1. Wilsdorf Hall Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 The Pennsylvania State University Department of Architectural Engineering

2. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Agenda  Project Overview  Depth Analysis: CM In-House Building Commissioning  Breadth Analysis: Virtual MEP Coordination  Breadth Analysis: Underpinning Constructability Review

3. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Project Overview Location: University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA Building Occupant: UVA School of Engineering and Applied Science Building Function: --- Nanotechnology Laboratories --- Faculty Offices --- Conference Rooms --- Computer Labs and work-study areas Size: 80,000 gsf Cost: $28,000,000 $350.00 / s.f.

4. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Project Overview Project Delivery Method: Owner’s Agent Building Features: --- Physically Joins Existing Material Science & Chemistry Buildings --- two floor atrium, café, and courtyard Dates of Construction: --- Start Date: June 2003 --- Anticipated Completion: March 2006 --- Underpinning Failure Delay: 2 months --- Current anticipated completion: May 2006

5. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Construction Features: --- Five total levels, three above grade --- 300ft permanent retaining wall --- Extensive vibration control in sub-basement --- 5 individually ducted fume hoods --- Structural Steel Frame with cast in place concrete slabs --- Brick and architectural pre-cast concrete facade Project Team: --- Construction Manager: Barton Malow --- Architect: VMDO Architects, P.C. --- Owner: University of Virginia --- Mechanical/Electrical Engr.: BR+A Consulting Engrs --- Structural Engineer: Fox and Associates Project Overview

6. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Site Plan --- Underpinning Required --- Relocation of Chilled Water Lines --- Traffic redirection

7. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review CM In-House Building Commissioning Proposal: A CM is qualified to perform in-house building commissioning vs. hiring a 3 rd party commissioning agent Methods: --- Research Case Studies --- Interview Industry Professionals Results: --- Benefits of CM In-House Building Commissioning --- CM In-House commissioning department set-up guidelines --- CM In-House Commissioning Plan

8. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Commissioning Cost Building Commissioning (HVAC, Controls, Electrical) Less than 0.5% - 1.5% of Total Construction Cost HVAC and Automated Controls System Commissioning Less than 1.5% - 2.5% of Mechanical System Cost Electrical Systems Commissioning Less than 1.0% - 1.5% of Electrical System Cost “The basic purpose of building commissioning is to provide documented confirmation that building systems function in compliance with criteria set forth in the Project Documents to satisfy the Owner’s operational needs” Average Commissioning Costs: Commissioning Ensures a Building is: --- Designed--- Tested --- Installed--- Started

9. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Commissioning All systems must be commissioned because all are integrated and a deficiency in one may result in the performance or failure of another. Commissioning Benefits: o Reduced energy use o Improved indoor air quality o Improved occupant comfort o Improved environmental conditions o Improved system and equipment function o Improved building operation and maintenance o Improved building productivity o Smoother building turnover o Better start-up documentation o Better operator training and Owner knowledge of their systems

10. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Why Owners Commission

11. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Benefits of In-House Building Commissioning o Understand the construction schedule o Risk involved ensures an excellent building turnover o Provide services on all building systems, not just controls o Qualified to gain LEED points o Extensive background on all building systems

12. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review In-House Commissioning Department set-up guidelines o Must remain a separate entity o Commissioning practices must be understood and practiced properly o Members of the department must be certified commissioning agents o Department must consist of staff specializing in each building system o Organized plan must be followed

13. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review CM In-House Commissioning Plan Task 1: Planning Phase --- Develop Project Objectives --- Choose Team --- Develop Commissioning Schedule Task 2: Submittal Review --- Review system submittals Task 3: Construction Inspections/Start-ups --- Develop pre-functional tests and checklists --- Inspections, site visits --- Review and attend system start-ups and tests Task 4: Functional Performance Tests --- Coordinate FPT and test plans --- Witness FPT --- Document FPT Results Task 5: O & M Manuals and Training Review

14. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Virtual MEP Coordination Methods: --- Research Case Studies --- Interview Industry Professionals Results: --- Advantages of 3D MEP Coordination --- 3D MEP Coordination Process --- 3D MEP Model Checklist --- 3D Model Cost and Schedule Analysis --- Problems with 3D MEP Coordination Proposal: 3D models are more effective when coordinating MEP systems than traditional coordination methods.

15. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review 3D MEP Coordination Provides in One Drawing: --- Material Lists --- Fabrication Drawings --- Assembly Drawings --- Construction/Scheduling Coordination

16. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Advantages of 3D MEP Coordination o Problems can be solved in the early phases of design And construction o Multiple coordination plans can be viewed before selecting the most efficient o Navigation through the model is possible allowing errors to be found o Plans can be tested before construction o Different views of the model can be seen

17. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review 3D MEP Coordination Process HVAC Subcontractor creates background for all other MEP Contractors Mechanical Subcontractor adds HVAC system Plumbing Contractor adds plumbing system Sprinkler Contractor adds sprinkler mains/branches Electrical Subcontractor adds main electrical feeds Finished drawings are reviewed by all contractors involved, the architect and the project manager` Conflicts are identified & documented by all parties Solution is developed & documented by all parties Coordination Meeting

18. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review 3D MEP Model Checklist Level of Detail: The level of detail needs to be determined because items can be modeled in varying levels of detail. For example a piece of mechanical equipment could be modeled as a 3D box or to show all access point, switches, etc. When to complete 3D model: The sequence and timing of the model needs to be coordinated with the construction process, from design to turnover. Project Staff: Each person needs to understand the goals, the level of 3D modeling required, and the amount of information sharing needed. Design Background: The coordinate system, file name, layers, etc.. must be set up early in the design process.

19. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review 3D Model Cost and Schedule Analysis Average Added Cost due to MEP Coordination Conflicts in the Field 3D Coord. Cost Savings (60% Prevented) MEP Conflict Costs after 3D Coordination Plan and Spec – Hardly any Precon. Coord. (3 projects) $385,000($231,000)$154,000 Limited Preconstruction Coordination (4 projects) $200,000($120,000)$80,000 Full Preconstruction Coordination (4 projects) $150,000($90,000)$60,000 Design – Build MEP Coordination (3 projects) $50,000($30,000)$20,000 Schedule: --- Total Hours Saved: 38 --- Saves more than time, saves stress & conflict Cost:

20. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Problems with 3D MEP Coordination  New to the Industry  Not all contractors have the capability or knowledge of using 3D Cad  Trades not using 3D CAD may not know how to read drawings on a computer

21. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Underpinning Constructability Review Methods : --- Interview Industry Professionals Results: --- Constructability review --- CM role in underpinning process Proposal: Review constructability of underpinning system and determine factors leading to failure

22. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Underpinning Constructability Review o Underpinning Tests --- Concrete Strength - Passed --- Tieback Tests - Passed --- Additional Tiebacks were installed to reinforce the system - Passed o Legal Battle --- Inadequate Designs --- Intersection of soil planes

23. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review CM Role in Underpinning Installation o Safety o Know consequences of actions (have a plan) o Check installation Factors Affecting Underpinning o Size and depth of excavation o Soil conditions o Ground Water o Surface drainage conditions o Weather and moisture conditions

24. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Acknowledgements o The Penn State AE faculty and staff o Barton Malow Company o University of Virginia o The Foreman Group o My family and friends

25. Wilsdorf Hall --- Materials Science Engineering & Nanotechnology Building University of Virginia Leaha Martynuska Construction Management Option Senior Thesis 2005 Agenda  Questions  Project Overview  CM In-House Building Commissioning  Virtual MEP Coordination Underpinning  UnderpinningConstructability Review Questions ?