Senior Thesis Ryan E. Sickman April 16, 2003

1. Senior ThesisRyan E. SickmanApril 16, 2003 The New Jacksonville Arena Jacksonville, Florida The Pennsylvania State University Architectural Engineering

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

3. 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)

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

5. 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

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

7. Raker Investigation 68 Raker Locations in Lower Bowl

8. Raker Investigation Existing Raker Construction Method Pre-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

9. Raker Investigation Proposed Raker Construction Method Cast-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

10. 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

11. Choose C.I.P. 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

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

13. 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?

14. Structural Change Proposed 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

15. Structural Change Results of Calculations Note: 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

16. Structural Change Choose Steel Comparison of Structural Choices *All figures include material, labor, and equipment

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

18. VE of Building Skin Original Brick Façade Design Upper Walls Brick Cavity Wall Batt Insulation Metal Studs Drywall Lower Walls Brick Cavity Wall Backed up by 8” CMU Blocks Insulation Panels • Both include an • Architectural Precast Element • in addition to the brick work

19. 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)

20. 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 Proposed Slenderwall Product • 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 Product can be delivered including: Exterior Look (bricks & pre-cast band) Metal Studs for interior Drywall Attached Insulation Panels (Insulation is not included if batt insulation)

21. VE of Building Skin Choose Slenderwall Façade Comparison 1 Extra Month of Events at $150,000 / event, you would only need to hold 7 events before the cost was made up

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

23. 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

24. 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:

25. 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

26. 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

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

28. 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

29. Summary of Findings Total Time and Money Saved $1,155,105 Saved 200 Days Saved Where 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

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

31. 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.

32. 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?