National Museum of the Marine Corps Michael R. Lockwood Construction Management Michael R. Lockwood Construction Management Advisor: Dr. Riley AE Senior

National Museum of the Marine CorpsMichael R. Lockwood

Construction Management

Michael R. LockwoodMichael R. Lockwood

Construction ManagementConstruction Management

Advisor: Dr. RileyAdvisor: Dr. Riley

AE Senior Thesis 2005Final Presentation

National Museum of the National Museum of the Marine CorpsMarine Corps



Presentation Outline

• Project Overview

• Analysis I: Role of Construction

Manager in the DesignProcess

• Analysis II: Soil Retention System

Design and Analysis

• Analysis III: 4-Dimensional Virtual

Simulation Modelingfor Structural Steel Erection

Planning

• Conclusion








Design and Analysis



Planning

• Conclusion



Project History Project Overview

Project: National Museum of the Marine Corps

Location: Quantico, VA

Function: Marine Corps Heritage Museum

Size: 120,000 sq. ft.

Cost: $42,000,000

Schedule: April 2004 – April 2006

Delivery Method: Traditional w/ CM Agent

Design: National Design Competition

Additional: Phase I of large Marine Corps Heritage campus – future expansion to include parade grounds, hotels, and monumental trails



Architectural Features Project Overview

• 210-foot tilted stainless steel clad mast soaring through a 160-foot glass skylight, inspired by the Iwo Jima Memorial

• Two large architectural concrete walls funnel visitors to the main entrance

• Sustainable Design Features:

• Green Roof @ Central Gallery

• Massive Skylight System

• Backfilled Earth Berms

• Large open exhibit gallery space beneath the skylight for displaying large exhibits such as tanks and airplanes

• Steel mast designed to be seen from nearby I-95 as cars approach from the North & South








Design and Analysis



Planning

• Conclusion



Role of Construction Manager in the Design Process

Analysis IOverview

Schematic Design

Design Development

Bid

Contractor Selection

Traditional Project Delivery Approach

Steps of Traditional Project Delivery Approach

• Owner contacts architect

• Architect designs the project and develops construction documents over time

• Project is let out for competitive bid

• Contractor is selected and construction begins




Analysis IAlternative Approach

Schematic Design

Design DevelopmentConstruction Documents

Construction Manager Selection

Proposed Alternative Project Delivery Approach

Basis of Alternative Approach

• Communication is key to successful project delivery

• Poor communication leads to cost overruns, delayed schedules, and numerous changes

Goal of Proposed Alternative

• Improve overall communication

• Reduce cost overruns, delayed project delivery, and design changes




Analysis IResearch: Means & Methods

Research Means:

• Alternative approach very feasible and appealing to construction managers

• Owners do not recognize benefit and value of a construction manager during the design process

• Research survey and interview questions developed and distributed to industry members

• Research Goal – To determine the value of a construction manager in design

Research Methods:

• 18 question online survey distributed to approximately 52 industry members: (19 architects, 7 owners, 22 construction managers, 4 general contractors)

• Interview questions distributed to 8 individuals (Two of each discipline)

Research Results:

• 25 responses to online survey: (7 architects, 2 owners, 12 CMs, 4 GCs)




Analysis IResearch: Results

At what point during design do you feel it is appropriate to involve a construction manager: Conceptual Design, Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents?Construction

Managers Architects Overall

64%

36%

50%

17%

57%

14%

29% 33

%

Conceptual Design Schematic Design

Design Development

Construction Manager Selection

Construction Documents

Revised Alternative Project Delivery Approach




Analysis IResearch: Results

Which of the following is the most valuable asset a Construction Manager can bring to the design process?

• Estimating - CM provides accurate cost information simultaneously with design

• Constructability Review - Review design and reduce changes during construction




Analysis ICase Study: NMMC Project

Schematic Design

Contractor Selection

Design Development

Bid

Design Competition Winner Awarded

Schematic DesignDesign Competition Winner Awarded

Design Development

Construction Manager SelectionConstruction Documents

NMMC Project Development Process

Proposed Alternative NMMC Project Development Process




Analysis IFurther Areas of Research

Further Research Areas:

• Re-distribution of online survey with additional questions

• Case study projects

• Methods to quantify and present value associated with early CM involvement

• Determine set of rules and/or guidelines for owners to determine if early CM involvement will be beneficial for a project








Design and Analysis



Planning

• Conclusion



Soil Retention System Design and Analysis

Analysis IIOverview

Phased Construction

• Accelerate project

• IMAX Theatre & Additional Exhibit Gallery Space

Design Features

• Earth backfilled walls to maintain the architectural experience of the building

• Results in a more complex design of the exterior wall (C1 Wall)

• Potential for excessive costs associated with future expansions




Analysis IIExisting Design Conditions

Concrete Wall

• 45 feet high concrete wall – 2 feet thick – 192 feet length

• Reinforcing Steel:• VOF - #11 bars @ 8” o.c.• VIF - #11 bars @ 12” o.c.• HEF - #6 bars @ 12” o.c.Footing System

• Spread Footing:• 15 feet wide x 5 feet deep

• Shear Key:• 6 ½ feet deep x 2 ½ feet wide

Exterior Buried Ductwork• Two levels of ductwork attached to wall




Analysis IIDesign of Alternate System

Sheet Pile Earth Retention System

• Backfilled – sheets driven into ground and backfilled on one side

• Anchored – sheets area anchored back into earth near top





Steel Sheets

• PZ22 Member

Anchor System

• 3’ x 3’ x 3’ Concrete Deadman Anchors

• 1” Steel Tieback Rods

• W6x16 Soldier Beams





Sheet Pile System

• 46 ½ feet sheets – 25 feet free length

• 9 soldier beams

• 32 tiebacks and deadman anchors

• 6 feet from concrete wall








Analysis IIProject Impacts

Design Impacts

• Concrete Wall Size Reduction

• Reduced reinforcing

• Reduced concrete

• Removal of Shear KeyConstructability Impacts

• Cavity created for exterior ductwork and future access to ductwork

• Future expansion through wall considerably less complex with new wall design




Analysis IIProject Impacts

Financial Impacts

• Initial Cost Increase:

• $29,373

• Future Cost Decrease:

• $47,952

• Overall Cost Reduction

• $18,500

Schedule Impacts

• Sheet pile system to be installed during bulk excavation phase

• No impact to overall project schedule – potential cost savings with reduction in bulk excavation quantities








Design and Analysis



Planning

• Conclusion



4-Dimensional Virtual Simulation Modeling for Structural Steel Erection Planning

Analysis IIIOverview

Structural Steel Skylight System Erection Planning

• Unique and complex system

• Steel Truss Mast

• Structural Steel Framing

• Erection planning took a great deal of time and effort

• 120 page steel erection sequence planProposed Use of 4-D Virtual Modeling

• Use 4-D modeling as a tool to assist in the development of the structural steel erection plan




Analysis III2-D Steel Erection Planning

Roof Erection Procedure

• Step-by-step erection sequence for skylight system

• Developed by one engineer over a 6-month time period

• 120 pages including:

• Written erection procedure

• Erection sketches

• Temporary falsework and stabling details

• Lifting lug details for individual members




Analysis III4-D Steel Erection Planning

4-D Virtual Model

• Site Boundaries - Access Roads - Staging Areas - Crane Locations -Temporary Facilities

• Virtually displays erection sequence

• Easily change and test erection sequences multiple times

• Interactive Model w/ numerous viewpoints

• Identify conflicts and out-of-order sequence work




Analysis III2-D vs. 4-D Erection Planning

• 4D model allows for view from all angles and can help identify potential conflicts, safety hazards, or sequence errors




Analysis IIIApplications of 4-D Modeling

Tool for Developing Erection Procedure

• Allow users to visualize sequence

• Trial and Error planning techniques

• Identify potential conflicts prior to erection

• Reduce the risk of complications during erection

Trade Coordination

• Visually display crane locations – staging areas

• Identify potential safety hazards

Project Communication

• Display erection sequence plan during prepatory meetings with general contractor and owner’s representatives

• Allows contractor to address any questions or concerns from all parties prior to beginning the erection in the field




Analysis IIICase Study: NMMC Project

• Could have identified potential conflicts prior to them occurring in the field – resulting in delays, cost increases, etc…








Design and Analysis



Planning

• Conclusion



ConclusionSummary and Conclusions

Reducing the Impact of Phasing

• Utilize the knowledge and expertise of a construction manager early in the design process

• Investigate temporary structures to limit the alteration of the final design and to reduce the complexity of the future construction

• Early CM involvement could also allow for early involvement of key subcontractors and allow for the use of 4-D modeling

Impact of Phased Construction

• Requires a great deal of planning and communication between design and construction

• Potential for extensive over-design of project components to accommodate temporary loads



The EndAcknowledgements

I would like to thank the following individuals for all their help and support…

• Centex Construction – Jason Reece and the Marine Corps Project Staff

• Marine Corps Heritage Foundation

• Banker Steel Company – Chet McPhatter

• CMT Laboratories

• CM Faculty – Dr. Riley, Dr. Messner, Dr. Horman

• Kurt Maldovan & Jamie Knise

• AE Faculty and Staff

• AE Class of 2005

• Friends and Family



The EndQuestions?




Analysis II

Design Loads

• Max Moment: 4.313 ft-kip / ft of wall

• Approximately 9.05 feet from the top of the wall

• Section Modulus = 1.725 in3/ft

• Sheet Pile Member Section Modulus = 18.1 in3/ft



EXTRA