1 / 31

The Katzen Arts Center Washington, D.C.

The Katzen Arts Center Washington, D.C. Introduction. Excavation Support System Analysis. MEP Coordination. LEED Certification Analysis. Conclusions. Acknowledgements. Questions. The Pennsylvania State University Senior Thesis – Spring 2005. Jessica A. Potkovick

bardia
Download Presentation

The Katzen Arts Center Washington, D.C.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Katzen Arts Center Washington, D.C. Introduction Excavation Support System Analysis MEP Coordination LEED Certification Analysis Conclusions Acknowledgements Questions The Pennsylvania State University Senior Thesis – Spring 2005 Jessica A. Potkovick Construction Management Option

  2. INTRODUCTION

  3. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Location: 4400 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20016 Function: Academic Space, Performance Center, Gallery Size: 330, 000 SF Stories: 6 Stories Cost: $41, 000,000 Project Delivery: CM @ Risk Construction Dates: May 1, 2003 – May 15, 2005

  4. PROJECT TEAM Building Occupant: American University Architect/Engineer: Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Consultants: EDAW, Inc. (Landscaping) Alpha Corporation (Civil) Cagley & Associates, Inc. (Structural) Miller, Beam, & Paganelli, Inc. (AV & Acoustic) Fisher Dachs Associates (Theatre) Claude R. Engel Lighting Consultant (Lighting) Construction Manager: Holder Construction Company

  5. ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING SYSTEMS • Architecture: • Gateway to Campus • Layout: Primarily Linear with Serpentine Effect • Three Building Components • Two Rotundas • Roof Terrace/Roof Garden • Water Feature • Façade: Limestone Veneer with CMU Backup, Ground Face CMU, or Aluminum Storefront • Skylights

  6. ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING SYSTEMS • Structural: • Cast-in-Place Concrete • Lighting/Electrical: • LED Emergency Lighting and Parkpack in Parking Levels • Academic: Fluorescent, Recessed Parabolic Lights • Gallery: Low Brightness, Recessed Fluorescent Wall Wash and Downlights • Performance: Directional Downlights and Ellipsoidal Spotlights • Power:3 phase, 4 wire Switchboard Operating at 3000A, 480/277V • 75kVA, 480-120/280V Phase Transformer • Two 3 phase, 4 wire Panelboards at 480/277V and 120/277V • Mechanical: • VAV and Constant Air Systems • Six AHU’s, Two Cooling Towers, Two Chillers, • Location: Parking Level 1 (Central Plant), 3rd Floor (Secondary Plant)

  7. EXCAVATION SUPPORT SYSTEM ANALYSIS

  8. EXCAVATION SUPPORT SYSTEM ANALYSIS • Background: • Original Excavation Support System • Issue • Current Excavation Support System • Goals: • Investigate Original and Current Excavation Support Systems • Determine the Impact of Switching Systems • Analyze other possible solutions in terms of constructability, cost, and schedule in order to recommend a solution for detailed analysis.

  9. ORIGINAL EXCAVATION SUPPORT SYSTEM • Soldier Piles • Tiebacks • Timber Lagging

  10. CURRENT EXCAVATION SUPPORT SYSTEM • Posts and Soldier Piles • Bracing • Timber Lagging

  11. IMPACT • Schedule: • Division of Component A into two Parts • Interrupts Excavation Flow • Slower Excavation Period • Deconstruction of Bracing Required • Cost:

  12. ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS • Steep Angle Tiebacks • Soldier Piles (Driven Close) • Sheet Piles • Slurry Wall • Sheet Piles + Slurry Wall • Secant Piles • Purchase Property • Purchase Property and Sell Back

  13. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES • Disadvantages: • Soil Bearing Capacity • Additional Cost • Additional Construction Time • Site Constraints • Advantages: • Potential for Payback • Constructability Plan Remains the Same

  14. CONCLUSION Current Excavation Support System: • Had Major Impact on Constructability • Little Impact on Schedule/Cost Therefore… An alternate solution must have as little schedule/cost impact as possible. • Suggestions for Further Detailed Analysis • Purchase Property • Purchase Property/Sell Back

  15. MEP COORDINATION

  16. MEP COORDINATION AND CAD IMPLEMENTATION • Background/Proposal: • MEP Coordination Process • Previous Research • Goals: • Identify Areas MEP Contractors could use 3D CAD Technology • Create a CAD Implementation Plan for Holder Construction

  17. PLAN Foreman Planning/Field Supervision Construction Sequencing/Scheduling Estimating As-Builts Hire Staff Marketing Shop Drawings Project Planning Technology Selection Material Management

  18. CONCLUSION • -Mike Duwell, Preconstruction Manager • Holder Comments

  19. LEED CERTIFICATION ANALYSIS

  20. LEED CERTIFICATION ANALYSIS • Background: • Evolution of Research Proposal • Goals: • Determine Goals of the USGBC • Determine Needs of the Building Industry • Compare the objectives of the USGBC and the opinions of the building industry to establish if their needs are being met. If not, suggest actions for meeting those needs.

  21. USGBC INTERVIEW • Intention was to Identify: • History and Organization Goals • Statistics on LEED Project Applicants vs. Actual Project Certifications • Credits Most/Least Often Applied For • Process/Timeline of Version Revision

  22. USGBC INTERVIEW • Sabrina Morelli, LEED Coordinator • LEED Letter Templates • Documentation Requirements • Rating System Language • Certification Process • Rating System Updates • LEED Version 2.2

  23. BUILDING INDUSTRY SURVEY • Survey Goals: • Why Owner’s choose not to go for/complete a LEED certification? • Determine the current process used to document credit fulfillment. • Determine satisfaction with current LEED documentation requirements. • Identify how familiar the industry is with current changes in the process and if they believe they are positive. • Identify difficult credits to achieve and why.

  24. BUILDING INDUSTRY SURVEY • -13 Responses • LEED Letter Templates • Documentation Requirements • Rating System Language • Certification Process • Rating System Updates • LEED Version 2.2

  25. CONCLUSIONS • USGBC: • Provide a detailed list of specific credit requirements. • Modify the reference guide so that designer and contractor requirements are addressed separately or create individual designer and contractor guides. • Offer assistance with credit evaluation throughout the course of the project. • Or, create a position at the USGBC for LEED Inspectors. • Continue to find ways to streamline the documentation process and reduce the amount of time and paperwork that is required to put submittals together. • Building Industry: • Take an active part in the public comment period. • Offer contractor focused LEED training to associates and subcontractors to clarify LEED certification process and rating system.

  26. CONCLUSIONS

  27. Excavation Support System Analysis • Goals: • Examine both the original and current systems and determine the impact of switching. • Determine if there is an alternate solution for further detailed analysis by investigating other systems in terms of constructability, schedule, and cost. • Conclusion: • Major Impact on Constructability; Little Impact on Cost and Schedule • Further Investigate Purchasing the Property or Purchasing the Property/Selling Back • MEP Coordination • Goal: • Create a CAD Implementation Plan for Holder Construction • Conclusion: • Currently in Process of Similar Plan • LEED Certification Analysis • Goal: • Determine if the goals of the USGBC are aligned with the needs of the Building Industry. • Conclusion: • Needs are not currently met; Satisfaction will most likely improve following the release of LEED Version 2.2.

  28. I would like to thank the following people for their assistance and support… Holder Construction Company American University Penn State Faculty United States Green Building Council Building Industry Members Family and Friends

  29. Questions?

More Related