1 / 45

The Boll Family YMCA

This project focuses on the construction management of the Boll Family YMCA in Detroit, including analyzing foundation options, handrail systems, and the mechanical room.

katiea
Download Presentation

The Boll Family YMCA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Boll Family YMCA Alvaro Zumaran Construction ManagementApril 10, 2006

  2. Project Background • Building Name: The Boll Family YMCA • Location: 1401 Broadway - Detroit, MI 48226 • Size: 110,000 SF • Cost: $29 Million • Occupancy: Recreational; IIA • Construction Dates: December ’03 - December ‘05

  3. Project Background • Primary Project Team - Owner: YMCA of Metropolitan Detroit - Architects/Engineers: SmithGroup - Construction Manager: Barton Malow Co.

  4. Project Background • Project Highlights - First new YMCA to be built in Detroit in 90 years - Performing arts theatre, sports arena, childcare facility - Distinctive “stepped” shape - Staggered floor levels - High visibility

  5. Interactive Website Virtual Tour Website

  6. Agenda Analysis 1 – Foundation Analysis 2 – Handrails Analysis 3 – Mechanical Room Research Topic – Integrated Design Management

  7. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion Analyze the cost of materials – concrete and formwork, of 2 separate foundation types Compare RS Means and ICE 2000 data to BMC budget data and schedule Recommend best option

  8. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion Strip footings ~25,500 SF footprint ~765 Ft perimeter ~120 days Combined drilled and formed piers Approximately 70 drilled piers and 36 formed piers

  9. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion Mat slab foundation - > 3’ thick - Approximately 60 days - volumetric shrinkage = possible cracking - Conflicting RS Means and ICE 2000 pricing

  10. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion

  11. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion

  12. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion Price difference between ICE 2000 estimate and RS Means estimate: ~$165,000

  13. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion

  14. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion

  15. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion Price according to BMC data: ~$846,000 Compared to ICE 2000: ~$199K Compared to RS Means: ~$34K

  16. Analysis 1 - Foundation Goals Background Proposed Cost Comparison Conclusion Cost for mat system is not practical compared to strip footings Material durability - potential for visible cracking in exposed floors and mechanical equipment vibrations Insufficient soil stability - as stated in the geo-tech reports

  17. Goals Research cost for an alternate handrail system Calculate and compare cost of maintenance for each system Suggest most cost-effective system Analysis 2 - Handrails

  18. Goals Current system Woven wire mesh in-fill panels 1,130 linear feet - running track - ‘main’ areas Aesthetic feel Analysis 2 - Handrails

  19. Current system Proposed solution Aluminum handrails - affordable - anodized ◦ durability ◦ aesthetic feel ◦ corrosion, stain, scratch resistance Analysis 2 - Handrails

  20. Proposed solution Cost comparison Analysis 2 - Handrails

  21. Cost comparison Analysis 2 - Handrails

  22. Cost comparison Analysis 2 - Handrails

  23. Cost comparison Conclusion Aluminum handrail system is most economically feasible Owner and architect decide - aesthetics - conformity Analysis 2 - Handrails

  24. Analysis 3 – Mechanical Room Goals Explore current system -complications - possible long term effects Suggest a less expensive alternative that is just as effective

  25. Analysis 3 – Mechanical Room Goals Current system Issue with vertical rise Splashing at air gap connecting pool line to sanitary line Expensive solution bring in tank indirectly tie 6” pool line to 8” sanitary line Possible long term effects decomposition of sanitary line (?) corrosion of steel decking (?)

  26. Analysis 3 – Mechanical Room Goals Current system Alternate solution Add another line going to sump pump (proper vertical rise) Install new sump pump handle 430 GPM break open floor connect sump to pool trap line already tied into sanitary line

  27. Mechanical Room Schematic *8” pool sump discharge * * *

  28. Mechanical Room Schematic

  29. Analysis 3 – Mechanical Room Goals Current system Alternate solution Cost comparison Current system information provided by PM and Mechanical contractor 12’ polypropylene tank w/ 64” diameter 1.5 HP pump, infrared beams, and electric switches labor and installation Total Price: ~$35,000

  30. Analysis 3 – Mechanical Room Goals Current system Alternate solution Cost comparison

  31. Analysis 3 – Mechanical Room Goals Current system Alternate solution Cost comparison

  32. Analysis 3 – Mechanical Room Goals Current system Alternate solution Cost comparison Conclusion Less expensive to install new sump and trap line (~$7,500) Proposed system takes up less space Proposed system does not pose threats to structural decking

  33. Research Analysis Synergy amongst the entities Effective planning: possible reduction in budget and schedule Using the Design-Build delivery method Integrated design management background

  34. Research Analysis Added costs to budget/days to schedule - trade conflicts - misinterpretation of drawings - lead times - any other unforeseen conditions Problems

  35. Research Analysis Online Reports Interviews with the ‘Heads’ of a project - Owner: Mrs. Lorie Uranga (YMCA) - Engineer: Mr. Benjamin Gerald (Holder Construction Co.) - Architect: Mrs. Jana Hayford (SmithGroup) Research

  36. Research Analysis Points made by reports • DB saves time, money and reduces conflict • Most helpful when project is driven by cost & schedule • Best suited for projects that are well defined • Management of ‘interfaces’ • Good managerial skills and experience Research

  37. Research Analysis Research Data

  38. Research Analysis Main Points From Interviews • Owner’s perspective • ‘cost effective’ systems need more maintenance • design aspects are sacrificed for time and schedule • some projects are better suited for it compared to others • sometimes hard to balance powers Research

  39. Research Analysis Main Points From Interviews • Engineer’s perspective • performance specifications put most risk on contractor • value engineering: before the design is complete • design-Build creates synergy between aesthetic thinkers and logical thinkers • owner’s desired level of involvement determine the execution of a D-B or a DBB delivery method • D-B: overlap of phases. DBB: linear approach Research

  40. Research Analysis Main Points From Interviews • Architect’s perspective • early budget and up-front cost • communication should be carefully handled • IDM is dependent on client and complexity of building • performance specifications and longevity of product • ‘cost cutting’ mode and no competition for contractor Research

  41. Research Analysis ◦ Chemistry and communication are top-priority ◦ Client must be specific and time & money are the most important factors ◦ Performance specifications handled carefully and are usually a one-sided risk ◦ Complexity of project ◦ PM with strong personality and high expertise and skill ◦ Examples from YMCA project Conclusion

  42. Acknowledgements • Barton Malow Co. • SmithGroup • YMCA of Metro Detroit • Architectural Engineering Faculty • My family and friends

  43. Questions?

  44. Analysis 1-Foundation Schedule Comparison 3,300 CY / 56.4 (daily output) = ~60 days

More Related