senior thesis spring 2005 · mechanical / electrical design engineer: bard, rao + athanas (br+a)...
TRANSCRIPT
SENIOR THESIS SPRING 2005
SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES BUILDING
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
BRIAN HORN
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OPTION
SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCESSCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCESPenn State UniversityPenn State University
BRIAN HORNConstruction Management Option
http://www.arche.psu.edu/thesis/2005/brh159
University Park, PAUniversity Park, PA
PROJECT TEAM:PROJECT TEAM:
ELECTRICAL:ELECTRICAL:
MECHANICAL:MECHANICAL:STRUCTURAL:STRUCTURAL:
ARCHITECTURAL:ARCHITECTURAL:
PROJECT OVERVIEW:PROJECT OVERVIEW:Size: 92,000 square feetCost: $27,000,000Construction: August 2004 – Spring 2006Delivery Method: CM Agency
Owner: The Pennsylvania State UniversityArchitect: Bower Lewis ThrowerCM: Gilbane Building CompanyMEP Engineer: Bard, Rao, + AthanasStructural Engineer: Gannett Fleming
Basic LEED CertificationBrick façade on both wingsGlass curtain wall cladding on atriumPrimarily laboratory and office space153 seat auditorium
Four story structural steel frameDrilled pipe pile foundation systemBasement under Bigler wingSlab on grade for Meadow wing
Two mechanical penthouses on roofThree main air handling unitsConnected to campus steam systemSpecialized exhaust equipment for labs
(3) 12.47 kV feeders to transformerPSU to provide exterior transformer2000A / 480 V main switchgear(1) 5kV emergency power supply
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 Project Background .................................................................................................... 2 Organizational Chart .................................................................................. 3 Project Directory ......................................................................................... 4 Building Systems Summary ....................................................................... 5 Local Conditions ......................................................................................... 8 Client Information ...................................................................................... 9 Design Coordination ................................................................................ 10 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 11 Schedule Summary .................................................................................. 11 Estimate Summary ................................................................................... 28 Site Layout Planning ................................................................................ 33 Analysis 1 .................................................................................................................... 34 LEED Analysis of Laboratory Buildings Analysis 2 .................................................................................................................... 43 Variable Air Volume vs. Constant Volume for Laboratories Analysis 3 .................................................................................................................... 49 Immersive Virtual Modeling for MEP Coordination Conclusion and Recommendations.................................................................... 59 Appendix A .................................................................................................................. 61 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Appendix B .................................................................................................................. 64 Immersive Environments Lab Survey Appendix C .................................................................................................................. 67 References Acknowledgments .................................................................................................... 69
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
E X E C U T I V E
S U MMA R Y
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 1 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Executive Summary
The intent of this thesis is to examine design and construction issues
associated with laboratory buildings. Designing and constructing a LEED (Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design) certified building is not only good for the
environment, but it can save the owner money over the life of the building.
Laboratories inherently use larger amounts of energy making it more difficult to
obtain a LEED certification. One way to save energy and work towards a LEED
certification is to utilize a Variable Air Volume (VAV) system, but again laboratories
pose some unique mechanical system problems that must be addressed. The many
systems mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems needed for a laboratory space,
especially when using advanced systems such as VAV, require careful coordination.
This time consuming process can be eased by utilizing an immersive virtual model.
Analyzing the LEED potential for the Forest Resources building showed that
the initial design goal of a LEED certification is a good start, but the building has
potential to achieve higher levels of LEED certification. Laboratory spaces have high
mechanical and electrical loads due to the large amounts of equipment. Reducing
the energy usage for the labs is one of the keys to achieving a high LEED certification.
In order to reduce energy costs associated with heating and cooling a VAV
system could be utilized. Designing and installing a VAV system for a laboratory
requires special arrangements to ensure that a safe exhaust air flow is maintained as
well as a proper supply air flow to maintain negative room pressure. In practice, VAV
systems can save upwards of 20% on energy costs for laboratory spaces. With the
reduced energy costs and only a slight increase in initial cost and maintenance costs,
VAV systems have a lower life-cycle cost compared to a constant volume system.
Using an immersive virtual model for MEP coordination can reduce the time
needed for coordination and allow the installation to progress quickly and
uninterrupted. Collisions among systems can easily be seen before installation
begins. All industry professionals surveyed agree that the immersive model would be
beneficial to use on an MEP intensive project.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
P R O J E C T
B A C K G R O U N D
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 2 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Project Background
This thesis takes an in depth look at the Penn State University School of
Forest Resources Building in University Park, PA. This brand new 92,000 S.F. facility
will bring the educational and administrative aspects of the School under one roof.
The project is funded by the PA Department of General Services with construction
costs estimated at almost $22,000,000. Because the project is state funded,
certain contractual arrangements were required. The most interesting of these being
a CM Agency with 15 prime contractors. DGS began to look for an architect in April of
2002 and the project is scheduled to be completed in December 2005. The Forest
Resources building is part of the East Sub-Campus development which includes the
construction of five new buildings. The Forest Resources building will attempt to
receive a basic LEED certification.
The Penn State School of Forest Resources Building is being delivered as a
design-bid-build with some interesting contract relationships because it is funded by
the PA Department of General Services (DGS). DGS hired an architect, Bower, Lewis
Thrower Architects, to design the building. The architect’s contract states that they
receive a fixed percentage of the final construction costs of the building. They were
paid initially based on a preliminary estimate, but their fee will need to be adjusted
once actual construction costs are known. The Pennsylvania State University (PSU),
as the owner, holds all contracts with the prime contractors. There are fifteen primes
for this project. These are all lump sum contracts, which were issued to the low
bidders in a public bid. Penn State has also hired Gilbane Building Company as the
Construction Management Agency. Gilbane receives a cost plus fee contract. The
cost of their services is a guaranteed price, however, so if Gilbane goes over budget
for their services, it will cut into the profit. This arrangement was chosen mainly to
meet the regulations of DGS and to satisfy the needs of Penn State. In DGS projects
it is standard for the state to hold the design contract and for multiple prime
contractors to be used. Penn State chose to hire Gilbane as an agency rather than a
CM at risk because had they chosen an at risk arrangement, the bid for the CM would
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 3 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
have been an open bid. Because of DGS regulations, Penn State would have had to
accept the low bidder as CM at risk, but PSU wanted to receive proposals from a
select few CM firms. This was only possible by making them a CM Agency. The
following is an organizational chart for the project and a project directory listing key
contacts appears on the following page.
LEGEND: Contract Between Parties Key Communication Lines
Owner The Pennsylvania State University
Owner PA Department of General Services
CM Agency Gilbane Building Company
Structural / Civil Engineer Gannett Fleming
Mech. / Elec. Engineer Bard, Rao, + Athanas
Fifteen Prime Trade Contractors
Architect Bower Lewis Thrower Architects
Telecom / AV / Acoustics Cerami & Associates
Landscape Architect Lager Raabe Skafte Landscape
Architects
School of Forest Resources Building Project Organizational Chart
Percent Fee
Lump Sum
Negotiated Fee
Lump Sum
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 4 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
School of Forest Resources Project Directory Owner: The Pennsylvania State University (PSU) DGS Liaison – Richard Tennent Project Manager – Richard Riccardo Contract Administrator – Bernadine Harrity Construction Manager: Gilbane Building Company (GBCo) Project Executive – John Denning Sr. Project Manager – Motaz Alkaysi Project Engineer – Chris Figler Architect: Bower Lewis Thrower Architects (BLTA) Project Architect – Kevin Aires Mechanical / Electrical Design Engineer: Bard, Rao + Athanas (BR+A) Project Engineer – Dave Fallon Electrical Engineer – Mike Fahey Plumbing / Fire Protection Engineer – Ronald Howie HVAC Engineer – Ed Marchand Structural / Civil Design Engineer: Gannett Fleming Structural Engineer – Peter Joyce Civil Engineer – Gary Garbacik Prime Contractors: Sitework – Stone Valley Construction Piles – Brayman Construction Corporation Concrete – Quandel Group Masonry – Cost Company Structural Steel / Misc. Metals – Amthor Steel Roofing – David M. Maines Curtainwall / Windows – KNZ Construction HVAC – S. P. McCarl Company General Trades – Leonard S. Fiore Elevator – Port Elevator Laboratory Casework – Moran Scientific Systems Automatic Temperature Controls – Logical Automation Plumbing – W. G. Tomko Fire Protection – S. A. Communale Company Electrical – State College Electrical and Mechanical
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 5 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Building Systems Summary Demolition
No demolition was required for this project. The site was covered in asphalt,
however, and this needed to be removed before work could begin.
Structural Steel Frame
Moment frames as well as standard wide flange beams and columns create
the frame for this building. The steel will be erected in fourteen separate lifts. There
is typically only one column splice through the height of the building. The lower two
floors of two different sections will be erected. Then the upper two floors of those
two sections will be placed in the same order. After two sections are topped out,
erection will move to the next two designated lifts. The floor deck is a 2” deep
composite steel deck system, and the roof is made from 1-1/2” deep steel deck. All
trade contractors are responsible for their own hoisting, so there will be no central
crane that everyone has access to. The steel erector will bring in crawler or truck
mounted cranes as necessary for erection.
Cast in Place Concrete
Concrete that can not be poured directly from the chute will be pumped into
place. The pump will be mobile and placed where it is needed for the pouring
operations.
Precast Concrete
There are no main precast elements in this building. Coping, sills and other
exterior trim are made of precast concrete and finished to look like limestone. The
limestone that was specified around the base of the building and in some of the
window assemblies was replaced by cast stone in order to save money. This precast
will be lightweight panels finished to look like limestone.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 6 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Mechanical System
The three large air handling units for the building are located in the
mechanical penthouses. There is a penthouse on the roof of each wing of the
building. There are some parts of the mechanical system found in the basement
mechanical room, but the largest components are in the penthouses. Two Trane air
handling units will control the climate for the building, and the third unit is a custom
unit designed to handle the laboratory spaces. The entire system will be connected
to the campus steam tunnels and the new adjacent chiller plant.
The sprinkler system covers all areas of the building. IT is classified as
ordinary hazard (Group I) for all areas except mechanical rooms, which are classified
ordinary hazard (Group II). The entire arrangement is a wet pipe system with
connections for the fire department.
Electrical System
The building is powered by three 12.47 kV feeders to the transformer in the
electrical vault. This is stepped down to 480 V before traveling inside the building to
the main switchgear. There is one 4160 V emergency feeder that can power the
emergency systems of the building. This feeder comes from the campus generator
system and can provide uninterrupted power in the event of an outage. There is one
set of main switchgear that distributes the power to six distribution panels. From
here the power is divided even further to meet the needs of the building.
Masonry
Most of the building is covered with a brick veneer. These are standard size
bricks that have been pre-selected by Penn State so that they match all other
buildings on campus. Around the base of the building are courses of cast stone
panels finished to look like limestone. Masonry is supported by steel angles
attached to the structural steel. In order to lay the brick, the mason will use hydraulic
scaffolding to keep the procedure easy and quick. Standard scaffolding will be used
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 7 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
on the curved Meadow wing because the large sections of hydraulic scaffolding will
be difficult to secure to the building and they will leave large gaps between the
scaffolding and the building.
Curtain Wall
The curtain wall is an outside glazed pressure wall system of tubular
aluminum sections with self supporting framing and factory pre-finished, glass and
glazing. A professional engineer employed by the curtain wall contractor is
responsible for the design of the system and all shop drawings must be signed and
sealed by the professional engineer. The system also includes infill metal panels,
sun shades, aluminum entrance doors and cast stone panels.
Support of Excavation
The main excavation was for the basement under the Bigler wing. This
excavation was able to be benched back at a 1:1 ratio for safety. There was a catch
basin already in place on site to control the run off water, so no dewatering was
needed specifically for this site. After heavy rains excess water had to be pumped
out of certain areas of the excavation.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 8 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Local Conditions When building on the Penn State campus most buildings will be a structural
steel frame with a brick veneer exterior. All steel erection and equipment placement
is done with crawler or truck mounted cranes and you will not see a tower crane in
State College. The Forest Resources building, like several other buildings on
campus, is funded by the Department of General Services. This means that the
current Prevailing Wage Act must be enforced per DGS regulations. The local union
work force is utilized in most of these projects. Most construction sites on campus
are congested, and leave little room for material storage or construction parking.
Contractors are required to park in large lots located behind Beaver Stadium, and
steel shakeout is sometimes done in fields off campus. Because this project is
attaining a LEED certification, recycling of construction materials is mandatory. This
can add extra cost to the building as special arrangements must be made to dispose
of materials.
Before construction was started, CMT Laboratories conducted a sub-surface
investigation of the site. Several test bores were taken to check the soil quality and
bearing capacity of the bedrock. The samples were taken at depths ranging from 42
to 65 feet. The ground water table was not encountered during the investigation,
which makes dewatering unnecessary for excavation. Dolomite bedrock was
discovered at depths ranging from 2 feet to 45 feet across the site. This variation
can be expected due to the pinnacled nature of the Nittany Formation. There was no
evidence of sinkholes or caving during the investigation, but with this type of
bedrock, sinkholes may develop during or after construction. Recommendations for
foundations in this area are for drilled piles and grade beams.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 9 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Client Information The Pennsylvania State University is the owner of this building with the School
of Forest Users being the end-user. It was decided that a new building was needed
for the School in order to consolidate the educational and administrative aspects of
the program under one roof. The initial decision to build a building in this location
was made in order to balance the site next to the Smeal College of Business Building.
The School of Forest Resources was the most likely candidate needing a new
building, so the building became theirs.
As with any project at Penn State, quality is of the utmost importance.
Buildings are expected to last a minimum of fifty years before needing replacement.
The second most important aspect for a building on campus is that it meets the
occupancy and program requirements. Safety is also paramount to the successful
completion of a project. Of course, cost and schedule are still important factors for a
project, but efforts are usually made to construct a quality building in a safe manner.
DGS pays all construction costs for this project so Penn State can maintain their
focus on quality and safety. To help the building meet the needs of the future
occupants, faculty and staff from the School of Forest Resources are invited to take
part in design decisions. Safety efforts can be evidenced by the University’s
aggressive OCIP program. Safety orientations and drug screenings are mandatory for
anyone working on the job site. If the University receives a quality building that
satisfies the needs of the occupants, they will be pleased.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 10 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Design Coordination The new Forest Resources Building has a large amount of laboratory space,
which can cause many MEP coordination problems. In each lab space there is
normal HVAC duct, special exhaust duct for fumehoods, piping for normal water
distribution, vacuum piping, gas piping, compressed air piping, special lab waste
piping, sprinkler lines, electrical distribution, and often times special electrical
circuits for lab equipment. This building has a 14’-0” floor to floor height and a 9’-6”
ceiling height in the lab spaces. This leaves only 4’-6” to fit all of the piping, conduit,
and ductwork into the plenum space. If you take into account the steel beam depth
of at least 12”, careful MEP coordination becomes vital for these laboratory spaces.
By contract, the HVAC, Plumbing, Fire Protection, Electrical, and Automatic
Temperature Controls Contractors have 90 days from Notice to Proceed to complete
coordination drawings. The process of coordination begins with the HVAC contractor
who receives blank CAD templates from the architect. He lays out all of his ductwork,
submits the drawings for approval from the engineer, and when approved, forwards
them to the plumbing contractor. The plumbing contractor then adds his layer of
pipes to the drawings and submits them to the engineer. This process continues for
all of the above listed contractors until complete coordination drawings are approved.
The contractors are not contractually required to develop 3D CAD drawings, but 3D
drawings or immersive virtual models could aid the coordination process.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
E X I S T I N G
C O N D I T I O N S
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 11 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Existing Conditions
Project Schedule Summary The original schedule had the design phase running from 7/26/02 until
8/29/03. This would allow the project to be put out for bid from 2/4/04 – 3/16/04.
Six weeks were then left for contract processing and awards, and construction was
slated to begin in April 2004. Several delays in these initial steps caused the project
to start approximately three months later than expected. The two main sources of
delay were Penn State having to wait for a delegation agreement from DGS to put the
project out to bid. This agreement allowed Penn State to hold the contracts with the
prime contractors rather than DGS. This took several weeks longer than expected to
get through all the paperwork and final approvals. Another problem was that the bids
came in well over the estimate. Several weeks were spent in negotiations and value
engineering meetings in order to reduce the construction costs.
For most parts of construction, the building is divided into two wings – the
Meadow wing and the Bigler wing. The meadow wing runs east to west on the plans
and the Bigler wing is the north-south portion. All construction activities start earlier
on the Meadow wing than the Bigler wing. This is due to the fact that the Bigler wing
has a full basement under it. This means that foundations can be poured first on the
Meadow wing, including the slab on grade, and steel erection can begin on the
Meadow wing as well. This allows all trades that follow steel erection such as
concrete, interior finishes, and MEP installation to begin work on the Meadow wing
first.
Steel will be erected in fourteen lifts starting at the west end of the Meadow
wing and moving east. The Bigler wing will then be erected from south to north
following completion of the Meadow wing.
In order to get the initial roof on the building quicker, slabs on deck will be
poured out of order. The third floor slab of the Meadow wing will be poured first, in
order to give the building stability and this allows the roof of the Meadow wing to be
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 12 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
poured next. For the Bigler wing, because of the basement, the first floor slab will be
poured first, followed by the third floor and then the roof slabs. This sequence allows
the slabs on level two and four to be poured under cover and for the roofer to begin
installation of the initial membrane.
The masons will begin laying brick at the atrium opening on the north
elevation. Both sides of the opening will be laid, in order to allow the curtain wall
contractor to begin installation of the frame. The masonry will move around the
Meadow wing in a counter-clockwise direction, while the Bigler wing progresses in a
clockwise fashion, so that both meet at the curtain wall opening on the south
elevation.
All interior work, including MEP will begin on the fourth floor of the Meadow
wing, and continue down the levels in sequential order.
The building should be completely enclosed by the end of May 2005. Actual
construction began on August 6, 2004 and the substantial completion date is
November 18, 2005. A summary schedule broken down by each of the prime
contractors is included on the following pages highlighting some major phases of
construction.
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Site
wor
kSi
tew
ork
7603
-Aug
-04
16-N
ov-0
4
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g73
06-A
ug-0
416
-Nov
-04
2540
MA
SS
EX
CA
VA
TIO
N/T
RU
CK
RA
MP
(BW
)15
06-A
ug-0
4*26
-Aug
-04
2250
INS
TALL
SIT
E U
TILI
TIE
S42
20-S
ep-0
4*16
-Nov
-04
Entir
e Si
teEn
tire
Site
1003
-Aug
-04
16-A
ug-0
4
2520
DE
MO
PA
VE
ME
NT/
CU
RB
S/T
RE
ES
1003
-Aug
-04
16-A
ug-0
4
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
MA
SS
EX
CA
VA
TIO
N/T
RU
CK
RA
MP
(BW
)
INS
TALL
SIT
E U
TILI
TIE
S
DE
MO
PA
VE
ME
NT/
CU
RB
S/T
RE
ES
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 13 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Pile
sPi
les
3209
-Aug
-04
21-S
ep-0
4
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
1509
-Aug
-04
27-A
ug-0
4
3520
DR
ILL
AN
D G
RO
UT
PIL
ES
(MW
)15
09-A
ug-0
4*27
-Aug
-04
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g17
30-A
ug-0
421
-Sep
-04
3540
DR
ILL
AN
D G
RO
UT
PIL
ES
(BW
)17
30-A
ug-0
4*21
-Sep
-04
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
DR
ILL
AN
D G
RO
UT
PIL
ES
(MW
)
DR
ILL
AN
D G
RO
UT
PIL
ES
(BW
)
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 14 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Con
cret
eC
oncr
ete
120
30-A
ug-0
411
-Feb
-05
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
7230
-Aug
-04
07-D
ec-0
4
4500
F/R
/P P
ILE
CA
PS
(MW
)15
30-A
ug-0
4*17
-Sep
-04
4520
F/R
/P G
RA
DE
BE
AM
(MW
)15
06-S
ep-0
4*24
-Sep
-04
4540
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
GR
AD
E (M
W)
1504
-Oct
-04*
22-O
ct-0
4
4600
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)5
08-N
ov-0
4*12
-Nov
-04
4640
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E R
OO
F S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
(MW
)5
15-N
ov-0
4*19
-Nov
-04
4580
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)5
22-N
ov-0
4*26
-Nov
-04
4620
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)5
01-D
ec-0
4*07
-Dec
-04
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g11
506
-Sep
-04
11-F
eb-0
5
4700
F/R
/P P
ILE
CA
PS
(BW
)15
06-S
ep-0
4*24
-Sep
-04
4720
F/R
/P G
RA
DE
BE
AM
(BW
)15
13-S
ep-0
4*01
-Oct
-04
4740
F/R
/P F
OU
ND
ATI
ON
WA
LLS
(BW
)15
20-S
ep-0
4*08
-Oct
-04
4760
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
GR
AD
E (B
W)
2511
-Oct
-04*
12-N
ov-0
4
4840
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)10
06-D
ec-0
4*17
-Dec
-04
4880
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)10
20-D
ec-0
4*31
-Dec
-04
4920
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E R
OO
F S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
(BW
)5
10-J
an-0
5*14
-Jan
-05
4860
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)10
17-J
an-0
5*28
-Jan
-05
4900
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)10
31-J
an-0
5*11
-Feb
-05
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
F/R
/P P
ILE
CA
PS
(MW
)
F/R
/P G
RA
DE
BE
AM
(MW
)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
GR
AD
E (M
W)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E R
OO
F S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
(MW
)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
F/R
/P P
ILE
CA
PS
(BW
)
F/R
/P G
RA
DE
BE
AM
(BW
)
F/R
/P F
OU
ND
ATI
ON
WA
LLS
(BW
)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
GR
AD
E (B
W)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E R
OO
F S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
(BW
)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)
PR
EP
& P
LAC
E S
LAB
ON
DE
CK
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 15 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Mas
onry
Mas
onry
4817
-Feb
-05
25-A
pr-0
5
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
4717
-Feb
-05
22-A
pr-0
5
5520
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K N
OR
TH E
LEV
ATI
ON
(MW
)30
17-F
eb-0
5*30
-Mar
-05
5540
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K W
ES
T E
LEV
ATI
ON
(MW
)30
09-M
ar-0
5*19
-Apr
-05
5620
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K S
OU
TH E
LEV
ATI
ON
(MW
)25
21-M
ar-0
5*22
-Apr
-05
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g36
07-M
ar-0
525
-Apr
-05
5740
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K N
OR
TH E
LEV
ATI
ON
(BW
)20
07-M
ar-0
5*01
-Apr
-05
5640
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K W
ES
T E
LEV
ATI
ON
(BW
)25
07-M
ar-0
5*08
-Apr
-05
5720
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K E
AS
T E
LEV
ATI
ON
(BW
)30
15-M
ar-0
5*25
-Apr
-05
5800
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K S
OU
TH E
LEV
ATI
ON
(BW
)20
22-M
ar-0
5*18
-Apr
-05
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K N
OR
TH E
LEV
ATI
ON
(MW
)
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K W
ES
T E
LEV
ATI
ON
(MW
)
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K S
OU
TH E
LEV
ATI
ON
(MW
)
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K N
OR
TH E
LEV
ATI
ON
(BW
)
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K W
ES
T E
LEV
ATI
ON
(BW
)
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K E
AS
T E
LEV
ATI
ON
(BW
)
STO
NE
& B
RIC
K S
OU
TH E
LEV
ATI
ON
(BW
)
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 16 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Stru
ctur
aSt
ruct
ural
Ste
el61
21-O
ct-0
413
-Jan
-05
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
2921
-Oct
-04
30-N
ov-0
4
6540
ER
EC
T S
EQ
UE
NC
E 1
-8 (M
W)
1421
-Oct
-04*
09-N
ov-0
4
6560
DE
TAIL
SE
QU
EN
CE
1-8
(MW
)27
25-O
ct-0
4*30
-Nov
-04
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g47
10-N
ov-0
413
-Jan
-05
6640
ER
EC
T S
EQ
UE
NC
E 9
-14
(BW
)24
10-N
ov-0
4*13
-Dec
-04
6660
DE
TAIL
SE
QU
EN
CE
9-1
4 (B
W)
4415
-Nov
-04*
13-J
an-0
5
Atr
ium
Atr
ium
2314
-Dec
-04
13-J
an-0
5
6740
SE
T G
LU-L
AM
BE
AM
S2
14-D
ec-0
4*15
-Dec
-04
6760
ER
EC
T S
EQ
UE
NC
E 1
51
16-D
ec-0
4*16
-Dec
-04
6780
DE
TAIL
SE
QU
EN
CE
15
217
-Dec
-04*
20-D
ec-0
4
6820
ER
EC
T A
TRIU
M S
CR
EE
N W
ALL
204
-Jan
-05*
05-J
an-0
5
6840
DE
TAIL
ATR
IUM
SC
RE
EN
WA
LL6
06-J
an-0
5*13
-Jan
-05
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
ER
EC
T S
EQ
UE
NC
E 1
-8 (M
W)
DE
TAIL
SE
QU
EN
CE
1-8
(MW
)
ER
EC
T S
EQ
UE
NC
E 9
-14
(BW
)
DE
TAIL
SE
QU
EN
CE
9-1
4 (B
W)
SE
T G
LU-L
AM
BE
AM
S
ER
EC
T S
EQ
UE
NC
E 1
5
DE
TAIL
SE
QU
EN
CE
15
ER
EC
T A
TRIU
M S
CR
EE
N W
ALL
DE
TAIL
ATR
IUM
SC
RE
EN
WA
LL
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 17 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Roo
fing
Roo
fing
158
01-D
ec-0
408
-Jul
-05
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
138
01-D
ec-0
410
-Jun
-05
7540
SK
YLI
GH
TS (M
W)
301
-Dec
-04*
03-D
ec-0
476
00IN
ITIA
L H
IGH
RO
OF
(MW
)15
01-D
ec-0
4*21
-Dec
-04
7620
INIT
IAL
LOW
RO
OF
(MW
)10
22-D
ec-0
4*04
-Jan
-05
7700
CO
MP
LETE
HIG
H R
OO
F W
/ FLA
SH
ING
(MW
)20
25-A
pr-0
5*20
-May
-05
7720
CO
MP
LETE
LO
W R
OO
F W
/ FLA
SH
ING
(MW
)15
23-M
ay-0
5*10
-Jun
-05
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g12
024
-Jan
-05
08-J
ul-0
5
7640
INIT
IAL
RO
OF
(BW
)15
24-J
an-0
5*11
-Feb
-05
7740
CO
MP
LETE
RO
OF
W/ F
LAS
HIN
G (B
W)
2013
-Jun
-05*
08-J
ul-0
5
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
SK
YLI
GH
TS (M
W)
INIT
IAL
HIG
H R
OO
F (M
W)
INIT
IAL
LOW
RO
OF
(MW
)
CO
MP
LETE
HIG
H R
OO
F W
/ FLA
SH
ING
(MW
)
CO
MP
LETE
LO
W R
OO
F W
/ FLA
SH
ING
(MW
)
INIT
IAL
RO
OF
(BW
)
CO
MP
LETE
RO
OF
W/ F
LAS
HIN
G (B
W)
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 18 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Cur
tain
wC
urta
inw
all /
Win
dow
s45
31-M
ar-0
501
-Jun
-05
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
3531
-Mar
-05
18-M
ay-0
5
8500
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
NO
RTH
ELE
VA
TIO
N (M
W)
1531
-Mar
-05*
20-A
pr-0
5
8520
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
WE
ST
ELE
VA
TIO
N (M
W)
521
-Apr
-05*
27-A
pr-0
5
8540
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
SO
UTH
ELE
VA
TIO
N (M
W)
1528
-Apr
-05*
18-M
ay-0
5
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g43
04-A
pr-0
501
-Jun
-05
8620
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
NO
RTH
ELE
VA
TIO
N (B
W)
504
-Apr
-05*
08-A
pr-0
5
8600
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
EA
ST
ELE
VA
TIO
N (B
W)
1526
-Apr
-05*
16-M
ay-0
5
8580
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
SO
UTH
ELE
VA
TIO
N (B
W)
517
-May
-05*
23-M
ay-0
5
8560
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
WE
ST
ELE
VA
TIO
N (B
W)
1019
-May
-05*
01-J
un-0
5
Atr
ium
Atr
ium
1504
-Apr
-05
22-A
pr-0
5
8700
CU
RTA
INW
ALL
AT
ATR
IUM
1504
-Apr
-05*
22-A
pr-0
5
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
NO
RTH
ELE
VA
TIO
N (M
W)
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
WE
ST
ELE
VA
TIO
N (M
W)
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
SO
UTH
ELE
VA
TIO
N (M
W)
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
NO
RTH
ELE
VA
TIO
N (B
W)
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
EA
ST
ELE
VA
TIO
N (B
W)
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
SO
UTH
ELE
VA
TIO
N (B
W)
EX
TER
IOR
WIN
DO
WS
WE
ST
ELE
VA
TIO
N (B
W)
CU
RTA
INW
ALL
AT
ATR
IUM
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 19 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
HVA
CH
VAC
167
24-D
ec-0
415
-Aug
-05
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
154
24-D
ec-0
427
-Jul
-05
2004
0IN
STA
LL/T
ES
T/IN
SU
L. D
UC
T &
PIP
E L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
2824
-Dec
-04*
01-F
eb-0
5
2023
0IN
STA
LL D
UC
T R
ISE
RS
(MW
)40
29-D
ec-0
4*22
-Feb
-05
2913
0IN
STA
LL A
HU
/VFD
/FA
NS
/DU
CT
PE
NTH
OU
SE
(MW
)50
31-D
ec-0
4*10
-Mar
-05
2005
0IN
STA
LL/T
ES
T/IN
SU
L. D
UC
T &
PIP
E L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
4803
-Jan
-05*
09-M
ar-0
5
2204
0IN
STA
LL/T
ES
T/IN
SU
L. D
UC
T &
PIP
E L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
5711
-Jan
-05*
30-M
ar-0
5
2030
0IN
STA
LL V
AV
BO
XE
S L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
1013
-Jan
-05*
26-J
an-0
5
2304
0IN
STA
LL/T
ES
T/IN
SU
L. D
UC
T &
PIP
E L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
7924
-Jan
-05*
12-M
ay-0
5
2130
0IN
STA
LL V
AV
BO
XE
S L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
1003
-Feb
-05*
16-F
eb-0
5
2230
0IN
STA
LL V
AV
BO
XE
S L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
1024
-Feb
-05*
09-M
ar-0
5
2330
0IN
STA
LL V
AV
BO
XE
S L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
1522
-Mar
-05*
11-A
pr-0
5
2060
0IN
STA
LL G
/R/D
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)10
24-M
ar-0
5*06
-Apr
-05
2160
0IN
STA
LL G
/R/D
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)10
13-A
pr-0
5*26
-Apr
-05
2260
0IN
STA
LL G
/R/D
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)10
03-M
ay-0
5*16
-May
-05
2360
0IN
STA
LL G
/R/D
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)15
07-J
ul-0
5*27
-Jul
-05
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g14
624
-Jan
-05
15-A
ug-0
5
3010
0IN
STA
LL A
HU
/VFD
/FA
NS
/DU
CT
PE
NTH
OU
SE
(BW
)94
24-J
an-0
5*02
-Jun
-05
3118
0IN
STA
LL C
EIL
ING
IN B
SM
T M
ER
3002
-Mar
-05*
12-A
pr-0
5
2404
0IN
STA
LL/T
ES
T/IN
SU
L. D
UC
T &
PIP
E L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
5403
-Mar
-05*
17-M
ay-0
5
2423
0IN
STA
LL D
UC
T R
ISE
RS
(BW
)90
08-M
ar-0
5*11
-Jul
-05
3130
0IN
STA
LL A
HU
/FA
NS
/PU
MP
S/D
UC
T &
PIP
E B
SM
T M
ER
5714
-Mar
-05*
31-M
ay-0
5
2504
0IN
STA
LL/T
ES
T/IN
SU
L. D
UC
T &
PIP
E L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
6115
-Mar
-05*
07-J
un-0
5
2604
0IN
STA
LL/T
ES
T/IN
SU
L. D
UC
T &
PIP
E L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
6825
-Mar
-05*
28-J
un-0
5
2704
0IN
STA
LL/T
ES
T/IN
SU
L. D
UC
T &
PIP
E L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
7506
-Apr
-05*
19-J
ul-0
5
2430
0IN
STA
LL V
AV
BO
XE
S L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
1006
-Apr
-05*
19-A
pr-0
5
2804
0IN
STA
LL/T
ES
T/IN
SU
L. D
UC
T &
PIP
E B
SM
T70
14-A
pr-0
5*20
-Jul
-05
2530
0IN
STA
LL V
AV
BO
XE
S L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
1027
-Apr
-05*
10-M
ay-0
5
2630
0IN
STA
LL V
AV
BO
XE
S L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
1018
-May
-05*
31-M
ay-0
5
2730
0IN
STA
LL V
AV
BO
XE
S L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
1008
-Jun
-05*
21-J
un-0
5
2460
0IN
STA
LL G
/R/D
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)10
08-J
un-0
5*21
-Jun
-05
2830
0IN
STA
LL V
AV
BO
XE
S B
SM
T7
22-J
un-0
5*30
-Jun
-05
2560
0IN
STA
LL G
/R/D
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)10
27-J
un-0
5*08
-Jul
-05
2660
0IN
STA
LL G
/R/D
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)10
14-J
ul-0
5*27
-Jul
-05
2860
0IN
STA
LL G
/R/D
BS
MT
728
-Jul
-05*
05-A
ug-0
5
2760
0IN
STA
LL G
/R/D
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)10
02-A
ug-0
5*15
-Aug
-05
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
INS
TALL
/TE
ST/
INS
UL.
DU
CT
& P
IPE
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
INS
TALL
DU
CT
RIS
ER
S (M
W)
INS
TALL
AH
U/V
FD/F
AN
S/D
UC
T P
EN
THO
US
E (M
W)
INS
TALL
/TE
ST/
INS
UL.
DU
CT
& P
IPE
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)
INS
TALL
/TE
ST/
INS
UL.
DU
CT
& P
IPE
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
INS
TALL
VA
V B
OX
ES
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
INS
TALL
/TE
ST/
INS
UL.
DU
CT
& P
IPE
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)
INS
TALL
VA
V B
OX
ES
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)
INS
TALL
VA
V B
OX
ES
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
INS
TALL
VA
V B
OX
ES
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)
INS
TALL
G/R
/D L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
INS
TALL
G/R
/D L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
INS
TALL
G/R
/D L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
INS
TALL
G/R
/D L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
INS
TALL
AH
U/V
FD/F
AN
S/D
UC
T P
EN
THO
US
E (B
W)
INS
TALL
CE
ILIN
G IN
BS
MT
ME
R
INS
TALL
/TE
ST/
INS
UL.
DU
CT
& P
IPE
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
INS
TALL
DU
CT
RIS
ER
S (B
W)
INS
TALL
AH
U/F
AN
S/P
UM
PS
/DU
CT
& P
IPE
BS
MT
ME
R
INS
TALL
/TE
ST/
INS
UL.
DU
CT
& P
IPE
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)
INS
TALL
/TE
ST/
INS
UL.
DU
CT
& P
IPE
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)
INS
TALL
/TE
ST/
INS
UL.
DU
CT
& P
IPE
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)
INS
TALL
VA
V B
OX
ES
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
INS
TALL
/TE
ST/
INS
UL.
DU
CT
& P
IPE
BS
MT
INS
TALL
VA
V B
OX
ES
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)
INS
TALL
VA
V B
OX
ES
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)
INS
TALL
VA
V B
OX
ES
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)
INS
TALL
G/R
/D L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
INS
TALL
VA
V B
OX
ES
BS
MT
INS
TALL
G/R
/D L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
INS
TALL
G/R
/D L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
INS
TALL
G/R
/D B
SM
T
INS
TALL
G/R
/D L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 20 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Gen
eral
TG
ener
al T
rade
s23
215
-Nov
-04
04-O
ct-0
5
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
222
15-N
ov-0
420
-Sep
-05
1050
0FR
AM
E /
SH
EA
TH E
XTE
RIO
R (M
W)
4515
-Nov
-04*
14-J
an-0
5
2900
0S
PR
AY
ON
FIR
EP
RO
OFI
NG
(MW
)33
08-D
ec-0
4*21
-Jan
-05
2036
0IN
TER
IOR
FR
AM
ING
/HM
DO
OR
S/D
RY
WA
LL L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
4126
-Jan
-05*
23-M
ar-0
5
2136
0IN
TER
IOR
FR
AM
IN/H
M D
OO
RS
/DR
YW
ALL
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)41
15-F
eb-0
5*12
-Apr
-05
2938
0IN
STA
LL M
ETA
L P
AN
ELS
& L
OU
VE
RS
(MW
)58
18-F
eb-0
5*10
-May
-05
2236
0IN
TER
IOR
FR
AM
ING
/HM
DO
OR
S/D
RY
WA
LL L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
4107
-Mar
-05*
02-M
ay-0
5
2054
0IN
STA
LL A
CT/
FIN
ISH
ES
/HA
RD
WA
RE
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)80
17-M
ar-0
5*06
-Jul
-05
2154
0IN
STA
LL A
CT/
FIN
ISH
ES
/HA
RD
WA
RE
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)71
06-A
pr-0
5*13
-Jul
-05
2336
0IN
TER
IOR
FR
AM
ING
/HM
DO
OR
S/D
RY
WA
LL L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
6211
-Apr
-05*
05-J
ul-0
5
2254
0IN
STA
LL A
CT/
FIN
ISH
ES
/HA
RD
WA
RE
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)62
26-A
pr-0
5*20
-Jul
-05
2354
0IN
STA
LL A
CT/
FIN
ISH
ES
/HA
RD
WA
RE
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)62
27-J
un-0
5*20
-Sep
-05
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g20
720
-Dec
-04
04-O
ct-0
5
3102
0S
PR
AY
ON
FIR
EP
RO
OFI
NG
(BW
)83
20-D
ec-0
4*13
-Apr
-05
1060
0FR
AM
E /
SH
EA
TH E
XTE
RIO
R (B
W)
4517
-Jan
-05*
18-M
ar-0
5
3020
0IN
STA
LL M
ETA
L P
AN
ELS
& L
OU
VE
RS
(BW
)64
25-F
eb-0
5*25
-May
-05
2400
0IN
TER
IOR
FR
AM
ING
/HM
DO
OR
S/D
RY
WA
LL L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
4605
-Apr
-05*
07-J
un-0
5
2536
0IN
TER
IOR
FR
AM
IN/H
M D
OO
RS
/DR
YW
ALL
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)46
22-A
pr-0
5*24
-Jun
-05
2636
0IN
TER
IOR
FR
AM
ING
/HM
DO
OR
S/D
RY
WA
LL L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
4611
-May
-05*
13-J
ul-0
5
2736
0IN
TER
IOR
FR
AM
ING
/HM
DO
OR
S/D
RY
WA
LL L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
4630
-May
-05*
01-A
ug-0
5
2454
0IN
STA
LL A
CT/
FIN
ISH
ES
/HA
RD
WA
RE
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)51
01-J
un-0
5*10
-Aug
-05
2554
0IN
STA
LL A
CT/
FIN
ISH
ES
/HA
RD
WA
RE
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)51
20-J
un-0
5*29
-Aug
-05
2846
0IN
TER
IOR
FR
AM
ING
/HM
DO
OR
S/D
RY
WA
LL B
SM
T17
29-J
un-0
5*21
-Jul
-05
2654
0IN
STA
LL A
CT/
FIN
ISH
ES
/HA
RD
WA
RE
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)51
07-J
ul-0
5*15
-Sep
-05
2854
0IN
STA
LL A
CT/
FIN
ISH
ES
/HA
RD
WA
RE
BS
MT
3621
-Jul
-05*
08-S
ep-0
5
2754
0IN
STA
LL A
CT/
FIN
ISH
ES
/HA
RD
WA
RE
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)51
26-J
ul-0
5*04
-Oct
-05
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
FRA
ME
/ S
HE
ATH
EX
TER
IOR
(MW
)
SP
RA
Y O
N F
IRE
PR
OO
FIN
G (M
W)
INTE
RIO
R F
RA
MIN
G/H
M D
OO
RS
/DR
YW
ALL
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
INTE
RIO
R F
RA
MIN
/HM
DO
OR
S/D
RY
WA
LL L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
INS
TALL
ME
TAL
PA
NE
LS &
LO
UV
ER
S (M
W)
INTE
RIO
R F
RA
MIN
G/H
M D
OO
RS
/DR
YW
ALL
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
INS
TALL
AC
T/FI
NIS
HE
S/H
AR
DW
AR
E L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
INS
TALL
AC
T/FI
NIS
HE
S/H
AR
DW
AR
E L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
INTE
RIO
R F
RA
MIN
G/H
M D
OO
RS
/DR
YW
ALL
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)
INS
TALL
AC
T/FI
NIS
HE
S/H
AR
DW
AR
E L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
INS
TALL
AC
T/FI
NIS
HE
S/H
AR
DW
AR
E L
EV
EL
1
SP
RA
Y O
N F
IRE
PR
OO
FIN
G (B
W)
FRA
ME
/ S
HE
ATH
EX
TER
IOR
(BW
)
INS
TALL
ME
TAL
PA
NE
LS &
LO
UV
ER
S (B
W)
INTE
RIO
R F
RA
MIN
G/H
M D
OO
RS
/DR
YW
ALL
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
INTE
RIO
R F
RA
MIN
/HM
DO
OR
S/D
RY
WA
LL L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
INTE
RIO
R F
RA
MIN
G/H
M D
OO
RS
/DR
YW
ALL
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
INTE
RIO
R F
RA
MIN
G/H
M D
OO
RS
/DR
YW
ALL
LE
VE
L 1
(
INS
TALL
AC
T/FI
NIS
HE
S/H
AR
DW
AR
E L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
INS
TALL
AC
T/FI
NIS
HE
S/H
AR
DW
AR
E L
EV
EL
3 (B
W
INTE
RIO
R F
RA
MIN
G/H
M D
OO
RS
/DR
YW
ALL
BS
MT
INS
TALL
AC
T/FI
NIS
HE
S/H
AR
DW
AR
E L
EV
EL
2 (
INS
TALL
AC
T/FI
NIS
HE
S/H
AR
DW
AR
E B
SM
T
INS
TALL
AC
T/FI
NIS
HE
S/H
AR
DW
AR
E L
EV
EL
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 21 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Elev
ator
sEl
evat
ors
125
24-J
an-0
515
-Jul
-05
Entir
e B
uEn
tire
Bui
ldin
g12
524
-Jan
-05
15-J
ul-0
5
3306
0IN
STA
LL R
AIL
S/M
AC
HIN
ER
Y/R
OP
ES
8124
-Jan
-05*
16-M
ay-0
5
3314
0IN
STA
LL C
AB
S/F
INIS
HE
S &
INS
PE
CTI
ON
4417
-May
-05*
15-J
ul-0
5
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
INS
TALL
RA
ILS
/MA
CH
INE
RY
/RO
PE
S
INS
TALL
CA
BS
/FIN
ISH
ES
& IN
SP
EC
TIO
N
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 22 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Cas
ewor
kC
asew
ork
103
31-M
ar-0
522
-Aug
-05
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
8531
-Mar
-05
27-J
ul-0
5
2070
0IN
STA
LL F
UM
EH
OO
DS
& L
AB
CA
SE
WO
RK
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)5
31-M
ar-0
5*06
-Apr
-05
2170
0IN
STA
LL F
UM
EH
OO
DS
& L
AB
CA
SE
WO
RK
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)5
20-A
pr-0
5*26
-Apr
-05
2270
0IN
STA
LL F
UM
EH
OO
DS
& L
AB
CA
SE
WO
RK
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)5
10-M
ay-0
5*16
-May
-05
2370
0IN
STA
LL F
UM
EH
OO
DS
& L
AB
CA
SE
WO
RK
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)8
18-J
ul-0
5*27
-Jul
-05
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g54
08-J
un-0
522
-Aug
-05
2470
0IN
STA
LL F
UM
EH
OO
DS
& L
AB
CA
SE
WO
RK
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)15
08-J
un-0
5*28
-Jun
-05
2570
0IN
STA
LL F
UM
EH
OO
DS
& L
AB
CA
SE
WO
RK
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)15
27-J
un-0
5*15
-Jul
-05
2670
0IN
STA
LL F
UM
EH
OO
DS
& L
AB
CA
SE
WO
RK
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)15
14-J
ul-0
5*03
-Aug
-05
2870
0IN
STA
LL F
UM
EH
OO
DS
& L
AB
CA
SE
WO
RK
BS
MT
1322
-Jul
-05*
09-A
ug-0
5
2770
0IN
STA
LL F
UM
EH
OO
DS
& L
AB
CA
SE
WO
RK
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)15
02-A
ug-0
5*22
-Aug
-05
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
INS
TALL
FU
ME
HO
OD
S &
LA
B C
AS
EW
OR
K L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
INS
TALL
FU
ME
HO
OD
S &
LA
B C
AS
EW
OR
K L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
INS
TALL
FU
ME
HO
OD
S &
LA
B C
AS
EW
OR
K L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
INS
TALL
FU
ME
HO
OD
S &
LA
B C
AS
EW
OR
K L
EV
EL
1 (M
W
INS
TALL
FU
ME
HO
OD
S &
LA
B C
AS
EW
OR
K L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
INS
TALL
FU
ME
HO
OD
S &
LA
B C
AS
EW
OR
K L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
INS
TALL
FU
ME
HO
OD
S &
LA
B C
AS
EW
OR
K L
EV
EL
2 (B
INS
TALL
FU
ME
HO
OD
S &
LA
B C
AS
EW
OR
K B
SM
T
INS
TALL
FU
ME
HO
OD
S &
LA
B C
AS
EW
OR
K L
EV
EL
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 23 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Aut
omat
iA
utom
atic
Tem
pera
ture
Con
trol
s15
314
-Feb
-05
14-S
ep-0
5
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
142
14-F
eb-0
530
-Aug
-05
2042
0R
OU
GH
-IN /
PU
LL W
IRE
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)33
14-F
eb-0
5*30
-Mar
-05
2142
0R
OU
GH
-IN /
PU
LL W
IRE
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)33
04-M
ar-0
5*19
-Apr
-05
2242
0R
OU
GH
-IN /
PU
LL W
IRE
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)33
24-M
ar-0
5*09
-May
-05
2342
0R
OU
GH
-IN /
PU
LL W
IRE
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)29
06-M
ay-0
5*15
-Jun
-05
2084
0IN
STA
LL T
-STA
TS/F
INIS
H L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
222
-Jun
-05*
23-J
un-0
5
2184
0IN
STA
LL T
-STA
TS/F
INIS
H L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
229
-Jun
-05*
30-J
un-0
5
2284
0IN
STA
LL T
-STA
TS/F
INIS
H L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
206
-Jul
-05*
07-J
ul-0
5
2384
0IN
STA
LL T
-STA
TS/F
INIS
H L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
326
-Aug
-05*
30-A
ug-0
5
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g12
328
-Mar
-05
14-S
ep-0
5
3142
0IN
STA
LL/W
IRE
PA
NE
LS A
ND
DE
VIC
ES
BS
MT
ME
R25
28-M
ar-0
5*29
-Apr
-05
2442
0R
OU
GH
-IN /
PU
LL W
IRE
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)36
28-A
pr-0
5*16
-Jun
-05
2542
0R
OU
GH
-IN /
PU
LL W
IRE
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)36
17-M
ay-0
5*05
-Jul
-05
2642
0R
OU
GH
-IN /
PU
LL W
IRE
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)36
03-J
un-0
5*22
-Jul
-05
2742
0R
OU
GH
-IN /
PU
LL W
IRE
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)36
22-J
un-0
5*10
-Aug
-05
2842
0R
OU
GH
-IN /
PU
LL W
IRE
BS
MT
2524
-Jun
-05*
28-J
ul-0
5
2484
0IN
STA
LL T
-STA
TS/F
INIS
H L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
321
-Jul
-05*
25-J
ul-0
5
2584
0IN
STA
LL T
-STA
TS/F
INIS
H L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
305
-Aug
-05*
09-A
ug-0
5
2884
0IN
STA
LL T
-STA
TS/F
INIS
H B
SM
T2
19-A
ug-0
5*22
-Aug
-05
2684
0IN
STA
LL T
-STA
TS/F
INIS
H L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
324
-Aug
-05*
26-A
ug-0
5
2784
0IN
STA
LL T
-STA
TS/F
INIS
H L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
312
-Sep
-05*
14-S
ep-0
5
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
RO
UG
H-IN
/ P
ULL
WIR
E L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
RO
UG
H-IN
/ P
ULL
WIR
E L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
RO
UG
H-IN
/ P
ULL
WIR
E L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
RO
UG
H-IN
/ P
ULL
WIR
E L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
INS
TALL
T-S
TATS
/FIN
ISH
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
INS
TALL
T-S
TATS
/FIN
ISH
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)
INS
TALL
T-S
TATS
/FIN
ISH
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
INS
TALL
T-S
TATS
/FIN
ISH
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)
INS
TALL
/WIR
E P
AN
ELS
AN
D D
EV
ICE
S B
SM
T M
ER
RO
UG
H-IN
/ P
ULL
WIR
E L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
RO
UG
H-IN
/ P
ULL
WIR
E L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
RO
UG
H-IN
/ P
ULL
WIR
E L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
RO
UG
H-IN
/ P
ULL
WIR
E L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
RO
UG
H-IN
/ P
ULL
WIR
E B
SM
T
INS
TALL
T-S
TATS
/FIN
ISH
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
INS
TALL
T-S
TATS
/FIN
ISH
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)
INS
TALL
T-S
TATS
/FIN
ISH
BS
MT
INS
TALL
T-S
TATS
/FIN
ISH
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)
INS
TALL
T-S
TATS
/FIN
ISH
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)
Act
ual W
ork
Rem
aini
ng W
ork
Crit
ical
Rem
aini
ng W
ork
Mile
ston
e
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 24 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Plum
bing
Plum
bing
251
20-S
ep-0
405
-Sep
-05
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
228
20-S
ep-0
403
-Aug
-05
1450
0IN
STA
LL U
ND
ER
SLA
B P
IPIN
G (M
W)
1020
-Sep
-04*
01-O
ct-0
4
2006
0IN
STA
LL/IN
SU
L. A
BO
VE
CE
ILIN
G P
IPIN
G L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
2124
-Dec
-04*
21-J
an-0
5
2106
0IN
STA
LL/IN
SU
L. A
BO
VE
CE
ILIN
G P
IPIN
G L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
2103
-Jan
-05*
31-J
an-0
5
2206
0IN
STA
LL/IN
SU
L. A
BO
VE
CE
ILIN
G P
IPIN
G L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
2111
-Jan
-05*
08-F
eb-0
523
060
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)32
24-J
an-0
5*08
-Mar
-05
2044
0IN
-WA
LL R
OU
GH
-IN L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
1003
-Feb
-05*
16-F
eb-0
5
2144
0IN
-WA
LL R
OU
GH
-IN L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
1023
-Feb
-05*
08-M
ar-0
5
2244
0IN
-WA
LL R
OU
GH
-IN L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
1015
-Mar
-05*
28-M
ar-0
5
2072
0IN
STA
LL/C
ON
NE
CT
FIX
TUR
ES
& L
AB
EQ
UIP
. LE
VE
L 4
(...
307
-Apr
-05*
11-A
pr-0
5
2344
0IN
-WA
LL R
OU
GH
-IN L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
1522
-Apr
-05*
12-M
ay-0
5
2172
0IN
STA
LL/C
ON
NE
CT
FIX
TUR
ES
& L
AB
EQ
UIP
. LE
VE
L 3
(...
327
-Apr
-05*
29-A
pr-0
5
2272
0IN
STA
LL/C
ON
NE
CT
FIX
TUR
ES
& L
AB
EQ
UIP
. LE
VE
L 2
(...
317
-May
-05*
19-M
ay-0
5
2372
0IN
STA
LL/C
ON
NE
CT
FIX
TUR
ES
& L
AB
EQ
UIP
. LE
VE
L 1
(...
528
-Jul
-05*
03-A
ug-0
5
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g24
627
-Sep
-04
05-S
ep-0
514
520
INS
TALL
UN
DE
RS
LAB
PIP
ING
(BW
)10
27-S
ep-0
4*08
-Oct
-04
2406
0IN
STA
LL/IN
SU
L. A
BO
VE
CE
ILIN
G P
IPIN
G L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
2303
-Mar
-05*
04-A
pr-0
5
2506
0IN
STA
LL/IN
SU
L. A
BO
VE
CE
ILIN
G P
IPIN
G L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
2315
-Mar
-05*
14-A
pr-0
526
060
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)23
25-M
ar-0
5*26
-Apr
-05
2706
0IN
STA
LL/IN
SU
L. A
BO
VE
CE
ILIN
G P
IPIN
G L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
2306
-Apr
-05*
06-M
ay-0
5
3144
0P
IPIN
G &
EQ
UIP
ME
NT
BS
MT
ME
R25
06-A
pr-0
5*10
-May
-05
2806
0IN
STA
LL/IN
SU
L. A
BO
VE
CE
ILIN
G P
IPIN
G B
SM
T16
14-A
pr-0
5*05
-May
-05
2444
0IN
-WA
LL R
OU
GH
-IN L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
1020
-Apr
-05*
03-M
ay-0
5
2544
0IN
-WA
LL R
OU
GH
-IN L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
1009
-May
-05*
20-M
ay-0
5
2644
0IN
-WA
LL R
OU
GH
-IN L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
1026
-May
-05*
08-J
un-0
5
2744
0IN
-WA
LL R
OU
GH
-IN L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
1014
-Jun
-05*
27-J
un-0
5
2844
0IN
-WA
LL R
OU
GH
-IN B
SM
T7
20-J
un-0
5*28
-Jun
-05
2472
0IN
STA
LL/C
ON
NE
CT
FIX
TUR
ES
& L
AB
EQ
UIP
. LE
VE
L 4
(...
1029
-Jun
-05*
12-J
ul-0
5
2572
0IN
STA
LL/C
ON
NE
CT
FIX
TUR
ES
& L
AB
EQ
UIP
. LE
VE
L 3
(...
1018
-Jul
-05*
29-J
ul-0
526
720
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
1004
-Aug
-05*
17-A
ug-0
5
2872
0IN
STA
LL/C
ON
NE
CT
FIX
TUR
ES
& L
AB
EQ
UIP
. BS
MT
710
-Aug
-05*
18-A
ug-0
5
2772
0IN
STA
LL/C
ON
NE
CT
FIX
TUR
ES
& L
AB
EQ
UIP
. LE
VE
L 1
(...
1023
-Aug
-05*
05-S
ep-0
5
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
INS
TALL
UN
DE
RS
LAB
PIP
ING
(MW
)
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)
IN-W
ALL
RO
UG
H-IN
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
IN-W
ALL
RO
UG
H-IN
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)
IN-W
ALL
RO
UG
H-IN
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
IN-W
ALL
RO
UG
H-IN
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. L
EV
EL
1
INS
TALL
UN
DE
RS
LAB
PIP
ING
(BW
)
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)
PIP
ING
& E
QU
IPM
EN
T B
SM
T M
ER
INS
TALL
/INS
UL.
AB
OV
E C
EIL
ING
PIP
ING
BS
MT
IN-W
ALL
RO
UG
H-IN
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
IN-W
ALL
RO
UG
H-IN
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)
IN-W
ALL
RO
UG
H-IN
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)
IN-W
ALL
RO
UG
H-IN
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)
IN-W
ALL
RO
UG
H-IN
BS
MT
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. L
EV
EL
4 (B
W
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. L
EV
EL
3
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. L
EV
E
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. B
SM
T
INS
TALL
/CO
NN
EC
T FI
XTU
RE
S &
LA
B E
QU
IP. L
E
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 25 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Fire
Pro
teFi
re P
rote
ctio
n15
518
-Jan
-05
22-A
ug-0
5
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
137
18-J
an-0
527
-Jul
-05
2032
0R
OU
GH
-IN S
PR
INK
LER
PIP
E L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
1018
-Jan
-05*
31-J
an-0
5
2132
0R
OU
GH
-IN S
PR
INK
LER
PIP
E L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
1007
-Feb
-05*
18-F
eb-0
5
2232
0R
OU
GH
-IN S
PR
INK
LER
PIP
E L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
1025
-Feb
-05*
10-M
ar-0
5
2332
0R
OU
GH
-IN S
PR
INK
LER
PIP
E L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
1528
-Mar
-05*
15-A
pr-0
5
2064
0IN
STA
LL S
PR
INK
LER
HE
AD
S L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
531
-Mar
-05*
06-A
pr-0
5
2164
0IN
STA
LL S
PR
INK
LER
HE
AD
S L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
520
-Apr
-05*
26-A
pr-0
5
2264
0IN
STA
LL S
PR
INK
LER
HE
AD
S L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
510
-May
-05*
16-M
ay-0
5
2364
0IN
STA
LL S
PR
INK
LER
HE
AD
S L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
818
-Jul
-05*
27-J
ul-0
5
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g10
628
-Mar
-05
22-A
ug-0
5
2432
0R
OU
GH
-IN S
PR
INK
LER
PIP
E L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
2028
-Mar
-05*
22-A
pr-0
5
2532
0R
OU
GH
-IN S
PR
INK
LER
PIP
E L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
2014
-Apr
-05*
11-M
ay-0
5
2632
0R
OU
GH
-IN S
PR
INK
LER
PIP
E L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
2003
-May
-05*
30-M
ay-0
5
2732
0R
OU
GH
-IN S
PR
INK
LER
PIP
E L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
2020
-May
-05*
16-J
un-0
5
2832
0R
OU
GH
-IN S
PR
INK
LER
PIP
E B
SM
T14
03-J
un-0
5*22
-Jun
-05
2464
0IN
STA
LL S
PR
INK
LER
HE
AD
S L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
1015
-Jun
-05*
28-J
un-0
5
2564
0IN
STA
LL S
PR
INK
LER
HE
AD
S L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
1004
-Jul
-05*
15-J
ul-0
5
2664
0IN
STA
LL S
PR
INK
LER
HE
AD
S L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
1021
-Jul
-05*
03-A
ug-0
5
2864
0IN
STA
LL S
PR
INK
LER
HE
AD
S B
SM
T7
27-J
ul-0
5*04
-Aug
-05
2764
0IN
STA
LL S
PR
INK
LER
HE
AD
S L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
1009
-Aug
-05*
22-A
ug-0
5
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
RO
UG
H-IN
SP
RIN
KLE
R P
IPE
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
SP
RIN
KLE
R P
IPE
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
SP
RIN
KLE
R P
IPE
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
SP
RIN
KLE
R P
IPE
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)
INS
TALL
SP
RIN
KLE
R H
EA
DS
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
INS
TALL
SP
RIN
KLE
R H
EA
DS
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)
INS
TALL
SP
RIN
KLE
R H
EA
DS
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
INS
TALL
SP
RIN
KLE
R H
EA
DS
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
SP
RIN
KLE
R P
IPE
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
SP
RIN
KLE
R P
IPE
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
SP
RIN
KLE
R P
IPE
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
SP
RIN
KLE
R P
IPE
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
SP
RIN
KLE
R P
IPE
BS
MT
INS
TALL
SP
RIN
KLE
R H
EA
DS
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
INS
TALL
SP
RIN
KLE
R H
EA
DS
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)
INS
TALL
SP
RIN
KLE
R H
EA
DS
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)
INS
TALL
SP
RIN
KLE
R H
EA
DS
BS
MT
INS
TALL
SP
RIN
KLE
R H
EA
DS
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 26 -
PS
U S
choo
l of F
ores
t Res
ourc
esS
ched
ule
Sum
mar
y10
/22/
2004
Act
ivity
IDA
ctiv
ity N
ame
Orig
inal
Dur
atio
nS
tart
Fini
sh
Elec
tric
alEl
ectr
ical
246
20-S
ep-0
429
-Aug
-05
Mea
dow
WM
eado
w W
ing
231
20-S
ep-0
408
-Aug
-05
1550
0IN
STA
LL U
ND
ER
SLA
B C
ON
DU
IT (M
W)
1520
-Sep
-04*
08-O
ct-0
4
2028
0R
OU
GH
-IN C
ON
DU
IT L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
3105
-Jan
-05*
16-F
eb-0
5
2128
0R
OU
GH
-IN C
ON
DU
IT L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
3125
-Jan
-05*
08-M
ar-0
5
2228
0R
OU
GH
-IN C
ON
DU
IT L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
3114
-Feb
-05*
28-M
ar-0
5
2930
0M
OU
NT
/ WIR
E P
EN
THO
US
E E
QU
IP. (
MW
)13
18-F
eb-0
5*08
-Mar
-05
2328
0R
OU
GH
-IN C
ON
DU
IT L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
4709
-Mar
-05*
12-M
ay-0
5
2056
0P
ULL
CA
BLE
S /
INS
TALL
FIX
TUR
ES
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)15
24-M
ar-0
5*13
-Apr
-05
2156
0P
ULL
CA
BLE
S /
INS
TALL
FIX
TUR
ES
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)15
13-A
pr-0
5*03
-May
-05
2256
0P
ULL
CA
BLE
S /
INS
TALL
FIX
TUR
ES
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)15
03-M
ay-0
5*23
-May
-05
2356
0P
ULL
CA
BLE
S /
INS
TALL
FIX
TUR
ES
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)24
06-J
ul-0
5*08
-Aug
-05
Big
ler W
inB
igle
r Win
g23
604
-Oct
-04
29-A
ug-0
5
1560
0IN
STA
LL U
ND
ER
SLA
B C
ON
DU
IT (B
W)
3004
-Oct
-04*
12-N
ov-0
4
3110
0S
ET
SW
ITC
HG
EA
R B
SM
T M
ER
1524
-Jan
-05*
11-F
eb-0
5
3026
0M
OU
NT
/ WIR
E P
EN
THO
US
E E
QU
IP. (
BW
)55
25-F
eb-0
5*12
-May
-05
2428
0R
OU
GH
-IN C
ON
DU
IT L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
3615
-Mar
-05*
03-M
ay-0
5
2528
0R
OU
GH
-IN C
ON
DU
IT L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
3601
-Apr
-05*
20-M
ay-0
5
2628
0R
OU
GH
-IN C
ON
DU
IT L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
3620
-Apr
-05*
08-J
un-0
5
2728
0R
OU
GH
-IN C
ON
DU
IT L
EV
EL
1 (B
W)
3609
-May
-05*
27-J
un-0
5
2828
0R
OU
GH
-IN C
ON
DU
IT B
SM
T25
25-M
ay-0
5*28
-Jun
-05
2456
0P
ULL
CA
BLE
S /
INS
TALL
FIX
TUR
ES
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)20
08-J
un-0
5*05
-Jul
-05
2556
0P
ULL
CA
BLE
S /
INS
TALL
FIX
TUR
ES
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)20
27-J
un-0
5*22
-Jul
-05
2656
0P
ULL
CA
BLE
S /
INS
TALL
FIX
TUR
ES
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)20
14-J
ul-0
5*10
-Aug
-05
2856
0P
ULL
CA
BLE
S /
INS
TALL
FIX
TUR
ES
BS
MT
1622
-Jul
-05*
12-A
ug-0
5
2756
0P
ULL
CA
BLE
S /
INS
TALL
FIX
TUR
ES
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)20
02-A
ug-0
5*29
-Aug
-05
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
2005
2006
INS
TALL
UN
DE
RS
LAB
CO
ND
UIT
(MW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
CO
ND
UIT
LE
VE
L 4
(MW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
CO
ND
UIT
LE
VE
L 3
(MW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
CO
ND
UIT
LE
VE
L 2
(MW
)
MO
UN
T / W
IRE
PE
NTH
OU
SE
EQ
UIP
. (M
W)
RO
UG
H-IN
CO
ND
UIT
LE
VE
L 1
(MW
)
PU
LL C
AB
LES
/ IN
STA
LL F
IXTU
RE
S L
EV
EL
4 (M
W)
PU
LL C
AB
LES
/ IN
STA
LL F
IXTU
RE
S L
EV
EL
3 (M
W)
PU
LL C
AB
LES
/ IN
STA
LL F
IXTU
RE
S L
EV
EL
2 (M
W)
PU
LL C
AB
LES
/ IN
STA
LL F
IXTU
RE
S L
EV
EL
1 (M
W)
INS
TALL
UN
DE
RS
LAB
CO
ND
UIT
(BW
)
SE
T S
WIT
CH
GE
AR
BS
MT
ME
R
MO
UN
T / W
IRE
PE
NTH
OU
SE
EQ
UIP
. (B
W)
RO
UG
H-IN
CO
ND
UIT
LE
VE
L 4
(BW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
CO
ND
UIT
LE
VE
L 3
(BW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
CO
ND
UIT
LE
VE
L 2
(BW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
CO
ND
UIT
LE
VE
L 1
(BW
)
RO
UG
H-IN
CO
ND
UIT
BS
MT
PU
LL C
AB
LES
/ IN
STA
LL F
IXTU
RE
S L
EV
EL
4 (B
W)
PU
LL C
AB
LES
/ IN
STA
LL F
IXTU
RE
S L
EV
EL
3 (B
W)
PU
LL C
AB
LES
/ IN
STA
LL F
IXTU
RE
S L
EV
EL
2 (B
W)
PU
LL C
AB
LES
/ IN
STA
LL F
IXTU
RE
S B
SM
T
PU
LL C
AB
LES
/ IN
STA
LL F
IXTU
RE
S L
EV
EL
1 (B
W
Con
sulta
nt:
Dr.
Mes
sner
Bria
n H
orn
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anag
emen
t
- 27 -
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 28 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Project Cost Evaluation Construction Costs: $21,468,969 Construction Costs / SF: $233.36
*Construction Costs do not include landscape/hardscape or site electrical, which are being bid as a separate package for the entire East Sub-Campus.
Total Project Costs: $27,000,000 Total Project Costs / SF: $293.48 Structural System Costs: $6,012,477 Structural System Costs / SF: $65.35 *Structural System Costs include piles, concrete, and structural steel. Mechanical System Costs: $5,053,218 Mechanical System Costs / SF: $54.93 *Mechanical System Costs include HVAC, plumbing, and fire protection. Electrical System Costs: $1,704,900 Electrical System Costs / SF: $18.53 For a DGS project the architect typically receives 4.5 – 5% of final construction costs. For this estimate design fees would be approximately: $1,030,000 Soft Costs for PSU typically run 17-19% of construction costs for similar projects. For this estimate soft costs would be approximately: $3,600,000 *Soft Costs typically include contingency, CM fees, mobilization, and FF+E. Project Estimate using D4 Software: $17,087,396 Project Estimate using D4 Software / SF: $185.73 *See attached spreadsheet for D4 Cost breakdown. Square Foot estimate using R.S. Means: $12,024,400 Square Foot estimate using R.S. Means / SF: $130.70 *See attached data for adjustments and calculations of R.S. Means data. As evidenced by the above numbers, the D4 estimate and the Means estimate both came out low. Trying to find similar buildings in the D4 software was difficult and this could be a reason for the low number. When using the Means guide one must be careful because there are many items that are left out of the square foot cost. In order to use Means effectively special care must be given to adjusting and adding the correct specifications for your specific project. With D4 the percentages of the project taken up by different systems remained similar to the actual construction cost percentages.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 29 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
PSU SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES D4 COST SUMMARY
Code Division Name % Sq. Cost Projected
00 Bidding Requirements 3.30 6.13 563,539
01 General Requirements 5.03 9.34 858,994
02 Site Work 9.85 18.29 1,682,949
03 Concrete 8.80 16.35 1,504,509
04 Masonry 3.01 5.58 513,816
05 Metals 11.21 20.83 1,916,011
06 Wood & Plastics 2.10 3.90 359,043
07 Thermal & Moisture Protection 2.77 5.14 472,680
08 Doors & Windows 6.93 12.87 1,184,451
09 Finishes 7.50 13.93 1,281,837
10 Specialties 0.81 1.50 137,845
11 Equipment 5.33 9.90 910,673
12 Furnishings 0.93 1.73 159,065
13 Special Construction 0.40 0.73 67,582
14 Conveying Systems 1.36 2.54 233,237
15 Mechanical 18.05 33.52 3,083,773
16 Electrical 12.63 23.45 2,157,392 Total Building Costs 100.00 185.73 17,087,396
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 30 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
PSU SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES R.S. MEANS SQUARE FOOT CALCULATIONS
Building: Penn State School of Forest Resources Building Use: Laboratory, Offices and Classrooms Year Built: 2004-2005 Area: 92,000 S.F. Ground Floor: 20,000 S.F. # of Stories: 4 Story Height: 14'-0" Perimeter: 800 L.F. Basement Area: 10,000 S.F. Model Used: M.150 - College, Laboratory
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT
MODEL SF
COST
NEW SF
COST +/-
CHANGEA. SUBSTRUCTURE 1010 Standard Foundations S.F. Gnd. 2.19 2.19 - 1010 Foundation Damproofing L.F. Walls - 0.16 0.16 1030 Slab on Grade: reinforced: 60%=8", 40%=6" S.F. Slab 3.65 1.18 -2.47 2010 Building Excavation S.F. Gnd. 0.14 3.42 3.28 2020 Basement Walls L.F. Walls 4.47 1.29 -3.18 B. SHELL B10 Superstructure 1010 Floor Construction: composite deck on W shapes S.F. Floor 1.33 9.96 8.63 1020 Roof Construction: steel deck on W shapes S.F. Roof 2.71 1.15 -1.56 B20 Exterior Enclosure 2010 Exterior Walls: brick veneer w/ metal stud backup S.F. Walls 4.10 5.74 1.64 2020 Exterior Windows: 35% curtain wall and window S.F. Walls 1.87 3.95 2.08 2030 Exterior Doors Each 1.31 0.41 -0.90 B30 Roofing 3010 Roof Coverings: single ply membrane S.F. Roof 3.74 0.75 -2.99 3020 Roof Openings: skylights and hatches S.F. Roof 0.20 0.33 0.13 C. INTERIORS 1010 Partitions: metal stud w/ drywall S.F. Floor 8.35 3.55 -4.80 1020 Interior Doors Each 0.87 1.06 0.19 1030 Lockers S.F. Floor 0.30 0.30 - 2010 Stair Construction Each - 0.81 0.81 3010 Wall Finishes S.F. Walls 4.52 4.52 - 3020 Floor Finishes S.F. Floor 4.79 5.12 0.33 3030 Ceiling Finishes S.F. Floor 3.52 4.00 0.48
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 31 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
D. SERVICES D10 Conveying 1010 Elevators Each - 3.53 3.53 D20 Plumbing 2010 Plumbing Fixtures Each 14.48 14.48 - 2020 Domestic Water Distribution S.F. Floor 0.75 0.82 0.07 2030 Roof Drains S.F. Roof 0.67 0.67 - D30 HVAC 3050 Handling Units S.F. Floor 15.50 15.50 - 3060 Ductwork S.F. Floor - 12.45 12.45 D40 Fire Protection 4010 Sprinklers: light hazard S.F. Floor 1.67 1.67 - D50 Electrical 5010 Electrical Service S.F. Floor 1.34 1.34 - 5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring S.F. Floor 7.91 7.91 - 5030 Alarm systems and emergency lighting S.F. Floor 0.53 0.82 0.29 5090 Emergency generator S.F. Floor 0.07 0.00 -0.07 E. EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS 1020 Institutional Equipment S.F. Floor 1.03 1.03 - F. SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION N / A - - - - G. SITEWORK N / A - - - - SUB-TOTAL 91.74 109.84 18.10 Contractor Fees: 25% 22.94 27.46 4.52 Architect Fees: 10% 11.47 13.73 2.26 TOTAL BUILDING COST 126.15 151.03 24.88
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 32 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Model Costs: 114.50 Perimeter Adjustment: -5.25 Story Height Adjustment: 1.10 Basement: ($21.60 * 10,000 SF)/(92,000 SF) 2.35 Specification Adjustment: 24.88 Total S.F. Costs 137.58 Location Factor (0.95) 130.70 Total Building Cost $12,024,400
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 33 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Site Layout Planning
Planning the site layout for the Forest Resources Building is difficult for
several reasons. First, it is a very small and congested site especially with three
other projects being built on the same site. Also, the site continues to grow smaller
throughout the project, as the landscaping for the entire east sub-campus is
completed in phases. At the start of the project, most of the site is set up and being
used by Gilbane to manage the construction of the Smeal College of Business
Building. For Forest Resources, we can take over some of the parking areas to add
trade trailers and the Gilbane office trailer is for use by the entire site. There is also
room in the south-east corner of the Forestry site for the trade trailers that will be on
site for the entire duration of the project, such as MEP and General Trades, and for
LEED dumpsters as needed.
In May of 2005, the Meadow area becomes closed to us because that is the
first phase in the landscape/hardscape package. Most of the Smeal and Forestry
trade trailers should be gone from this area by then, and the Gilbane office and OCIP
medical trailer will be moved down across Curtin Road for the remainder of the
projects. Two of the biggest obstacles on the Forestry site, are the drainage basin in
the north-east corner, which makes a lot of the space unusable, and the double gate
to the South needed to cross the pedestrian walkway and get from one part of the
site to the other.
Only half of the building requires excavation and there will be enough room to
sufficiently bench the excavation back for safety. A ramp will be dug on the East side
of the building in order to allow access to the excavation area. All material removed
will be hauled off site and recycled per LEED specifications. During the
superstructure phase, one large crawler crane will be used to erect the steel. Steel
erection will begin on the West end of the building and continue East then North. To
complete the building during the finishes phase all LEED dumpsters will be needed
and two general refuse dumpsters will be set up with trash chutes from the building.
- 34 -
- 35 -
- 36 -
- 37 -
- 38 -
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
A N A L Y S I S
O N E
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 34 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Analysis 1
LEED Analysis of Laboratory Buildings Background
The LEED program (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
established by the U.S. Green Building Council is becoming the standard by which
universities and other institutions rate their buildings. The Pennsylvania State
University has begun an initiative to design and construct buildings that meet LEED
rating requirements. The new School of Forest Resources building is the second
building being built on campus that is attempting to obtain a LEED certification. The
goal for the building is to reach a LEED certification, which is the lowest of the four
classifications for LEED rated buildings. In the LEED rating system there are 69 total
points available for a building to earn. By earning 26-32 points the building receives
a LEED certification. Earning 33 - 38 points will give the building a Silver LEED
certification, 39-51 points will give it a Gold LEED certification, and by receiving more
than 52 points, the building will be awarded a Platinum LEED certification.
Designing and constructing a sustainable or LEED rated building has many
benefits. A sustainable building can greatly reduce the energy costs associated with
heating and cooling. By increasing the overall energy efficiency of the building, which
is worth 2 LEED points can save between $20,000 and $120,000 annually for a
typical 100,000 square foot commercial building. In a classroom setting the
increased air and daylight quality from a sustainable building has been shown to
increase learning and comprehension 20 – 26% and class attendance can rise 1.6 –
1.9%. Another major benefit of a sustainable building is the savings from decreased
water consumption. A typical 100,000 square foot commercial building can save
upwards of 1,000,000 gallons of water per year.
Green or sustainable buildings are commonly perceived to cost much more
than conventional buildings. The increased costs associated with sustainable design
have been dropping in the last few years and will continue to fall as experience in
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 35 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
designing and constructing sustainable buildings increases. The development of new
and better materials and installation procedures also helps to reduce the cost of
sustainable designs. In order to calculate the added costs of sustainable buildings
the USGBC conducted a survey of 33 LEED certified office and school buildings
across the United States and compared the construction costs to the cost of the
conventional design. The results are summarized in the graph below.
As you can see from the graph the cost of obtaining a LEED Certification can
average below 1% of the total building cost. For a typical building this 1% increase in
cost amounts to less than $2 / square foot. There have also been several examples
where a LEED certification added 0% to the total construction cost. When designing
a LEED rated laboratory building these premiums paid for LEED certification tend to
increase due to the added complexities of the lab requirements, but generally the
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 36 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
earlier green building features are incorporated into the design, the lower the cost
will be.
Problem One of the challenges when designing the Forest Resources building to be a
LEED rated building is the laboratory spaces in the building. Unfortunately,
laboratories, with their built-in demand for power, water, and other resources, find it
harder to meet the standards crafted for less intensive kinds of buildings, such as
offices. Labs have different occupancy densities and patterns, different waste and
recycling profiles, different ventilation rates, and different energy loads. These added
demands can drive the cost of incorporating sustainability up and shy owners away
from the idea of LEED certification.
Solution One remedy for this problem is a new initiative by USGBC called the LEED
Application Guide for Laboratory Facilities. This guide would modify some of the
LEED credits and provide suggestions on implementing the credits specifically for
laboratory and research facilities. Even without the new application guide,
laboratories have been achieving LEED
certifications and one in particular is
being called the “greenest laboratory
building in the United States.” The
Donald Bren Hall at the University of
California, Santa Barbara campus
(pictured at right) was completed in April
2002 with a platinum LEED certification.
At the time of completion it was one of only four platinum buildings in the U.S. and is
being used as a model for facilities on campuses across the country. Bren Hall is an
84,000 square foot four story facility with approximately 25% of the space devoted to
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 37 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
laboratories. Because the size and distribution of spaces correlate closely to the
Forest Resources building, Bren Hall will be used as an example of now the Forest
Resources building may be able to obtain additional LEED credit points.
Based on the current design of the Forest resources building there are 32
LEED credit points that the project could obtain. The University’s goal is to achieve at
least 26 of these design points to earn the project a LEED certification. The following
table provides the list of all 69 possible points and highlights which credits the Forest
Resources building is attempting, which credits would be possible with little or no
cost, and which credits are cost prohibitive or unattainable.
Credit Description Points Planned
Possible With
Little or No
Added Cost
Not Possible Without Large Added Cost
Sustainable Sites Prereq. 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control 0 X
1 Site Selection 1 X 2 Development Density 1 X 3 Brownfield Development 1 X
4.1 Alternative Transportation -Public Transportation Access
1 X
4.2 Alternative Transportation - Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms
1 X
4.3 Alternative Transportation - Alternative Fuel Vehicles
1 X
4.4 Alternative Transportation - Parking Capacity 1 X
5.1 Reduced Site Disturbance - Protect or Restore Open Space
1 X
5.2 Reduced Site Disturbance - Development Footprint
1 X
6.1 Stormwater Management - Rate and Quantity 1 X
6.2 Stormwater Management - Treatment 1 X 7.1 Heat Island Effect - Non-Roof 1 X
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 38 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
7.2 Heat Island Effect - Roof 1 X 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 X
Water Efficiency
1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping - 50% Reduction 1 X
1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping - No Potable Use or No Irrigation
1 X
2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 X 3.1 Water Use Reduction - 20% Reduction 1 X 3.2 Water Use Reduction - 30% Reduction 1 X
Energy & Atmosphere
Prereq. 1 Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning 0 X
Prereq. 2 Minimum Energy Performance 0 X Prereq. 3 CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment 0 X
1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 - 10 X 2.1 Renewable Energy - 5% 1 X 2.2 Renewable Energy - 10% 1 X 2.3 Renewable Energy - 20% 1 X 3 Additional Commissioning 1 X 4 Ozone Protection 1 X 5 Measurement and Verification 1 X 6 Green Power 1 X
Materials & Resources Prereq. 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables 0 X
1.1 Building Reuse - Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof
1 X
1.2 Building Reuse - Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof
1 X
1.3 Building Reuse - Maintain 100% of Shell / Structure and 50% of Non-Shell / Non-Structure
1 X
2.1 Construction Waste Management - Divert 50% From Landfill
1 X
2.2 Construction Waste Management - Divert 75% From Landfill
1 X
3.1 Resource Reuse - 5% 1 X 3.2 Resource Reuse - 10% 1 X
4.1 Recycled Content - 5% (post-consumer + 1/2 post-industrial)
1 X
4.2 Recycled Content - 10% (post-consumer + 1/2 post-industrial)
1 X
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 39 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
5.1 Regional Materials - 20% Manufactured Regionally 1 X
5.2 Regional Materials - 50% Manufactured Regionally 1 X
6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 X 7 Certified Wood 1 X
Indoor Environmental Quality Prereq. 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance 0 X
Prereq. 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control 0 X
1 Carbon Dioxide Monitoring 1 X 2 Ventilation Effectiveness 1 X
3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan - During Construction
1 X
3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan - Before Occupancy
1 X
4.1 Low-Emitting Materials - Adhesives and Sealants 1 X
4.2 Low-Emitting Materials - Paints and Coatings 1 X
4.3 Low-Emitting Materials - Carpet 1 X 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials - Composite Wood 1 X
5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 X
6.1 Controllability of Systems - Perimeter Spaces 1 X
6.2 Controllability of Systems - Non-Perimeter Spaces 1 X
7.1 Thermal Comfort - Compliance with ASHRAE 55-1992
1 X
7.2 Thermal Comfort - Permanent Monitoring System 1 X
8.1 Daylight and Views - Daylight 75% of Spaces 1 X
8.2 Daylight and Views - Views for 90% of Spaces 1 X
Innovation & Design Process
1.1 Green Building Education 1 X 1.2 Disease-Resistant Elm Trees 1 X 1.3 Central Plant Efficiencies 1 X 1.4 Innovation in Design 1 X 2 LEED Accredited Professional 1 X TOTALS 69 32 10 27
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 40 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
As the above chart shows the Forest Resources building could receive a Silver
LEED certification by incorporating all of the planned credits and adding only one
more point. For a laboratory building, receiving a LEED certification or a Silver LEED
certification can be done much the same way as a typical commercial building, but to
elevate a laboratory building to the Gold or Platinum LEED certification level some
special design and innovative techniques will need to be employed.
The largest credit for LEED rating can come from optimizing energy
performance. Ten points are available if the building’s energy use is reduced by
60%. Bren Hall used several techniques to minimize that building’s energy use.
There was a 240 panel 42-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system installed on the roof.
This system generates approximately 10% of the building’s total energy use.
Installing these solar panels on the Forest Resources building could be done for
around $100,000. Each panel costs around $300 dollars plus the installation cost.
Bren Hall also uses an innovative VAV system for its laboratory spaces. Phoenix air
valves open and close based upon demand, which ensures maximum energy
efficiency. Coupled with these air valves the three exhaust stacks for the laboratory
wing are built in three increasing sizes and the stacks are staged based on demand
for exhaust. This staging upon demand greatly reduces energy consumption. Of
course these systems such as VAV and solar power also require additional monitoring
devices, design time, coordination, and installation time. Many of the LEED credit
points for energy efficiency listed for the Forest Resources building as cost prohibitive
would be cheaper if incorporated with the original design. The additional cost of
some specialized equipment would still apply, but the design and coordination of
energy efficient systems would be cheaper than trying to “retrofit” the current
systems to be energy efficient.
Water efficiency is another category that the Forest Resources building could
gain valuable LEED points in. The difficulty for the Forest Resources building is that
several of the points involve water efficient landscaping. The landscaping around the
building is not part of the Forest Resources project and it was designed as a separate
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 41 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
contract for the entire East Sub-Campus. When the landscaping was originally
designed, no special care was taken to ensure that it met the LEED criteria for water
efficiency. Several credits could be incorporated relatively cheaply into the
landscape design in order to earn more LEED credit points for the Forest Resources
building. Although Forest Resources reduces its water consumption by 20%, worth
one LEED point, by using water efficient toilets and infrared sensors on faucets, this
could be increased for an additional point. Bren Hall uses a rainwater reclamation
system for irrigation and for use in the toilets. This system cost around $70,000
dollars when installed in Bren Hall. Waterless urinals were also installed in Bren Hall
and these could be used in the Forest Resources building for little additional cost. It
is estimated that each waterless urinal could save 40,000 gallons of water per year.
Several LEED credit points that could easily be obtained for the Forest
Resources project deal with recycling. The goal for this project is to recycle 50% of
the construction waste, but by increasing this to 75% an additional LEED point would
be earned. The cost of recycling materials would not be increased because the
planning and facilities are already in place to handle 50% of the construction waste.
By using more recycled materials within the building could also earn some LEED
points. While the cost of using recycled materials is generally higher, the costs are
not prohibitive and are rapidly falling. Many materials such as roofing, carpet,
aluminum door and window frames, and glass that are made from recycled materials
could easily be implemented into the project.
Conclusion Sustainability is the future of buildings and construction projects. As
Americans continue to examine the damages they do to the environment, green
buildings and the LEED rating system will continue to play an increasingly important
role in how people interact with their surroundings. Designing a building to be more
sustainable or to fall within the LEED rating system has many benefits over
conventional buildings. Not only is money saved over the life of the building, but
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 42 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
green architecture helps to ensure that a healthy environment will be here for future
generations. The biggest reason not to design a sustainable building is the perceived
added cost. As this report shows, however, the costs can be very minimal and easily
recouped in energy and water savings over the life of the building. For example, Bren
Hall achieved a platinum LEED certification for 4.8% of the construction costs, which
is around $900,000. Owners of Bren Hall also estimated that a LEED Silver rating
could have been reached for no additional cost. Sustainable aspects should be
incorporated into the design and construction process from the very beginning in
order to minimize the premiums for a LEED rated building. For the 33 buildings
studied by the USGBC the average premium for receiving a LEED certification, across
all levels, was 2% or about $3-$5 / square foot for a typical 100,000 square foot
commercial building. In comparison to this upfront cost, the savings associated with
Gold or Platinum LEED certified buildings are $75 / square foot over a conservative
20 year lifespan for the building.
Penn State University is beginning to take steps in the right direction with the
Forest Resources building. Many sustainable design ideas were incorporated into
the project from the beginning, but even with the added demands of laboratory
space, the Forest Resources building could obtain a Silver or even Gold LEED rating
at a low premium. Incorporating a Variable Air Volume (VAV) system for the labs
would be an important addition for energy savings, and this option is examined later
in the report.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
A N A L Y S I S
T WO
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 43 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Analysis 2
Variable Air Volume vs. Constant Volume for Laboratories Background
Incorporating sustainability into any building is becoming increasingly
important. One key to a sustainable building is reduced energy use, and a good
method for achieving this is a Variable Air Volume (VAV) system. The major
advantage of a VAV system is the energy savings that result due to reduced load
operation. The system varies the amount of air supplied to specific areas of a
building based on demand. The energy crisis of the 1970s significantly advanced the
development of these systems. Rather than adjusting the temperature of incoming
air to achieve desired conditions, a VAV system alters the amount of air entering or
leaving a space. VAV systems are now used extensively in modern office buildings,
but when designing for laboratory spaces several important issues arise that must be
considered. The Forest Resources building utilizes a VAV system for the offices and
classrooms, but the lab areas are designed with a constant volume system. A large
energy use reduction could be seen by installing a VAV system for the laboratories as
well.
Problem
Variable Air Volume systems do have some disadvantages whether used for
laboratories or simple office buildings. Many VAV designs neglect the maintaining of
reasonable building pressures, which can cause excessive infiltration or exfiltration of
air. This problem is especially pertinent to laboratory design because labs are
required to meet guidelines for maintaining negative pressure in order to eliminate
the exfiltration of chemicals into the surrounding areas. Laboratory ventilation is
provided by a once-through HVAC system, meaning 100% of the air supplied to the
lab is exhausted and therefore must be replenished from outdoor air. This outdoor
air must be fully conditioned, usually 24 hours a day, year round. This fact causes
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 44 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
the high energy demands for laboratories. Utilizing a VAV system for laboratories is
possible and has been used in many buildings across the country, although it can be
more difficult and special considerations are needed.
Solution Variable Air Volume technology has been adapted to the laboratory setting to
provide sophisticated exhaust and supply tracking systems that dramatically lower
energy consumption while meeting all ventilation requirements. A laboratory fume
hood has a movable sash and the containment of harmful fumes is maintained by
providing constant air flow through the sash opening. If the sash is fully open, more
air is required to maintain a minimum safe airflow than if the sash is closed. The
most important part of a VAV system for laboratories is controlling the discharge of
air through the hood. A VAV laboratory hood exhaust system will automatically vary
the airflow based on the position of the sash. The exhaust system also needs to be
interconnected with the supply air system in order to maintain space pressure and
ensure adequate makeup air for the hood under all conditions.
In order to control the air being exhausted and supplied a variable frequency
drive (VFD) may be used to alter the fan speeds for large parts of the system which
service multiple rooms, but individual runs of duct will need to have air flow control
valves to control the flow to individual rooms. Valves that control the exhaust flow
from fume hoods and the air
supplied to individual rooms are a
necessary part of the VAV system.
The valves on the exhaust system
will also need to be wired to a
monitoring device in order to
determine sash position and
required airflow. Even more
control wiring is needed to link the exhaust air valves with the supply valves and
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 45 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
VFDs to maintain proper pressure. If more air is supplied to the room than is
exhausted, the lab will be under positive pressure and air will leak out into
surrounding areas. Phoenix Controls Corporation is the recognized leader in the
design of airflow control systems for VAV laboratory uses. Phoenix Controls produces
an entire line of control valves used for both the exhaust air and supply air. Several
models of their Accel II Series valves are pictured on the previous page. They are
available in many sizes and finishes and they’re unique ultra-quiet conical design
reduces or even eliminates the need for sound attenuators.
After the control valves for a VAV system are installed monitoring devices and
control wiring must be installed. These typically include a thermostat, humidity
meter, and pressure sensor for the room, to control the supply air, as well as a fume
hood monitoring device, to control the exhaust air. Phoenix Controls has several
models of monitoring devices for rooms and for fume hoods. The diagram below
shows the arrangement of a fume hood, with typical exhaust valve and monitoring
device. The monitoring device will calculate the face velocity needed for proper
exhaust based on sash position and will relay this information to the exhaust valve
and the supply valves.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 46 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
These monitoring devices cost around $400 each depending on the model.
When considering the cost of a VAV system, the valves and monitors must be
considered as well as the additional control wiring needed and usually a central
monitoring program that oversees the entire system from a computer network. The
researchers in the lab must also play an integral role in saving energy by closing the
fume hood sash when not in use. If the sash is kept open at all times, even when not
in use, the flow air will not be reduced and the VAV system would function like a
typical constant volume system with no energy savings. The energy savings for VAV
fume hoods compared to conventional constant volume hoods is an average of 80%
reduction in exhaust fan energy. These savings assume that the hoods are closed
when not in use. The following diagram shows the arrangement of control valves and
wring needed in a typical laboratory VAV system.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 47 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Another difficulty in implementing a VAV system for laboratories is the need
for conditions in the lab to remain constant for certain experiments. Typically if a
room is unoccupied the air flow rate will be reduced causing the temperature and
humidity to fluctuate. There are also certain hours of the day where the air flow is
automatically reduced. This is known as a nighttime setback. When scientists leave
experiments running overnight or for extended periods of time, they often require the
conditions in the room to remain constant. In order to maintain constant conditions
in a laboratory, an override switch can be installed that would override the VAV
system and keep the conditions at a normal level. Several problems arise when
using a nighttime override switch, however. First and foremost, the researcher must
remember to use the switch when they are leaving for the night and have an
experiment running. This task can become bothersome for the researchers and
often they will keep the system in permanent override so that they do not need to use
the switch each time it is needed. This practice of leaving the switch on or even
taping it down permanently completely defeats the purpose of the VAV system and
energy costs would not be lowered.
The initial cost of utilizing a VAV system appears to be higher due to added air
valves, VFDs, monitoring devices, and control wiring, but much of the equipment
needed for a constant volume system, such as the air handling units may be reduced
in size, saving money on the initial cost. Even when the initial cost of installing a VAV
system is greater than that of a constant volume system, the difference can easily be
recovered in energy savings throughout the life of the building. Using a VAV system in
laboratories can reduce the energy costs as much as $2 / square foot. This
represents at least a 20% savings on electricity, as the typical use for a laboratory is
$5 – $10 / square foot per year. Another method for determining the cost of a VAV
system versus a constant volume system is to perform a life cycle analysis. This
takes into consideration the initial cost of the system as well as energy and
maintenance costs over a fixed period of time. A detailed life cycle cost analysis can
be found in Appendix A. When evaluated over a 20 year life span, the VAV system
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 48 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
proves to be a better investment, and the 50 year life cycle analysis shows that the
longer the system is in use the greater the savings become, relative to a constant
volume system.
Conclusion As discussed earlier, sustainability is an important design feature of many
new buildings. One way to design a more sustainable building is to reduce the
energy usage. A Variable Air Volume system is an excellent way to reduce usage. In
almost all situations a VAV system will save the owner money. Initial costs will most
likely be higher, but a properly designed, maintained, and used VAV system will
provide savings on energy costs over its lifetime. For a laboratory building, the
equipment and controls needed will be more sophisticated, but the technology does
exist to provide a well functioning system. The designer must keep in mind the air
flow and pressure requirements of the space, but these should not jeopardize the
use of a VAV system. Installation of the VAV system will take longer and provisions
should be made in the construction schedule for the added equipment and control
wiring needed. For the Forest Resources building, at least half of the building is
already utilizing a VAV system, so converting the lab spaces to be VAV would be a
likely choice. This will not only reduce the costs associated with energy use, but it will
help the building to obtain additional LEED credit points. When using a VAV system,
there are many additional features that can be added to increase the energy savings.
Using an enthalpy wheel to preheat the incoming air from the exhaust air is just one
option, but all options should be evaluated to determine their savings versus their
initial cost. In most cases these upgrades prove to save energy over the life of the
building.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
A N A L Y S I S
T H R E E
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 49 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Analysis 3
Immersive Virtual Modeling for MEP Coordination Background
When looking at the entire process of constructing a building, from the design
phase through construction and turnover to the owner, one of the largest tasks for
the construction manager is coordination. The construction manager often serves as
the coordinator between all transactions and activities that take place on a
construction site. During this seemingly endless coordination one specific type of
coordination stands out as exceptionally troublesome. This is the coordination
between all of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing contractors. Known as MEP
(Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing) coordination, this process involves trying to locate
all of the critical elements that supply heat, air conditioning, waste removal, water,
electricity, fire protection, and telecommunications to all parts of the building, in a
typically tiny space above ceilings and between walls. When coordinating laboratory
spaces, such as those found in the Forest Resources building, there can be
additional challenges due to the added systems needed to properly control a lab.
Traditionally coordinating the MEP work has been done with 2D drawings.
This can be especially difficult because most of the pipes and ducts have other pipes
or conduit running above and below them. These elevations cannot be visualized on
the typical 2D drawings. Relatively recently in the construction industry, 3D CAD has
made its way into the MEP coordination process and can ease the process greatly by
quickly representing the elevations and locations of the elements. Other technology
beyond the scope of 3D CAD drawings is also making its way into the construction
industry and can further ease the burden of MEP coordination.
Using immersive environments to view 3D models can increase the
effectiveness of these models. In order to view models in stereo the file is written in
a language known as Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML). This VRML file has
several advantages. First it can be viewed in stereo in an immersive environment to
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 50 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
allow one to walk through the model at full scale and examine parts from all angles.
Second, the VRML file is smaller than the CAD file it came from and makes sending
and receiving the model easier. Finally, the model can be viewed in 3D using any
web browser. No special programs, including the original program that created the
model, are needed to view the model.
The goal of working with VRML models is to reduce the time needed to identify
and work out coordination problems. By using the virtual reality models and the
immersive environments laboratory instead of the typical 2D drawings, walking
through and examining the model the first time should catch more problems than the
initial look at the 2D drawings. Rather than having various layers of drawings to
search through, all equipment, piping, ductwork, and conduit will be in the same
model at the correct elevations, and interferences will be easily spotted.
Creating a more detailed 3D or VRML model in the beginning of the
coordination process will obviously take more time and skill than traditional drafting.
The goal is to make up for this time and money and saving even more during the
construction process. If all items can go into place with no problems it will eliminate
the need for change orders and delays in the work. The only real problems with using
stereo VRML models for coordination is the facilities needed to best view the models.
These facilities can be expensive and large and may hinder the acceptance of this
technology into the construction industry. As technology continues to increase, these
processes and modeling techniques will become more acceptable and widely used in
the industry.
Research Creating a more detailed 3D or VRML model in the beginning of the
coordination process will take more time and skill than traditional drafting. The goal
is to make up for this time and money and save even more during the construction
process. If all items can go into place with no problems it will eliminate the need for
change orders and delays in the work. The only real problems with using stereo
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 51 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
VRML models for coordination is the facilities needed to best view the models. These
facilities can be expensive and large and may hinder the acceptance of this
technology into the construction industry. As technology continues to increase, these
processes and modeling techniques will become more acceptable and widely used in
the industry.
In order to conduct research on the uses of immersive virtual models for the
MEP coordination process, a 3D
model of a typical laboratory space in
the Forest Resources building was
created. This model was then
converted to VRML format and taken
to the Immersive Environments Lab
on campus. The Immersive
Environments Lab (pictured at right)
is a three screen panoramic display
that uses six projectors and polarized light to create an immersive viewing
environment in stereoscopic 3D.
A view of the model is shown in Image 1 on the following page. A version of
the model with transparent walls (Image 2) was also created to show the systems
without interference from the walls. The model can be navigated using an avatar
(Image 3) to give size perspectives or without for focusing on specific areas (Image
4). Image 5 shows an area with difficult duct coordination that can quickly and easily
be visualized using the model. Image 6 and 7 both show areas where collisions were
detected in the model. In Image 6 the pipes run through a piece of ductwork and the
model makes it easy to see that the elevation of the pipes will need to be adjusted.
Image 7 shows the collision of a supply diffuser and an exhaust grille. The ductwork
on the coordination drawings did not overlap, but the ability to show the grilles in the
immersive model clearly shows the collision.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 52 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Image 1: VRML Model
Image 2: VRML Model with Transparent Walls
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 53 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Image 3: VRML Model with Avatar
Image 4: VRML Model Examining Specific Area
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 54 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Image 5: VRML Model Showing Difficult Duct Coordination
Image 6: VRML Model Showing Collision
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 55 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Image 7: VRML Model Showing Grille Collision
In order to get feedback from industry professionals, contractors and
coordinators in MEP trades from the East Sub-Campus were invited to the Immersive
Environments Lab to view the model and complete a short survey. The survey was
intended to learn whether an immersive virtual model could ease the MEP
coordination process by reducing the time needed to detect and resolve conflicts. A
copy of the full survey can be found in Appendix B. The professionals surveyed had
varying backgrounds and years of experience, but only half of them had ever used 3D
modeling or advanced visualization on a previous project. Nine industry
professionals completed the survey and some of the key results are tabulated in the
following charts.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 56 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Visualizing the layout and elevations of duct and piping is easier with the immersive
virtual model than with traditional 2D drawings:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree 5 4
Using an immersive virtual model could speed up the MEP coordination process:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree 3 5 1
Using an immersive virtual model during the MEP coordination process could help
avoid delays during construction:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree 1 7 1
The immersive virtual model could be a valuable communication tool on the project:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree 2 4 3
The Immersive Environments Lab would be a good place to hold MEP coordination
meetings:
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree 1 7 1
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 57 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
The responses to the above questions clearly indicate that the immersive
model gives a better picture of the layout and elevations for all components better
than traditional 2D drawings. The responses also indicate that using a model during
the MEP coordination process could save coordination and construction time. Using
the Immersive Environments Lab for coordination meetings would allow all trades to
view the area they were working with and quickly spot conflicts.
The professionals also commented on specific benefits and drawbacks of
using the immersive virtual model. When asked how the model could be beneficial
on a project one contractor responded: “Any time you are able to view conflicts prior
to installation it is beneficial. This 3D model allows you to identify elevation conflicts
quickly.” Another professional stated that, “During a coordination meeting with all
the [MEP] trades it would be easier to view specific problem areas.” Five of the
people surveyed stated that a lack of visualization had led to delays or other negative
impacts on a project.
When asked for drawbacks of the virtual model or reasons the technology
could not be adopted into the construction industry, all who answered were
concerned about additional costs and time. The cost and availability of immersive
viewing facilities was brought up as well as the cost and additional time of creating
the virtual model. One contractor pointed out that, “One of the biggest problems is
that not all of the trades doing coordination are [current] with the technology. Some
companies still draw by hand.”
Conclusion Surveying industry professionals that are involved with MEP coordination and
installation on a daily basis provided valuable information on the uses for immersive
virtual models in the construction industry. Overall results indicate that the use of
these models could have great benefits for MEP coordination. Typically, for an MEP
intensive facility such as a laboratory, an increased effort in coordination, which
requires additional time and money, has yielded cost savings during installation
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 58 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
above that spent on coordination. The goal of using immersive virtual models would
be to efficiently increase the level of coordination. Traditionally coordinating a
building to the point where there are no field conflicts requires the contractors to
pore over 2D drawings for extended periods of time to find all conflicts. Using the
virtual model should reduce the time to needed to fully coordinate a project.
Currently the technology to create and use immersive virtual models is in its
infancy. As the technology progresses the cost of producing and using these models
should decrease. The disadvantages of using an immersive virtual model now are
the cost and time to create the model and the high cost of an immersive viewing
facility. Penn State could find creative ways to use the immersive viewing facilities
that exist on campus to benefit current and planned construction projects.
Contractors working on site may not have immersive viewing facilities in their job
trailers but working on campus gives them a great opportunity to take advantage of
these emerging construction technologies.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
C O N C L U S I O N
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 59 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Conclusion and Recommendations
The School of Forest Resources building poses some interesting design and
construction issues. The laboratory areas combined with a LEED certification provide
many of these unique issues. Obtaining a LEED certification for laboratory buildings,
using a VAV system in labs, and using immersive virtual models for MEP coordination
were all examined, and all would provide value to both the owner and the
construction team. Not only are these analyses valuable to the Forest Resources
building, but to they can benefit the entire architecture and construction industry.
The first analysis focused on the LEED certification process. For a building
such as the Forest Resources building, a LEED certification can be achieved with
relative ease, but labs can be a hindrance to achieving a higher certification such as
Silver, Gold, or Platinum. Using other laboratory buildings that have attained a LEED
certification is an excellent place to start for examining the LEED potential of a
proposed building. Using some unique sustainable design aspects from other
projects could benefit the Forest Resources building. Techniques that could be
employed include a water reclamation system and environmentally friendly
landscaping. Reducing the amount of energy needed to maintain a safe laboratory
environment is paramount for a sustainable or LEED certified laboratory building.
Using a specialized mechanical system such as a Variable Air Volume system can
greatly reduce the energy used by the labs.
The second analysis involved using a VAV system rather than a constant
volume system for the laboratory spaces. It can be difficult to use VAV systems in
laboratory spaces because special consideration must be given to safety
requirements such as minimum air flows, air changes, and room pressure. The
higher initial cost of a VAV system is the biggest reason owners opt for a constant
volume system. With proper design and coordination, a VAV system can be installed
that maintains a safe and comfortable laboratory environment. A VAV system
throughout the entire building is a cost effective way to help reduce the energy
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 60 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
requirements, which would help with the LEED certification that the Forest Resources
building is trying to achieve.
For the third analysis, research into the use of immersive virtual models to
ease MEP coordination was conducted. The idea of using immersive virtual models
to coordinate construction work is relatively new but is gaining acceptance in the
marketplace as contractors begin to realize the benefits of using this technology.
Immersive virtual models can help detect more inconsistencies and coordination
problems than a standard 2D or even a 3D CAD model. These problems can be
detected earlier and therefore save the contractor both time and money in the long
run. By modeling an MEP intensive lab in the Forest Resources Building and viewing
it in the Immersive Environments Lab, contractors and coordinators from the project
were given the opportunity to view and comment on the uses of this technology. All
industry professionals surveyed claimed that the virtual model allowed them to
visualize the layout and elevations of the MEP systems quickly and easily. Most feel
that an immersive virtual model would be a valuable communication tool to be used
during the MEP coordination process. Creating the 3D model can be time consuming
and costly, but the benefits seen by using the immersive virtual model can outweigh
these initial costs. The use of an immersive virtual model should be given serious
consideration on any MEP intensive project.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
A P P E N D I X
A
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 61 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Appendix A
Variable Air Volume vs. Constant Volume for Laboratories Life Cycle Cost Analysis
A life cycle cost analysis can be used to compare various systems and their total
cost over the life of the building. Here a constant volume system with lower initial cost
and maintenance costs is compared to a variable air volume system with lower energy
costs over a twenty year period and a fifty year period. The equation used for the
analysis is
LC = IC + AC * ((1 + i)n – 1) / (i * (1 + i)n)
where:
LC = life cycle cost
IC = initial cost
AC = annual cost (energy + maintenance)
i = interest rate
n = number of years
20 Year Period
Given economic factors:
• Interest rate = 8%
• Service Life = 20 years
Constant Volume system
• Initial cost = $1,100,000
• Energy cost = $95,000 / year
• Maintenance cost = $140,000 / year
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 62 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Variable Air Volume system
• Initial cost = $1,250,000
• Energy cost = $60,000 / year
• Maintenance cost = $150,000 / year
Constant Volume life cycle cost
LC = 1,100,000 + (95,000 + 140,000) * ((1 + 0.08)20 – 1) / (0.08 * (1 + 0.08)20)
LC = $3,407,000
Variable Air Volume life cycle cost
LC = 1,250,000 + (60,000 + 150,000) * ((1 + 0.08)20 – 1) / (0.08 * (1 + 0.08)20)
LC = $3,312,000
50 Year Period
Given economic factors:
• Interest rate = 8%
• Service Life = 50 years
Constant Volume system
• Initial cost = $1,100,000
• Energy cost = $95,000 / year
• Maintenance cost = $140,000 / year
Variable Air Volume system
• Initial cost = $1,250,000
• Energy cost = $60,000 / year
• Maintenance cost = $150,000 / year
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 63 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Constant Volume life cycle cost
LC = 1,100,000 + (95,000 + 140,000) * ((1 + 0.08)50 – 1) / (0.08 * (1 + 0.08)50)
LC = $3,975,000
Variable Air Volume life cycle cost
LC = 1,250,000 + (60,000 + 150,000) * ((1 + 0.08)50 – 1) / (0.08 * (1 + 0.08)50)
LC = $3,819,000
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
A P P E N D I X
B
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 64 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Appendix B
Immersive Virtual Modeling for MEP Coordination Immersive Environments Lab Survey
1.) What is your trade / scope of work? _______________________________________ 2.) How many years of MEP coordination experience do you have? _______________________________________ Answer questions 3 through 8 on a scale of 1 – 5 where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree: 3.) I have a better understanding of the layout and/or sequence of the MEP work after viewing the immersive virtual model. 1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neutral 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree 4.) The IEL would be a good environment to hold MEP coordination meetings. 1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neutral 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree 5.) The immersive virtual model could be a valuable communication tool on the project. 1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neutral 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree 6.) Visualizing the layout and elevations of duct and piping is easier with the immersive virtual model than with traditional 2-D drawings. 1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neutral 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 65 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
7.) Using an immersive virtual model like this one during the MEP coordination process could help avoid delays during construction. 1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neutral 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree 8.) Using an immersive virtual model like this one could speed up the MEP coordination process. 1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Neutral 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree Other Questions: 9.) What are some current challenges you face in MEP coordination? Could this technology help in resolving these challenges? If yes, state how it could be helpful. 10.) Can you identify any reasons why this technology could not be adopted in the construction industry? 11.) Has a lack of visualization of the MEP work on any project ever led to delays or other negative impacts on the project? If yes, please explain. 12.) Have you used 3-D CAD applications or advanced visualization applications on any projects. If yes, please explain your experience.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 66 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
13.) Do you feel the immersive virtual model you experienced today in the IEL would be beneficial on a project? If yes, please explain how. 14.) Please provide any other comments or suggestions on the use of or improving the immersive virtual model for MEP coordination.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
A P P E N D I X
C
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 67 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Appendix C
References Chen, Steve, and Stanley Demster. Variable Air Volume Systems for Environmental
Quality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
Donald Bren School of Environmental Management. 2004. University of California,
Santa Barbara. <http://www.bren.ucsb.edu>.
Finkelstein, Hal. Variable Air Volume System Operation: A Guide to Engineering,
Design & Operation. Washington DC: The National Resource Center, 1998.
Gopinath, Rajitha. Immersive Virtual Facility Prototyping for Design and Construction
Process Visualization. Rajitha Gopinath, 2004.
Kats, Gregory H. "Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits." 2003.
<http://www.cap-e.com>.
Kolkebeck, Ken. "Constant Results From VAV Lab Systems." Engineered Systems
June 2002.
Matthiessen, Lisa Fay, Todd See, and Peter Morris. "Building on Bren: Putting a Price
on Green Lab Design." Laboratory Design Newsletter January 2004.
McIntosh, Ian B.D., Chad B. Dorgan, and Charles E. Dorgan. ASHRAE Laboratory
Design Guide. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2001.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 68 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "Laboratories for the 21st Century: Energy
Analysis." April 2003. <http://www.labs21century.gov>.
Phoenix Controls Corporation. 2005. <http://www.phoenixcontrols.com>.
Riley, David, and Michael Horman. "The Effects of Design Coordination on Project
Uncertainty." 2001. <http://cic.vtt.fi/lean/singapore>.
U.S. Green Building Council. LEED - NC Rating System. Version 2.1. Washington DC:
U.S. Green Building Council, 2004.
U.S. Green Building Council. 2005. <http://www.usgbc.org>.
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
A C K N O WL E D G ME N T S
Penn State School of Forest Resources University Park, PA
Brian Horn Spring 2005
- 69 -
Construction ManagementPenn State AE
Acknowledgments
The following groups or organizations provided much appreciated assistance: Penn State Architectural Engineering Faculty
Penn State Office of Physical Plant
Gilbane Building Company
Late Night Thesis Studio Crew
The following individuals also provided much appreciated assistance: Dr. John Messner – Department of Architectural Engineering
Alex Zolotov – Department of Architectural Engineering
Rick Riccardo – Penn State Office of Physical Plant
Motaz Alkaysi – Gilbane Building Company
Chris Figler – Gilbane Building Company
Dave Gardiner – Gilbane Building Company
Bob Sabo, Jr. – Sauer, Inc.
Hank Weber – Sauer, Inc.
Tom Berger – Best Tech & Engineering
Henry L. Thomas – H.L. Thomas
Jay Stuart – McClure Company
Thomas Heasley – Pyramid Engineering
Mike Billotte – Allied Mechanical & Electrical