reducing the cost of l.e.e.d. construction

The Stuckeman Family BuildingFor

The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture

Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management

Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction


The School of Architecture and Landscape ArchitectureThe Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PASpring 2005




•Building Background

•Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design

•Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management

•Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing

•Conclusions




Building Background

Function: Provides studio and office space for the Schools of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, as well as, critiquing and jury spaces, galleries, a library, and a model shop.

Size: 111,000 SF

Cost: $27,550,000

Schedule: October 2003 to April 2005

Delivery Method: Traditional – General Contractor




Building Background

Architectural Features: Green Design and Functionality

Large, Open Studio Spaces

Ribbon Interior Spaces

Raised Access Flooring

Exposed Systems

Exterior Sunlight Fins

Copper Façade

Cantilevered Section









•Conclusions




Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design

•The Structural Truss

Four Story

Thirty Foot Cantilever

Exposed structure

•The Problem

Over-Sized Members

Detailed Connections

Difficult Erection




AssumptionsStructural Cords

Connections

Columns

Façade

Member Sizes




Calculations

Roof and Floor Loads

Roof girders down to First floor girders

Diagonal braces removed

Columns

Foundations




Re-design Effects

Overall Steel tonnage

Steel Erection ~ reduced by two weeks & $45,000

Foundation Additions ~ four added

Schedule Impacts ~ reduced by two weeks

General Conditions ~ reduced by $32,700

Visual Implications ~ no severe change




Results




Current State




Post Re-Design

For




Conclusion

Offset by Added Foundations Cost

Minor Compared to Overall Building Costs

Reduced Project Budget by $148,382

Reduced Project Schedule by Two Weeks

Caused no significant visual implications

For









•Conclusions




Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management

•The Waste Management InitiativeIn 1996, 136 Million Tons of

Construction and Demolition Debris were produced.

•The ProblemCostScheduleRecycling Percentages

•The Case Study Approach




The Case Study Approach

State College, PAThe Stuckeman Family BuildingS.A.L.A. First L.E.E.D. Certified Building for the countyHigh Rate of Construction – Low Tipping Fees

Cleveland, OHThe Case Western Reserve University North

Residence VillageFirst L.E.E.D. Certified building for the cityExtremely Low Tipping FeesMaking Progress

Cleveland, OHPacific Lutheran’s Morken Center for

Learning and TechnologyHundreds of Green buildings in the CityWell Developed Recycling CultureLarge Competition Among Recyclers




Influencing Factors

103

19

45

2

110

16

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of Projects

WA OH PA

L.E.E.D. Projects

Registered Projects Certified Projects

•Initial L.E.E.D. Decision

•Public Perception

Workforce

Owners

Government

•Co-Mingled vs. Source

Separated




Recycling Company Availability




Waste Management Schedule

•Field Workers ~ Average of 2 to 5 minutes per day

~ Approximately 9 to 22 days per year

~ Two to Four Weeks to the project Schedule

~ Could result in $26,000 in added labor costs

•Superintendents ~ Average of 15 to 20 minutes per day

~ Approximately 65 to 87 hours per year

~ Could result in $1,740 in added G.C. costs




Waste Management Costs




Solution

•Pre-Construction Investigation

•Detailed Waste Management Plan

•Extensive Worker Training

•Early involvement of Waste Management company




Conclusion

•Could delay project up to 2 weeks.

•On an average project size of 100,000 sf, the differences in recycling costs for the designated areas could be as much as$20,250.

•Added to the lost labor costs calculated above brings the grand total for an average project to $47,990.

•Differences between recycling cultures can be prevented by taking the proper steps.









•Conclusions




Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing

•Raised Access Flooring and L.E.E.D.

Easy Installation

High Flexibility

Return Air Plenum

•The Problem ~ Coordination

•The 3D and 4D Model Approach




Model Area with Actual Drawing inserted.

Pedestals are layed out, followed by ductwork.

3D Model




Pedestals are installed and leveled.

Chilled/hot water piping and electrical conduit is installed.




Wire cable tray is installed.

Floor tile is installed.




4D Model




Conclusion

•Construction Manager and Subcontractor EvaluationsUseful in envisioning MEP systemsEffective in determining conflictsNot Practical for Construction Site Coordination

effortsMore practical for Design Coordination applicationsMore practical and effective on MEP-intensive projectsPrefer experienced personnel vs. computer programs

•Final VerdictEffective, but not practical for Construction Site

Coordination Efforts









•Conclusions




Conclusions


•Accepting the Value Engineering Re-Design of the Structural Truss would have reduced the schedule by two weeks and saved approximately $148,382.

•Although the differences in recycling cultures can affect a project drastically, proper pre-planning of the Waste Management Program can minimize the disparity.

•The use of 3D and 4D models for the coordination of under-RAF systems is effective in determining conflicts; however, is not considered practical in the construction coordination venue.



Questions

?




Steel Calculations•Steel Tonnage

~$2,500/ton estimated from average in RS Means~$2,500/ton X 38.62 tons = $96,550

•Steel Connections~Estimated to be 10 percent of the affected structural tonnage~112.78 tons X 0.10 = 11.3 tons~11.3 tons X $650/ton = $7,332~ $650/ton is actual steel costs, not including erection

•Two Weeks Deleted From Schedule~$4,500 per day for crane and erection crew~10 days X $4,500/day = $45,000~Additional $10,000 for Temporary Shoring

•Added Foundations~Mini-Pile Depths Estimated by Averaging Nearby Pile Depths~38 foot depth X $ 63.16/foot = $2400~14 piles X $2,300/pile = $33,600~4 additional Pile Caps X $2,400/pile cap = $9,600

•General Conditions~Two weeks removed from project schedule~$3,270 per day from General Conditions Estimate~$3,270/day X 10 days = $32,700




Waste Management Labor Costs

•Field Workers ~ Average of 2 to 5 minutes per day

~ 2-5 minutes/day X 260 work days = 1300 minutes

~1300 minutes / 60 min/hr = 22 hours

~ 2 foremen per trade X 10 trades = 20 foremen

~ 20 foremen X 22 hours X $30/hour = $26,000

•Superintendents ~ Average of 15 to 20 minutes per day

~ 15-20 minutes/day X 260 work days = 5200 minutes

~5200 minutes / 60min/hr = 87 hours/year

~ 87 hours / 24 hours/day = 3.625 days

~ 3.625 days X $480/day = $1,740

TOTAL = $26,000 + $1,740 = 27,740




Example Project Calculations (Seattle)

•Average project size assumed to be 100,000sf.

•Waste generated is typically 1% of building square footage. ~100,000sf X 1% = 1,000lbs. of waste

•75% of Waste to be recycled.~75% X 1,000lbs. = 750lbs. of waste

•Average cost of recycling fees calculated to be $34/ton.~$34/ton X 8 tons/container = $272/container~$272/container + $40 average transport fee= $312/container~$312/container X 8 tons container = $39/ton~$39/ton X 750 tons = $29,250




Example Project Calculations (State College)

•Average project size assumed to be 100,000sf.

•Waste generated is typically 1% of building square footage. ~100,000sf X 1% = 1,000lbs. of waste

•75% of Waste to be recycled.~75% X 1,000lbs. = 750lbs. of waste

•Average cost of recycling fees calculated to be $40/ton.~$40/ton X 8 tons/container = $320/container~$320/container + $207 average transport fee= $527/container~$527/container X 8 tons container = $66/ton~$66/ton X 750 tons = $49,500


reducing the cost of l.e.e.d. construction

Documents