Erin Sharkey Construction Management Option Spring 2004 · Erin Sharkey • CM Emphasis • Spring 2004 2 April 14, 2004 Mr. Jim O ... Using the six projects surveyed as case studies

Erin Sharkey Construction Management Option

Spring 2004

Baltimore County Detention Center Expansion Towson, Maryland

Erin Sharkey • CM Emphasis • Spring 2004 2

April 14, 2004 Mr. Jim O’Neil Baltimore County Detention Center Representative Baltimore County Detention Center Expansion 400 Kenilworth Dr Towson, MD 21204 Re: Available Alternatives with a Design/Build Delivery Dear Mr. O’Neil: The information contained within this summary book pertains to available alternatives for the Baltimore County Detention Center Expansion. The information is in response to your request in August 2003 for suggestions on how to reduce the cost of the BCDC Expansion and accelerate the current construction schedule. The following alternative analysis have been performed and concluded with further recommendations:

Design/Build Delivery Computer Generated Mock-ups Foundation Redesign Active Solar Systems

All supplemental information can be located in the corresponding sections of the appendix. This information is also available online at www.arche.psu.edu/thesis/2004/ems249. Sincerely, Erin Sharkey The Pennsylvania State University



Executive Summary The Baltimore County Detention Center Expansion is a 341,551 SF addition comprised of inmate housing, administration areas and a parking garage. The expansion will cost Baltimore County $69.8 million and will be completed in April 2005. Upon examining the current construction and design of the BCDC Expansion this thesis proposes that a design-build delivery would enhance utilization of new technologies to assist the construction process, deliver a more constructible design and consider alternative energy sources. Currently, the BCDC Expansion is being constructed under a multiple prime lump sum contract. To justify the superiority of a design-build delivery for correctional facilities, specifically the BCDC Expansion a survey was distributed to participating parties of six design-build correctional facility projects. The survey measured the validity of this analysis with the following objectives: how many of these six projects finished (1) on or below budget, (2) on or ahead of schedule, (3) implemented value engineering items, (4) increased design/construction innovation, (5) facilitated constructability and (6) used new technologies to assist the construction process. Using the six projects surveyed as case studies the established result criteria showed that all the listed objectives were achieved effectively with a design-build delivery. The employment of value engineering items and innovation is highly effective with a design-build delivery. Overall, a design-build delivery is an exceptional method for constructing correctional facilities in accordance to an owner’s needs. Upon analyzing the use of the design-build delivery method for correctional facilities, reviews of available alternatives which actually implemented new technologies, constructability and alternative energy sources were performed for the BCDC Expansion. The viability in implementing computer generated mock-ups, a more constructible foundation design and active solar systems was examined within this thesis. The BCDC Expansion requires the construction of several different mock-ups. Thus far the plywood cell & dormitory chase mock-ups have had disputes concerning insurance requirements and trade coordination. This analysis proposes that utilizing a computerized mock-up (a 3D CAD drawing placed within an immersive environment at a 1:1 scale) rather than a physical mock-up would save money and construction time. Based on the cost and duration of the physical mock-up construction at the BCDC Expansion had a computer-generated mock-up been implemented the owner could have saved approximately $12,000 dollars and 1-2 weeks in construction time (100 man-hours). If a repeat owner such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons were to implement computer generated mock-ups as a standard on the construction of all their projects over a period of 20 years $239,000 could be saved. This is a viable alternative should be considered in future projects that require mock-ups for coordination and facility operation issues. The original foundation system for the BCDC Expansion is comprised of 31 different sized and reinforced column and spread footings. To ease the construction of the foundations a more repetitive design consisting of 10 footing types was created. Each of these 10 footings has been designed with standard dimensions and rebar layout. Between the time of this



analysis and the original design there was an ASCE –7 code change. This code change decreased the factored load combination to allow for less cubic yards of concrete in the design. This code change alone would have saved $105,890. The actual redesign of the foundation system cost an additional $89,781. Theoretically, this additional cost of the concrete in the redesign could be justified by savings in the required formwork and the construction time for tying rebar cages. The foundations were poured directly so no savings were recognized in formwork cost and the construction time saved in rebar labor could not be quantified. Although the design was more repetitive and easier to construction without reducing the number of total footings the additional concrete cost to provide the repetitive design could not be justified. The existing BCDC uses an active solar system for its space heating and hot water needs. The BCDC Expansion was originally designed with boilers and hot water generators. This analysis extends the active solar system from the existing BCDC to the expansion. Both the existing and expansion of the BCDC would employ flat plate solar collectors on a closed loop system. The expansion redesign performed by solar analysis software f-chart will compensate for 58.7% of the BCDC Expansion’s hot water needs. Initially, the active solar system would cost the County $425,513 more than the original expansion design of the boilers and generators. However, with a 6 payback period the active solar system will save the owner $1,195,100 over a 30-year period or $39,837 annually. In conclusions had a design-build delivery been implemented a computerized mock-up and an active solar system could have been utilized to save the owner money and time; their two primary goals.



Table of Contents

Thesis Abstract Proposal Letter Executive Summary List of Figures I. Project Overview Project Summary Project Delivery System Project Cost Project Schedule Cash Flow Thesis Proposal II. Design-Build Delivery Introduction Design-Build Correctional Facility Case Studies Conclusion III. Computer Generated Mock-ups Introduction Cost Impacts Schedule Impacts Acceptance within the Industry Computer Generated Mock-up Coordination Plan Conclusion IV. Foundation Redesign Introduction Existing Foundation Design Alternative Foundation Design Foundation Design Evaluation Conclusion

1 2 3 7 9

17

21

28



V. Active Solar System Introduction Original Existing System Original Expansion System Proposed Expansion System Conclusions VI. Conclusions VII. References VIII. Acknowledgements IX. Appendix A. Project Overview B. Design-Build Delivery C. Computer Generated Mock-ups D. Foundation Redesign E. Active Solar System X. Presentation Slides – Supplement Booklet

35

41

43

44

45



List of Figures

I. Project Overview Figure 1-1: Current Delivery Method for the BCDC Expansion – Multiple Prime Contract w/ CM Agency

Figure 1-2: Actual Cost for the BCDC Expansion Figure 1-3(a-d): Schedule for BCDC Expansion (pages 1-4)

Figure 1-4(a-b): Cash Flow Diagram II. Design-Build Delivery Figure 2-1: Proposed Delivery Method for the BCDC Expansion; Design-Build Delivery FFiigguurree 22--22:: DDeessiiggnn--BBuuiilldd CCaassee SSttuuddiieess GGeenneerraall IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn Figure 2-3: D/B Case Studies Results: Number of Projects Finished on or Ahead of Budget & Schedule Figure 2-4: Case Studies Results; Number of projects which Implemented VE Items, Innovation, Constructability & New Technologies Figure 2-5: Percentage of Positive Responses for each Objective Surveyed

III. Computer Generated Mock-ups Figure 3-1: Dormitory Plywood Chase Mock-up Figure 3-2: Cell Plywood Chase Mock-up Figure 3-3: Cost Comparison of the Mock-up and the Proposed Alternatives Figure 3-4: Duration Comparison of the Mock-up and the Proposed Alternatives Figure 3-5: Preliminary Survey of Acceptance within the Industry

Figure 3-6: Southwest View of the Computerized Plywood Dormitory Chase

Figure 3-7: Interior View of the Computerized Plywood Dormitory Chase

Figure 3-8: Steps to Created a Computerized Mock-up



IV. Foundation Redesign Figure 4-1: Types of Foundations from the Original Design and to be Redesigned Figure 4-2: Cost of Original Foundation Design

Figure 4-3 (a-c): Redesigned Footings – Typical Detail Figure 4-4: Cost of Redesigned Foundations Figure 4-5: Cost Breakdown of the Components of Concrete Construction V. Active Solar System Figure 5-1: Solar Panel on Existing BCDC Figure 5-2: Schematic Layout of Closed Loop Active Solar System Figure 5-3: Cost Associated w/ Existing BCDC Active Solar System Figure 5-4: Cost of Original Expansion System

Figure 5-5: Energy Requirements Calculated by F Chart Figure 5-6: Monthly F-value Figure 5-7: Monthly Solar, Auxiliary & DHW Requirements Figure 5-8: Cost of Expansion Redesign Figure 5-9: Cost Comparison between the Original & Proposed BCDC Expansion Systems



I. Project Overview Project Summary The Baltimore County corrections system currently consists of two buildings: the Baltimore County Detention Center (BCDC) and the Courthouse Correctional Facility (CCF). These facilities which are located in Towson, Maryland were built or expanded in 1860, 1956, 1980, 1990 and 1994. Combined these facilities have a 1,147 inmate capacity. Over the past two years recent inmate counts have been as high as 1,246. The overcrowding of the current facilities and the declining condition of the CCF has lead to the 2002 construction of the Baltimore County Detention Center Expansion. The BCDC Expansion is a $69.9 million dollar addition to the BCDC that will accommodate all of Baltimore County’s present correctional facility needs. The expanded facility will be comprised of additional inmate housing (a 366 net increase), administration areas and a parking garage. The construction of the BCDC Expansion began in May 2002 and is to be completed in April 2005. Project Delivery Method The BCDC Expansion project is being delivered under a multiple prime lump sum contract with a construction management agent. The construction manager, Gilbane Building Co. and Architect/Engineer, DMJMH+N were hired at a fixed fee while all participating contractors competitively bid for lump sum contracts with the County. The diagram below in Figure 1-1 is a visual representation of the current delivery method used for the BCDC Expansion. With the presented delivery method the project is currently 4 months behind the original schedule and over budget due to numerous change orders.

Managerial Relationship

Contractual Relationship

Figure 1-1: Current Delivery Method for the BCDC Expansion – Multiple Prime Contract w/ CM Agency

Owner Baltimore County

Architect/Engineer DMJMH+N

Multiple Contractors

CM Agent Gilbane Building Co.

Lump Sum

Fixed Fee Fixed Fee



Project Cost The BCDC Expansion Project was divided into 16 separate bid packages. Pre-qualified bidders competitively bid each of these packages. The table below in Figure 1-2 is the actual cost for each bid package of the BCDC Expansion. The total cost of the BCDC Expansion is $69,851,535.

BP # Description Total Cost Cost / SF

1 Site Work $4,607,570 $13.49

2 Foundations $885,000 $2.59

3 Concrete Garage $2,940,000 $34.36

4 Elevators $1,411,000 $4.13

5 Pre-Cast Concrete $9,990,000 $39.03

6 Housing C.I.P. Concrete $3,739,500 $14.61

7 Structural Steel/ Metals $2,493,000 $9.74

8 Electrical $4,883,000 $14.30

9 Mechanical & Plumbing $9,598,000 $28.10

10 Security & Detention Equip. $9,198,179 $26.93

11 Glass & Glazing $1,136,500 $4.44

12 Fire Protection $1,184,000 $3.47

13 Building Controls $1,485,000 $4.35

14 Masonry $3,064,000 $11.97

15 Roofing $572,253 $2.24

16 General Trades $3,975,970 $11.64

17 Landscaping $131,081 $0.38

18 Food Services & Laundry Equip. $510,518 $1.99

Subtotal $61,804,571 $180.95

VE ($1,780,000) ($5.21) Actual Building Construction Cost $55,417,001 $162.25

Design Cost $4,516,779

Contractor Fee $2,718,185

FF&E $2,592,000

Total Project Cost $69,851,535

Figure 1-2: Actual Cost for the BCDC Expansion



Project Schedule The BCDC Expansion started construction in May 2002 and is to be completed in April 2005. The original schedule showed a completion date of January 2005, however, delays by the owner for a value engineering process have delayed the project four months. The schedule shown below in Figure 1-3 (a-d) is broken down for the schedule of each bid package.

Figure 1-3a: Schedule for BCDC Expansion (page 1 of 4)



Figure 1-3b: Schedule for BCDC Expansion (page 2 of 4)



Figure 1-3c: Schedule for BCDC Expansion (page 3 of 4)



Figure 1-3d: Schedule for BCDC Expansion (page 4 of 4)



Cash Flow Based on the cost and schedule of each bid package shown above a cash flow curve was compiled. The graph in Figure 1-4a shows the cumulative cost of the project and the cost per month. Figure 1-4b is an enlarged version of the project’s monthly cost that will be billed to the owner. The values shown on both of the graphs are based of the cash schedule located in the Appendix A.

Cash Flow Curve

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

Mar

-02

May

-02

Jul-0

2

Sep-

02

Nov

-02

Jan-

03

Mar

-03

May

-03

Jul-0

3

Sep-

03

Nov

-03

Jan-

04

Mar

-04

May

-04

Jul-0

4

Sep-

04

Nov

-04

Jan-

05

Months

Valu

es

Cummulative Cost

Total Cost Per Month

Figure 1-4a: Cash Flow Diagram – Cumulative and Monthly Cost

Cash Flow Curve BCDC Expansion

$-$500,000

$1,000,000$1,500,000$2,000,000$2,500,000$3,000,000$3,500,000

May-02

Aug-02

Nov-02

Feb-03

May-03

Aug-03

Nov-03

Feb-04

May-04

Aug-04

Nov-04

Feb-05

Month

Cos

t ($)

Figure 1-4b: Cash Flow Diagram – Enlarge Monthly Cost



Thesis Proposal Upon completing the above analysis of the delivery method, cost and schedule of the BCDC Expansion the following alternatives have been proposed and analyzed. This thesis proposes that if the BCDC Expansion project had selected a design-build delivery; new technologies could have been implemented in the construction process, a more economical and constructible design could have been created and alternative energy sources could have been considered. The design-build delivery would have possibly considered:

The use of 3D AutoCAD drawings in place of physical mock-ups A more economical and constructible foundation design Extending the active solar system of the existing BCDC to the expansion

These alternatives have been analyzed and accessed in the following sections of this summary book.



II. Design-Build Delivery Introduction The BCDC Expansion project is currently being constructed under a multiple prime lump sum contract with a CM agent. Thus far there have been multiple issues with the coordination of the design and construction of the project. These issues have not only delayed the completion date but also increased the cost of the project through change orders. Most of these issues could have been resolved earlier on in the project without the additional cost or construction delays had the input of construction professionals been present at an earlier date. Earlier construction input is a primary benefit for the selection a design-build delivery. The diagram below is a visual representation of a typical design-build delivery.

Figure 2-1: Proposed Delivery Method for the BCDC Expansion; Design-Build Delivery This analysis will serve as a template for selecting design-build delivery not only for the BCDC Expansion as a standard for correctional facility construction. Had a design-build delivery method been used for the BCDC Expansion new technologies could have been implemented in the construction process, a more economical and constructible design could have been created and alternative energy sources could have been considered. Design-Build Correctional Facility Case Studies To validate the design-build delivery as a viable method for correctional facilities construction, six completed design-build correctional facilities have been examined as case studies. The following guidelines were set for the selection of the case studies: 1)) DDeessiiggnn--BBuuiilldd CCoorrrreeccttiioonnaall FFaacciilliittyy 22)) LLooccaatteedd iinn tthhee UUSS 33)) $$2255--110000 mmiilllliioonn pprriiccee rraannggee 44)) CCoommpplleetteedd iinn tthhee llaasstt 1100 yyeeaarrss

Owner Baltimore County

CM & A/E Gilbane Building Co. & DMJMH+N

Contractors



55)) PPaarrttiicciippaattiinngg ppaarrttiieess ooff tthhee pprroojjeeccttss hhaavvee hhaadd eexxppeerriieennccee wwiitthh ootthheerr nnoonn--ddeessiiggnn--bbuuiilldd ddeelliivveerryy ccoorrrreeccttiioonnaall ffaacciilliittyy pprroojjeeccttss

TThhee pprroojjeeccttss tthhaatt wweerree sseelleecctteedd wweerree bbootthh ffeeddeerraallllyy aanndd ssttaattee ffuunnddeedd ttoo eelliimmiinnaattee aannyy bbiiaass wwiitthhiinn tthhiiss ssttuuddyy bbaasseedd oonn tthhee ttyyppee ooff oowwnneerr..

FFaacciilliittyy PPrroojjeecctt FFuunnddiinngg CCoommpplleettiioonn DDaattee LLooccaattiioonn EEll PPaassoo CCoouunnttyy JJaaiill AAnnnneexx SSttaattee 99//11//11999977 TTeexxaass IINNSS FFeeddeerraall DDeetteennttiioonn FFaacciilliittyy FFeeddeerraall 11//11//11999988 NNeeww YYoorrkk LLeexxiinnggttoonn--FFaayyeettttee CCttyy.. DD..CC.. SSttaattee 55//11//22000000 KKeennttuucckkyy MMiicchhiiggaann YYoouutthh CC..FF.. FFeeddeerraall 77//11//11999999 MMiicchhiiggaann RRiivveerrss CCoorrrreeccttiioonnaall IInnssttiittuuttiioonn SSttaattee 11//11//22000011 NNoorrtthh CCaarroolliinnaa UU..SS.. PPeenniitteennttiiaarryy FFeeddeerraall 22//11//22000011 FFlloorriiddaa

FFiigguurree 22--22:: DDeessiiggnn--BBuuiilldd CCaassee SSttuuddiieess GGeenneerraall IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn The overall goal of this analysis is to show that the design-build delivery method is the best delivery method for correctional facility construction based on the following objectives:

Budget Schedule Implementation of Value Engineering Increased Innovation More Constructible Designs Use of New Technologies in the Construction Process

To prove that a design/build delivery is a superior method based on the above objectives the phone survey found in Appendix B was conducted. The survey results were obtained from both a representative of the CM/GC and A/E on each of the six case study projects. A total of twelve industry professionals were surveyed. The list of the interviewed representatives can also be found in Appendix B. Once all the surveys were conducted the results were compiled and synthesized. To quantitatively measure the results of the case studies the following criteria had been established prior to survey:

If the percentage of positive responses (X) from all of the surveys is:

X< 50% the objective is not effectively implemented with a design-build delivery

50% < X < 75% the objective can be effectively implemented with a design-build delivery

X > 75% the objective is implemented most effectively with a design-build delivery



The first set of results below in Figure 2-3 displays how many of the six design-build correctional facilities case studies that were finished on or ahead of budget and schedule.

6 Case Studies D/B Correctional Facilities

0123456

Finished On or Ahead of Budget Finished On or Ahead of Schedule

Figure 2-3: D/B Case Studies Results; No. of Projects that Finished on or Ahead of Budget & Schedule

Of the six correctional facilities surveyed only three of the six finished on or below budget (50.0%) and four of the six finished on or ahead of schedule (67.7%). There were no patterns or similarities in the results based on the type of project owner. Therefore, based on the criteria established prior to the survey a design-build delivery can effectively promotes an on budget and on time completion. The survey distributed to the participating CM/GC and A/E of the six case studies also verified how many of these projects implemented value engineering items, innovative designs, constructability and new technologies. Shown below in Figure 2-4 are the numbers of projects that implement each objective successfully.

Figure 2-4: Case Studies Results; No. of Projects that Implemented VE Items, Innovation, Constructability & New Technologies

6 D/B Correctional Facility Case Studies

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

ValueEngineering

Innovation Constructibility NewTechnologies

Posi

tive

Res

pons

e R

ecie

ved

CM/GCA/E



The percentages of positive responses for each concept are summarized in the table below.

Concept Positive Percentage Value Engineering 83.3% Innovation 91.6% Constructability 50.0% New Technologies 61.7%

Figure 2-5: Percentage of Positive Responses for each Objective Surveyed

The success criteria suggest that both value engineering and innovation are more successfully executed with a design-build delivery method. Constructability and new technologies can be effectively implemented with a design-build delivery but can also be employed with other available delivery methods. Therefore, it can be concluded that the design-build delivery is a viable delivery method to obtain all six of the objectives examined in this studied but is especially useful for applying value engineering items and innovate designs/construction techniques. Conclusion The goal of this analysis was to show that a design-build delivery method was a more efficient delivery method for correctional facility construction, specifically for the BCDC Expansion. A more efficient delivery method was considered to be a project that was completed on or below budget, on or ahead of schedule, implemented value engineering, increased innovation, provided more constructible designs and used new technologies. To prove this theory a survey was distributed to the participating parties of six design/build correctional facilities. Based on the criteria established within this analysis a design/build delivery proved to be an effective way to implement on or below budget projects, on or ahead of schedule projects, value engineering, increased innovation, more constructible designs and utilization of new technologies. The design-build delivery was considered the best delivery method for employing value engineering items and innovative designs/construction. Overall, the design-build delivery is an effective delivery method for correctional facilities both federally and state funded.



III. Computer Generated Mock-ups Introduction Mock-ups are required by specification for most construction projects, especially projects that involve repetitive construction. Some primary purposes of a mock-up include (1) aesthetical reviews by the owner or architect, (2) coordination between trades and (3) practicability of maintenance/operation for a facility. A physical mock-up will serve the purposes listed; however, mock-ups incur additional time, money and coordination that can be an unneeded hassle at the beginning of a project. A possible alternative to a physical mock-up is a 3D CAD drawing that can be viewed in an immersive environment at a 1:1 scale. This analysis reviews the feasibility of a computerized mock-up rather than a physical mock-up.

Figure 3-1: Dormitory Plywood Chase Mock-up

Figure 3-2: Cell Plywood Chase Mock-up

This analysis is based on the mock-ups required at the BCDC Expansion. The project required plywood dormitory & cell mock-ups, plywood dormitory & cell chase mock-ups and pre-cast concrete dormitory & cell mock-ups. Upon consultations with industry professionals it became apparent that of the three primary mock-up purposes listed above a computerized mock-up would not be viable for aesthetic reviews. Therefore, all recommendations derived from this analysis are to fulfill mock-up coordination and operation concerns; specifically in projects such as correctional facilities in which aesthetics are not a primary concern.

Of the required mock-ups for the BCDC Expansion the plywood dormitory and cell chase mock-ups (shown in Figure 3-1 & 3-2) presented the most problems. The chase mock-up required coordination between six different contractors as opposed to the plywood and concrete dormitory/cell mock-ups, which were erected, solely by one contractor. The erection of the plywood chase mock-ups was delay and extended due to problems with insurance, liability and lack of coordination between the six participating contractors. These issues could have easily been resolved with the implementation of a computerized mock-up



Since the concrete mock-up was used in the actual construction of the BCDC Expansion the additional cost and time put into the mock-up is warranted. Thus, this analysis will justify the use of computer-generated mock-ups based on the cost and construction time of only the plywood dormitory/cell chase mock-up. Cost Impacts Upon consultations with each of the contractors involved with the BCDC Expansion plywood mock-up and distributive representatives of AutoCAD and immersive environments the following information shown in Figure 3-3 & 4 was obtained concerning the actual cost and time of both types of mock-ups.

Description Cost Plywood Dormitory/Cell Chase Mock-ups $13,100-19,1103D CAD Drawings $6,000 (1st yr) / $2,150 (ea. add. yr.)Immersive Environment $61,000

Figure 3-3: Cost Comparison of the Mock-up and the Proposed Alternatives Since most contractors already require the use of CAD for regular submittal drawings this is not an additional cost to the contractor. Using a 3D CAD drawing rather than a physical mock-up could realistically save contractors and ultimately owners thousands of dollars a year. In the case of the BCDC Expansion each contractor could reduce the cost of their contract by approximately $2,000 to save the owner $12,000. The immersive environment which would take the 3D CAD drawing to a 1:1 scale would cost an additional $55,000 but that would potentially be a cost to the owner or even the architect/engineer. An immersive environment is a one time only cost that would be used repeatedly for repeat construction owners. Assuming that an owner such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons will construct at least one project a year, an immersive environment would have a 5-year payback period. Using a computer-generated mock-up instead of actual projects for 20 years could save a repeat owner $239,000 based on the cost of the BCDC mock-up and initial purchasing of AutoCAD and an immersive environment. Schedule Impacts Shown below in Figure 3-4 is a summary table of the duration and man-hours required to construct a physical mock-up verses a computerized mock-up.

Description Activity Duration Actual Man Hours Plywood Dormitory/Cell Chase Mock-ups 2-3 weeks 136-156 MHRS 3D CAD Drawings 1 week 40 MHRS Immersive Environment 1 week 40 MHRS

Figure 3-4: Duration Comparison of the Mock-up and the Proposed Alternatives



A computer-generated mock-up can save approximately 100 man-hours and 1-2 weeks of construction time. Not only does a physical mock-up take 1-2 weeks more than a computerized mock-up but if it causes a delay in a projects completion date it can incur $2500-$5000 in liquidated damages assuming $500/day for liquidated damages was written into the contract. Acceptance within the Industry The initial drawback of proposing 3D CAD drawings displayed within an immersive environment in place of physical mock-ups was the industry’s reservations to utilize new technologies. In order to achieve a preliminary conception of the industry’s perception of this proposed alternative the survey found in Appendix C was sent out to the six contractors, architect/engineer and owner participating in the chase mock-ups for the BCDC Expansion. This survey showed that 63% of the parties involved approved the proposed alternative. Figure 3-5 graphically lays out the results of the survey.

Figure 3-5: Preliminary Survey of Acceptance within the Industry The overall feedback from the industry concluded that realistically the physical mock-up or the 3D CAD drawing in the immersive environment could be utilized. The list below shows concerns within the industry of accepting the use of a computer generated mock-up.

1) Liability is lower with a physical mock-up 2) Coordination is easier to determine with an actual mock-up 3) Overall people like to be able to touch things

Upon taking these comments into consideration a 3D CAD drawing of the dormitory chase was made to simulate the differences between using a computerized mock-up and a physical mock-up. Computer Generated Mock-up Using submittal drawings for the BCDC Expansion a 3D AutoCAD drawing was created for

Acceptance within the Industry

0

1

2

3

4

5

Contractors Architect/Engineer Owner

AcceptableNot AcceptableIndifferent/ No Response



the plywood dormitory chase. Below in Figures 3-6 & 7 are the southwest and interior views of the computer generated chase respectively.

Figure 3-6: Southwest View of the Computerized Plywood Dormitory Chase



Figure 3-7: Interior View of the Computerized Plywood Dormitory Chase



Upon creating this drawing the following issues arose: Issue: Using AutoCAD to draw the various fixtures and connections within the chase was not practical. Attempting to show valves, clips and gauges was impossible in AutoCAD. Solution: Rather than using AutoCAD for composing MEP mock-ups utilize mechanical desktop. This product offers standard blocks such as valves and fixtures that are necessary to create a computerized MEP mock-up. Issue: Determining the order in which each trade scope of work should be inputted. Which trades equipment has priority? Solution: Establish a coordination plan with a priority order for the participating trades. Coordination Plan To implement a computerized mock-up, coordination between each contractor is required just as it is for a physical mock-up. To ensure a quick and efficient coordination process for the computer-generated mock-up the following steps have been standardize order for the creation of a computer-generated mock-up.

Figure 3-8: Steps to Created a Computerized Mock-up

Structural Contractor Provide geometry and dimensions

Mechanical Contractor Insert all ductwork and pertaining equipment

Plumbing Contractor Insert all piping and pertaining equipment

Electrical Contractor Insert all conduit and pertaining equipment

Specialty Contractor Insert equipment related scope of work

Coordination Meeting All participating contractors view 3D drawing at a 1:1 scale using an immersive environment

Adjustments are made where needed

Actual Construction Begins Above order is used for actual installation



Adhering to the coordination plan detailed above should minimize coordination issues and therefore reduce liability concerns. This being two of three above listed concerns of the industry a computerized mock-up is a viable alternative. Conclusion This analysis proposes that a computer-generated mock-up can be used in place of a physical mock-up to save construction cost and time. The plywood chase mock-ups at the BCDC Expansion were used as an example to prove the viability of this proposal. A repeat owner such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons over a period of 20 years can save $239,000 by using 3D CAD drawings in a 1:1 scale immersive environment. On each project in which a computerized mock-up is applied there is possible 1-2 week or 100 man-hours of construction time that can be saved. According to these cost and schedule savings 63% of the participating contractors, owner, architect/engineer accepted this alternative. Implementing a computerized mock-up for construction coordination and operations concerns is an acceptable alternative in the industry that will save contractors and owners time and money.



IV. Foundation Redesign Introduction The foundation system for the BCDC Expansion is composed of column and strip footings. The existing foundation design has 31 different sizes of footings, which are all reinforced differently. The first part of the construction of BCDC Expansion was fast-tracked for political reasons. This included bid packages 1-3: the excavation, the foundations and the garage. To accelerate the construction of these bid packages, specifically the foundation package it would have been beneficial had the foundation design been more repetitive. A more repetitive design would have allowed for savings in labor cost and construction time. This analysis has redesigned the foundation to have only 10 different types of footings. Existing Foundation Design The table in Figure 4-1 shows the different types and quantities of footings within the original design for the BCDC Expansion. There are 31 different types of footings; after the redesign there will be only 10 different types of footings. The footings highlighted in yellow show the footings sizes that shall remain after the redesign.

Figure 4-1: Types of Foundations from the Original Design and to be Redesigned



The cost for the original foundation design was approximately $420, 900. The breakdown of the cost from the concrete contractor’s schedule of values is shown in Figure 4-2. This cost does not factor in any formwork because all foundations were poured directly.

Description Cost Excavation/Haul Off for Foundations $56,100 Foundations (Inc. Concrete, Reinforcing & Labor) $364,800 TOTAL $420,900

Figure 4-2: Cost of Original Foundation Design The excavation and pouring of the 173 footings began September 20, 2002 and was finished October 17, 2002. The actual construction took approximately 24 workdays to complete. There were 3 crews on the job, with 6 men per crew. The 24 workdays is equivalent to 3,500 man-hours. Upon redesigning the foundation system a comparison will be made between the two systems to prove cost and schedule savings. Alternative Foundation Design The 10 footings highlighted above in Figure 4-1 have been redesigned by ASCE-7 2002 with the following assumptions:

All footings sizes that are not in the redesigned are increased to the next available footing size that is being redesigned. For example the 16’ x 16’ footing no longer exists in the redesign so that footing will be increase to a 17’ x 17’ footing.

The axial load for each type of footing for the redesign is the maximum axial load taken from the column schedules of the original design for that footing design.

To determine the live load and dead load for each type of footing a ratio of live to dead load was calculated and used as a standard throughout the redesign.

The allowable bearing capacity of the soil (qa) was 6 ksf as determined in the geotechnical report of the specifications

As calculated two way shear stress controls for all footings The minimum column size to connect with the footings were used to check all

bearing conditions. To accelerate construction time the largest reasonable reinforcing bars available will

be used. #6, 9 & 11 bars were used as standard reinforcing bars for the redesign

With these assumptions the drawings shown below at a ¼” scale in Figures 4-3(a-c) are typical details of the 10 footings that were redesigned. All calculations for these details can be found in Appendix D.



Figure 4-3a: Redesigned Footings – Typical Detail



Figure 4-3b: Redesigned Footings – Typical Detail



Figure 4-3c: Redesigned Footings – Typical Detail

The cost for the construction of the redesigned foundation system was $218, 106. A summarized breakdown is shown below in Figure 4-4 and the actual estimate is located in Appendix D.

Description Cost Excavation/Haul Off for Foundations $48,977 Foundations (Inc. Concrete, Reinforcing & Labor) $169,129 TOTAL $218,106

Figure 4-4: Cost of Redesigned Foundations

Original Foundation Design $420,900 Foundation Redesign $218,106

Savings $202,794 Based on the shown calculations the redesign would save $202,794. The above cost estimates were based on cubic yards of concrete and pounds or reinforcing for each design. This would imply that the redesign has less cubic yards of concrete than the original design. However, the redesign increases the size of 74 of the footings. So how does the redesign have less cubic yards of concrete? The decrease in cubic yards of the redesign can be accounted for by the 2002 ASCE-7 code change. The 2002 ASCE-7 code changes the factored load requirements from Pu = 1.4PD + 1.7PL to Pu = 1.2PD + 1.6PL. Assuming the redesign increases the CY of concrete 20% from the original design the 2002 code update of the original design only would save $105,890. With this assumption had the code not been updated the redesign of the foundation system would cost $89,781 more for concrete material.



Original Design Foundation Material – 1998 Code $364,800 Original Design Foundation Material – 2002 Code $258,910 Savings from Code Update $105,890 Redesign Foundation Material – 2002 Code $169,129 Cost Increase for Foundation Redesign ($89,781) As previously acknowledged the redesign of the foundation system would incur additional concrete material cost. The redesign concrete cost was 34.7% more than the original design cost. Theoretically, additional cost can be justified by savings that can be recognized in labor cost and construction time. Foundation Design Evaluation The redesign of the foundation system is much easier to construct due to its repetition in the design but this benefit alone will not justify the additional $89,781 it cost to alter the design. Below in Figure 4-5 is an average percent breakdown of the cost of the components required for concrete construction.

Cost Distribution for Concrete Construction

65%10%

20%5%

formworkreinforcingconcreteMiscellaneous

Figure 4-5: Cost Breakdown of the Components of Concrete Construction

Based on this chart, formwork is the most expensive element of construction and has the highest potential for cost savings. The site for the BCDC Expansion was composed primarily of sand so formwork was not required for the construction of footings. Since the footings were poured directly into the ground no savings can be recognized. Another potential cost savings within the redesign was the labor cost and construction time that could be saved with a standardized rebar layout for the 10 footings. Although it will save time to only have to tie 8 bars instead of 10 there is no way to quantify this savings to compare it to the additional concrete cost. Therefore, without reducing the actual number of footing that needed to be excavated and poured the repetitive redesign is too costly.



Conclusion In theory redesigning the foundation system to be more repetitive by reducing the different types of footings should increase the concrete material cost but save money in formwork, labor cost and construction time. The redesign of the foundations cost $89,781 more than the original design. The foundations were directly poured so no savings was recognized by using less formwork and the time saved by standardizing the rebar layout could not be quantified. Without reducing the total number of footings the repetitive redesign will not save enough money to justify the additional cost of concrete. Although the foundation redesign did not have positive outcome during the analysis it was discovered that the foundations were designed by the 1998 ASCE-7 code. Updating the design to use ASCE-7 2002 with the new factored load combination would have saved the owner $105,890.



V. Active Solar System Introduction After the energy crises of the 1970s and the subsequent increases in the cost of petroleum-based fuels, interest in active solar energy systems surged. Thousands of active solar systems were installed from the late 1970s through the mid 1980s. In 1982 the existing BCDC structure employed an active solar system design. The building uses flat plate solar collectors on a closed loop system. The picture below shows the collectors located on the roof of the existing structure.

Figure 5-1: Solar Panel on Existing BCDC

The addition to the detention center was designed with an integrated space-water heating system rather than an active solar system. This analysis proposes that the expansion of the BCDC should also implement alternative energy sources for the building’s systems. In this analysis the new building will be redesigned using a similar active solar system to that of the existing structure and compared to the cost of the original expansion design.

Original Existing System The existing system is composed of 525 flat plate collectors mounted south 50° off the roof of the BCDC. These collectors have a gross area of 18 ft2 and are on a closed loop system. The closed loop system uses propylene glycol as the heat transfer fluid. Once the propylene glycol is pumped through the collectors and heated the glycol goes to a heat exchanger. The glycol releases the heat to the domestic water by conduction via the heat exchanger coils. The heated water is then stored in two 20,000-gallon tanks located underground in front of the existing BCDC. The current active solar system fulfills 60% of the BCDC space heating needs and 35% of the BCDC hot water needs. When the active solar system is not available auxiliary heating fueled by gas is used. The diagram below in Figure 5-2 shows a schematic layout of the closed loop system the existing BCDC uses.



1. Collector 6. Collector Return 11. Circulating Pump 16. Solar Hot Water Tank 2. Collector Sensor 7. Check Valve 12. Pressure Relief Valve 17. Immersion Heater 3. Manual Air Valve 8. Hose Bibs (Fill/Flush) 13. Pressure Gauge 18. USDT 2004 Controller 4. Hot Water to Taps 9. Expansion Tank 14. Collector Supply 5. Tempering Valve 10. Air Scoop & Vent 15. Heat Exchange Coil

Figure 5-2: Schematic Layout of Closed Loop Active Solar System

The cost associated with the existing BCDC active solar systems are as follows:

Description Cost Initial Cost of System $400,000 Annual Heat Bill (natural gas): 7/1/2002- 6/30/2003 $78,750 Average Annual Utility Savings $15,000 – 20,000

Figure 5-3: Cost Associated w/ Existing BCDC Active Solar System

Upon a telephone conversation with the head of maintenance, Captain Steven Tignor at the BCDC this system was confirmed as a reliable and cost effective system. There has been occasional maintenance required with the pumps located throughout the system as well as the replacement of the glycol when its pH levels require adjustments. Due to the confirmed success of this system a similar system was designed for the BCDC Expansion. Original Expansion System The original design of the BCDC Expansion consisted of an integrated space-water heating system. The expanded BCDC hot water needs were to be met using two horizontal fire-tube boilers and domestic hot water generators. The submitted specifications for these machines can be found in Appendix E. According to the schedule of values from the mechanical /plumbing contractor on the BCDC the initial cost for this equipment is listed below in Figure 5-4.



Description Cost Furnish & Set Boilers $105,000 Furnish & Set Domestic Hot Water Generators $169,487 Total Initial Cost $274,487 Fuel Cost Annually (Annual Heat Bill Existing BCDC/65%) $121,154 Maintenance (Assume 15% of initial cost) $27,449 Life Cycle Cost w/ Maintenance (30 years) $3,936,556

Figure 5-4: Cost of Original Expansion System

The initial total cost for the intended design for the BCDC Expansion is $274,487. The life cycle cost was also calculated in Figure 5-4. The annual cost of fuel was estimated using the annual cost of fuel shown in Figure 5-3. The existing BCDC solar system has annual fuel cost of $78,750. Since the BCDC solar system only heats 35% of the required load this annual cost is for 65% of the required load. Based on the existing system utility cost to accommodate 100% of the load the annual fuel cost would be $78,750/0.65 = $121,154. Therefore, the original expansion design has a life cycle cost (30 years) of $3,936,556. These values will be compared later to the proposed active solar system. Proposed Expansion System The proposed redesign for the BCDC Expansion is the same as the existing system of the BCDC; flat plate solar collectors on a closed loop system. However, the active solar system for the expansion will only accommodate the detention center’s hot water needs unlike the existing BCDC system, which provides for the space heating and hot water demands. The active solar system design was based on the following:

Existing BCDC & BCDC Expansion Water Needs Existing Expansion

40,000 gallons stored 50 gallons per person per day 864 inmates currently in BCDC 784 inmates in the new facility

46.3 gallons per person per day 39,200 gallons daily 50 gallons per person daily 40,000 gallons daily

Flat Plate Collectors (specifications located in Appendix E)

- 750 Collector Panels - Collector Area – 40 ft2 - SRCC Rating:

Test Slope (FR*UL) = 0.727 Test Intercept (FR*α*τ) = 0.714

- 50° Collector Slope - Collector azimuth = 0 (directly south) - Glazing – 2 - Black Chrome Absorber Coating



Active Domestic Hot Water System (specifications located in Appendix E) - Located in Baltimore, MD - Water Set Temperature - 135°F - Storage Tank:

40,450-Gallon Capacity 24’-8” Diameter & 11’-3” Height U value = 0.07

- Heat Transfer Fluid – Propylene glycol Specific Heat: 0.85

- Heat Exchanger - Auxiliary Heat - Natural Gas

The above design criteria were plugged into the solar system analysis software called f-chart. The entered parameters were modified to optimize the design. Ideally, an f value of 1.0 would be attained in the summer with a yearly f-value of 0.6 - 0.7. The f-value represents efficiency of the solar design to accommodate the required load. A system achieving an f-value of 1.0 the summer will maximize the use of the solar panels in peak environment conditions without producing waste. The below table in Figure 5-5 shows the amount of energy required (dhw), the amount received by the solar panels (solar) and the amount required by auxiliary heating (aux).

Month

SOLAR [106 Btu] DHW [106 Btu] AUX [106 Btu] F Value

January 986 841.1 501.9 0.403 February 1052 758.8 383.1 0.495 March 1323 834.9 349.8 0.581 April 1391 804.0 281.4 0.65 May 1459 825.7 267.7 0.676 June 1483 794.0 220.6 0.722 July 1530 818.4 217.2 0.735 August 1480 819.5 230.1 0.719 September 1371 796.0 256.5 0.678 October 1294 828.7 329.1 0.603 November 978 807.0 446.8 0.446 December 861 839.1 548.7 0.346 Yearly 15208 9767.3 4033.0 0.587

Figure 5-5: Energy Requirements Calculated by F Chart

The outputted results from f-chart show that the designed active solar system will accommodate for 58.7% of the BCDC Expansion’s annual hot water needs. The monthly percentages of the hot water needs that will be provided by the active solar system based on the f-values are shown graphically below in Figure 5-6.



Figure 5-6: Monthly F-value

The outputted results from f-chart also showed the monthly requirements for the total hot water needs, auxiliary heat and the amount of solar energy collected. These results are shown visually below in Figure 5-7.

Figure 5-7: Monthly Solar, Auxiliary & DHW Requirements

According to the parameters inputted into f-chart the designed active solar system has the following cost over a period of 30 years.

Description Cost

Initial Cost of System $700,000 Cost of Fuel $1,936,456 Maintenance (Assume 15% of initial cost) $2,636,456 Life Cycle Cost w/ Maintenance (30 yrs) $2,741,456

Figure 5-8: Cost of Expansion Redesign



These costs were based on a 30-year economic analysis since the equipment has a life expectancy of 45 years and a 20-year warranty. Also, the cost of fuel was calculated assuming a 50% increase in the price natural gas within the next 20 years. According to the calculations provide within this analysis an active solar system as designed above has a 6 year payback period and can save the owner $1,195,100 over 30 years or approximately $40,000 annually in utility cost. Original BCDC Expansion Design $3,936,556 Redesign Active Solar System $2,741,456

Savings Over 30 Years $1,195,100 Annual Savings $39,837 Below in Figure 5-9 is a table summarizing a cost comparison between the original BCDC Expansion design of the integrated system and the proposed BCDC Expansion design of the active solar system.

Original Expansion Design Boilers/Generators

Proposed Expansion Design Active Solar System

Initial Cost of System $274,487 $700,000 Life Cycle Cost $3,936,556 $2,741,456 Payback Period 1.75 years 6 years

Figure 5-9: Cost Comparison between the Original & Proposed BCDC Expansion Systems Conclusions As natural gas and electricity prices continually increase alternative energy sources will become a more implemented preference. Initially the cost of the active solar system is $425,513 more than integrated design with a 6-year payback period. However, the life cycle cost savings of the active solar system is substantially outweighs the additional initial cost of the system. Proposing the use of an active solar system in place of the boilers and hot water generators can save Baltimore County $1,195,100 over 30 years or $39,837 annually. Since the existing BCDC already uses flat plate solar collectors implementing this same design on the expansion to save the owner and taxpayers money is an excellent alternative.



VI. Conclusions The following is a summary of the results of four proposed alternatives. The goal of the design-build analysis was to show that a design-build delivery was a more efficient delivery method for correctional facility construction, specifically for the BCDC Expansion. Based on the survey and the criteria established within the analysis a design/build delivery proved to be an effective way to implement on or below budget projects, on or ahead of schedule projects, value engineering, increased innovation, more constructible designs and utilization of new technologies. The design-build delivery was considered the best delivery method for employing value engineering items and innovative designs/construction. Overall, the design-build delivery is an effective delivery method for correctional facilities both federally and state funded. The computer generated mock-up analysis proposed that a computer-generated mock-up could be a substitute for a physical mock-up to save construction cost and time. The plywood chase mock-ups at the BCDC Expansion were used as an example to prove the viability of this proposal. It was determined that a repeat owner such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons could save $239,000 over a 20-year period by using 3D CAD drawings in a 1:1 scale immersive environment. On each project in which a computerized mock-up is applied there is possible 1-2 week or 100 man-hours of construction time that can be saved. According to these cost and schedule savings 63% of the participating contractors, owner, architect/engineer accepted this alternative. Implementing a computerized mock-up for construction coordination and operations concerns is an acceptable alternative in the industry that will save contractors and owners time and money. In theory redesigning the foundation system to be more repetitive by reducing the different types of footings should increase the concrete material cost but save money in formwork, labor cost and construction time. The redesign of the foundations cost $89,781 more than the original design. The foundations were directly poured so no savings was recognized by using less formwork and the time saved by standardizing the rebar layout could not be quantified. Without reducing the total number of footings the repetitive redesign will not save enough money to justify the additional cost of concrete. Although the foundation redesign did not have positive outcome during the analysis it was discovered that the foundations were designed by the 1998 ASCE-7 code. Updating the design to use ASCE-7 2002 with the new factored load combination would have saved the owner $105,890. As natural gas and electricity prices continually increase alternative energy sources will become a more implemented preference. Initially the cost of the active solar system is $425,513 more than integrated design with a 6-year payback period. However, the life cycle cost savings of the active solar system is substantially outweighs the additional initial cost of the system. Proposing the use of an active solar system in place of the boilers and hot water generators can save Baltimore County $1,195,100 over 30 years or $39,837 annually. Since



the existing BCDC already uses flat plate solar collectors implementing this same design on the expansion to save the owner and taxpayers money is an excellent alternative. In conclusion, the BCDC Expansion could successfully implement a design-build delivery, a computer generated mock-up and an active solar system to save the owner money and construction time.



VII. References Analysis #1 – Design-Build Delivery Beard, J., Loukakis, M. C., and Wundram, E.C. (2001). Design-Build: planning through development. McGraw Hill, New York. Molennaar, K.R., Songer, A.D. and Barash, M. (1999). “Public-sector design-build evolution and performance.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 15 (2) 54-62. Molenaar, K.R., and Songer, A.D. (1998). “Model for Public Sector Design-Build Project Selection.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 124 (6) 467-479.

Songer, A.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (1996). “Selecting design-build: Public and private sector owner attitudes.” Journal of Management in Engineering. ASCE, 12 (6), 47-53.

Analysis #2 – Computer Generated Mock-ups

Immersive Environments. February 8th 2004. http://www.vizeverywhere.com/home.htm Analysis #3 – Foundation Redesign ASCE-7. 2002 Online Construction Cost for Contractors. March 30th 2004. http://www.get-a-quote.net Analysis #4 – Active Solar System

Chigioji, Melvin, and Oura, Eleanor. (1982). Energy Conservation in Commercial and Residential Buildings. Marcel Decker Inc., New York.

Reddy, T. (1987). The Design and Sizing of Active Solar Thermal Systems. Claredan Press, Oxford. 3-13.

Schubert, Richard C., and Ryan, L.D. (1981). Fundamentals of Solar Heating. Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey. Schwolsky, Rick and Williams, James. (1982). The Builder’s Guide to Solar Construction. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York.



VIII. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people for the guidance and assistance they provided to lead to the successful completion of this thesis.

The Architectural Engineering professors at The Pennsylvania State University; specifically Dr. Riley, Dr. Messner, Dr. Horman, Dr. Mumma and Walter Schneider.

Gilbane Building Company’s onsite staff of the Baltimore County Detention Center The contractors on the Baltimore County Detention Center Expansion project;

Primo Electric, Poole & Kent, G-S Company, OldCastle Pre-cast, Siemens Building Technologies and Dance Brothers.

Jim O’Neil and Steve Tignor representatives of the BCDC All the construction managers/general contractors and architects/engineers that

participated in the surveys required to complete this project

Erin Sharkey Construction Management Option Spring 2004 · Erin Sharkey • CM Emphasis • Spring 2004 2 April 14, 2004 Mr. Jim O ... Using the six projects surveyed as case studies

Documents