Innovation in Structural Engineering Design · • Most fabricators do NOT have detailing in-house • Large local fabricator only does ~25% in-house • Steel detailer – Figures

Innovation in Structural Engineering Design The Complete Structural PackageTM

Douglas G. Fitzpatrick, P.E. Fitzpatrick Engineering Group, PLLC October 14, 2015

Lean Construction Institute

Outline •  Current state of the industry – steel delivery

•  Observations about where we are •  Why it needs to be transformed

•  The Complete Structural PackageTM (CSP) •  Criteria to define a design solution •  Transformed deliverable

•  Case Studies •  Liability •  Working relationships

2


Fitzpatrick Engineering Group •  Doug Fitzpatrick, P.E.

–  President and Founder –  Structural design of buildings –  Actively involved in day-to-day engineering –  BIM advocate since 2006

3

London, England Amsterdam, NE

Innovations in Infrastructure Conference Innovation in Structural Engineering


History •  Process of designing and constructing (commercial)

steel buildings has remained essentially unchanged for decades.

•  “Alternate construction methods” speed up process but don’t make it more efficient

4


Definitions •  Steel fabricator

–  Physically makes the steel that gets delivered to the job site

–  Traditionally hires a detailer and connection engineer as part of that process

•  Most fabricators do NOT have detailing in-house •  Large local fabricator only does ~25% in-house

•  Steel detailer –  Figures out exactly how the pieces go together

for structural plans and details, design intent. – Conveys that info to the fabricator via 2D PDF

shop drawings and CNC files for their equipment


Workflows

6

Structural Design Construction

Fabrication

Detailing

Traditional Design-Bid-Build


Fabrication

Detailing

“Alternate Construction Methods”

May include one-time electronic hand-off of

information

All of this work is completed manually

The earlier the Detailing starts: Less information is available to transfer electronically More data has to be recreated by hand

Time savings Cost savings??

Confusion


Workflows

7


Fabrication

Detailing


Fabricator selected based on GMP

Opportunities for change orders and RFIs to fuel

change orders

The earlier the Fabricator gets involved: Less accuracy in GMP More opportunities for change orders in the ensuing

confusion as design gets finished

Confusion


Workflows

8


Fabrication

Detailing




change orders

Confusion

The earlier the Fabricator gets involved: Less accuracy in GMP More opportunities for change orders in the

ensuing confusion as design gets finished


Workflows

9


Fabrication

Detailing




change orders

Confusion The earlier the Fabricator gets involved: Less accuracy in GMP More opportunities for change orders in the



Workflows

10


Fabrication

Detailing




change orders

Confusion The earlier the Fabricator gets involved: Less accuracy in GMP More opportunities for change orders in the



Workflows

11


Fabrication

Detailing


Fabricator selected based

on GMP


change orders

Confusion The earlier the Fabricator gets involved:

Less accuracy in GMP

More opportunities for change orders in the ensuing confusion as design gets finished


Workflows

12

Design Construction

Fabrication

Detailing



Confusion

There is a limit!

The earlier the Fabricator gets involved:

Less accuracy in GMP

More opportunities for change orders in the ensuing confusion as design gets finished


The tipping point •  Summer of 2012

–  Fabricator selected based on Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) during Design Development (DD)

– Received “pitiful” set of shop drawings –  Sent out incomplete / poorly checked to “maintain the

schedule” –  50% more time checking – Change order was delivered in a spreadsheet in

excruciating detail

13


Reflection

•  If fabricators were using technology to track (justifiable) changes…

•  Why couldn’t we use technology to eliminate opportunities for change orders and make the entire process more efficient? –  Transform the process from scratch

14


Solution Requirements •  Electronic data transfer

•  Sent incrementally

•  Overlap the design phase

•  Reduce or eliminate change orders

•  Leverage inherent efficiencies

•  Be flexible to owner’s process

•  Save significant time

•  Reduce or eliminate RFIs

15


Transfer of Information •  Fall of 2012 found:

– Detailing software package that could incrementally read structural data with global IDs

–  BIM that could reliably export data with global IDs – Detailing partner with same enthusiasm

–  Electronic transfer of information –  Incremental updates – During the design phase –  Fewer opportunities for change orders

16


Fabricator Preferences •  East coast – typical connections •  Changes (outside model) cost detailer time

– Changing in 3D = 1x –  Tracking changes on paper = 3x

•  Change provenance important for AISC certification

•  Solution – stay in 3D as long as possible – Make modifications easily as design changed –  Adapt to selected fabricator’s preferences

•  Leveraging fabricator’s shop efficiencies •  Flexible for bid or negotiated project

17


FEG Project Data •  Could we save time?

•  Looked at 45 of our existing steel projects –  Time has been tracked in our timesheets –  Knew exactly when CDs were issued –  Knew about when we started receiving shop

drawings to earnest –  Knew about how long to review shop drawings

•  Graphed data (size of building in square feet vs. time) to see where the opportunities might be

18

Preparation time

Review time


FEG Project Data

19

Shopdrawingprepara.on.meTimetorecreatedataanddeliver2Dshop

drawingsforreview


FEG Project Data

Shop drawing review time FEG time

20


•  Preparation 8-9 weeks •  Review by Contractor 1-2 weeks •  Review by Architect 1-2 weeks •  Review by Engineer 6-7 weeks •  Mailing/shipping time 1-2 weeks

•  Total 17-22 weeks

Fabrication package time

21


•  Preparation 8-9 weeks •  Review by Engineer 6-7 weeks

•  Total 14-16 weeks •  Detailer estimate – 3D to fabrication pkg 5-6 weeks

•  Difference 8 weeks

•  Significant time savings

Fabrication package time

22


Improved Communication •  Phone calls •  Screen sharing •  Direct electronic review of the detailer’s live model

–  Approval mode only – No paper submittals

•  Could we put all of this together and make a difference


Case Studies •  Southeastern MOB

–  Three story, 60,000 sf –  Structural frame 320 tons –  Six (6) week turnaround from

fabricator’s notice to proceed –  No RFIs and no change

orders

–  “This [process] was a lot better for us in the plant and the field. This [process] was by far the best experience I have had in a long time. [The elimination of the RFI process] saved a tremendous amount of time.” Greg Sain, Project Manager, CM Steel (fabricator)

24


Case Studies •  Otarre MOB

–  Two story, 73,000 sf –  Structural frame 318 tons –  Five (5) week turnaround from

fabricator’s notice to proceed

–  No RFIs and no change orders

–  “The detailed drawings were some of the best ever. Any question we had got resolved quickly. All electronic files were excellent…. The whole process was a good experience for D & T. We saved erection time in the field.”

–  Travis Crumpton, President, D&T Steel (fabricator)

25


Case Studies •  Octapharma

–  Two story, 87,000 sf –  Structural frame – 340 tons –  Same process as the previous

two case studies –  No RFIs –  Change orders?

–  Based on previous case studies – similar tonnage

•  Saved 8 weeks = 2 months = $2,000,000 savings to owner

26


Transforming Deliverables

27

StructuralDesign Construc.on

Fabrica.on

Detailing

FEG Process

Detailing complete in 3D model at CDs

5-6 weeks for fabricator optimization

StructuralDesign Construc.on

Fabrica.on

Detailing

Traditional Design-Bid-Build

Time savings Dollar savings 8 weeks

8 weeks


Risk/Liability •  BIM journey started in 2006 •  First BIM project – Level of Detail/Development

(LOD) 300 (beams, columns) –  Shared data with fabricator/detailer

•  All BIM since – LOD 350 – Only difference to detailer’s model is connections

•  Electronic model review lets us focus on the important parts

•  Liability Risk

28


Working Relationships •  Who works for who?

– Detailer works for FEG •  This is not engineers doing shop drawings •  No formal partnership •  Separate entity •  Most fabricators do not have in-house detailing

–  FEG works for •  Architect (during design) •  Contractor (during or after design) •  Owner (during design) •  Fabricator (during or after design)

29


Plus / Delta Delta •  Engineers •  Liability •  Not perfect •  Not easy •  Cannot be just any detailer

Plus •  Proof of concept to shorten schedules •  Flexibility for owner – bid versus

negotiated •  Not a proprietary solution •  Improved communication •  Decreased risk / liability •  Trust based •  Early meaningful involvement of

detailer / fabricator •  Not unique to a single project •  Reduced waste - no paper shop

drawings •  Minimal recreation of structural data •  Flexibility in working relationships •  Upgraded old process into something

more efficient •  FEG engineers think about end goal –

sharing data


Structural Steel Fabrication Package A Paradigm Shift

Thank you

Questions?

31

Documents

Innovation in Structural Engineering Design · • Most fabricators do NOT have detailing in-house • Large local fabricator only does ~25% in-house • Steel detailer – Figures