1. Redifer Commons Addition & Renovation Project
Brian Peglowski
The Pennsylvania State University
Construction Management
Spring 2004 Senior Thesis
Department of Architectural Engineering

2. Project Background Location: University Park, PA Size: Addition: 20,550 sf Renovation: 34,250sf Features: - 2 Stories with Penthouse on Roof - Structural Steel with Concrete Slab on Metal Deck - Brick Façade Person Dining Hall - Domed Roof at Louies

3. Parties Involved Owner: Penn State University
Architects: Hayes Large Architects
Structural Engineer: Atlantic Engineering Services
MEP Engineer: Brinjac Engineering
Construction Manager: Turner Construction

4. Site Layout

5. Incomplete Construction Document Management
Purpose:
To explore the idea of incomplete construction documents and learn how to manage these documents effectively.
Method:
Posting on Thesis Bulletin Board
Interview with professionals in the industry
Expectations:
Develop a list of keys to managing incomplete documents.

6. Incomplete Construction Document Management
Recent Trends:
Shortened Design Time
Smaller Fees
Less Coordination
Similar Details and Standard Specifications
Poor Communication
Lack of Constructability Knowledge

7. Incomplete Construction Document Management
Keys to Managing Incomplete Documents:
Detailed Cost Estimate
Only Take On a Project You Can Handle
Establish a Contingency for all Unforeseen Conditions
Have the Subcontractors Bid Only the Plans and Specifications
Document all Assumptions when Bidding (Bid Clarifications)
Establish Open Communication Between All Parties
Experience is Critical
Defend the Architect
Design Management
Constructability Review
Lessons Learned

8. Incomplete Construction Document Management
Conclusion:
Communication is Critical to Success
Build a Good Working Relationship
Experience Helps

9. Radiant Floor Heat vs. Forced Air Heat
Purpose:
To explore the value engineering idea of radiant floor heat in lieu of the existing forced air system.
Method:
Determine System Requirements
Radiant Floor Long Term and Short Term Estimates
Expectations:
Radiant floor heat will have a higher initial lost cost but will produce savings over the life of the system. Energy will also not be lost to above or through open doors.

10. Radiant Floor Heat vs. Forced Air Heat Analysis
Approximate Load: 92.7 BTU/SF (Average From ASHRAE)
Ventilation Requirements: 20 cfm/person (From ASHRAE)
Max. Capacity: 500 people
20 cfm/person * 500 people = 10,000cfm
The existing duct work is sized for 10,500 cfm. This will be the same size required for a radiant floor heating system to provide fresh air.

11. Radiant Floor Heat vs. Forced Air Heat
Advantages:
Less Noise from Ductwork and Fans
Less Energy is Lost to Open Doors and Windows
Heating is Even Throughout the Entire Space
More Aesthetically Pleasing with the Elimination of Ductwork
Possibly Lower Heating Bills
Eliminates Drafts and Dust Problems
Heats Masses instead of Air which Rises

12. Radiant Floor Heat vs. Forced Air Heat
Disadvantages:
Fresh Air Requirements are Not Easily Met
System is not Readily Available for Repairs
Can Not Supply Warmth Immediately
Cooling is More Effective with Forced Air
Humidification Can Not Easily Be Added

13. Radiant Floor Heat vs. Forced Air Heat
Cost
Initial Cost - $246,000
Savings by Eliminating AHU Heat Coils - $27,000
Energy Savings/Year - $1,000 (From Reduced Temp. Needs)
Assuming a life span of 30 years this proposal will cost an additional $200,000 over the life of the system.
Reason:
Steam is the energy for the system and is very cheap for the university thus much of the potential savings are lost.

14. Radiant Floor Heat vs. Forced Air Heat
Conclusion:
Radiant Floor Heat is More Expensive (+$200,000)
Required to Have Two Systems
Radiant Floor Heat Will not Benefit PSU

15. Schedule Acceleration
Purpose:
To explore using a concrete structure in lieu of the existing structural steel system.
Method:
Perform a Schematic Concrete Structure Design
Create a Revised Schedule
Expectations:
Concrete is a slower structural process but given the delay of 2 months waiting on steel, concrete should be the faster system.

16. Schematic Design Irregular Bay Sizes Span of 36 ft.
Keep Columns in Same Location
System: Flat Plate System
Slab Thickness= Span/36 or 4”
36ft(12in./1ft.)/36 = 12”
Using typical bay size of 36ft by 30ft the columns should be approximately 20in x 20in.

17. Renovation is delayed by steel.
Schedule Acceleration
Existing Schedule:
Expected to be completed by spring break but steel delay will push back completion till summer.
Penn State was to transfer from existing dining area to new addition over spring break.
After spring break construction will begin on the existing dining hall facility.
Renovation is delayed by steel.

19. Two Months are Saved. Schedule Acceleration Results:
Acceleration of 2 months
Allows Penn State To Move Over Spring Break
Additional 8 weeks for the final Renovation Stage
Two Months are Saved.

20. Schedule Acceleration
Conclusion:
Concrete is the most “time friendly” system
Concrete has approximately the same cost as steel
However, this proposal is not practical. The conflict was found once the design was complete. A redesign at this time is not feasible.

21. Schedule Acceleration
Solution:
Estimated Redesign Cost: $100,000
Overtime to Accelerate the Project Cost: $64,000
Restructure Schedule
Begin Phase 3 Renovation prior to the end of the spring semester in areas that are not occupied.
More concentration on existing dining facilities once students have left for the summer.
Complete addition before start of fall semester.

22. Hayes Large Architects
Acknowledgements
AE Faculty
Turner Construction
Penn State
Hayes Large Architects
Family and Friends

23. Questions?