Steel City High-Rise Pittsburgh, PA Analysis 1: Ashley N. Bistline - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
steel city high rise
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Steel City High-Rise Pittsburgh, PA Analysis 1: Ashley N. Bistline - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 04, 2023 140 likes •398 views

Steel City High-Rise Pittsburgh, PA Analysis 1: Ashley N. Bistline Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 2: Construction Option Unique Structural Members Breadths: Structural and Mechanical Advisor: Somayeh Asadi Analysis 3: Collocation

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Ashley N. Bistline

Construction Option

Advisor: Somayeh Asadi Analysis 1:

Steel Fabrication Efficiency

Analysis 2:

Unique Structural Members

Breadths:

Structural and Mechanical

Analysis 3:

Collocation in the Construction Industry

Analysis 4:

Vertical MEP Acceleration

Steel City High-Rise

Pittsburgh, PA

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

 Size: 440,000 SF, 18 stories  Building Height: 220 LF  Project Delivery: GMP with CM at Risk  Cost:

  • Overall Project: $100,000,000
  • Construction: $67,000,000

 Construction Dates:

  • 1/13/14 – 12/10/15

Project Background

Statistics and Team

Offices Hotel Parking Garage Retail

Occupancy Breakdown

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Background Fabrication Drivers Structural Breadth Mechanical Breadth Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Background

Analysis 1: Steel Fabrication/Efficiency

Problem and Goals

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Background Fabrication Drivers Structural Breadth Mechanical Breadth Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Fabrication Drivers

Analysis 1: Steel Fabrication/Efficiency

Fabricator Expertise

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Background Fabrication Drivers Structural Breadth Mechanical Breadth Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Fabrication Drivers

Analysis 1: Steel Fabrication/Efficiency

Sequencing and Erection

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Background Fabrication Drivers Structural Breadth Mechanical Breadth Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Structural Breadth

Analysis 1 and 2: Fabrication/Unique Structure

Uniqueness vs Uniformity

Amount Unit 3,300.00 Pieces 2,880.00 Tons Steel

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Background Fabrication Drivers Structural Breadth Mechanical Breadth Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Structural Breadth

Analysis 1 and 2: Fabrication/Unique Structure

Structural Integrity Checks

Item Weight (lbs) Deck (2VLI20) 1,408 Concrete (LW 3.25") 22,267 Beams (2 - W16x26) 1,575

Total 25,250

New Floor System

Item Weight (lbs) Deck (2VLI20) 55 Concrete (LW 3.25") 10,376 Beams (2 - W16x26) 5,702 Pool Water 74,358 Pool Bowl 93,938

Total 184,429

Old Floor System

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Background Fabrication Drivers Structural Breadth Mechanical Breadth Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Mechanical Breadth

Analysis 1 and 2: Fabrication/Unique Structure

RTU Package Includes:

  • Condenser/Refrigerant Cooling
  • Gas Heating
  • 3 HP

Component RTU-5 RTU-6 New AHU AirFlow (CFM) 4000 3600 5000 Refrigerant Type R-41 R-41 R-41 Tonnage 10 7.5 13 Capacity (MBH) 123.4 93.1 154.3 Motor Rating (HP) 3 3 5 Static Pressure 1.44 0.92 2.6 Drive Type Belt Belt Belt Weight (lbs) 1205 1005 2393 Total Unit Supply Air Blower Performance Cooling Performance Unit Comparison

Air Handling Reconfiguration

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Background Fabrication Drivers Structural Breadth Mechanical Breadth Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Mechanical Breadth

Analysis 1 and 2: Fabrication/Unique Structure

Air Handling Reconfiguration

  • Rooftop vs Indoor AHU
  • 2 Units vs 1 Unit

Item Weight (lbs) 3 HP (2 units) 3,878.94 $ 5 HP (1 unit) 3,232.45 $ Old RTU 11,300.00 $ New AHU and Condenser 13,500.00 $ Cost Comparison

Unit $/year Old 3,878.94 $ New 3,232.45 $ Savings 646.49 $ Operational Costs

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry At Steel City High-Rise Participant Diversity Best Applications Who Should Participate Conclusions Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Collocation in Construction

Analysis 3: Collocation in the Construction Industry

Collocation at Steel City

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry At Steel City High-Rise Participant Diversity Best Applications Who Should Participate Conclusions Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Participant Diversity

Analysis 3: Collocation in the Construction Industry

Collocated Projects

Participant Experience:

  • 3% : < 1 Year
  • 3%: 1-3 Years
  • 6%: 3-5 Years
  • 18%: 5-10 Years
  • 25%: 10-15 Years
  • 9%: 15-20 Years
  • 36%: 20+ Years

have worked

  • n a collocated

project before

83%

say that working in a collocated space was a positive experience

97%

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry At Steel City High-Rise Participant Diversity Best Applications Who Should Participate Conclusions Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Best Applications

Analysis 3: Collocation in the Construction Industry

Collocated Projects

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry At Steel City High-Rise Participant Diversity Best Applications Who Should Participate Conclusions Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Who Should Participate?

Analysis 3: Collocation in the Construction Industry

Choosing Partakers

Consider:

  • Risk
  • Duration
  • Package Value
  • Complexity

say that value is lost without full cooperation

71%

say that productivity and reliability increase with collocation

94%

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Schedule Comparison Savings Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Schedule Comparison

Analysis 4: Vertical MEP

Schedule Rework

Accelerated Roof: Original Roof:

Original Rework Finish Date 10/16/2015 9/4/2015 Duration 21 mos 20 mos Comparison

Does not impact: crew, durations, or equipment during construction

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Schedule Comparison Savings Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Savings

Analysis 4: Vertical MEP

Schedule and Cost Impact

Original Rework Finish Date 10/16/2015 9/4/2015 Duration 21 mos 20 mos Comparison

1 mos 3 mos General Conditions 173,155 $ 519,465 $ Revenue 167,000 $ 500,000 $ Total Savings 340,155 $ 1,019,465 $ Acceleration Produces:

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Conclusions and Recommendations

Ashley N. Bistline // Construction Management

[[ Analyses 1 & 2 ]] Steel Fabrication/Breadths

More efficient units, prevents short cycling, extends life of units

[[ Analysis 3 ]] Collocation in Construction

Prevents issues/swift conflict resolution, improves communication, establishing long-term relationships, increases innovation

[[ Analysis 4 ]] Vertical MEP Acceleration

Can save the project schedule an additional month and save between $340,000 and $1,020,000.

Recommend Recommend Recommend

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Acknowledgments

Ashley N. Bistline // Construction Management

Academic: Industry/Professional: Special Thanks to:

  • Dr. Somayeh Asadi
  • Dr. Rob Leicht
  • Professor Parfitt
  • Dr. Charles Cox
  • Professor Jim Faust
  • Penn State Architectural Engineering Faculty
  • Turner Construction Company
  • Millcraft Investments
  • Amthor Steel
  • Johnson Controls
  • PACE Industry Members
  • Family and Friends
  • God
  • AE Power Players
  • OPP 2015 Captains
  • AE Class 2015
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Ashley N. Bistline // Construction Management

Questions?

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Appendix A: Structural Breadth

Ashley N. Bistline // Construction Management

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Weight of Concrete for Pool:

626.25 𝐷𝐺 × (150 𝑚𝑐𝑡/1 𝐷𝐺) = 93,937.5 𝑚𝑐𝑡

Weight of Water:

8910 𝐻𝑏𝑚𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑡 × (8.3454 𝑚𝑐𝑡/1 𝐻𝑏𝑚𝑚𝑝𝑜) = 74,357.514 𝑚𝑐𝑡

Weight of Deck: Area: 28 SF

1.97 𝑄𝑇𝐺 × 28 𝑇𝐺 = 55.16 𝑚𝑐𝑡

Weight of Concrete on Deck: Area: 28 SF

28 𝑇𝐺 × 3.25′ = 90.22 𝐷𝐺 90.22 𝐷𝐺 × (115 𝑚𝑐𝑡/𝐷𝐺) = 10,375.5 𝑚𝑐𝑡

Weight of Steel Members

(84 𝑚𝑐𝑡/𝑀𝐺) × 23.25′ = 1953 𝑚𝑐𝑡 × 2 𝑐𝑓𝑏𝑛𝑡= 3,906 𝑚𝑐𝑡 (12 𝑚𝑐𝑡/𝑀𝐺) × 2.625′ = 31.5 𝑚𝑐𝑡 × 4 𝑐𝑓𝑏𝑛𝑡= 126 𝑚𝑐𝑡 (76 𝑚𝑐𝑡/𝑀𝐺) × 21.97′ = 1,670 𝑚𝑐𝑡 Total: 5,702 lbs

𝑼𝒑𝒖𝒃𝒎 𝑿𝒇𝒋𝒉𝒊𝒖 𝒑𝒈 𝑸𝒑𝒑𝒎 𝑬𝒇𝒕𝒋𝒉𝒐: 184,428 𝑚𝑐𝑡 = 184.4 𝑙𝑗𝑞𝑡

Old Design

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Weight of 2VLI20 deck: 1.97 𝑄𝑇𝐺 × 714.9375 𝑇𝐺 = 1,408.4269 𝑚𝑐𝑡 Weight of LW Concrete: 115 PCF × (3.25 𝑗𝑜/12 𝑗𝑜) (1 𝑔𝑢) = 31.1458 𝑄𝑇𝐺 31.1458 𝑄𝑇𝐺 × 714.9375 𝑇𝐺 = 22,267.3242 𝑚𝑐𝑡

Weight of the W16x26 Beams:

26 ∗ 30.75" = 799.5 𝑚𝑐𝑡 799.5 𝑚𝑐𝑡 × 2 𝑐𝑓𝑏𝑛𝑡 = 1,599 𝑚𝑐𝑡

Total weight of the slab system:

𝑋𝑢𝑝𝑢= 𝑋𝑒𝑓𝑑𝑙+ 𝑋𝑑𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑠𝑓𝑢𝑓+ 𝑋𝑐𝑓𝑏𝑛𝑡 = 1,408.4269 𝑚𝑐𝑡 + 22,267.3242 𝑚𝑐𝑡 + 1599 𝑚𝑐𝑡 = 25,274.7511 𝑚𝑐𝑡

= 25.27 𝑙𝑗𝑞𝑡 Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

Ashley N. Bistline // Construction Management

Appendix A: Structural Breadth

New Design

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Ashley N. Bistline // Construction Management

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Appendix A: Structural Breadth

Loading of AHU

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

𝐸𝑗𝑡𝑢𝑠𝑗𝑐𝑣𝑢𝑓𝑒 𝑀𝑝𝑏𝑒: 𝐵𝑈× 42 𝑄𝑇𝐺 = 7.75′ × 42 = 325 𝑄𝑀𝐺 Σ𝐺𝑌= −𝐺𝑌1 = 𝐺𝑌2 Σ𝐺𝑍= −1196.5 − (325 𝑄𝑀𝐺 × 30.75′)+ 𝐺𝑍1 + 𝐺𝑍2 Σ𝑁𝐵= (−1196.5 × 6′)− (9993.75 × 15.375′)+ 𝐺𝑍2(30.75′) = 0 𝐺𝑍2 = 5,230 𝑚𝑐𝑡 𝐺𝑍1 = 5,960 𝑚𝑐𝑡 Max Moment: 42.1 lK ФM for W16x 26: 166 lK 42.1 lK ≤ 166 lK ∴ OK

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Appendix B: Mechanical Breadth

Ashley N. Bistline // Construction Management

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Schedule and Cost Impact

Converting HP to kW: 𝐼𝑄 ×. 7457 𝑙𝑋/𝐼𝑄 𝑙𝑋 × (8766 ℎ𝑝𝑣𝑠𝑡/𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠) 𝑙𝑋(ℎ𝑠𝑡) × ($00.0989/𝑙𝑋)

OLD UNITS

Cooling Power Yearly Cost of RTU-5 and RTU-6: 3 𝐼𝑄 ×. 7457 𝑙𝑋/𝐼𝑄= 2.2371 𝑙𝑋 2.2371 𝑙𝑋 × (8766 ℎ𝑝𝑣𝑠𝑡/𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠) = 19,610.4186 𝑙𝑋ℎ𝑠𝑡/𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠 19,610.4186 𝑙𝑋(ℎ𝑠) × ($00.0989/(𝑙𝑋(ℎ𝑠)) = $1,939.47/𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠 × 2 units

= $3,878.94

NEW UNITS

Cooling Power Yearly Cost of New Indoor AHU: 5 𝐼𝑄 ×. 7457 𝑙𝑋/𝐼𝑄= 3.7285 𝑙𝑋 3.7285 𝑙𝑋 × (8766 ℎ𝑝𝑣𝑠𝑡/𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠) = 32,684.031 𝑙𝑋ℎ𝑠𝑡/𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠 32,684.031 𝑙𝑋(ℎ𝑠) × ($00.0989𝑙𝑋(ℎ𝑠))

= $3,232.45/𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠 Annual Savings Comparison: OLD Cost: $3,878.94 New Cost: $3,232.45 Total Savings: $636.49 Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Appendix B: Mechanical Breadth

Ashley N. Bistline // Construction Management

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

Refrigerant Lines

Item Amount Unit Cost Unit Total Cost 1/2" refrigerant piping 53.833 LF 10.37 $ /LF 558.25 $ 90o Elbow 4 Ea 26.08 $ Ea 104.32 $ 662.57 $ Piping Total

Project Background Analysis 1 // Steel Fabrication Efficiency Analysis 3 // Collocation in the Construction Industry Analysis 4 // Vertical MEP Acceleration Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgments

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Appendix C: Vertical MEP Logic

Ashley N. Bistline // Construction Management

Steel City High-Rise

Presentation Outline

SOD @ Level 5