Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Total Steel Project Performance
Construction Process Improvement through Progressive Steel Joist and Metal Decking Design
Continuing Education Commitment
New Millennium Building Systems AND/OR Building Design + Construction is/are Registered Provider[s] of professional development hours (PDHs), GBCI and American Institute of Architects Continuing
Education System (AIA/CES) courses. Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported according to rules set forth by those organization. Certificates of Completion for all attendees are available on request.
This program is registered with [NAME ORGS] and the AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.
Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.
Learning Objectives
After viewing and listening to this continuing-education module, you should be able to:
•! Recognize and understand the steel construction process through progressive steel joist and metal decking design and implementation.
•! Describe key elements and challenges of joist related total-project performance including cascading costs, cost assessment and the RFI process.
•! List the fundamentals of engineering for total-project cost accountability including tonnage reduction, deeper analysis of MEP, ESFR and joist-and-decking system
design and implementation practices.
•! Discuss the features and benefits of building-information modeling (BIM) based project collaboration for structural steel projects.
Course Outline
I. Defining Progressive Steel Joist Design
II. Engineering for Total Project Cost Accountability
a. Basic approaches to reduce tonnage
b. Deeper analyses for greater cost accountability
c. Metal decking design considerations
III. Cost-Accountable Architectural Design
IV. Taking the Project Owner’s Point of View
V. Frequently Asked Questions
VI. Your Questions (and Answers)
I. Defining Progressive Steel Joist Design
•! The structural steel package is vital to successful management of the construction process.
•! Steel delivery, design and/or detailing can produce significant costs and broadly impact project success.
•! Process improvements can provide significant advantages to building team, benefiting owners and developers.
Cascading Cost Effect
CLASHES
REWORK
PROJECT DELAY
BACK CHARGES
CONTINGENCY EROSION
OCCUPANCY INCOME LOSS
Cost Reduction – Value-Added Engineering
Manufacturing Warehousing Material Trucking Staging Erection
VA
LU
E-A
DD
ED
E
NG
INE
ER
ING
Total Cost Assessment
COST AREAS POTENTIAL SAVINGS CASE STUDY
Materials 3% - 10% and up $1.3 million (9.7%)
Transportation 5% - 10% $ 6,726 (8.3%)
Project Handling $10 per ton $ 1,700 (0.1% total)
Design Errors $ 6,360 per error $ 6,360 (0.5% total)
Lost Occupancy Varies $ 3,000 / week
Logistics Varies
Storage Varies
Erection 10% and up $ 60,000
Addendums Varies
TOTAL SAVINGS $ 1,377,786.00
The Broken RFI Process
•! Current process is dysfunctional.
•! Need for tighter collaboration between subs / suppliers.
•! Structural drawings up to 40% incomplete
•! Dimensions not shown
•! RFIs used for documenting and defending
•! Clashes with MEP and project delays
•! Costly contingency fees
The RFI process should be …
… a tool for fostering communication,
aiding in prevention of extra costs.
Top Fabricator Complaint: The Indecision Loop
?
?
? ?
?
?
? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? ?
SUPPLIER
II. Engineering for Total Project Cost Accountability
a.! Basic approaches to reduce tonnage
b.! Deeper analyses for greater cost accountability
c.! Metal decking design considerations
a. Basic Approaches to Reduce Tonnage
Rule of Thumb for Material Efficiency
•! Average $1,000 savings per ton removed from steel package
•! Ways to save tonnage include:
1. Reorient the framing
Can save 0.25 lbs./ft. or $0.50 per sq. ft.
2. Updated diagram load data
Expedites metal-deck fastening
Economy Table Tool
Maximizing Deck Capacity
Generic intro and illustration needed. Chris to help?
Space Joists to Maximize Deck Capacity
Cost Reduction: Joist Spacing
12.2% WEIGHT REDUCTION
22% ERECTION SAVINGS
17.2% WEIGHT REDUCTION
Load / Foot Joist Standard Joist
Design Collaboration – Delaney Warehouse
Standard Design Building (B22 Deck)
Girders are 47’-6”, 58” Deep, 10 Panels Based on 5’-0” o.c. Joists
500’ x 950’
44LH09 44LH09 30K11 30K11 30K11 30K10 30K10 30K10 30K10
40LH 40LH 30K 30K 30K 30K 30K 30K 30K
300/180 300/180 300/180 300/180 300/180 300/180 300/180 300/180 300/180
Revised Design Building (B22 Deck)
Joists Respaced at 5’-11 1/4” o.c.
Results – Delaney Warehouse
Standard Design Revised Design SAVINGS
Total Tons 926.77 848.23 tons 78.54 tons
8.47%
Total Pieces 1841 1571 Pieces 270 pieces
14.66%
Total Cost $1,282,000 $1,157,117 $124,883
9.74%
Design Out Costs – Cooper Tire Mfg.
12N
30K 192/117
44G 10.6K 12N 32G 9.7K
Assumed Loads vs. Actual Loads Initial Girders vs. Deeper Girders
68G 58G
Design Out Costs – Cooper Tire Mfg.
12N
30K 269/125
44G 14.8K 12N 32G 13.5K
192/117
10.6K 9.7K
Assumed Loads Assumed Loads vs. Actual Loads
Design Out Costs – Cooper Tire Mfg.
RESULTS
1351.25 tons 1251.29 tons
$1,491,632 $1,405,266
SAVINGS 99.96 tons (7.4%)
$86,366 (5.8%)
b. Deeper Analysis = Greater Cost Analysis
In addition to cost analysis related to materials, transportation, handling and other related elements …
Thoroughly analyze all systems.
- MEP
- ESFR sprinkler systems
… for improved cost analysis
and savings.
MEP Systems – Duct Passage
MEP Clash Prevention for Cost Reduction
Benefits of MEP Coordination for Cost Savings
•! 10-20% cost savings using MEP clash prevention methods
•! Up to 20% cost reduction on steel package with early fabricator involvement
•! Cost reduction opportunities include:
1. Reducing rework.
Minor problems: 0.5% of project cost = $6,360
2. Related costs.
Clashes add to Lost Occupancy, Logistics, Storage, Erection, and Contingency Erosion.
Design Impact of ESFR Sprinkler Systems
Information from ESFR Contractor
•! Branch line locations and branch line O.D.
•! Distance from deck bottom to center of branch line
•! Minimum clearance between branch lines and bridging
Information Supplied by ESFR Manufacturer
Interference? No Problem. Flexibility!
Example - Basic Cost Reduction
Benefits of ESFR Coordination for Cost Savings
•! Project cost savings estimated at ___________
•! Cost reduction opportunities include:
1. Reducing rework.
Minor problems: 0.5% of project cost = $6,360
2. Related costs.
Clashes add to Lost Occupancy, Logistics, Storage, Erection, and Contingency Erosion.
Engineering for Even Greater Cost Accountability
Metal Decking Design Issues
•! Use deeper seats
For R-type extensions there may be savings by increasing the extension seat depths.
•! Designate load and locations
Knowing loads and location of loads on joists will decrease costs.
•! Review the building layout
Try alternatives to framing. Avoid transferring moment through girder seats.
Use Deeper Seats
An example: R-type extensions
Bearing angle: 2 @ 2x2x3/16
2 !”
Top chord: 2 @ 2x2x3/16 Joist weight:
228 lbs
Seat depth
5”
Top chord: 2 @ 1 ! x 1 ! x 1/8 Joist weight:
139 lbs Seat depth
Weight savings:
40%
Bearing angle: 2 @ 1 ! x 1 ! x 1/8
Confirm Loads and Load Locations
An example
40’ span with 250plf total load and two 2000-lb. max loads
Requires 24KSC4 joists …
250 plf
2000 lbs 2000 lbs
Designates 24KSP joists…
250 plf
2000 lbs 2000 lbs
10’0” 10’0”
660 lbs per joist
420 lbs per joist
Weight savings:
36%
Confirm Loads and Load Locations
Top chord extension design
Joist Spacing for Maximum Deck Capacity
Use of “Load Zone” Conditions
Load-zone joist vs. KCS joist: An example
Example: KCS selection is 26KCS4, vs. load-zone joist 26KZ200/100 (A, B)
KCS joist:
Load-zone joist:
660 lbs per joist
420 lbs per joist
Weight savings:
21%
End Moment Connections
•! Increase design efficiency
•! Allow for highly efficient steel allocation
•! Traditional approaches are cost-inefficient!
End Moment Connections
End Moment Connections
Bolted type
Incorporate Girders & Joists into Bracing Schemes
Deeper Analyses: A Case Study
•! Costs reduced in all phases:
Design, delivery, assembly and erection
•! Steel tonnage reduced by 50% plus
•! 20% less manufacturing time
•! 67% less transportation costs – no wide-load
•! Reduced on-site storage
•! 66% reduction in erection labor / crane costs
S.C. Governor’s School for Science & Math
Challenge: Athletic wing over school’s gym area features
three-piece Fink-Truss design.
Deeper Analyses: A Case Study
Cost Preventative Design
Source: Structural Engineering & Design, July 2010.
Deeper Analyses: A Case Study
Joist design: A chain reaction of cost reductions
c. Metal Decking Design Considerations
Deck Gauge and Cost Calculation
Specify special thickness!
Example: For a 5,000 ft2 deck…
20ga standard
490 tons required
21ga special
450 tons required
Saves 40 tons, or $25,000!
Deck Specifications … and Costs
Decking Gauge & Cost Calculations
Example: Roof project in Shepherdsville, KY 6,056 squares of deck, specified painted 22ga Total weight: 488 tons
Potential cost and ton savings of 23ga Gravity load capacity: 25 psf total 23ga allowable for 3-span @ 5’-6 5/8”
Diaphragm strength required Pattern: Interior: 325 p/f 36/5 - 5 sidelaps Edges: 464 p/f 36/7 - 7 sidelaps
23ga Interior: 330 p/f 36/5 - 8 sidelaps Edges: 465 p/f 36/7 - 10 sidelaps
Total weight and cost savings for 23ga:
Deck: 8%
Joist/deck package: 2%
Decking Span Restrictions
… Watch framing layouts!
Temporary Shoring of Deck
Temporary Deck Shoring
Per ANSI:
1.! Galvanizing must conform to ASTM A653 (A653M) 2.! Uncoated or phosphatized with painted underside
must be applied to steel conforming to A1008 (A1008M) 3.! Finish on steel composite deck must be suitable for
environment of structure.
Decking Finish Considerations
Deck Accessories
Unsupported Accessory Proper Composite Accessory
Decking Accessories Specification
Shear Stud Strong Positioning
3. Cost-Accountable Architectural Design
Expanded Specifications for Special-Profile Steel Joists
Architectural Vision: Detroit Airport
Cost-Accountable Architectural Design: Case Studies
Architectural Vision: Pittsburgh Mills
Cost-Accountable Architectural Design: Case Study
Castellated Beams for Eglin Air Force Base
•! Castellated beam design can achieve
appearance objectives plus functionality.
•! Array of solar panels will generate electricity.
•! Additional engineering steps removed costs and prevent downstream erection costs.
Cost-Accountable Architectural Design: Case Study
4. Taking the Project Owner’s Point of View
Improving the RFI Process
Architect
Fabricator
Contractor
Engineer
Supplier
Digital Steel Joist Design
•! Develop / exchange digital, 3-D
steel joist plans with a (BIM) steel joist design component.
•! Addresses three stages of design:
1. Generic joist object for preliminary design. 2. Use of generic info for detailing- design process. 3. As-built joist BIM object with end conditions, member sizes
•! Joist object imported into BIM model
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
•! Earlier decision-making
•! Works best with sound engineering
•! Complete data transfer & processing
•! Work with suppliers who are BIM-ready
•! Case studies demonstrate the value
!""#$%
&$$"$'"()%
*+(,"-)./0%
1"$23(%
1")/20"#%
1"$23(%
*+($)4.,5+(% 6-"4/5+(%
7"0/58"%*+$)%
+9%%1"$23(%*:/(3"%
•! BIM forces early decision-making
•! Front-load all questions and details
•! Faster approval process
•! Fewer problems lead to more profitable job
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
BIM Capabilities
•! Garbage in = Garbage out
•! BIM = lots of data
•! Users spend time checking
•! But BIG mistakes can happen
•! BIM still demands qualified manual detailing
•! Good detailers > BIM
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
Inputs BIM
Modeling
Detail
Clarification
BOM Created
Steel
Fabrication
BIM allows for complete data transfer and processing
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
The Owner’s Point of View: BIM
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
BIM-Based Project Collaboration
Project: Target Store, San Clemente, CA
•! Structural package, joists, modeled in 3-D BIM
•! Timeline for shop drawings:
Originally10 weeks …
… to 3.5 weeks
•! BIM goal: Better utilize space around steel for HVAC, electrical
Photo: Ocean County Register
BIM-Based Project Collaboration: A Case Study
Project:
Target Stores
SOURCE: BUILDING DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, JAN. 2011.
BIM-Based Project Collaboration: A Case Study
“With BIM analysis tools we knew we could reduce conflicts and increase utilization of the space within our box. We
wanted to move beyond that. We wanted to use BIM as a
way to figure out what was in there and then establish that and
build in protocols for how we could start to utilize that space to
reduce the height of our buildings, or maximize the amount of space we have, or minimize the amount of structure put up.”
-!Brad Koland
Group Manager
Structural Engineering, Target
Target on the Effectiveness of BIM
BIM-Based Project Collaboration: A Case Study
Questions and Answers
Total Steel Project Performance
This concludes this registered PDH OR American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems Program OR GBCI-registered program
Total Steel Project Performance
Total Steel Project Performance
Construction Process Improvement through Progressive Steel Joist and Metal Decking Design