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

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh’sClinical Services Building

Pittsburgh, PA

Final Thesis PresentationGloria Brashear

Construction Management OptionAdvisor: Professor Horman

PLEASE

SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES!

THANK YOU!

PLEASE

SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES!

THANK YOU!

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh Clinical Services Building

Gloria S. Brashear Construction Management Option Department of Architectural Engineering The Pennsylvania State University

- 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.

Project Overview

Research 1: LEED Documentation Process for General Contractors

Research 2: Virtual Modeling for General Contractors

Breadth 1: Mechanical

Breadth 2: Structural

Acknowledgements

Comments & Questions

Video Courtesy of Astorino



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


Existing Building

New Construction



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


Owner:

University of Pittsburgh

General Contractor:

Barton Malow – P.J. Dick, A Joint Venture

Architect & Engineer:

Astorino

Construction Manager:

Dick Corp.

Owner Rep:

Oxford Development Co.

BMPJD Notice of Award

Award PackagesSteel ErectionCoordination DrawingsInterior Demolition (Old Building)PlumbingMajor Material DeliveriesTelecommunications ConstructionRisersMechanicalElectricalExterior Studs and SheathingRoofingVendor SelectionElevatorsWindowsDoorsPunchlistHelipad

Full Enclosure

Project Completion

Substantial Completion

CommissionTestingInstallation

Owner Deliver Medical Equipment

0 days

37 days166 days179 days25 days251 days136 days556 days134 days194 days229 days126 days250 days234 days475 days147 days208 days373 days57 days

0 days

15 days9 days36 days

0 days

0 days

0 days

2006 2007 2008PROJECT SCHEDULE



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


BMPJD Notice of Award

Award PackagesSteel ErectionCoordination DrawingsInterior Demolition (Old Building)PlumbingMajor Material DeliveriesTelecommunications ConstructionRisersMechanicalElectricalExterior Studs and SheathingRoofingVendor SelectionElevatorsWindowsDoorsPunchlistHelipadFull Enclosure

Project CompletionSubstantial Completion

CommissionTestingInstallationOwner Deliver Medical Equipment

0 days

37 days166 days179 days25 days251 days136 days556 days134 days194 days229 days126 days250 days234 days475 days147 days208 days373 days57 days0 days

15 days9 days36 days0 days

2006 2007 2008PROJECT SCHEDULE

- Telecommunications contractor and Steel contractor picked prior to General Contractor

- Trades work through the building in a spiral effect

- Overlap of trades due to continual work flow

- Very complex schedule by floor and quad

- Start Date: 12/22/05

- Projected Completion Date: 12/22/08

0 days0 days



Project Overview


Research 2: Virtual Modeling



Acknowledgements


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

"The frog does not drink up the pond in which it lives."

- Chinese Proverb <http://www.gardendigest.com/conserve.htm>

- Green building popularity 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



Project Overview





Acknowledgements



1. Familiarity of Contractors: 8-9

2. 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: 3-4

5. 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



Project Overview





Acknowledgements



Addendum to Specifications Section 05310:

1.02 SUBMITTALS

Add: " F. LEED™ Submittal form for each specific material. 1. MR 3.1: List of proposed materials salvaged, reused, or refurbished

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 post- industrial 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. "



Project Overview





Acknowledgements





Project Overview





Acknowledgements


- Research of Virtual Modeling- Interview with MIS Project Leader with P.J. Dick, Inc.- Software Review- Research of BIM Consultants

"“If a picture contains one thousand words... A model contains one thousand pictures”

- Edward McCracken (former CEO – SGI) <http://www.cdi-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.



Project Overview





Acknowledgements



Project Model Type Man Hours Completed ByOffice 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



Project Overview





Acknowledgements



Vico vs. Autodesk

Constructor vs. Revit Architecture



Project Overview





Acknowledgements



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



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


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



Project Overview





Acknowledgements




Project Overview





Acknowledgements


Proposal:

- Fully functioning kitchen hood system

- New hood and ductworkModel "CG3-BDL" Water Wash Ventilator



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


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



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


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!

18,500 CFM @ 0.08 friction per 100 ft of duct = 60x24

Attempts to reduce size failed

Material Exhaust: Low Roof Exhaust: 5th FloorDuct Insulation $15,617.56 $9,543.46

Ducts $76,020.14 $43,832.09

Louver $840.00 $840.00

Fan $2,650.00 $2,650.00

Exhaust Hood $61,425.00 $61,425.00

DAYS: 52 32

TOTAL: $156,552.70 $118,290.55

SAVINGS on material: $38,262.15

SAVINGS on schedule: 20 days



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


Background:

- Topping showing visible fatigue between col. line K-P and 1-5

- Form deck corrosion

Problem:

- Mechanical and electrical penetrations causing corrosion

- All penetrations should be seen as potential hazards



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


Proposal:

- Ensure longevity of aesthetics and structural integrity

- New form deck



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


Form Deck & Slab for Typical BayInfill Beams @ 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 + 28.75psf + 15 psf) + 1.7 (80psf) W = 201.45 psf

United Steel Deck:concrete slabs on UF2X form deck, 24 GA, 5” slab, @ 7’ spans4x4 – W2.9 x 2.9 mesh,

Uniform Total Load = 212 psf201.45psf < 212psf - OK!

UF2X form deck24 GA, 5” slab, @ 7’ spans4x4 – W2.9 x 2.9 mesh

United Steel Deck, Inc.



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


Material ImpactEdge Forms

$6,213.00 WWF $483,968.00

Concrete $108,098.77

Placing Concrete $28,498.77

Finishing $62,406.40

Form Decking $187,856.00

DAYS: 32 days/floor

TOTAL: $877,040.93

Proposed cost compared with life cycle

- Original built in 1968

- Less than 37 years later showed signs of fatigue

-Additional MEP penetrations increase need

- Structural integrity and future aesthetics guaranteed



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


Conclusion:

Research 1: LEED Process: Change in submittals would close the information gap between subcontractors and architects

Research 2: Virtual Modeling: Outsourcing most beneficial option, if in-house use of Vico software proves most user-friendly

Breadth 1: Mechanical: Re-routing ductwork reduces cost by $38,262.15 and saves 20 days

Breadth 2: Structural: Structural improvements increase building life cycle which outweighs cost of construction adding 32 days to the schedule for each floor



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


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

http://massarocorporation.com/index.php



Project Overview





Acknowledgements


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

Documents

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