Wilsdorf Hall Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia

1. Wilsdorf Hall Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 The Pennsylvania State University Department of Architectural Engineering

2. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Agenda • Agenda • Project Overview • Depth Analysis: CM In-House Building Commissioning • Breadth Analysis: Virtual MEP Coordination • Breadth Analysis: Underpinning Constructability Review  Questions Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005

3. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Project Overview Agenda Location:University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA Building Occupant:UVA School of Engineering and Applied Science Building Function: --- Nanotechnology Laboratories --- Faculty Offices --- Conference Rooms --- Computer Labs and work-study areas Size:80,000 gsf Cost:$28,000,000 $350.00 / s.f.  Questions

4. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Project Overview Agenda Project Delivery Method: Owner’s Agent Building Features: --- Physically Joins Existing Material Science & Chemistry Buildings --- two floor atrium, café, and courtyard Dates of Construction: --- Start Date: June 2003 --- Anticipated Completion: March 2006 --- Underpinning Failure Delay: 2 months --- Current anticipated completion: May 2006  Questions

5. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Project Overview Agenda Construction Features: --- Five total levels, three above grade --- 300ft permanent retaining wall --- Extensive vibration control in sub-basement --- 5 individually ducted fume hoods --- Structural Steel Frame with cast in place concrete slabs --- Brick and architectural pre-cast concrete facade Project Team: --- Construction Manager: Barton Malow --- Architect: VMDO Architects, P.C. --- Owner: University of Virginia --- Mechanical/Electrical Engr.: BR+A Consulting Engrs --- Structural Engineer: Fox and Associates  Questions

6. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Site Plan Agenda --- Underpinning Required --- Relocation of Chilled Water Lines --- Traffic redirection  Questions

7. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda CM In-House Building Commissioning Proposal: A CM is qualified to perform in-house building commissioning vs. hiring a 3rd party commissioning agent Methods: --- Research Case Studies --- Interview Industry Professionals Results: --- Benefits of CM In-House Building Commissioning --- CM In-House commissioning department set-up guidelines --- CM In-House Commissioning Plan  Questions

8. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Commissioning Agenda “The basic purpose of building commissioning is to provide documented confirmation that building systems function in compliance with criteria set forth in the Project Documents to satisfy the Owner’s operational needs” Commissioning Ensures a Building is: --- Designed --- Tested --- Installed --- Started Average Commissioning Costs:  Questions

9. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Commissioning Agenda All systems must be commissioned because all are integrated and a deficiency in one may result in the performance or failure of another. • Commissioning Benefits: • Reduced energy use • Improved indoor air quality • Improved occupant comfort • Improved environmental conditions • Improved system and equipment function • Improved building operation and maintenance • Improved building productivity • Smoother building turnover • Better start-up documentation • Better operator training and Owner knowledge of their systems  Questions

10. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda Why Owners Commission  Questions

11. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda Benefits of In-House Building Commissioning • Understand the construction schedule • Risk involved ensures an excellent building turnover • Provide services on all building systems, not just controls • Qualified to gain LEED points • Extensive background on all building systems  Questions

12. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 In-House Commissioning Department set-up guidelines Agenda • Must remain a separate entity • Commissioning practices must be understood and practiced properly • Members of the department must be certified commissioning agents • Department must consist of staff specializing in each building system • Organized plan must be followed  Questions

13. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 CM In-House Commissioning Plan Agenda Task 1: Planning Phase --- Develop Project Objectives --- Choose Team --- Develop Commissioning Schedule Task 2: Submittal Review --- Review system submittals Task 3: Construction Inspections/Start-ups --- Develop pre-functional tests and checklists --- Inspections, site visits --- Review and attend system start-ups and tests Task 4: Functional Performance Tests --- Coordinate FPT and test plans --- Witness FPT --- Document FPT Results Task 5: O & M Manuals and Training Review  Questions

14. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Virtual MEP Coordination Agenda Proposal: 3D models are more effective when coordinating MEP systems than traditional coordination methods. Methods: --- Research Case Studies --- Interview Industry Professionals Results: --- Advantages of 3D MEP Coordination --- 3D MEP Coordination Process --- 3D MEP Model Checklist --- 3D Model Cost and Schedule Analysis --- Problems with 3D MEP Coordination  Questions

15. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 3D MEP Coordination Agenda Provides in One Drawing: --- Material Lists --- Fabrication Drawings --- Assembly Drawings --- Construction/Scheduling Coordination  Questions

16. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Advantages of 3D MEP Coordination Agenda • Problems can be solved in the early phases of design And construction • Multiple coordination plans can be viewed before selecting the most efficient • Navigation through the model is possible allowing errors to be found • Plans can be tested before construction • Different views of the model can be seen  Questions

17. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 3D MEP Coordination Process Agenda HVAC Subcontractor creates background for all other MEP Contractors Finished drawings are reviewed by all contractors involved, the architect and the project manager` Mechanical Subcontractor adds HVAC system Plumbing Contractor adds plumbing system Conflicts are identified & documented by all parties Coordination Meeting Sprinkler Contractor adds sprinkler mains/branches Electrical Subcontractor adds main electrical feeds Solution is developed & documented by all parties  Questions

18. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda 3D MEP Model Checklist • Level of Detail: The level of detail needs to be determined because items can be modeled in varying levels of detail. For example a piece of mechanical equipment could be modeled as a 3D box or to show all access point, switches, etc. • When to complete 3D model: The sequence and timing of the model needs to be coordinated with the construction process, from design to turnover. • Project Staff: Each person needs to understand the goals, the level of 3D modeling required, and the amount of information sharing needed. • Design Background: The coordinate system, file name, layers, etc.. must be set up early in the design process.  Questions

19. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 3D Model Cost and Schedule Analysis Agenda Cost: Schedule: --- Total Hours Saved: 38 --- Saves more than time, saves stress & conflict  Questions

20. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda Problems with 3D MEP Coordination • New to the Industry • Not all contractors have the capability or knowledge of using 3D Cad • Trades not using 3D CAD may not know how to read drawings on a computer  Questions

21. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Underpinning Constructability Review Agenda Proposal: Review constructability of underpinning system and determine factors leading to failure Methods: --- Interview Industry Professionals Results: --- Constructability review --- CM role in underpinning process  Questions

22. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Underpinning Constructability Review Agenda • Legal Battle • --- Inadequate Designs • --- Intersection of soil planes • Underpinning Tests • --- Concrete Strength - Passed • --- Tieback Tests - Passed • --- Additional Tiebacks were installed to reinforce the system - Passed  Questions

23. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia CM Role in Underpinning Installation Factors Affecting Underpinning • Safety • Know consequences of actions (have a plan) • Check installation • Size and depth of excavation • Soil conditions • Ground Water • Surface drainage conditions • Weather and moisture conditions • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions

24. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda Acknowledgements • The Penn State AE faculty and staff • Barton Malow Company • University of Virginia • The Foreman Group • My family and friends  Questions

25. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia • Project Overview • CM In-House Building Commissioning • Virtual MEP Coordination • Underpinning Constructability Review Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Questions Agenda ?  Questions