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: ,000 SF Cost: $27,550,000 Schedule: October 2003 to April Delivery 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 by Two 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 tons = $96,550
Steel Connections
~Estimated to be 10 percent of the affected structural tonnage
~ tons X = 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
~ minutes/day X 260 work days = minutes
~5200 minutes / 60min/hr = 87 hours/year
~ 87 hours / 24 hours/day = days
~ days X $480/day = $1,740
TOTAL = $26, $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