final presentation - pennsylvania state university › ae › thesis › portfolios › 2010 ›...

4/11/2010

1

Kyle GoodyearBAE in Construction ManagementPennsylvania State UniversitySenior Thesis PresentationApril 12, 2010

Presentation Outline

Project Background InformationSolar Energy Collection

Electrical BreadthPrecast Concrete Walls

Special Thanks to:

Kinsley Construction, Inc.

Structural BreadthHangar Slab SequenceDesign/Build ProductivityConclusionsQuestions and Answers

167th Airlift Wing

Penn State AE Faculty

4/11/2010

2

Project Background

Client: 167th Airlift Wing – WV Air National GuardProject Background InformationProject Background InformationSolar Energy Collection



Site: Martinsburg, WVPrecast Concrete Walls


PurposeC-5 Galaxy Conversion Project

WV Eastern Regional Airport

Project Background

Project Background InformationProject Background InformationSolar Energy Collection


Presentation OutlineDesign/Build Contract

Kinsley Construction – Design/Build Manager○ Holds all subcontractsLSC Design – contracted by Kinsley Construction

167th Airlift WingOwner

Kinsley Construction

Precast Concrete WallsStructural Breadth

Hangar Slab SequenceDesign/Build ProductivityConclusionsQuestions and Answers

g y y○ Holds all design team subcontractsAll contracts based on lump sum

LSC Design

Design Team

Subcontractors

4/11/2010

3

Project Background

Cost: $26.8 millionProject Background InformationProject Background InformationSolar Energy Collection



ScheduleNTP for design: October 2008Precast Concrete Walls


NTP for design: October 2008Office Mobilization: March 2009Scheduled Completion: March 2010Expected Completion: July 2010 – extensions granted for additions to scope and weather delays

Breadth Topics

Electrical Breadth StudyAddition of solar collection system

Project Background InformationProject Background InformationSolar Energy Collection



St t l B dth St dPrecast Concrete WallsStructural Breadth


Structural Breadth StudyDesign of load-bearing concrete walls in place of masonry

4/11/2010

4

Solar Energy Collection

Goal of AnalysisDetermine if the installation of Solyndra panels is a positive addition○ Potential energy production

Project Background InformationSolar Energy CollectionSolar Energy Collection



○ Building power usage○ Purchase and installation costs○ Payback period



Solar Energy Collection

Solyndra, Inc. PanelsArray of cylindersCollects direct, diffuse, and reflected light○ Reflected light gain based on roof material




e ec ed g ga based o oo a e aAirflow between cylinders○ Reduced wind uplift○ Cooler operating temperatures



4/11/2010

5

Electrical Breadth Study

How many Solyndra panels can be installed on the roof?

Orientation of buildingDimensions of panels vs. Dimensions of roof


Electrical BreadthElectrical BreadthPrecast Concrete Walls


Dimensions of panels vs. Dimensions of roofPrecast Concrete WallsStructural Breadth


3 sections of usable roof space on SW side13 panels lengthwise along slope of roof78 panels across the roof

1014 panels total


Energy Production PotentialPower Rating of Solyndra panelMonthly insolation values for locationMax annual output: 274 kWh/panel




Max annual output: 274 kWh/panelReflectivity reduction: 88%Potential annual output: 241 kWh/panel

241kWh/panel/year x 1014 panels = 244,374 kWh/year



4/11/2010

6


Building Energy UsageExisting hangar energy usageAverage office energy usageTotal Expected Energy Usage = 213,773 kWh/year




Total Expected Energy Usage 213,773 kWh/yearPrecast Concrete WallsStructural Breadth


Cost of Installing Solyndra System$7 per Watt per panel$7/W/panel x 200W x 1014 panels$1,419,600 to purchase and install


Payback Period of SystemCost of electricity: 6.64 cents per kWh in WVExpected savings plus sale of electricity ○ $0.0664/kWh x 244,374 kWh/year = $16, 226/year




$0 066 / ,3 /yea $ 6, 6/yeaPrecast Concrete WallsStructural Breadth


$1,419,600 / $16,226/year = 87.5 years

4/11/2010

7

Conclusion and Recommendation

System produces more than building uses

Payback period is extremely longLo cost of energ for project location




Low cost of energy for project locationMore feasible in higher cost region



Recommendation: Do not install Solyndra system on this project.

Precast Concrete Walls

Goal of AnalysisIs precast concrete a better option than CMU for wall construction?○ Exterior façade


Electrical BreadthPrecast Concrete WallsPrecast Concrete Walls


○ Interior load-bearing wallsPrecast Concrete WallsPrecast Concrete Walls


4/11/2010

8

Precast Concrete Walls

Exterior FaçadeCurrently split-face CMU to match existing buildingsCarbon Cast panels○ Thin-brick technology to match aesthetics




b c ec o ogy o a c aes e cs○ Produced in controlled conditions○ Higher quality product than masonry

Precast Concrete WallsPrecast Concrete WallsStructural Breadth


Structural Breadth Study

Load DeterminationDead Load: 21.3 PSFLive Load: 20 PSF




PD = 1193 lbsPL = 1120 lbsPrecast Concrete WallsPrecast Concrete Walls

Structural BreadthStructural BreadthHangar Slab SequenceDesign/Build ProductivityConclusionsQuestions and Answers

Strength Design MethodLoad combination: 1.2D + 1.6LTotal Axial Load = 3.22 kips

PU = 1.2PD + 1.6PL = 3223 lbs = 3.22 kips

4/11/2010

9


Using 8” wall thicknessBearing CapacityAxial Load Capacity




Precast Concrete WallsPrecast Concrete WallsStructural BreadthStructural Breadth


Minimum Reinforcement#4’s @ 18”oc in vertical direction#4’s @ 12”oc in horizontal direction


Cost ComparisonMasonry package: $230,011Precast package: $506,084○ $38/SF estimate from High Concrete




$38/S es a e o g Co c e ePrecast Concrete WallsPrecast Concrete WallsStructural BreadthStructural Breadth


Increased Floor SpaceChange from 12” masonry to 8” concrete walls117 SF added at $340/SF$39,720 worth additional usable space

4/11/2010

10


Schedule ComparisonMasonry package: 25 days on-sitePrecast concrete package: 15 days on-siteNot on critical path: does not change project schedule



Presentation OutlineMASONRY LOGISTICS PLAN

Not on critical path: does not change project schedulePrecast Concrete WallsPrecast Concrete WallsStructural BreadthStructural Breadth


Productivity ImpactFewer workers for precastMore moving equipment for precast

PRECAST LOGISTICS PLAN


Cost of change is more than doubleOverall schedule not reducedIncreased floor spaceHi h lit f d




Higher quality facadePrecast Concrete WallsPrecast Concrete WallsStructural BreadthStructural Breadth


Recommendation: Use the masonry system as designed instead of precast concrete option.

4/11/2010

11

Hangar Slab Sequence

Goal of AnalysisDetermine most efficient sequence for concrete placement in hangar area○ Cost




○ Duration○ Productivity


Hangar Slab SequenceHangar Slab SequenceDesign/Build ProductivityConclusionsQuestions and Answers


Industry SurveyLarger pour size = higher productivity




3 SequencesPrecast Concrete WallsStructural Breadth


3 SequencesAs-builtMore pours/smaller widthLess pours/greater width

4/11/2010

12


Cost and Duration ComparisonLarger pour width costs less and completed fasterSmaller pour width costs more and completed slower






Quality ComparisonLarger width makes finishing more difficultHigher quality with smaller width pours


Quality vs. Cost

Hangar dimensions






Recommendation: Employ the slab pour sequence that was chosen by project team.

Slightly larger pours if dimensions allow

4/11/2010

13

Design/Build Productivity

Goal of AnalysisDoes design/build construction increase productivity for the management and design team as well as in the field?





Hangar Slab SequenceDesign/Build ProductivityDesign/Build ProductivityConclusionsQuestions and Answers


MeasurementsPreconstruction activity timePaperwork during constructionAbility to work ahead




Ability to work aheadPrecast Concrete WallsStructural Breadth


4/11/2010

14




Presentation OutlineResearch Steps

Project Manager SurveyOwner PerspectiveCauses of DelaysPrecast Concrete Walls

Structural BreadthHangar Slab SequenceDesign/Build ProductivityDesign/Build ProductivityConclusionsQuestions and Answers

Causes of DelaysPotential Benefits


Findings of ResearchPreconstruction time reduced○ Design is better the first time○ Estimating is completed simultaneously




Less paperwork during construction○ RFI’s handled in open meetings○ Change Orders almost completely eliminatedg p y

○ Subcontractors acquired earlier for design-assistPrecast Concrete Walls

Structural BreadthHangar Slab SequenceDesign/Build ProductivityDesign/Build ProductivityConclusionsQuestions and Answers

g p y○ Submittal process much shorter: subcontractors

know the specifications

4/11/2010

15


Findings of Research continuedAble to start activities sooner○ Procurement of long-lead items○ Subcontractors determine means and methods of




Success of delivery method depends on the team○ Good contractor with good design can make any

method workconstruction during design phase

○ Subcontractors can schedule labor and equipment to reduce chance of delays



○ D/B requires background knowledge of project○ Owner must know what they want

Conclusion

If the design/build team and owner coordinate well, there is potential for higher productivity






4/11/2010

16

Conclusions



Presentation OutlineProject Team made good decisions in selection of systems and design methodsFor other projects, proposed changes may be more beneficialPrecast Concrete Walls

Structural BreadthHangar Slab SequenceDesign/Build ProductivityConclusionsConclusionsQuestions and Answers

more beneficialUse of Design/Build delivery should continue to be implemented at greater levels

QUESTIONS?




QUESTIONS?Precast Concrete WallsStructural Breadth

Hangar Slab SequenceDesign/Build ProductivityConclusionsQuestions and AnswersQuestions and Answers

final presentation - pennsylvania state university › ae › thesis › portfolios › 2010 ›...

Documents