Page 1
from the “Gold Mine” of Smaller Transportation Projects
Illinois Association of Highway Engineers The 83rd IAHE Statewide Annual Conference
Rock Island, Illinois
Technical Session PresentationBy Warren Knoles, PE, CVS
September 13, 2019
Mining “VE Gold”…
Page 2
• Introduction
• Project
• Process
• Results
• Conclusions
Outline
Page 3
• FHWA VE eligibility thresholds doubled in FY 2014
• Reason: align with Moving Ahead for Progress (MAP-21) legislation
Introduction
Page 4
• Pre-MAP-21 legislation VE thresholds1
• Roadway projects: $25 million• Bridge projects: $20 million
• Post-FY 2014 VE thresholds1
• Roadway project: $50 million• Bridge projects: $40 million
Introduction
Page 5
• Result2
FY05-14 FY15-17FHWA Metric Avg. (10 yrs.) Avg. (3 yrs.) Change Change %VE studies/ year 330 164 (-) 166 (-) 50%
Approved VEPs/yr. 1151 573 (-) 578 (-) 50%
Approved VE savings/yr. $1.718B $917M (-) $801M (-) 47%
• Annual state-DOT VE savings nearly cut in half
Introduction
Page 6
• Some states: FHWA-mandated VE studies now very infrequent/rare
• Other states:• Kept the original VE thresholds, or• Select projects with VE potential regardless of size
• One example state: Missouri – MoDOT has continued VE studies on smaller projects
Introduction
Page 7
• Today’s presentation: example MoDOT VE study3:
• US 54 & BU 54/Rte. W Interchange near Lake Ozark, MO
• Substantial VE savings & performance/value improvement
• Affirms benefit of VE studies on smaller projects
Introduction
Page 8
How big was the largest gold nugget ever found?
Introduction
Page 9
• The largest gold nugget ever found4
Introduction
“Welcome Stranger”
DUNOLLY MUSEUM
Page 10
• The largest gold nugget ever found4
Introduction
Name: the “Welcome Stranger”
Location: Moliagul, Victoria, Australia
Date of discovery: 1869
Weight: 72kg (160 lb)
Today’s value: $3+ Million
Replica of the Welcome Stranger Nugget
Page 11
Projects > $50 Million
Introduction
“VE Gold” from Larger Projects
Kalgoorlie open-pit mine, Australia*
*Image courtesy of Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines. www.mining.com
FHWA Avg. % savings 5.70% x $50M = $2.85M
Page 12
VEGoldMine
VE Gold
Projects < $50 Million
Introduction
Premise of presentation:
“VE gold” can be mined from the “gold mine” of smaller
transportation projectsSmaller
DOT Projects
Page 13
The Project
Project Location
Lake of the Ozarks
Lake Ozark, MO
Page 14
The Project
Project Setting
Exist. SignalizedIntersection
Scope: Replace signalized intersection
Purpose & Need:o Reduce congestiono Reduce accidents
Interchange types considered: 12
Selected interchange type:o Hybrido Folded diamondo Diamondo Slip ramp
Page 15
The Project
Ramp 1
Ramp 3
Ramp 4Ramp 2
BU 54
US 54
Rte. W
Connector RoadUnder US 54
Osage HillsRoad
Compressed Median &
New Bridge
Exist. Signalized Intersection
Baseline Design Concept – Geometric Plan
Osage Hills Golf Course
Page 16
The Project
Connector Road Profile – Extreme Terrain
Osage Hills Road
Page 17
The Project
Ramp 1 Profile Ramp 3 Profile
Ramp Profiles – Extreme Terrain
Page 18
• Traffic
The Project
US 54AADT (2020) 28,155
AADT (2040) 33,035
Peak traffic during tourist season (June-August)
Page 19
• Cost Estimate
The Project
Construction $11.156 M
Land Acquisition $ 0.996 M
TOTAL $12.152 M
Page 20
The Process
• Design Stage:
o End of concept design/beginning of preliminary design
oPublic acceptance of baseline concept
• Workshop Scope:
oAnalyze interchange functional/cost components
o Focus on extensive earthwork & drainage east of US 54
Page 21
The Process
• Workshop Constraints:
o Interchange location: existing signalized intersection
o Interchange type: open to alternative concepts
oProvide full interchange (“look & feel like an interchange”)
oMaintain access to Route W intersection during construction
oMaintain access to existing businesses during construction
oMaintain four lanes of traffic on US 54
Page 22
The Process
• Workshop Goals & Objectives:
oDevelop 4-5 feasible VE proposals
oReduce project cost by 4-5% ($486K-$607K)
Page 23
The Process
• Workshop Team:o 8 MoDOT engineers (traffic, geometrics, structures, maintenance, utilities, costs)
o 1 MoDOT geologist (geotechnical)
o 1 FHWA engineer (highway & bridge design, FHWA policies)
o VE facilitator (SAVE-certified)
o Two engineers from another MoDOT district – observers on 2nd day
o TOTAL: 10 + facilitator
Page 24
The Process
• Performance Criteria Wt. (%)oMainline/ramp operations (LOS) 19o Local traffic operations (LOS) 14oHighway user safety 26o Traffic operations during construction 10o Long-term performance/maintainability 14oGeotechnical stability 5oAccess during construction 12
TOTAL 100
• Paired-pair comparison methodology used for weighting criteria
Page 25
The Process
• Job Plan – VE methodology5
o Information phase
o Function analysis phase
oCreative phase
o Evaluation phase
oDevelopment phase
oPresentation phase
Page 26
Process
Value = Function = PerformanceCost Cost
Value Engineering – The Basics
Page 27
Process
PAVE Workshop objective:
• improve project value by…
• identifying alternative ways to reliably accomplish a function that…
• meet the performance expectations of the owner.
Value Engineering – The Basics
Page 28
Process
VALUE can be increased by:
• Improving performance of a function at the same cost, or
• Providing equivalent function at a lower cost
• Improving performance of a function and at a lower cost
Value Engineering – The Basics
Page 29
Process
The value methodology does this.
This case study demonstrates how.
Value Engineering – The Basics
Page 30
The Process
• Information Phase Pre-workshop project information
package
Pre-workshop site visit
Site visit travel routeand planned stops
Page 31
The Process
• Information Phase
oProject presentation at workshop
• Baseline concept interchange
• Baseline bridge concept
• Baseline concept phasing plan
• Design team Q&A
Workshop project presentation
Page 32
The Process
• Information Phase
oKey question to design team:
“Why is the median being compressed to provide a single bridge over the proposed Connector Road?”
Workshop project presentation
Page 33
The Process
• Information Phase
oAnswer:
“To provide an EB, first-stage bridge deck wide enough to accommodate 2 lanes in head-to-head operation during construction of the new WB lane and bridge.”
This answer will later lead to a significant value improvement.
Workshop project presentation
Page 34
The Process
• Information Phase
Cost Model – by Cost Item
Cost-Item Distribution
Earthwork & drainage 48%Bridge 21%PCC pavement 17%
TOTAL 86%
Earthwork & Drainage
Bridge
PCC Pavement
Page 35
The Process
• Information Phase
Cost Model – by Cost Location
Cost-Location Distribution
Ramp 3 25%US 54 E 22%Connector Road 20%Ramp 1 16%
TOTAL 83%
Ramp 1 & Ramp 3 = 41%
Ramp 3
US 54 E
Connector Road
Ramp 1
Page 36
The Process
• Function Analysis PhaseoCost-item value targets from cost model
A PavementsB BridgeC R/W AcquisitionD Drainage/CulvertsE EarthworkF Misc. Items (barrier wall) F Misc. Items (pavement removals)G InterchangeH Intersections
oDefine functions
Page 37
The Process
• Function Analysis Phaseo Function Definition = Active verb & measurable noun
Bridge & R/W Acquisition Interchange
Page 38
The Process
Function (Function Analysis System Technique – FAST) DiagrammingDiagramming
Bridge FAST Diagram Team
Interchange FAST Diagram Team
Page 39
The Process
• Function (FAST) Diagrams
Page 40
The Process
• Creative Phase
oCreative ideas brainstormed by value target
o First individually, then as a team
o Ideas recorded on flip charts for each value target
Individual brainstorming
Team brainstorming
Page 41
The Process
• Evaluation Phaseo Team classified ideas using 9-cell matrix
oPotential VE opportunities:• 4 rating = same functionality; decreased cost• 4 rating = increased functionality; same cost• 5 rating = increased functionality; decreased cost
oPotential “practical design” alternatives:• 2- rating = decreased functionality; decreased cost
oPotential internally funded performance increase
• 2+ rating = increased performance; increased cost
9-Cell Matrix Methodology6
Page 42
The Process
• Evaluation Phaseo Idea rated against each performance
criterion using 1-9 scale. Baseline design rated a “5” for each criterion.
o Top-rated, most-promising ideas selected for further development.
Team evaluation of ideas
Page 43
The Process
• Development Phaseo Team developed 8 VE proposals
oRecorded on development worksheets• Function addressed• Original and proposed concepts• Cost impacts• Advantages/challenges• Cost calculations• Sketches (where applicable)
Team development of VE proposals
Page 44
The Process
• Development Phase
oDetermined the value index for each VE proposal write-up as follows:
• Value Index = Performance = Perf. Rating Cost Revised Cost
• Baseline value index = 500/$12.152M = 41.1 (Perf. Pts./$Million)
• Improve value: increase numerator, decrease denominator, or both
Page 45
The Process
• Development Phase
oDetermined the value index (VI) change in per cent for each idea compared to the baseline value index.
o∆ VI % = Idea Value Index (–) BL Value Index x 100BL Value Index
oPrioritized VE proposal write-ups in order of value index %-change.
Page 46
The Process
• Development Phase
o Team developed five packages of individual VE proposals
oValue index computed for each package
• Presentation Phase
oWorkshop summary presented to MoDOT senior officials one week following workshop
Page 47
Results
• Creative ideas: 42
• VE proposals: 8
• Accepted VE proposals (MoDOT preferred package): 5
• Accepted VE savings: $2.85 million (23% of construction cost)
• Performance change: 606/500 = +21%
• Value impact (VE VI/BL VI): 69.1/44.1 = +68%
Page 48
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept
Baseline Design Concept Preferred VE Design Concept
Page 49
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR Access Crossroad
Connect Roadways
How? Why?
Functions addressed:
Page 50
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
Page 51
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left
shoulder [VE]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
Functions addressed: Access Crossroad, Connect Roadways
Page 52
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left
shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
Page 53
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left
shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
Increase Throughput
Manage Traffic
Alternate Movements
Stop Traffic
Accomm. Free-flow
Slow Traffic
MergeMovements
Functions addressed: BL
VE
How?Why?
Display Directive
Increase Curvature
Page 54
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left
shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
AccommodateSpeed-change
Separate Traffic
Channelize Traffic
Slow Traffic
IncreaseCurvature
Functions addressed: BL
VE
How? Why?
Page 55
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left
shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
Functions addressed: BLMaintain
TrafficIncrease
[Bridge] WidthCompress Median
BypassBridge
Re-route TrafficVE
Why?How?
Page 56
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left
shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
2-lane Bypass RampFunctions addressed: maintain traffic/bypass bridge
Page 57
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left
shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M] Single-span 100’-long bridges with MSE walls [VE]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
Functions addressed: ▪ BL – Span Embankment▪ VE – Retain Embankment
Page 58
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left
shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M] Single-span 100’-long bridges with MSE walls [VE] No US 54 super adjustment to 70 mph [VE]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
Functions addressed: ▪ BL – Increase Speed/Increase Super ▪ VE – Functions not in purpose & need
Page 59
Results
• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept
Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left
shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M] Single-span 100’-long bridges with MSE walls [VE] No US 54 super adjustment to 70 mph [VE]
R1
R4R2
R3
OHR
CR
2-lane Bypass Ramp
Page 60
Results
Preferred VE Design Concept – Geometric Plan
Potential Future Quarry
Fiber Optic Control Box
Page 61
Conclusions
Traditional design + VE study = optimum design
TRADITIONAL DESIGN
BaselineDesign Report
PS&E
VE STUDY
AcceptedVE Proposals
OPTIMUM DESIGN
Best Value
Conclusions
Page 62
Conclusions
• This project demonstrates the potential benefit of conducting VE studies on smaller transportation projects.
• The national-average VE-study yield (in terms of percent of construction cost) for state DOTs during FY 2015-2017 was: 5.70%.
Page 63
Conclusions
• The average VE-study $savings for a $50 million project (the new FHWA threshold) would be: 5.70% x $50M = $2.85 million.
Page 64
Conclusions
• The average VE-study $savings for a $50 million project (the new FHWA threshold) would be: 5.70% x $50M = $2.85 million.
• The VE-study $savings for this $12 million project were that same amount: 23.4% x $12.152M = $2.85 million.
Page 65
Conclusions
• This size VE-study yield is not unique.
• Three other CMT VE studies of similar size with similar savings:
Project Description Agency Proj. Cost VE Savings PercentRte. 210 Widening MoDOT $11 million $1.4 million 12.7%I-435/Rte. 210 Interchange MoDOT $12 million $2.3 million 19.1%US 421 Reconstruction INDOT $11 million $4.9 million 46.2%
Page 66
Conclusions
• If appropriate selection criteria are used, such as:• Complex geometry• Complex phasing/traffic control• Extreme terrain• Extreme site constraints• Complex structures• Need for retaining walls• Complex drainage, etc.
• Most DOT programs contain a “gold mine” of VE savings that can be “mined” through scaled VE studies conducted on smaller projects.
VEGoldMineSmaller
DOTProjects
Page 67
Conclusions
• Ten VE studies of similar VE-savings yield wouldstretch DOT program dollars by:
10 VE studies @ $2.85M VE Savings= $28.5 Million, or
2 VE studies @ $40M project x 9.0% = $7.2M VE Savings4 VE studies @ $25M project x 12.0% = $12.0M VE Savings4 VE Studies @ $15M project x 15.5% = $9.3M VE Savings10 VE Studies = $28.5M VE Savings
VEGoldMineSmaller
DOT Projects
Page 68
• VE studies on smaller transportation projects ($10M-$49M) can stretch DOT program dollars with:
“VE GOLD”
Conclusions
VE Team
VEGoldMineSmaller
DOT Projects
DOT Program Dollars
VE Gold
Page 69
1. “Value Engineering Final Rule,” 2019, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/vefaq.cfm.
2. Johnston, Julie, “Federal-aid Value Engineering Summary Reports,”2018, FHWA, https://fhwa.dot.gov/ve/vereport.cfm.
3. O’Shea, Johnny, 2019, BBC News Online, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-englenc-cornwall-47041314, “Welcome Stranger: World’s Largest Gold Nugget Remembered,”2.
4. Knoles, Warren, 2018, Value Engineering Study Report – US 54 & BU/Route W Interchange, 10.
5. USDOT/FHWA, 1988, NHI Course No. 13405, Value Engineering for Highways, A-10.
6. Adams, Ginger, 2008, Module I Basic Certification Training Workshop Workbook, 125.
References
Page 70
QUESTIONS?
Warren Knoles, PE, CVS
217.725.4567 [email protected]
THANK YOU. Thank You..
Mining “VE Gold”
Questions?VE
GoldMineSmaller
DOT Projects