senior thesis ryan e. sickman april 16, 2003

Senior ThesisRyan E. Sickman

April 16, 2003

The New Jacksonville ArenaJacksonville, Florida

The Pennsylvania State UniversityArchitectural Engineering

Outline Background Raker Investigation Structural Change (Breadth Study) Value Engineering of Building Skin 3D – 4D Survey Conclusions and Overall Effects of Changes Gratuities Questions

Background Arena

Owned by The City of Jacksonville

Uses NCAA Basketball Games ECHL Hockey Games Concerts Wrestling Ice Capades / Skating Competitions

Features Home & Away Locker Rooms for

Both Hockey & Basketball Club Level 28 Executive Suites Florida Accessibility Code Accepted

(ADA)

Background

Owner The City of Jacksonville

Architect HOK Sport+Venue+Event

CM Turner Construction Orlando

Structural Engineer Bliss & Nyitray, Inc.

Civil Engineer Bessent Hammock & Ruckman, Inc.

Special Systems M-E Engineers, Inc.

Seating Capacities: Hockey: 13,669 Basketball: 15,009 End Stage Concert: 13,854 WWF (center stage): 15,975

General Info Ground Breaking: June 1, 2002 Occupancy: Nov. 1, 2003 (originally Oct. 1) Project Cost: $100,500,000.00 Arena Size: 452,058 sq. ft.

Background

Goals Quicker & cheaper method of constructing raker

beams Quicker & cheaper method of constructing structure

(Breadth Area) Switch from Concrete to Steel Change from Brick Façade to Brick Panels 3-D/4-D Survey Analysis Results From the Industry

Raker Investigation

68 Raker Locations in Lower Bowl

Raker Investigation

Existing Raker Construction MethodPre-Cast

Long Lead Time Two More Subs to Manage (production & installation)

Coordination with Concrete Sub for Installation 70 Days to Fabricate and Install

$500,000

Raker Investigation

Proposed Raker Construction MethodCast-in-Place

Short or No Lead Time (produce concrete) Concrete Sub to Handle Work

Concrete Sub Can Produce Rakers in Line with Rest of Structure

30 Days to Set, Pour, Finish, Strip Utilize EFCO Formwork

$260,926

Raker Investigation

EFCO Formwork

Self Supporting

Self Spanning

High Quality Form

Heavy Gauge Steel Web Doubles as Form Face

Easily Changeable Sections to Adjust Size of Form

Steel Ribs Distribute Forces from Concrete to Flanges

Unlimited Uses

Raker Investigation

Current Design 68 Rakers of 4 different Sizes Pre-cast Lead Time of 10 weeks Another 4 weeks to install all of

them $500,000 total cost

Proposed Design Exact same raker beams Cast-in-place No Lead Time 30 Days to pour raker

beams $260,926 total cost

Choose

C.I.P.

Structural Change

Existing Design Cast-in-place Concrete Structure until the roof truss supports

Poured decks constructed with shoring Beams are 48” Deep

Columns are 43” Wide Slabs are on average 8” Deep

Designed loads are: 100 psf live load, wind load 115 mph

Issues: Can the structure be constructed quicker? Will the structure cost more or less money?

Structural ChangeProposed Design Steel Structure

Smaller Slab Depth (4”) Metal Decking (3” LOK)

Designed for Moment Connections in the interior to deal with lateral loading

Shear Studs

Advantages Smaller Beams

Smaller Slab Depth Quicker Erection

No Shoring Required

Structural Change

Results of CalculationsNote: I kept the heights of the columns the same as the existing

structure so as not to change the facade of the structure Beams were smaller 35” Deep

More beams to account for the spans of metal decking Columns were smaller 30” Wide

Smaller Slab Thickness 7” (including decking) 1,776 pieces or lifts 2,160 shear studs

1,326 Tons of Steel

Structural Change

Comparison of Structural Choices

MaterialCeiling-to-

Floor Height

Extra Space Erection Time Time

Saved Total Cost Savings

Cast-in-place 56” 0200 Days

(8 Months)0 Days $8,500,000 0

Steel 42” 14”60 Days

(2.5 Months)140 Days $7,080,628 $1,419,372

*All figures include material, labor, and equipment

Choose

Steel

VE of Building Skin

Original Brick Façade Design

Upper WallsBrick Cavity Wall

Batt InsulationMetal Studs

Drywall

Lower WallsBrick Cavity Wall

Backed up by 8” CMU BlocksInsulation Panels

•Both include anArchitectural Precast Elementin addition to the brick work

VE of Building Skin

Proposed Nova-brik Design Mortarless Technology

Attached with furring strips on structure No transportation of mortar or installation time required with

applying mortar Less cost due to lack of mortar

Advantages:Less Cost (no mortar)Less Time (no mortar)

VE of Building Skin

All-inclusive Product Architectural Pre-cast Concrete (Designed Look)

Thermaguard Anchor Light Gauge Steel Studs

Gives a brick like look on the pre-cast element Can include the precast banding in the designed look

Product can be delivered including:Exterior Look (bricks & pre-cast band)

Metal Studs for interiorDrywall AttachedInsulation Panels

(Insulation is not included if batt insulation)

Advantages:•One lift installs all products

•Less Time due to size of panels•Reduced Shipping Costs

(Lightweight Panels so more can be shipped)•Reduced Heating and Cooling Costs•Thermaguard Anchor and air space

reduces heat transfer by 25%•At 28 lbs/ sq ft these panels

40-60% lighter than conventional pre-cast panels

Proposed Slenderwall Product

VE of Building Skin

Façade ComparisonFaçade System

R-Value Time Time Saved

Cost Yes/No

Brick & Precast

21.92 36 Days

O Days

$1,614,110 NO

Novabrik & Precast

21.92 25 Days

11 Days

$1,329,996 NO

Slenderwall 23.63 14 Days

4+ Weeks

$2,117,451 YES

1 Extra Month of Events at $150,000 / event, you would only need to hold 7 events before the cost was made up

Choose

Slenderwall

Survey Results

Initial Thoughts for Survey•The original purpose of this survey was to see how prevalent companies and persons out in the construction industry find 3-D and 4-D CAD systems to be.•If implemented early on, coordination with the different trades will be better as they will be able to see better where other trades work is, and the timing of each trade going into the project.

What I Wanted to Get Out of the Survey•A representation of where we are as an industry with regards to the usage of newer technologies•How willing companies would be to implementing these newer technologies

Survey Results

Responses 64% are using a type of CAD currently

Only 24% are utilizing the 3-D or 4-D aspects of the program 100% said they had someone in the office who could use CAD

Of those who are using this system already they estimate a savings of$15-50,000 / project

88% of the GC’s thought that a 4-D model would help in coordination issues with subs

Uses are distributed in the table below:

Visualization Design Coordination

Estimating Marketing DrawingProduction

FieldPlanning

Superintendent issues or other

4 11 6 8 14 3 8

Survey Results

Responses 16% said they would try this proposed system

12% said they would not And 72% said that they would if proof was shown in another company

that it worked The majority or 64% said they would give the system 2-4 projects to

prove itself While 76% said that the system would have to save over 1 month time

Survey Results

The system will have to prove itself in the big companies first Basically every company has a CAD proficient employee Most companies feel that this might help in some of their

coordination issues as it will allow them to better layout processes

This system which was not used on my project would have allowed for better coordination of the trades, and possibly

allowed the GC to make up the lost time at the beginning of the project.

But they did try and use a bit of technology in the early stages as they published drawings in .PDF format on the internet so

subs could take advantage of that, but nowhere near what could have been used.

Conclusions to Survey

Summary of Findings Raker Investigation

Choose Cast-in-place w/ EFCO Formwork $239,074 Savings and 40 Days Saved

Façade Change Value Engineering Choose Slenderwall System $503, 341 more expensive 20+ Days Saved

Structural Change Choose Steel Structure $1,419,372 Saved and 140 Days Saved

Survey It is going to take some of the bigger companies to take the

chance and prove to the rest of the industry that this system does indeed help and produce results

Summary of Findings

Total Time and Money Saved

$1,155,105 Saved200 Days SavedWhere Other Trades Can Get Started

*This number can not be indicative of the project finishing 200 days early, but it will give the GC the ability to complete the project some time earlier than expected

Gratuities

A Thank You To:The Penn State AE Staff

My Friends and Family

And the People Who Helped Me From the Companies Below As Well As Smith-Midland, and Vulcraft.

Outline Background Raker Investigation Structural Change (Breadth Study) Value Engineering of Building Skin 3D – 4D Survey Conclusions and Overall Effects of Changes Gratuities Questions?Any Questions?

senior thesis ryan e. sickman april 16, 2003

Documents

raker beamscast

d surveyconclusions

place concrete structure

structure cost

structure breadth area

placeno lead time30

workconcrete sub

concreteconcrete sub