Impact on Schedule/Cost
• Therefore

An alternate solution must have as little
schedule/cost impact as possible.

• Suggestions for Further Detailed Analysis
• Purchase Property
• Purchase Property/Sell Back

17
MEP COORDINATION
18
MEP COORDINATION AND CAD IMPLEMENTATION

• Background/Proposal
• MEP Coordination Process
• Previous Research
• Goals
• Identify Areas MEP Contractors could use 3D CAD
  Technology
• Create a CAD Implementation Plan for Holder
  Construction

19
PLAN
Foreman Planning/Field Supervision
Construction Sequencing/Scheduling
Estimating
As-Builts
Hire Staff
Marketing
Shop Drawings
Project Planning
Technology Selection
Material Management
20
CONCLUSION

• -Mike Duwell, Preconstruction Manager
• Holder Comments

21
LEED CERTIFICATION ANALYSIS
22
LEED CERTIFICATION ANALYSIS

• Background
• Evolution of Research Proposal
• Goals
• Determine Goals of the USGBC
• Determine Needs of the Building Industry
• Compare the objectives of the USGBC and the
  opinions of the building industry to establish if
  their needs are being met. If not, suggest
  actions for meeting those needs.

23
USGBC INTERVIEW

• Intention was to Identify
• History and Organization Goals
• Statistics on LEED Project Applicants vs. Actual
  Project Certifications
• Credits Most/Least Often Applied For
• Process/Timeline of Version Revision

24
USGBC INTERVIEW

• Sabrina Morelli, LEED Coordinator
• LEED Letter Templates
• Documentation Requirements
• Rating System Language
• Certification Process
• Rating System Updates
• LEED Version 2.2

25
BUILDING INDUSTRY SURVEY

• Survey Goals
• Why Owners choose not to go for/complete a LEED
  certification?
• Determine the current process used to document
  credit fulfillment.
• Determine satisfaction with current LEED
  documentation requirements.
• Identify how familiar the industry is with
  current changes in the process and if they
  believe they are positive.
• Identify difficult credits to achieve and why.

26
BUILDING INDUSTRY SURVEY

• -13 Responses
• LEED Letter Templates
• Documentation Requirements
• Rating System Language
• Certification Process
• Rating System Updates
• LEED Version 2.2

27
CONCLUSIONS

• USGBC
• Provide a detailed list of specific credit
  requirements.
• Modify the reference guide so that designer and
  contractor requirements are addressed separately
  or create individual designer and contractor
  guides.
• Offer assistance with credit evaluation
  throughout the course of the project.
• Or, create a position at the USGBC for LEED
  Inspectors.
• Continue to find ways to streamline the
  documentation process and reduce the amount of
  time and paperwork that is required to put
  submittals together.

• Building Industry
• Take an active part in the public comment
  period.
• Offer contractor focused LEED training to
  associates and subcontractors to clarify LEED
  certification process and rating system.

28
CONCLUSIONS
29

• Excavation Support System Analysis
• Goals
• Examine both the original and current systems
  and determine the impact of switching.
• Determine if there is an alternate solution for
  further detailed analysis by investigating other
  systems in terms of constructability, schedule,
  and cost.
• Conclusion
• Major Impact on Constructability Little Impact
  on Cost and Schedule
• Further Investigate Purchasing the Property or
  Purchasing the Property/Selling Back
• MEP Coordination
• Goal
• Create a CAD Implementation Plan for Holder
  Construction
• Conclusion
• Currently in Process of Similar Plan
• LEED Certification Analysis
• Goal
• Determine if the goals of the USGBC are aligned
  with the needs of the Building Industry.
• Conclusion
• Needs are not currently met Satisfaction will
  most likely improve following the release of LEED
  Version 2.2.

30
I would like to thank the following people for
their assistance and support
Holder Construction Company American
University Penn State Faculty United States
Green Building Council Building Industry
Members Family and Friends
31
Questions?