The Stuckeman Family Building

1. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA Spring 2005

2. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction • Building Background • Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design • Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management • Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing • Conclusions

3. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Building Background Function:Provides studio and office space for the Schools of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, as well as, critiquing and jury spaces, galleries, a library, and a model shop.Size: 111,000 SFCost: $27,550,000Schedule:October 2003 to April 2005Delivery Method:Traditional – General Contractor

4. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Building Background • Architectural Features: Green Design and Functionality • Large, Open Studio Spaces • Ribbon Interior Spaces • Raised Access Flooring • Exposed Systems • Exterior Sunlight Fins • Copper Façade • Cantilevered Section

5. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction • Building Background • Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design • Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management • Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing • Conclusions

6. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design • The Structural Truss • Four Story • Thirty Foot Cantilever • Exposed structure • The Problem • Over-Sized Members • Detailed Connections • Difficult Erection

7. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Assumptions • Structural Cords • Connections • Columns • Façade • Member Sizes

8. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Calculations • Roof and Floor Loads • Roof girders down to First floor girders • Diagonal braces removed • Columns • Foundations

9. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Re-design Effects • Overall Steel tonnage • Steel Erection ~ reduced by two weeks & $45,000 • Foundation Additions ~ four added • Schedule Impacts ~ reduced by two weeks • General Conditions ~ reduced by $32,700 • Visual Implications ~ no severe change

10. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Results

11. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Current State

12. The Stuckeman Family Building For For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Post Re-Design

13. The Stuckeman Family Building For For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Conclusion • Offset by Added Foundations Cost • Minor Compared to Overall Building Costs • Reduced Project Budget by$148,382 • Reduced Project Schedule byTwo Weeks • Caused no significant visual implications

14. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction • Building Background • Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design • Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management • Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing • Conclusions

15. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management • The Waste Management Initiative • In 1996, 136 Million Tons of Construction and Demolition Debris were produced. • The Problem • Cost • Schedule • Recycling Percentages • The Case Study Approach

16. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management The Case Study Approach State College, PA • The Stuckeman Family Building • S.A.L.A. First L.E.E.D. Certified Building for the county • High Rate of Construction – Low Tipping Fees Cleveland, OH • The Case Western Reserve University North Residence Village • First L.E.E.D. Certified building for the city • Extremely Low Tipping Fees • Making Progress Cleveland, OH • Pacific Lutheran’s Morken Center for Learning and Technology • Hundreds of Green buildings in the City • Well Developed Recycling Culture • Large Competition Among Recyclers

17. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Influencing Factors • Initial L.E.E.D. Decision • Public Perception • Workforce • Owners • Government • Co-Mingled vs. Source Separated

18. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Recycling Company Availability

19. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Waste Management Schedule • Field Workers ~ Average of 2 to 5 minutes per day • ~ Approximately 9 to 22 days per year • ~ Two to Four Weeks to the project Schedule • ~ Could result in $26,000 in added labor costs • Superintendents ~ Average of 15 to 20 minutes per day • ~ Approximately 65 to 87 hours per year • ~ Could result in $1,740 in added G.C. costs

20. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Waste Management Costs

21. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Solution • Pre-Construction Investigation • Detailed Waste Management Plan • Extensive Worker Training • Early involvement of Waste Management company

22. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Conclusion • Could delay project up to 2 weeks. • On an average project size of 100,000 sf, the differences in recycling costs for the designated areas could be as much as$20,250. • Added to the lost labor costs calculated above brings the grand total for an average project to$47,990. • Differences between recycling cultures can be prevented by taking the proper steps.

23. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction • Building Background • Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design • Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management • Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing • Conclusions

24. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing • Raised Access Flooring and L.E.E.D. • Easy Installation • High Flexibility • Return Air Plenum • The Problem ~ Coordination • The 3D and 4D Model Approach

25. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management 3D Model Pedestals are layed out, followed by ductwork. Model Area with Actual Drawing inserted.

26. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Chilled/hot water piping and electrical conduit is installed. Pedestals are installed and leveled.

27. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Floor tile is installed. Wire cable tray is installed.

28. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management 4D Model

29. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Conclusion • Construction Manager and Subcontractor Evaluations • Useful in envisioning MEP systems • Effective in determining conflicts • Not Practical for Construction Site Coordination efforts • More practical for Design Coordination applications • More practical and effective on MEP-intensive projects • Prefer experienced personnel vs. computer programs • Final Verdict • Effective, but not practical for Construction Site Coordination Efforts

30. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Reducing The Cost of L.E.E.D. Construction • Building Background • Analysis I – Structural Truss Re-design • Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Waste Management • Analysis III – Raised Access Flooring Sequencing • Conclusions

31. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Conclusions • Accepting the Value Engineering Re-Design of the Structural Truss would have reduced the schedule by two weeks and saved approximately $148,382. • Although the differences in recycling cultures can affect a project drastically, proper pre-planning of the Waste Management Program can minimize the disparity. • The use of 3D and 4D models for the coordination of under-RAF systems is effective in determining conflicts; however, is not considered practical in the construction coordination venue.

32. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Questions ?

33. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Steel Calculations • Steel Tonnage • ~$2,500/ton estimated from average in RS Means • ~$2,500/ton X 38.62 tons = $96,550 • Steel Connections • ~Estimated to be 10 percent of the affected structural tonnage • ~112.78 tons X 0.10 = 11.3 tons • ~11.3 tons X $650/ton = $7,332 • ~ $650/ton is actual steel costs, not including erection • Two Weeks Deleted From Schedule • ~$4,500 per day for crane and erection crew • ~10 days X $4,500/day = $45,000 • ~Additional $10,000 for Temporary Shoring • Added Foundations • ~Mini-Pile Depths Estimated by Averaging Nearby Pile Depths • ~38 foot depth X $ 63.16/foot = $2400 • ~14 piles X $2,300/pile = $33,600 • ~4 additional Pile Caps X $2,400/pile cap = $9,600 • General Conditions • ~Two weeks removed from project schedule • ~$3,270 per day from General Conditions Estimate • ~$3,270/day X 10 days = $32,700

34. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Waste Management Labor Costs • Field Workers ~ Average of 2 to 5 minutes per day • ~ 2-5 minutes/day X 260 work days = 1300 minutes • ~1300 minutes / 60 min/hr = 22 hours • ~ 2 foremen per trade X 10 trades = 20 foremen • ~ 20 foremen X 22 hours X $30/hour = $26,000 • Superintendents ~ Average of 15 to 20 minutes per day • ~ 15-20 minutes/day X 260 work days = 5200 minutes • ~5200 minutes / 60min/hr = 87 hours/year • ~ 87 hours / 24 hours/day = 3.625 days • ~ 3.625 days X $480/day = $1,740 • TOTAL = $26,000 + $1,740 = 27,740

35. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Example Project Calculations (Seattle) • Average project size assumed to be 100,000sf. • Waste generated is typically 1% of building square footage. • ~100,000sf X 1% = 1,000lbs. of waste • 75% of Waste to be recycled. • ~75% X 1,000lbs. = 750lbs. of waste • Average cost of recycling fees calculated to be $34/ton. • ~$34/ton X 8 tons/container = $272/container • ~$272/container + $40 average transport fee • = $312/container • ~$312/container X 8 tons container = $39/ton • ~$39/ton X 750 tons = $29,250

36. The Stuckeman Family Building For The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Stephen R. Chesko Construction Management Example Project Calculations (State College) • Average project size assumed to be 100,000sf. • Waste generated is typically 1% of building square footage. • ~100,000sf X 1% = 1,000lbs. of waste • 75% of Waste to be recycled. • ~75% X 1,000lbs. = 750lbs. of waste • Average cost of recycling fees calculated to be $40/ton. • ~$40/ton X 8 tons/container = $320/container • ~$320/container + $207 average transport fee • = $527/container • ~$527/container X 8 tons container = $66/ton • ~$66/ton X 750 tons = $49,500