Central Bed Tower Expansion Sarah L. Bell Professor James Faust | - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

University Health System | Charlottesville, VA 1 Central Bed Tower Expansion Sarah L. Bell Professor James Faust | Dr. Craig Dubler Construction Management| 2011-2012

University Health System | Charlottesville, VA 2 Presentation Outline Central Bed Tower Expansion  Project Overview  Prefabricated Acoustical Walls (Breadth)  BIM Implementation with Phased Scheduling  Photovoltaic Façade Change (Breadth)  Prefabricated MEP Systems  Conclusions and Recommendations Sarah L. Bell Senior Thesis Presentation Construction Management| 2011-2012

3 Project Overview Project Overview Presentation Outline  Occupants : University of Virginia Health System  Location : University of Virginia at Charlottesville, VA  Project Overview  Function : Medical Facility Expanding Patient Care Wing  Prefabricated Acoustical Walls  Size : 60,000 ft² (New), 70,000 ft² (Renovated)  BIM Implementation with Phased Scheduling  Stories : 6 Occupied Floors , 2 nd Floor Mechanical Space  Photovoltaic Façade Change  Schedule: August 2008 – December 2011  Prefabricated MEP Systems  Cost: $55 Million  Conclusions and Recommendations  Delivery Method : Design Assist CM Agent – Multiple Prime Contract

4 Presentation Outline  Project Overview Analysis I – Prefabricated Acoustical Wall  Prefabricated Acoustical Walls  BIM Implementation with Phased Scheduling  Photovoltaic Façade Change  Prefabricated MEP Systems  Conclusions and Recommendations

5 Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Problem – Renovation areas are subject to time restrictions due to high noise volume, vibrations, and dust control originating from the construction areas Goal – Increase work productivity and quality via the implementation of prefabricated acoustical walls.

6 Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Wall Constructability NR = TL + 10log(a₂/S)  Ensure a completely sealed enclosure Noise Reduction 125 dB  Noise frequency estimated to be 125 Hz Noise Level at Source 86 dB  Expected noise volume from source around 86 dB TL 38 dB  Normal conversation noise level is around 63 dB a₂ 464.4 Sabins  Want Noise Volume reduced to under 63 dB S 168 ft² NR 42.4 dB Noise Transferred 44 dB

7 Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Wall Cost Analysis Outcome Schedule Analysis  No Solution for vibrations Cost of Acoustical Walls  Original duration of 50 days/floor  Theoretically, acoustical walls were a good idea  Adjacent private patient rooms will need to be vacated Type Cost  Practically, walls are too heavy and cannot extend to base of the  Only one waiting room per floor may be renovated at a time Material $17,504.45 next floor’s metal decking  No schedule reduction expected Lost Revenue $831,600  Time restrictions will remain in place  There is no cost benefit of using these walls Total $849,104.45

8 Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Prefabricated Acoustical Walls Wall Cost Analysis Recommendation Schedule Analysis Cost of Acoustical Walls  Original duration of 50 days/floor  Prefabricated Acoustical Walls are not recommended for this project.  Adjacent private patient rooms will need to be vacated Type Cost  Only one waiting room per floor may be renovated at a time Material $17,504.45  No schedule reduction expected Lost Revenue $831,600 Total $849,104.45

9 Presentation Outline  Project Overview Analysis II – BIM Implementation  Prefabricated Acoustical Walls  BIM Implementation with Phased Scheduling  Photovoltaic Façade Change  Prefabricated MEP Systems  Conclusions and Recommendations

10 BIM Implementation BIM Implementation BIM Implementation Phase I – Building Prep Problem – Project is several months behind schedule and the  Owner Vacancy schedule lacks organization possibly causing delays in construction  Demolition and Steel Strengthening Phase II – Structure Goal – Add quality and possible acceleration to the project by creating a phased schedule that can be linked to a 3D model  Superstructure  Façade Phase III – Interior  Rough-In  Finishes  Commissioning

11 BIM Implementation BIM Implementation BIM Implementation Phase I – Building Prep Outcome  Owner Vacancy  Implementing a Phased Schedule on this project is expected to  Demolition and Steel Strengthening reduce the duration construction by one month  Phase II – Structure Increase in quality of construction experience for hospital staff and patrons  Superstructure  Detailed interior modeling is impractical  Façade  Use of general phased models would prove beneficial for all Phase III – Interior parties involved  Rough-In  Finishes  Commissioning

12 BIM Implementation BIM Implementation BIM Implementation Phase I – Building Prep Recommendation  Owner Vacancy  Demolition and Steel Strengthening Phase II – Structure  Phased Scheduling and Simple 3D Models are recommended for this  Superstructure project.  Façade Phase III – Interior  Rough-In  Finishes  Commissioning

13 Presentation Outline  Project Overview Analysis III – Photovoltaic Façade Change  Prefabricated Acoustical Walls  BIM Implementation with Phased Scheduling  Photovoltaic Façade Change  Prefabricated MEP Systems  Conclusions and Recommendations

14 Photovoltaic Façade Change Photovoltaic Façade Change Photovoltaic Façade Change Problem – 17,500 ft² glass façade offers little privacy for room occupants and has the potential to take on sustainable aspect Goal – Value engineer the glass façade to include photovoltaic panels ,potentially reducing the hospital’s electrical load

15 Photovoltaic Façade Change Photovoltaic Façade Change Photovoltaic Façade Change Outcome PVGU Design Parameters Location Charlottesville, VA  38.03 ° N Latitude Location and Azimuth is not ideal for this system 78.48 ° W Longitude  System does not produce enough energy to sustain the expected Elevation 594’ (181m) Façade Orientation NNW loads Total Area of Glass Facade 17,955 ft²  Payback period is much greater than system lifespan System Summary Area Covered by PVGU 10,080 ft² System Size 112.4 kW 90 ° Tilt Angle AC Energy 41,381 kWh Sun Hours/Day Energy Value $3,310.48 High 4.5 Cost of System $75/ft² Low 3.37 Average 4.13 Payback Period >> 25 years

16 Photovoltaic Façade Change Photovoltaic Façade Change Photovoltaic Façade Change Recommendation PVGU Design Parameters Location Charlottesville, VA  38.03 ° N Latitude Photovoltaic Glass Panels are not recommended for use on this 78.48 ° W Longitude project. Elevation 594’ (181m) Façade Orientation NNW Total Area of Glass Facade 17,955 ft² System Summary Area Covered by PVGU 10,080 ft² System Size 112.4 kW 90 ° Tilt Angle AC Energy 41,381 kWh Sun Hours/Day Energy Value $3,310.48 High 4.5 Cost of System $75/ft² Low 3.37 Average 4.13 Payback Period >> 25 years

17 Presentation Outline  Project Overview Analysis IV – Prefabricated MEP Systems  Prefabricated Acoustical Walls  BIM Implementation with Phased Scheduling  Photovoltaic Façade Change  Prefabricated MEP Systems  Conclusions and Recommendations

18 Prefabricated MEP Systems Prefabricated MEP Systems Prefabricated MEP Systems Benefits of Prefabricated Systems Problem - Project is several months behind schedule  due to continuous delays and restricted work hours Safety  Quality Control  Waste Reduction  Cost Savings Goal - Reduce the construction schedule through the  Schedule Reduction use of prefabricated MEP Systems Challenges Facing Prefabricated Systems  Project Labor Agreement  Interfering Trade Packages

19 Prefabricated MEP Systems Prefabricated MEP Systems Prefabricated MEP Systems (2) Types of Prefabricated Systems to be Used : (2) Types of Prefabricated Systems to be Used : “You will save anywhere between 75% to 85% of Type II – Separate Utilities the critical path labor hours by utilizing Type I – Modular MEP Racks prefabricated MEP modules opposed to using the traditional method.” -MEP Solutions Estimated 50% time saved by separate prefabricated utilities