ALCOA - engr.psu.edu · ALCOA BUSINESS SERVICES CENTER 30 Isabella street Pittsburgh, PA Geoffrey...

Efficiency Considerations for Modern Design TThheessiiss FFiinnaall rreeppoorrtt

SSpprriinngg 22000044

Geoffrey E. Measel Structural Option

PPeennnnssyyllvvaanniiaa SSttaattee UUnniivveerrssiittyy

AArrcchhiitteeccttuurraall EEnnggiinneeeerriinngg Dr. Memari - Advisor

AALLCCOOAA BBUUSSIINNEESSSS SSEERRVVIICCEESS CCEENNTTEERR 30 Isabella street Pittsburgh, PA

ALCOAALCOA

BUSINESS SERVICES CENTERBUSINESS SERVICES CENTER 30 Isabella street Pittsburgh, PA Geoffrey E. Measel, Structural Option—Dr. Memari, Advisor

The building •• Six-story multi-use building •• 228,500 nrsf •• 45,000 sf. Underground parking garage •• $26 Million project •• First floor retail space •• aluminum, glass, and brick façade •• Raised floor

system Primary project team •• Owner: Jackson Row Holdings C/O the Rubinoff company •• Primary tenant: Alcoa •• Primary Architect: Pfaffmann & Associates •• Interior Architect: IKM Inc. •• Structural engineer: Atlantic Engineering Services •• Mechanical Engineer: Ray Engineering •• Electrical Engineer: Hornfeck engineering, Inc. •• Site consultant: Civil & Environmental Consultants Inc. •• Construction Manager: PJ Dick Inc.

construction •• Started September 2001 and completed

November 2002 •• PJ Dick was cm at risk and served as gc

by holding all the sub-contracts •• temporary earth supports were required •• Water provisions were made during

construction due to the waterfront site

mechanical •• Four Aaon Roof Top Air condition-

ing units with 56,000 cfm each •• Two Lochinvar 1800 mbh biolers •• Variable air volume system with

Titan fan powered VAV boxes •• Complete automatic Temperature

control system •• Two 35.000 cfm exhaust fans for

underground garage

Structural design •• Foundation:concrete piles and

grade beams •• Composite steel system •• Braced frames both ways

Lighting & electrical •• 480/277 v 3-phase, 4 wire •• 4000 Amp Main bus •• 200 Kw back up generator •• Fluorescent, Incandescent, and

metal halide lamps used throughout

•• Exterior High Pressure Sodium lamps

•• Tenant has separate lighting controls

•• Lighting controlled by lms

AALLCCOOAA BBUUSSIINNEESSSS SSEERRVVIICCEESS CCEENNTTEERR 30 Isabella street Pittsburgh, PA Geoffrey E. Measel, Structural Option—Dr. Memari, Advisor

Final Report Table of contents

Executive Summary ……………………………………………………… 1 Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………… 2 Building Information …………………………………………………… 3 Structural Existing Conditions Gravity System ………………………………………………….. 6 Lateral System …………………………………………………. 9 Foundation System ..……………………………………………. 11 Proposal Problem Statement ……………………………………………… 12 Design Criteria …………………………………………………… 12 Structural Redesign Floor Framing ……………………………………………………… 13 Foundation ……………………………………………………… 20 Core framing ……………………………………………………… 22 Mechanical Redesign …………………………………………………. 34 Construction Management …………………………………………… 37 Summary & conclusions ………………………………………………… 46


Appendices Appendix A: Structural design examples Appendix B: Structural Estimates Appendix C: Mechanical Estimates


1

Final Report Efficiency Considerations for Modern Design

Executive Summary:

The following thesis investigates structural efficiency in the design of modern buildings. The study will look at alternate systems and their costs and construction issues. The current building Industry demands that projects are designed with the similar or equal quality but at a much more efficient cost. Because the Alcoa building was developer built, it was important to make sure the building design was of premium quality for the most effective cost.

The investigation includes a structural re-design of both the floor framing systems and foundations of the Alcoa business services center. Because of the volatile state of the steel in today’s market, it was a goal to limit the amount of steel used the building’s structural design. A variety of different systems and variables were checked to determine if any floor framing system had overwhelming benefits. The foundation system was another significant cost in the structure of the Alcoa building. The building bears on auger cast piles with grade beam construction because of the soft soils where the building is placed. In order to find the most efficient and effective foundation for this project several systems were considered and analyzed.

The Alcoa building provided a raised floor system for the

large amount of high tech cable and data systems that were to be installed into the building. Since the structure was designed to carry the load of a raised floor, an investigation and redesign of the mechanical system was conducted to see possible benefits. An under floor air distribution system was redesigned to fit the project. This study compared the existing over-head vav system to the under floor system to see which design allows for the most efficient and effective design.

The system cost and project schedule impacts for each

proposed change were reviewed, calculated, and compared to each other in order to find the most efficient design feasible for the required conditions.


2

Acknowledgements:

• Atlantic Engineering Services o John Schneider o Andy Verrangia

• PJ Dick o Frank Babic o Matt Wetzel

• Gem Building Contractors & Developers inc.

o Gale Measel Jr. o Greg Measel

• Practitioner Mentors

• AE Falculty

o Kevin Parfitt o Walt Schneider o Jonathan Dougherty

• Penn State AE Class of 2004

• My Family


3

Building Information:

The Alcoa business services center is a 124ft six story multi-tenant building located on the riverfront of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The building was part of the riverfront beautification plan for Pittsburgh. A partnership between Jackson rowe holdings and the rubinoff company provided the resources to building the project. Located on the north shore, near Pnc Park, the Alcoa building combines a very desirable plaza area with high quality office space.

The ground floor retail helps attract pedestrian traffic

which was important to the city in restructuring its riverfront. The building’s location did not allow for a parking area, so a 45,000 sq. ft parking garage is located in the basement of the building. Retail is located on the ground floor and floors two through six are reserved for office tenants. The building was built with a white box which allows for tenants to build out their own floors to better meet their unique needs. Microsoft just recently finished the third floor and moved part of its operations into the building. All of the major mechanical


4

Equipment is contained on the roof inside a two level penthouse.

The project was a design-bid-build project with a construction manager at risk. Pfaffmann and Associates served as the primary architect while Pj dick served as both cm and general contractor for the building. The governing code falls under boca 99, which was the design code adopted by the city of Pittsburgh at the time of the design. Construction of the building began in September of 2001 and was completed in November of 2002. The Alcoa business services center was constructed for $26 million or $19.3 million without Alcoa’s build out work.

With a total of 228,500 sq. ft of space, this office building offers large open floor areas to its tenants. The typical floor layout is shown below.


5

The core is the center region of the floor plan. As

pictured below the core holds many of the essentials for each floor. Located in the core are the four restrooms, two men’s and two women’s. There are also two stair wells and four elevators located in this area, the main mechanical duct work also makes use of the core design.


6

Structural existing conditions: Gravity system: The Alcoa Business Services Center is a composite steel and concrete structure. Each floor makes use of composite design by combining light weight concrete with 3” composite decking and shear studs. The typical floor thickness of 5 ½” concrete gives the floor its required 2 hour fire rating while maintaining its structural integrity. All beams, girders, and columns are typical W shape 50ksi steel. The Alcoa building was designed as a composite system to help decrease the weight of the building while allowing for large spans of 30 feet for an open office space. The building is built on the Riverfront in downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; the engineers had problems achieving the proper soil capacity. The overall weight of the building has a great impact on the foundation design. Therefore, a concrete system was not designed. A typical bay is 30’ wide by 32’ long with 2 beams evenly spaced in the bay. The beams are spaced at 10’ on center with the composite decking running perpendicular to the beams. When designing the system the following codes were used: Boca 99, Aisc 1989, and Aci 301/318 1989. Below is a typical bay of the Alcoa business services center. This particular section was taken from the fourth floor. As you can see a w24x55 is used for the girder with a length of 30’. The beams typically used are w18x40 at 10’ on center. The composite deck is a minimum of 20 gage, 3” composite decking with a yield strength not less then 33,000 psi. The decking spans perpendicular to the composite beams. Five inch deep by ¾” diameter shear studs are placed throughout the floor system to meet the design requirements. The typical column for this bay is a w12x65 steel member.

Typical floor Framing


7

Typical roof framing- The Alcoa building’s structural roof framing consists of two major types of framing. One is where the mechanical systems are located with composite system and the second type of roof framing makes use of joist/beam construction with 1 ½” metal decking topped with an epdm roof system. Below is a typical framing section of the roof which is 32’ by 30’.

Below are the typical materials specified and used throughout the building. Steel:

• Structural Shapes: astm a992 Typical 50ksi steel • Steel Tubes: astm 500, grade b • Steel Pipe: astm 500, grade b • Galvanized Structural steel:

o Shapes and Rods: astm a123 o Bolts, Fasteners, & Hardware: astm a153

• Bolts: Typical astm a325 ¾” Diameter • Shear Studs: astm a108, grade 1015 or 1020

o Typical ¾” diameter by 5” deep Concrete: (F’c required at 28 days)

• Foundation: 4000 psi (Normal Weight 145 pcf) • Interior Slabs: 4000 psi (Light weight 110 pcf) • Exterior Slabs: 4000 psi (Normal Weight 145 pcf) • Grout:

o Masonry (astm c476) 3000 psi min o Leveling 5000 psi min

• Reinforcing: 60 ksi steel

Typical roof Framing


8

The loads that were used to design the alcoa building are

listed in charts below.

Dead Load Load Typical Floor (psf) Concrete on Metal Deck 32 Steel Self-Weight 8 Partitions 20 Ceiling/Mechanical 7 Raised Floor System (Floors 4-6) 10 Total 77 Roof EPDM/Insulation/metal deck 20 Concrete on Metal Deck (Composite) 32 Steel Self-Weight (Composite) 8 Steel Self-Weight (joist section) 7 Superimposed 25 Mechanical General 7 Mechanical (Air Conditioners) 135 Kips Total EPDM Roof 59 Total Composite Roof 72 Exterior Wall Total 17 Snow Load Total (80% reduction of 30psf) 6

Floor/Roof Live Loads

Boca Minimum Requirement Actual Design

Typical Floor (psf) (psf) 1st Floor 100 100 Office Levels (2-6) 50 60 Corridors (>1st floor) 80 80 Balconies/Stairs 100 100 Sidewalk/Vehicle Driveway 250 250 Storage Areas (Heavy) 250 250 Mechanical Rooms 125 125 Roof Snow 25 30


9

Lateral Framing:

A diagonal cross bracing system resists the lateral forces present on the Alcoa building. The concentric bracing is present both ways in the frame of the building. The bracing resists both North-South and East-West wind loads on the building. In order to keep the diagonal bracing from obstructing the bays of the building it is located in the inner core of the building. Below is the location of the lateral framing for the Alcoa building.

Lateral Bracing Location


10

The braced frames are concentric and symmetrical in the core of the building. The Diagonal bracing is hollow steel tubing ranging from 10”x10” to 6”x6”. East-West Braced Frame North-South Braced Frame


11

Foundation System:

The foundation system designed consists of auger cast piles and grade beams. The poor soil conditions present on the site of the Alcoa Business Services Center required a deep foundation. The soil was characterized by USDA standards as yellowish brown silty sand. The piles provided are an average of 50’ deep and bear on siltstone bedrock. Each pile has an allowable End bearing capacity of 68 tons per square foot with 11.45 and 9.5 ton uplift and lateral capacity respectively. The foundation system also makes use of concrete grade beams. A typical grade beam used in the building varies between 24 and 26 inches by 36 inches deep. With required reinforcing, the basement parking garage a concrete wall bears on the grade beams below which is used to carry the masonry units above grade. Picture is a plan of the buildings foundation design.


12

Proposal: Problem Statement: Today’s design and building market demands the highest quality product for design with the most efficient costs. The industry has forced engineers to design buildings as efficient as possible without compromising the integrity of what is being designed structurally. When reviewing the Alcoa building I felt that there were areas of the building that have significant impact on the cost of the structure. Those systems included the floor framing system, foundation, and mechanical system of the building. Even though the structure is only a small percentage of the overall building cost, it is important to give the client the most efficient building as possible. the steel market is currently volatile and predictions are of continued increases in steel prices, it is important to have a building that makes efficient use of the structural steel. Because the project is built by a developer, I feel that it is very important to look at the life cycle costs of a building. One of the major operating costs of most buildings are the mechanical systems, therefore, trying to decrease cost over the life a building is a major issue the can be dealt with in the mechanical design. Design Criteria: The main goal of this thesis was to investigate different systems that can be designed and the decision process behind the design of a building. The system needs to be equivalent to the existing system while decreasing the cost of the building. Each system will be designed with the current variables to act as a control in order to compare the alternate systems with their new design criteria. All member design was calculated by ram steel with equal criteria so that a good comparison could be made between the systems.


13

Structural re-design: Floor framing: When looking at alternate floor framing systems, I found that there were several viable options to review and re-design with efficiency in mind. The study was conducted on floors 2-6 where the tenant space is available. As part of my mechanical re-design, I wanted to take the existing raised floor and design it to handle an under floor air distribution system on floors two through six. In order to achieve the required codes the new raised floor increased loads of the original design. The dead load increased by 3 psf, which revised it a total of 80psf. I also used a live load of 50 psf instead of the 60 psf used by the designer for the main floor area. I used Ram steel to size the members for each system I am evaluating. Existing floor framing: The first analysis I performed was the existing floor framing. I wanted to make sure that the revised loads I made had limited and minimal effect on the structure. Below is a comparison of the actual design and re-design of a typical bay in the building. The floor is 3” usd Lok-floor composite decking with a 5.5” of 4000 psi lightweight concrete slab. The system incorporates 5” grade 1015 Shear Studs. AES Existing My Existing


14

Existing System Comparison

3.473.90

6.78

8.07

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

AES My Existing

Valu

e/Sq

. ft

Steel Cost per Sq. ft Steel W eight per Sq. ft

Below you can see from the results that no major change occurred due to the small increase in load. All of my floor designs were typically controlled by deflection. I used l/360 or 1” as my maximum deflection criteria. I used this standard because of the quality required by the tenants the developer was looking to have occupy the building. The other reason for the higher deflection criteria was due to the raised floor and its requirements to be a sealed plenum. I did not want to risk design issues with the raised floor system to work properly with deflection problems. The actual design has a bay weight of 6.78 psf with a steel cost of $3.47/sq. ft compared with my bay weight of 8.07psf and a cost of $3.90/sq. ft. The reason for the difference could be due to greater deflection criteria that I specified. The other bays will be compared to my design of the existing floor framing. The major difference occurs in the amount of shear studs required, my system has over double the amount of shear studs then the original design had in place. My existing system will be used as the control against all the other alternate systems in order to guarantee accurate results and comparisons. Below is the chart showing the difference in weight and cost per square foot.


15

Composite Comparison

3.81 3.81 3.81 3.81 3.83 3.83 3.90 4.00

7.75 7.75 7.75 7.68 7.64 7.64 7.68 7.83

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Percent Composite

Valu

e/sq

.ft

Steel Cost per Sq. ft Steel Weight per Sq. ft

Composite Re-Design I found that the engineer choose to use 60 psf live load on the floor, but the code only required a design of 50 psf live load. Because of my goal to design the system as efficiently as possible I felt this might have a significant affect on the member sizes. The members for the new design are actually smaller and lighter. This decrease in size is due to using a live load of 50 psf. The issue of larger members, less shear studs, verses smaller members more shear studs had to be address. In order to investigate the economics of shears studs versus beam size I had to run each floor with different percentage composite. I started with 100% and decreased until I reached 30% composite. The most efficient floor design considering composite action for cost and weight occurred at the 70% mark. The Chart below shows the system comparisons on only the steel members without columns. Composite 50 psf (70%)

3” 18 gauge usd lok-floor 5 ½” Light weight 4000psi concrete 5” grade 1015 Shear Studs

• System Weight o 7.68 lb/sq. ft

• System Cost o $3.83/sq.ft


16

Composite Comparison (Shored)

3.00 3.00 3.11 3.11 3.14 3.22 3.27 3.27

6.44 6.44 6.49 6.50 6.44 6.37 6.43 6.43

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.00

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Pe rce nt Composite

valu

e/sq

. ft


Now that the steel market is volatile, I reasoned that reducing the steel needed by utilizing the shoring of the decking may be a good option, especially if the contractor already has his own shoring. To begin, i investigated the cost and weight versus the percent composite utilizing a shored system. a 100% composite action was the best option. Below is a summarized chart of the different percentages and their cost and weight per square foot. Composite shored (100%)

3” 18 gauge usd lok-floor composite metal deck 5 ½” Light weight 4000psi concrete 5” grade 1015 shear studs




17

Continuing with the assumption that the least amount of

steel possible will save the owner money, I decided to check if cambering my composite system would be effective. I only cambered beams over 30’ in length. Composite Cambered

3” 18 gauge usd lok-floor composite metal deck 5 ½” Light weight 4000psi concrete 5” grade 1015 Shear Studs



Non-Composite System In order to make the composite study complete, I also preformed a study on a non-composite system. I revised the deck to 16 gauge rather than the 18 gauge deck used in the composite system.

3”16 Gauge usd Lok-floor metal deck 5 ½” Light weight 4000 psi concrete




18

Pre-cast Plank: From my technical report #2 I found that a pre-cast concrete plank system could be beneficial to the Alcoa floor framing system. The deck spans and bears in the direction of the arrow. The steel is designed at less cost and weight per square foot but the floor is nearly double the weight of the 5 1/2” Light weight concrete floor. Nitterhouse pre-cast plank 8” J952 Deck 2” Light weight concrete topping

• System Weight o 6.13 lb/Sq. ft

• System cost

o 3.31 lb/Sq. ft Steel joist: Another floor framing system that I found to be a feasible alternate system in technical report #2 was Steel joists. Vulcraft k series joists USD uf1x form deck 4” Light weight concrete topping W 4.0X4.0 WWF

• System Weight o 7.18 lb/Sq. ft

• System cost

o 3.35 lb/Sq. ft


19

System Comparison

6.788.07 7.68

6.44 6.137.18

8.68

3.47 3.9 3.81 3 3.31 3.354.69

6.065.87

02468

10

Exi

stin

g

My

Exi

stin

g

Com

posi

teU

nSho

red

(70%

)

Com

posi

tesh

ored

(100

%)

Com

posi

teC

ambe

red

Pre

cast

Jois

ts

Non

com

posi

te

Valu

e/sq

. ft

Steel Weight/ sq. ft Steel Cost/sq. ft

Floor Framing Summary: Each system was studied both for cost and steel weight while maintaining the existing design strength of the building. A comparison of the steel cost and weight per square foot for the floor framing is summarized in the graph chart below.

The chart results show that the composite shored is both the lightest and least expensive system for steel cost. The price of the shored does not include is the price to purchase and labor to shore each floor in order to place the concrete. In order to evaluate the systems for overall cost I had to add the different floor costs into the floor framing cost. A more in depth analysis of the floor framing cost is explained on page 37 of the construction management portion of the report.


20

Foundation Re-Design: The foundation system of the Alcoa building was significant enough for me to review it and see if there were alternate systems that would have been more cost effective. In order to reduce cost I felt that the auger cast piles could be re-designed. After investigation of the existing soil conditions and report, I quickly ruled out any chance of shallow or matt foundations because the soil bearing was under the required capacities. The building had to bear on a deep foundation. I then looked at driven piles, friction piles, and different size caissons as alternate systems that could be compared with the existing design. The driven piles would not work with the building for a few reasons. The first reason was that the soil would have been disturbed around adjacent buildings causing issues with their foundations. Secondly, friction piles would not work with the existing soil conditions. A layer of sandy clay created settlement concerns with the design. The only viable system left to investigate was micro-piles or mini-piles. Mini-piles cost more per lineal foot of excavation but the number of piles could be reduced with a high bearing mini-pile.

I began the re-design by first selecting a proper size mini-pile. My goal was to reduce the overall amount of piles so I had to find a pile with a higher capacity. I chose a 7.5” Diameter mini pile. This pile has a 150 ton capacity compared to the auger cast capacity of only 95 tons. I calculated the capacity of the mini-pile below. The mini piles have a 7.5” diameter tube with ASTM 252 Grade a 80 ksi steel.

Pall =(.4 to .5) Fy As + (.35 to .45) F’c Ac

Fy =Yield Stress of Steel Casing (80ksi) As =Cross-sectional area of steel casing (7.86 in2) F’c =28 day Compressive Strength of grout (4000 psi)

Ac =Cross-Sectional area of grout (35.78 in2)

To keep the capacity as conservative as possible I used .4 and .35 respectively in the equation. The equation provides a capacity of 150.8 tons. If needed the capacity could increase by using .5 and .45 as the coefficients giving a higher bearing 190 tons.


21

The existing foundation system consists of 87 pile caps

and 374 piles. I was able to eliminate 74 piles from the original design. I only needed to redesign one pile cap because the geometry of the piles only changed for this pile cap. The punching shear for the column was much greater than the force that would be placed on the pile cap from a pile, and this is why the pile caps did not require a redesign. In most cases the pile groups ended up with a higher capacity than the original design. I re-sized the pile cap because I revised the geometry of the pile placement in respect to the pile cap. In this particular pile cap I was able to reduce the amount of piles from four to three. It had an original total bearing capacity of 380 Tons. The new design, shown below, utilizing mini-piles, has a bearing capacity of 450 tons. Shown below are the existing pile cap design and then the re-design. The depth did not have to change because punching shear of the column controlled the design.


22

Core Re-design: Because of the 4” raised floor that was designed to meet Alcoa’s needs, an under floor air distribution system would be beneficial to the building. The gravity system was designed to handle the added dead load of raising the floor to required 24” for the under floor air distribution system. The issue with raising the floor system is that the core needs to be at the same height as the raised floor. To accomplish this in the original design an addition 4” concrete wearing slab was poured on top of the 5 ½” structural slab of the core floor. Therefore, the core has a total of 9 1/2” of concrete which causes the steel members to be much heaver in the core than they would normally be. Even though the extra 4” slab functioned with the initial raised floor system, the proposed re-designed 24” system needed a better solution. Since, I am looking for the most efficient building possible, I decided to review at a few different framing options in order the make the floor elevations equal. The investigation includes the following alternate systems: a raised floor system in the core, framing and pouring another deck on top of the structural slab, raising the entire core, and using a geo-foam filling. Shown below is the existing core design in elevation.


23

Existing Core framing: Shown below is the existing core structural framing plan for the 5th floor of the Alcoa building provided by Atlantic Engineering Services (aes). Located in the existing core is 3” usd lok-look composite decking with a 5.5” 4000 psi light weight structural concrete slab. 5” grade 1015 Shear Studs were also used in this design. An epoxy coating was applied, then an additional 4” wearing Light weight concrete slab was place over the existing 5.5” structural slab. The 4” slab was designed to bring the core level elevation up with the raise floor slab elevation of the office area. A review of the weight and cost per square foot was calculated to help decide which system would be most beneficial to the developer. AES Composite Core design

3” 18 gauge usd lok-floor 5 ½” Light weight 4000psi concrete 5” grade 1015 Shear Studs 4” additional lightweight slab



Typical core Framing


24

Shown below is my existing core framing which uses the

loads supplied by AES with my selected deflection criteria. By limiting the deflection the member sizes of my core framing system were deeper and heavier than the existing design. I used my existing design as the control to investigate the most efficient way to frame the core in order to design the under floor air distribution system. My Composite Core design

3” 18 gauge usd lok-floor 5 ½” Light weight 4000psi concrete 5” grade 1015 Shear Studs 4” additional lightweight slab




25

Major differences exist in my existing design versus aes’s design of the core area. AES limited their beam sizes in the core to 16” depth. Since I was not concerned about feeding piping and ductwork through the under floor system, I did not restrict the depth of my members. If I wanted to decrease the height of the building from what was built, I could have restricted the depth of the framing members which would have lowered the floor to floor height. With this mechanical system design, I chose to limit deflection to either l/360 or 1”. This controlled the design of the members and made my system heavier than aes’s core design. To represent this comparison I have shown the two systems in the bar chart below. My existing system will be used as the control against the alternate designed systems. The beams designed for the braced system are heavier than the beams that are located in my system. Each alternate system specifies the same beams as the beams used in the original design because they are sufficient to carry the required loads.

Existing Core Comparisons

5.05 5.28

8.80

10.56

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

AES Existing My Exsiting

Valu

e/S

q. ft



26

Raised Floor framing: The first alternate system I investigated was the possibility of raising the core by adding an access floor system. This allows the core to have the mechanical feed under the floor top match the rest of the building. As explained on page 34 in the mechanical portion of this report, the duct size controls the height required for the access floor. The minimal depth that the duct could be designed for was 22”. For that reason I established the raised floor at 24” high providing 2” of clearance for the duct work. Shown below is the section detail of adding the raised floor system in the core.


27

Shown below is the re-designed steel layout for providing the 24” raised floor system at the core of the building. The dead load of the building decreased significantly from the original core design, since the 4” wearing slab was no longer required. Raised Floor Core design

3” 18 gauge usd lok-floor 5 ½” Light weight 4000psi concrete 5” grade 1015 shear studs 24” Access floor

• System Weight

o 10.83 lb/sq. ft • System Cost

o $5.33/sq.ft


28

Beam raised floor: An alternate design solution to matching the core elevation with the 24” raised floor system was providing w beams located on the existing structural slab. The w beams would then have an addition floor slab poured on top as required. Because the W beams only come in either w18 or w21 I had the choice of either a 3” slab or a 6” slab. It was determined that because of the spans, the 6” slab was required even though a 4” slab would have been sufficient. The section of the beam raised floor is shown below.


29

The steel framing of the beam raised floor system is shown below. The w21x44, the beams that raise the floor, are located in the same configuration as the structural framing, but they are resting on the 5.5” structural concrete slab. Beam Raised Floor Core design

3” 18 gauge usd lok-floor 5 ½” Light weight 4000psi concrete 5” grade 1015 Shear Studs 6” Lightweight slab on 2” Form deck

• System Weight


o $7.16/sq.ft


30

Raised core framing: Raising the core framing to match the raised floor elevation was another option that I investigated. In order to accomplish this, the steel elevation of the core was raised 24”. With this design an issue developed with locating the duct from the core and supplying it into the raised floor system.

I examined two solutions to design the supply ducts with the new steel framing. One Option was to select a deep beam and then cope the core and floor beams into it. In order to provide a beam deep enough for the duct and the concrete slab, the weight of this member made it not economical to continue with the design. The additional fabrication required to the members due to the coping and cutting created an excessively costly detail.


31

The second option was to create a duct chase by

terminating the upper beam with supports transferring the loads to the lower beam by using small transfer columns. The design of the member is shown below. This steel member is located where the main duct supply will be located in order to feed the under floor system. Please refer to page 36 of the report for the duct layout.


32

Since, the core is now 24” higher in elevation in this design, therefore there are 10 beams added to the system. The perimeter floor and the core area both require perimeter beams at the edge of the slab, and that is why there are two framing details shown below. The first shows framing picture the floor level. The plan below is the framing for the new core area.


33

Core Comparisons

5.05 5.28 5.337.16

5.41

8.8010.56 10.83

14.18

11.05

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.0016.00

AES Existing My Exsiting Raised Floor Beam RaisedFloor

Raised Core

Valu

e/S

q. ft


Raised Core design

3” 18 gauge usd lok-floor 5 ½” Light weight 4000psi concrete 5” grade 1015 Shear Studs

• System Weight


o $5.41/sq.ft Core Framing Summary: After analyzing the data and the design issues, I compared the steel member weight and steel cost per square foot for the core framing design. These results do not include any cost but the steel used for the framing of the floor. The columns and concrete slabs are not included into this chart. Even though the raised floor would be part of the structure framing to make the core to height, for the initial comparison I just reviewed the steel cost to frame the raised floor system.

The results show that initially the raised floor through

the core is most beneficial. Take note that the existing design is cheaper than the raised floor. This makes sense because I am adding load to the system with the raised floor. In order to make a better decision as to which system should be selected for the core a building cost impact was conducted in the construction management portion of the study. Please refer to page 41 of the report for further cost analysis.


34

Mechanical Re-Design: As mentioned above my mechanical study consisted of designing a raised floor system that would accommodate the demands of an under floor air distribution system. The existing mechanical system combined use of overhead fan powered vav boxes with hot water reheat. The original thought process behind re-designing such a system was due to the already existing 4” access floor. The access floor was needed to meet Alcoa’s telecommunication needs and the structure could already handle the added dead load from the system. The first step in the design process was to decide which floor system to use. I selected ConCore 2000 bolted stringer system from Tate Access floors performance charts. ConCore 2000 System Weight: 11.5 lbs/sq. ft Concentrated Load: 2000 lbs Uniform Load: 500 lbs/sq. ft Ultimate Load: 5750 lbs Impact Load: 150 lbs The reason for choosing this particular floor was for a few reasons. The system is completely non-combustible, it maintains a class a spread and smoke development rating, and the load ratings were sufficient to meet the code requirements for the building. The controlling load was the 2000 lb concentrated load required by the Boca 99. Once the type of floor was picked, I designed the height of the plenum under the floor and decided on what particular type of under floor system I wanted to utilize. The controlling factor of the floor height was the size of the duct work. It is common practice not to have greater than 1500 ft/s air flow because it can cause noise issues when it is fed under the floor. Therefore I needed to re-design the duct work to reduce the velocity of the air. The existing ducts are fed from the roof top unit and split two ways as they enter the main floor area as pictured below. The main supply duct dimensions are 70” x 15”.


35

The building is supplied by four air handling units that have a total output of 56,000 cfm. Each unit supplies three floors. Therefore, each ahu supplies a maximum of 18,667 cfm per floor. The supply is then split into two 70”x15” ducts, where each duct carries a maximum of 9333 cfm. I then used a ductilator and found out that I could not get ducts to work with my raised floor with that amount of air flow. The maximum floor height was 24” which gives 22” of clear space for depth of duct work. I also was limited with the width of duct that I could use. A Tate access floor offers two size grids, a 2’ or 4’. I designed the duct work with the 2’ grid system in mind because once the 2’ system worked with the setup, the 4’ grid system would also be guaranteed to work. In designing the duct system, I also needed to keep the air output velocity under a set maximum of 1500 ft/sec. Therefore, I split the duct 3 ways bringing the supply maximum of cfm down to 6222 cfm for each duct, with each duct size set at 40” x 22”. This duct size is too large to fit with the 2’ grid system, and to compensate, I used bridging to remove a pedestal to allow for


36

the required 44” of space for the duct. I needed to minimize the amount of bridging to ensure the necessary strength, while at the same time minimizing costs.

Shown Below is the layout that I came up with to work the pressurized under floor air distribution system. Also note that the floor is split into zones aimed to help equalize the air flow of the system. Because the system uses a reheat, it was important to separate the building into zones in order to maximize the efficiency of the Mechanical system. The system will still have vav terminals under the floor in order to meet the required flow rates and to reheat the air when required.

This particular system is a under floor pressurized plenum system that is partially ducted. The duct work is required to keep the supply air with in 80 ft of the furthest area that is being supplied. A return plenum is located above the ceiling which matches the existing design.


37

Construction Management: Construction management issues were also an important focus in the study. In order for a building to be efficient it needs life-cycle benefits or construction benefits. The main focus of the construction management was the cost of each system and the impact on the cost of the building. The results are summarized below. Structural: Each alternate floor system was examined in light of the following factors: floor weight, cost of steel, and cost of materials. I first selected a typical bay and used the numbers to get a square foot price for the building. Since this was a floor framing study the columns were not included. The cost of the steel was calculated and the labor based upon numbers from aisc. Most numbers were taken from Charles Carter’s lecture of Economic design of Steel structure. Steel costs nearly 20 cents a pound without factoring in the recent escalation. In steel buildings, typically 30% of the structural cost is in the material itself. The other 70% includes fabrication, erection, and other miscellaneous expenses. I took the 20 cents a pound and calculated the steel material price, also call beam material costs. Next I multiplied Beam Material Cost by 1.7 to calculate the labor cost of steel construction. Floor Framing: In order to understand the efficiency behind steel structures I charted all of my cost estimates so I could make comparisons between the different floor systems. The existing system is exactly what AES has designed for the Alcoa building. My existing Floor design is the combination of my own design and deflection criteria, along with AES’s loads. According to professionals, it costs $3.25 per sq. ft. to purchase, to place, and to finish a concrete floor. The shored floor has an added 86 cents per square foot included on the slab cost. The 86 cents includes the material to shore one whole floor in a two step process. I calculated each pour to be about 22,500 sq. ft. Half the floor would be poured the first day, and then the other half would be poured the second


38

System Comparison

6.788.07 7.68

6.44 6.137.18

8.68

3.47 3.9 3.81 3 3.31 3.354.69

6.065.87

02468

10

Exi

stin

g

My

Exi

stin

g

Com

posi

teU

nSho

red

(70%

)

Com

posi

tesh

ored

(100

%)

Com

posi

teC

ambe

red

Pre

cast

Jois

ts

Non

com

posi

te

Valu

e/sq

. ft


day allowing for 3 days of curing. This cycle allows the contractor to pour while shoring the next pour. The shoring consists of two 2x8 4’ o.c. of each bay with shoring jacks placed at the mid spans. The pre-cast slab cost includes the price to fabricate, to deliver, and to place the pre-cast decking.

During the structural efficiency study, I found that a

shored composite system is the most economical. Even though the steel cost and weight were more economical, when calculated in with the rest of the system costs, this system would not be the most economical towards the overall cost of the project. When I added the cost of the shoring and then calculated the floor cost for the entire building the joist system was the least expensive.

The joists were the cheapest structural solution until I added other building impacts into the cost, such as additional cost of fireproofing.

System Steel Weight/sq.ft Steel Cost/sq.ft Slab Cost/sq. ft Total Cost

Existing 6.78 3.47 3.25 1512000My Existing 8.07 3.9 3.25 1608750Composite Unshored (70%) 7.68 3.81 3.25 1588500Composite Shored (100%) 6.44 3 4.11 1599750Composite Cambered 6.06 5.87 3.25 2052000Precast 6.13 3.31 5.95 2083500Joists 7.18 3.35 3.25 1485000Noncomposite 8.68 4.69 3.25 1786500


39

System Cost Comparison

1512000 1608750 1588500 15750002052000 2083500

14850001786500

0500000

1000000150000020000002500000

Exis

ting

My

Exis

ting

Com

posi

teSh

ored

(70%

)

Com

posi

teU

nsho

red

(100

%)

Com

posi

teC

ambe

red

Prec

ast

Jois

ts

Non

com

posi

te

Cos

t

Cost


1512000 1608750 1588500 15997502052000 2083500

1557000 1786500

0500000

1000000150000020000002500000

Exi

stin

g

My

Exi

stin

g

Com

posi

teU

nSho

red

(70%

)

Com

posi

tesh

ored

(100

%)

Com

posi

teC

ambe

red

Prec

ast

Jois

ts

Non

com

posi

te

Cos

t

Cost

In order to properly fire proof the joists I planned on applying wire lathe mesh on one side and then spraying the fire proofing onto the mesh and steel. I calculated a price escalation in finishing the floor system of $0.32 per sq. ft. Below is the comparison with the added fire proofing.

Even though joists seem to be the cheapest alternative I

know that the depth of the members, deflection, and vibration issues make it a choice that a developer would not want for a high quality building such as the Alcoa business services center. For that reason my top choice is the composite shored unless the steel escalates like aisc has predicted. Aisc predicts a $93/ton increase in steel prices. The Shored system then has potential to give cost savings. I examined the system with the steel escalation included. I found that if the steel price rises like AICS has recommended at $93/ton then the


40

unshored system can save the owner over $45,000. If the

contractor owns some of his own shoring materials then the shored system would also be more beneficial to the construction. The shoring could be reused for many projects in the future which would benefit the contractor in the long run. This may be a contact the construction manager on the project would self perform. If the price of steel rises more than $93/ ton the savings will increase more.

Once I investigated the prices and weights of all the systems, I felt it necessary to look at issues of constructability and other cost impacts on buildings. Below I have charted my results and thoughts on all the systems and each of their uses in the future.

With Escalation Steel Weight lb/sq.ft Steel Cost/sq.ft Slab Cost/sq. ft Total Cost

Composite UnShored (70%) 7.68 4.66 3.25 1779750Composite shored (100%) 6.44 3.6 4.11 1734750 Save: 45000


41

Core Comparisons

8.8010.56 10.83

13.4511.05

5.05 5.28 5.336.77

5.41

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.0016.00

AESExisting

MyExsiting

RaisedFloor

BeamRaisedFloor

RaisedCore

Valu

e/ S

q. ft

Steel Weight/ sq. ftSteel Cost/ sq. ft

Cost Comparison

227880 232848

185328 187056

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

AES Existing My Exsiting Raised Floor Raised Core

Cost

Cost

Core framing: The core was also studied to find which system would be most effective in establishing the raised floor system to work. Shown below is a summary of the floor costs and data for system weight per square foot. Included is the floor framing cost and weight of each system per square foot. You can see that the raised floor in the core was the best option for the structural framing. The chart below gives a comparison of the steel framing costs for each system.


42

Cost Comparison

271080 276048 287928230256

319032

050000

100000150000200000250000300000350000

AES Existing My Exsiting Raised Floor Raised Core Beam RaisedFloor

Cost

Cost

The raised floor price needs to add the cost of

purchasing and installing the raised access floor which gives the system a finished floor. Raising the core also had implications to the cost of the core. The added fabrication to get the duct to the under floor for supply, adds costs as well as finishing the floor that has not been finished. Finishing costs can start at $2.00 a sq. ft for vct tile and then increase in price from there with different finishes. All floors receive vtc except the raised floor core.

Below is the overall cost comparison of the different core systems. The best choice is to raise the core. In order to make sure this was the best option I checked the effects on the column and braced frame. The member sizes did not change due to the proposed changes I made. This confirms that raising the cores framing is the most economical option.

System Steel Weight/sq.ft Steel Cost/sq.ft Slab Cost

Cost without Finish

Finish Floor Total

AES Existing 8.80 5.05 5.5 227880 43200 271080My Existing 10.56 5.28 5.5 232848 43200 276048Raised Floor 10.83 5.33 3.25 185328 102600 287928Raised Core 11.05 5.41 3.25 187056 43200 230256Beam Raised Floor 13.45 6.77 6 275832 43200 319032


43

Foundations: Auger-Cast Piles In order to price the cost of the foundation I examined the cost of the auger cast piles versus the cost of the mini piles. The Alcoa building rests on 374 16” diameter auger cast piles. The piles have no casing and cost $30 per lineal foot for material and labor. The bid required the contractor to bid the piles at 50’ deep. 374 Piles *( 50’) * $30.00/ft = $561,000 The contractor estimated that you could finish 350 ft of auger cast piles in a day. There are initial set up costs to mobilize as well. Schedule: 50’ (374 piles) / 350 = 53 days Micro-Piles (Mini-Piles) The mini-piles consist of a steel casing and are estimated at 50’ depths as well. The contractor priced 71/2” mini’s at $55/ft. 300 Mini-piles*($55.00/ft) 50’ = $825,000 It was also suggested that 275 ft of mini-piles could be finished in a day. Set up costs and time are minimal compared to the auger-cast set up. 300 mini-piles * 50’ / 275ft/day = 54.5 days The auger-cast piles require a larger crane set up which is not conducive for poor soil conditions. The existing site does not have very good site conditions which may lead to issues during the construction process. To reduce the time to install the mini-piles, it would be beneficial to use two drilling rigs rather than one drilling rig for the auger cast piles


44

Mechanical: In order to estimate the cost savings of switching from an overhead vav system to the underfloor system, I used a guide given by tate access floors. Shown Below I provided an executive summary of what the program outputted.


45

If the designer would have planned on the under floor

mechanical system from the beginning the designer would have been able to closely follow the savings listed above. Since I did not change the building height, the initial construction cost savings are not as significant as they could have been if the building height was changed. The only savings benefits that we experience from the under floor air distribution system are those that deal with the mechanical benefits. There are no savings cost benefits with the cable because the already raised floor has those benefits. We can safely say that we will save at least $304,160 on mechanical costs and nearly $635,400 on staff productivity because of a more comfortable environment supplied by the under floor system within the first year.


46

Summary & Conclusions: Through this study, I have discovered many things about modern buildings and how efficient their designs can be. I feel that because of today’s steel market it is very important to understand the different types of floor systems that can be designed. I would recommend to the developer of the Alcoa building the composite unshored system while keeping a close eye on the steel market. My choice not to recommend the joists comes because it is developer built and needs to be as attractive as possible to tenants. I also learned many things from the foundations of this building. I quickly realized that the soil conditions really narrow the choice of foundation systems that can be implemented. Because of the site’s poor soils and settlement problems I recommend to the owner to stay with auger cast piles. Only if the owner needs to decrease the construction schedule or the surface conditions are to poor at the time of construction for the required auger cast crane, would I recommend mini-piles. I found that the under floor air distribution system has many benefits to a large office building such as the Alcoa building. The benefits in cabling costs, upgrading, finishes, life cycle costs, and tenant turn over are much more beneficial than the typical over vav system that was originally designed. Therefore, I would recommend an under floor air distribution system for the alcoa building. I realized that there is no set of rules that an engineer can abide by to design a building. A designer must always be thinking of innovative design solutions. The market and owner will many times dictate which system will be used in a particular project, but it is the designer’s responsibility to get maximum system performance with the most efficient system costs. In order to meet today’s client standards a designer must know what impacts each different system will have on the overall project in order to design the most efficient system for the given conditions.


Final Report References

American Institute of Steel Construction: Manual of Steel construction – Load and Resistance Factor Design, 3rd Edition. Publish by AISC. Copyright 2001.

Bauman, Fred S. Underfloor Air Distribution (UFAD) Design Guide. ASHRAE, Inc. 2003. Das, Braja M. Principles of Foundation Engineering Fifth Edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks and Cole, 2004.

Nitterhouse concrete products. 2 February 2004. Http://www.nitterhouse.com . Tate Access Floors. 2 February 2004. http://www.tateaccessfloors.com

The Center for Built Environment. The University of California, Berkeley. 2 February 2004. http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/underfloorair/techOverview.htm#Introduction

United Steel and Deck: steel decks for floors and roofs. Copyright 2001.

Vulcraft: Steel Joists & Joist Girders. A Division of Nucor Corporation. Copyright 2003.



Appendix A



Final Report Appendix A



Appendix B


100%depth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material Cost/beam Material Cost Studs #of beams bay wt Beam Labor Stud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total

1 W 24 X 55 50 30.667 500 1686.69 337.34 37.50 1 2186.69 573.47 112.50 374.84 685.972 24 X 55 20 30.667 200 1686.69 337.34 15.00 1 1886.69 573.47 45.00 352.34 618.473 21 X 44 54 30.667 540 1349.35 269.87 40.50 1 1889.35 458.78 121.50 310.37 580.284 18 X 40 28 30 280 1200.00 240.00 21.00 3 4440.00 408.00 63.00 783.00 1413.005 12 X 19 12 20 120 380.00 76.00 9.00 3 1500.00 129.20 27.00 255.00 468.60

SUM 1892.54 183.00 11902.72 2142.92 369.00 2075.54 3766.32Per Sq. ft 1535 7.75 1.35 2.45

Total sq.ft $ 3.81


1 W 24 X 55 50 30.667 500 1686.69 337.34 37.50 1 2186.69 573.47 112.50 374.84 685.972 24 X 55 20 30.667 200 1686.69 337.34 15.00 1 1886.69 573.47 45.00 352.34 618.473 21 X 44 54 30.667 540 1349.35 269.87 40.50 1 1889.35 458.78 121.50 310.37 580.284 18 X 40 28 30 280 1200.00 240.00 21.00 3 4440.00 408.00 63.00 783.00 1413.005 12 X 19 12 20 120 380.00 76.00 9.00 3 1500.00 129.20 27.00 255.00 468.60

SUM 1892.54 183.00 11902.72 2142.92 369.00 2075.54 3766.3280% Per Sq. ft 1535 7.75 1.35 2.45

Total sq.ft $ 3.81

depth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material Cost/beam Material Cost Studs #of beams bay wt Beam Labor Stud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total1 W 24 X 55 50 30.667 500 1686.69 337.34 37.50 1 2186.69 573.47 112.50 374.84 685.972 24 X 55 20 30.667 200 1686.69 337.34 15.00 1 1886.69 573.47 45.00 352.34 618.473 21 X 44 54 30.667 540 1349.35 269.87 40.50 1 1889.35 458.78 121.50 310.37 580.284 18 X 40 28 30 280 1200.00 240.00 21.00 3 4440.00 408.00 63.00 783.00 1413.005 12 X 19 12 20 120 380.00 76.00 9.00 3 1500.00 129.20 27.00 255.00 468.60

SUM 1892.54 183.00 11902.72 2142.92 369.00 2075.54 3766.3270% Per Sq. ft 1535 7.75 1.35 2.45

Total sq.ft $ 3.81


SUM 1929.34 160.50 11786.72 2205.48 301.50 2089.84 3761.3860% Per Sq. ft 1535 7.68 1.36 2.45

Total sq.ft $ 3.81


SUM 1972.28 139.50 11721.39 2278.47 238.50 2111.78 3771.3750% Per Sq. ft 1535 7.64 1.38 2.46

Total sq.ft $ 3.83


SUM 1972.28 139.50 11721.39 2278.47 238.50 2111.78 3771.37

40% Per Sq. ft 1535 7.64 1.38 2.463.81 Total sq.ft $ 3.83


SUM 2044.28 117.00 11781.39 2319.27 216.00 2161.28 3826.2730% Per Sq. ft 1535 7.68 1.41 2.49

Total sq.ft $ 3.90


SUM 2110.94 109.50 12014.72 2391.81 202.50 2220.44 3917.11Per Sq. ft 1535 7.83 1.45 2.55

Total sq.ft $ 4.00

% composite beam cost stud cost beam labor stud labor material total labor total Total cost/sq.ft Weight/sq.ft100 1892.54 183.00 2142.92 369.00 2075.54 2511.92 3.81 7.7590 1892.54 183.00 2142.92 369.00 2075.54 2511.92 3.81 7.7580 1892.54 183.00 2142.92 369.00 2075.54 2511.92 3.81 7.7570 1929.34 160.50 2205.48 301.50 2089.84 2506.98 3.81 7.6860 1972.28 139.50 2278.47 238.50 2111.78 2516.97 3.83 7.6450 1972.28 139.50 2278.47 238.50 2111.78 2516.97 3.83 7.6440 2044.28 117.00 2319.27 216.00 2161.28 2535.27 3.90 7.6830 2110.94 109.50 2391.81 202.50 2220.44 2594.31 4.00 7.83


0500

1000150020002500

% compo

site

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Percent Composite

Cos

ts Series1Series2


3.81 3.81 3.81 3.81 3.83 3.83 3.90 4.00

7.75 7.75 7.75 7.68 7.64 7.64 7.68 7.83

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Percent Composite

Valu

e/sq

.ft


100% Shored Compositedepth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material Cost/beam Material Cost Studs #of beams bay wt Beam Labor Stud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total

1 W 21 X 44 54 30.667 540 1349.35 269.87 40.50 1 1889.35 458.78 121.50 310.37 580.282 21 X 44 32 30.667 320 1349.35 269.87 24.00 1 1669.35 458.78 72.00 293.87 530.783 18 X 35 52 30.667 520 1073.35 214.67 39.00 1 1593.35 364.94 117.00 253.67 481.944 16 X 26 42 30 420 780.00 156.00 31.50 3 3600.00 265.20 94.50 562.50 1079.105 10 X 12 14 20 140 240.00 48.00 10.50 3 1140.00 81.60 31.50 175.50 339.30

SUM 1366.41 229.50 9892.04 1629.29 436.50 1595.91 3011.39Per Sq. ft 1535 6.44 1.04 1.96

Total sq.ft $ 3.00


1 W 21 X 44 54 30.667 540 1349.35 269.87 40.50 1 1889.35 458.78 121.50 310.37 580.282 21 X 44 32 30.667 320 1349.35 269.87 24.00 1 1669.35 458.78 72.00 293.87 530.783 18 X 35 52 30.667 520 1073.35 214.67 39.00 1 1593.35 364.94 117.00 253.67 481.944 16 X 26 42 30 420 780.00 156.00 31.50 3 3600.00 265.20 94.50 562.50 1079.105 10 X 12 14 20 140 240.00 48.00 10.50 3 1140.00 81.60 31.50 175.50 339.30

SUM 1366.41 229.50 9892.04 1629.29 436.50 1595.91 3011.39Per Sq. ft 1535 6.44 1.04 1.96

Total sq.ft $ 3.0080%


SUM 1487.08 189.00 9955.38 1732.43 378.00 1676.08 3095.03Per Sq. ft 1535 6.49 1.09 2.02



SUM 1523.88 177.00 9979.38 1794.99 342.00 1700.88 3121.59Per Sq. ft 1535 6.50 1.11 2.03



SUM 1547.88 161.25 9889.38 1808.59 326.25 1709.13 3115.14Per Sq. ft 1535 6.44 1.11 2.03



SUM 1675.08 105.75 9785.38 1943.23 213.75 1780.83 3164.88Per Sq. ft 1535 6.37 1.16 2.06



SUM 1711.88 98.25 9869.38 2005.79 191.25 1810.13 3204.94Per Sq. ft 1535 6.43 1.18 2.09



SUM 1711.88 98.25 9869.38 2005.79 191.25 1810.13 3204.94Per Sq. ft 1535 6.43 1.18 2.09

Total sq.ft $ 3.27

% composite beam cost stud cost beam labor stud labor material total labor total Total cost/sWeight/sq.ft100 1366.41 229.50 1629.29 436.50 1595.91 2065.79 3.00 6.4490 1366.41 229.50 1629.29 436.50 1595.91 2065.79 3.00 6.4480 1487.08 189.00 1629.29 436.50 1676.08 2065.79 3.11 6.4970 1523.88 177.00 1794.99 342.00 1700.88 2136.99 3.11 6.5060 1547.88 161.25 1808.59 326.25 1709.13 2134.84 3.14 6.4450 1675.08 105.75 1943.23 213.75 1780.83 2156.98 3.22 6.3740 1711.88 98.25 2005.79 191.25 1810.13 2197.04 3.27 6.4330 1711.88 98.25 2005.79 191.25 1810.13 2197.04 3.27 6.43

Composite Comparison (Shored)

3.00 3.00 3.11 3.11 3.14 3.22 3.27 3.27

6.44 6.44 6.49 6.50 6.44 6.37 6.43 6.43

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.00

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Percent Composite

valu

e/sq

. ft


Composite Comparison (Unshored)

0500

100015002000

% compo

site

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Percent Composite

Cos

t Series1Series2

Non-Compositedepth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material CoMaterial Co#of beams bay wt Beam LaboStud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total

1 W 27 X 84 0 30.667 0 2576.03 515.21 0.00 1 2576.03 875.85 0.00 515.21 875.852 24 X 76 0 30.667 0 2330.69 466.14 0.00 1 2330.69 792.44 0.00 466.14 792.443 24 X 62 0 30.667 0 1901.35 380.27 0.00 1 1901.35 646.46 0.00 380.27 646.464 24 X 55 0 30 0 1650.00 330.00 0.00 3 4950.00 561.00 0.00 990.00 1683.005 16 X 26 0 20 0 520.00 104.00 0.00 3 1560.00 176.80 0.00 312.00 530.40

SUM 2663.61 0.00 13318.07 3052.55 0.00 2663.61 4528.15Per Sq. ft 1535 8.68 1.74 2.95

Total sq.ft $ 4.69

Precast

depth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material CoMaterial Co#of beams bay wt Beam LaboStud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total1 W 30 X 90 0 30.667 0 2760.03 552.01 0.00 1 2760.03 938.41 0.00 552.01 938.412 27 X 84 0 30.667 0 2576.03 515.21 0.00 1 2576.03 875.85 0.00 515.21 875.853 27 X 84 0 30.667 0 2576.03 515.21 0.00 1 2576.03 875.85 0.00 515.21 875.854 8 X 10 0 30 0 300.00 60.00 0.00 3 900.00 102.00 0.00 180.00 306.005 8 X 10 0 20 0 200.00 40.00 0.00 3 600.00 68.00 0.00 120.00 204.00

SUM 9412.09 2860.11 0.00 1882.42 3200.11Per Sq. ft 1535 6.13 1.23 2.08

Total sq.ft $ 3.31

Joistsdepth w # of Length stud WT beam WT Material CoMaterial Co#of beams bay wt Beam LaboStud Labor Mat. Total Labor TotalW 27 X 84 0 30.667 0 2576.03 515.21 0.00 1 2576.03 875.85 0.00 515.21 875.85

24 X 68 0 30.667 0 2085.36 417.07 0.00 1 2085.36 709.02 0.00 417.07 709.0224 X 62 0 30.667 0 1901.35 380.27 0.00 1 1901.35 646.46 0.00 380.27 646.4626 K 9 0 30 0 369.00 54.00 0.00 9 3321.00 91.80 0.00 486.00 826.2016 K 3 0 20 0 126.00 12.00 0.00 9 1134.00 20.40 0.00 108.00 183.60

SUM 11017.74 2343.53 0.00 1906.55 3241.13Per Sq. ft 1535 7.18 1.24 2.11

Total sq.ft $ 3.35

cambering

camber depth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material CoMaterial Co#of beams bay wt Beam LaboStud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total1 0.75 W 21 X 44 20 30.667 200 1349.35 269.87 15.00 1 1549.35 958.78 45.00 284.87 1003.782 0.75 18 X 40 46 30.667 460 1226.68 245.34 34.50 1 1686.68 917.07 103.50 279.84 1020.573 0.75 18 X 35 26 30.667 260 1073.35 214.67 19.50 1 1333.35 864.94 58.50 234.17 923.444 0.75 16 X 26 30 30 300 780.00 156.00 22.50 3 3240.00 765.20 67.50 535.50 2498.105 0 12 X 19 12 20 120 380.00 76.00 9.00 3 1500.00 629.20 27.00 255.00 1968.60

SUM 9309.37 500.00 301.50 1589.37 7414.49Per Sq. ft 1535 6.06 1.04 4.83

Total sq.ft $ 5.87

System Steel Weight lb/sq.ft Steel Cost/sq.ft Slab Cost/sq. ft Total CostExisting 6.78 3.47 3.25 1512000My Existing 8.07 3.9 3.25 1608750Composite UnShored (70%) 7.68 3.81 3.25 1588500Composite shored (100%) 6.44 3 4.11 1599750Composite Cambered 6.06 5.87 3.25 2052000Precast 6.13 3.31 5.95 2083500Joists 7.18 3.35 3.57 1557000Noncomposite 8.68 4.69 3.25 1786500

With escalation $93/ton Steel Weight lb/sq.ft Steel Cost/sq.ft Slab Cost/sq. ft Total CostComposite UnShored (70%) 7.68 4.66 3.25 1779750Composite shored (100%) 6.44 3.6 4.11 1734750

Save: 45000

System Comparison

6.788.07 7.68

6.44 6.137.18

8.68

3.47 3.9 3.81 3 3.31 3.354.69

6.065.87

02468

10

Exi

stin

g

My

Exi

stin

g

Com

posi

teU

nSho

red

(70%

)

Com

posi

tesh

ored

(100

%)

Com

posi

teC

ambe

red

Pre

cast

Jois

ts

Non

com

posi

te

Valu

e/sq

. ft



1512000 1608750 1588500 15997502052000 2083500

1557000 1786500

0500000

1000000150000020000002500000

Exi

stin

g

My

Exi

stin

g

Com

posi

teU

nSho

red

(70%

)

Com

posi

tesh

ored

(100

%)

Com

posi

teC

ambe

red

Prec

ast

Jois

ts

Non

com

posi

te

Cos

t

Cost

core now AES

depth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material Cost/beam Material Cost Studs #of beams bay wt Beam Labor Stud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total1 W 8 X 10 3 5.25 30 52.50 10.50 2.25 14 1155.00 17.85 6.75 178.50 344.402 12 X 14 10 25.667 100 359.34 71.87 7.50 2 918.68 122.17 22.50 158.74 289.353 8 X 15 3 9 30 135.00 27.00 2.25 2 330.00 45.90 6.75 58.50 105.304 10 X 45 0 30 0 1350.00 270.00 0.00 1 1350.00 459.00 0.00 270.00 459.005 30 X 108 0 45 0 4860.00 972.00 0.00 0.5 2430.00 1652.40 0.00 486.00 1826.206 16 X 26 8 20 80 520.00 104.00 6.00 2 1200.00 176.80 18.00 220.00 389.607 18 X 50 16 30.677 160 1533.85 306.77 12.00 2 3387.70 521.51 36.00 637.54 1115.028 16 X 77 29 30.667 290 2361.36 472.27 21.75 1 2651.36 802.86 65.25 494.02 868.119 16 X 40 15 20 150 800.00 160.00 11.25 2 1900.00 272.00 33.75 342.50 611.50

10 12 X 14 7 20 70 280.00 56.00 5.25 2 700.00 95.20 15.75 122.50 221.9011 18 35 15 34.5 150 1207.50 241.50 11.25 2 2715.00 410.55 33.75 505.50 888.6012 14 26 0 14.25 0 370.50 74.10 0.00 2 741.00 125.97 0.00 148.20 251.94

3457.75 79.50SUM 16022.74 4702.22 204.75 2968.30 6230.38

Per Sq. ft 1820 8.80 1.63 3.42Total sq.ft $ 5.05

my existing coredepth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material Cost/beam Material Cost Studs #of beams bay wt Beam Labor Stud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total

1 W 8 X 10 5 5.25 50 52.50 10.50 3.75 14 1435.00 17.85 11.25 199.50 407.402 14 X 22 19 25.667 190 564.67 112.93 14.25 2 1509.35 191.99 42.75 254.37 469.483 8 X 10 4 9 40 90.00 18.00 3.00 2 260.00 30.60 9.00 42.00 79.204 10 X 45 0 30 0 1350.00 270.00 0.00 1 1350.00 459.00 0.00 270.00 459.005 30 X 108 0 45 0 4860.00 972.00 0.00 0.5 2430.00 1652.40 0.00 486.00 826.206 12 X 16 14 20 140 320.00 64.00 10.50 2 920.00 108.80 31.50 149.00 280.607 24 X 55 21 30.677 210 1687.24 337.45 15.75 2 3794.47 573.66 47.25 706.39 1241.828 24 X 55 30 30.667 300 1686.69 337.34 22.50 1 1986.69 573.47 67.50 359.84 640.979 16 X 40 15 20 150 800.00 160.00 11.25 2 1900.00 272.00 33.75 342.50 611.50

10 12 X 16 18 20 180 320.00 64.00 13.50 2 1000.00 108.80 40.50 155.00 298.6011 14 X 22 19 34.5 190 759.00 151.80 14.25 2 1898.00 258.06 42.75 332.10 601.6212 16 X 26 0 14.25 0 370.50 74.10 0.00 2 741.00 125.97 0.00 148.20 251.94

3204.90 108.75SUM 19224.50 4372.60 326.25 3444.90 6168.33


with raised floordepth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material Cost/beam Material Cost Studs #of beams bay wt Beam Labor Stud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total

1 W 8 X 10 5 5.25 50 52.50 10.50 3.75 14 1435.00 17.85 11.25 199.50 407.402 14 X 22 12 25.667 120 564.67 112.93 9.00 2 1369.35 191.99 27.00 243.87 437.983 8 X 10 4 9 40 90.00 18.00 3.00 2 260.00 30.60 9.00 42.00 79.204 10 X 45 0 30 0 1350.00 270.00 0.00 1 1350.00 459.00 0.00 270.00 459.005 33 X 118 0 45 0 5310.00 1062.00 0.00 0.5 2655.00 1805.40 0.00 531.00 902.706 12 X 14 14 20 140 280.00 56.00 10.50 2 840.00 95.20 31.50 133.00 253.407 21 X 50 73 30.677 730 1533.85 306.77 54.75 2 4527.70 521.51 164.25 723.04 1371.528 24 X 55 23 30.667 230 1686.69 337.34 17.25 1 1916.69 573.47 51.75 354.59 625.229 16 X 40 15 20 150 800.00 160.00 11.25 2 1900.00 272.00 33.75 342.50 611.50

10 12 X 14 20 20 200 280.00 56.00 15.00 2 960.00 95.20 45.00 142.00 280.4011 14 X 22 12 34.5 120 759.00 151.80 9.00 2 1758.00 258.06 27.00 321.60 570.1212 16 X 26 0 14.25 0 370.50 74.10 0.00 2 741.00 125.97 0.00 148.20 251.94

3156.55 133.50SUM 19712.73 4446.25 400.50 3451.30 6250.38


beam raiseddepth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material Cost/beam Material Cost Studs #of beams bay wt Beam Labor Stud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total

1 W 8 X 10 5 5.25 50 52.50 10.50 3.75 14 1435.00 17.85 11.25 199.50 407.402 14 X 22 30 25.667 300 564.67 112.93 22.50 2 1729.35 191.99 67.50 270.87 518.983 8 X 10 4 9 40 90.00 18.00 3.00 2 260.00 30.60 9.00 42.00 79.20

4 10 X 45 0 30 0 1350.00 270.00 0.00 1 1350.00 459.00 0.00 270.00 459.005 33 X 130 0 45 0 5850.00 1170.00 0.00 0.5 2925.00 1989.00 0.00 585.00 994.506 12 X 19 14 20 140 380.00 76.00 10.50 2 1040.00 129.20 31.50 173.00 321.407 21 X 55 20 30.677 200 1687.24 337.45 15.00 2 3774.47 573.66 45.00 704.89 1237.328 24 X 55 49 30.667 490 1686.69 337.34 36.75 1 2176.69 573.47 110.25 374.09 683.729 16 X 40 15 20 150 800.00 160.00 11.25 2 1900.00 272.00 33.75 342.50 611.50

10 12 X 19 17 20 170 380.00 76.00 12.75 2 1100.00 129.20 38.25 177.50 334.9011 14 X 22 30 34.5 300 759.00 151.80 22.50 2 2118.00 258.06 67.50 348.60 651.1212 16 X 31 0 14.25 0 441.75 88.35 0.00 2 883.50 150.20 0.00 176.70 300.3913 18 35 0 20 0 700.00 140.00 0.00 4 2800.00 238.00 0.00 560.00 952.0014 18 35 0 11 0 385.00 77.00 0.00 6 2310.00 130.90 0.00 462.00 785.40

3877.53 111.75 SUM 25802.00 5143.13 414.00 4686.65 8336.83Per Sq. ft 1820 14.18 2.58 4.58

Total sq.ft $ 7.16

raised coredepth w # of stud Length stud WT beam WT Material Cost/beam Material Cost Studs #of beams bay wt Beam Labor Stud Labor Mat. Total Labor Total

1 W 8 X 10 3 5.25 30 52.50 10.50 2.25 14 1155.00 17.85 6.75 178.50 344.402 12 X 14 7 25.667 70 359.34 71.87 5.25 2 858.68 122.17 15.75 154.24 275.853 8 X 10 4 9 40 90.00 18.00 3.00 2 260.00 30.60 9.00 42.00 79.204 10 X 45 0 30 0 1350.00 270.00 0.00 1 1350.00 459.00 0.00 270.00 459.005 30 X 99 0 45 0 4455.00 891.00 0.00 0.5 2227.50 1514.70 0.00 445.50 757.356 14 X 22 8 20 80 440.00 88.00 6.00 2 1040.00 149.60 18.00 188.00 335.207 14 X 22 20 30.677 200 674.89 134.98 15.00 2 1749.79 229.46 45.00 299.96 548.938 18 X 40 56 30.667 560 1226.68 245.34 42.00 1 1786.68 417.07 126.00 287.34 543.079 16 X 40 15 20 150 800.00 160.00 11.25 2 1900.00 272.00 33.75 342.50 611.50

10 12 X 14 14 20 140 280.00 56.00 10.50 2 840.00 95.20 31.50 133.00 253.4011 14 X 14 7 34.5 70 483.00 96.60 5.25 2 1106.00 164.22 15.75 203.70 359.9412 18 X 35 56 14.25 560 498.75 99.75 42.00 2 2117.50 169.58 126.00 283.50 591.1513 21 44 24 20 240 880.00 176.00 18.00 2 2240.00 299.20 54.00 388.00 706.4014 21 44 0 11 0 484.00 96.80 0.00 1 484.00 164.56 0.00 96.80 164.5615 14 22 6 20 60 440.00 88.00 4.50 2 1000.00 149.60 13.50 185.00 326.20

2624.71 154.50 SUM 20115.14 4254.82 495.00 3498.03 6356.15Per Sq. ft 1820 11.05 1.92 3.49

Total sq.ft $ 5.41

% composite beam cost stud cost beam labor stud labor material total labor total Total cost/sq.ft Weight/sq.ftAES Existing 3457.75 79.50 4702.22 204.75 3537.25 4906.97 5.05 8.80My Exsiting 3204.90 108.75 4372.60 326.25 3313.65 4698.85 5.28 10.56Raised Floor 3156.55 133.50 4446.25 400.50 3290.05 4846.75 5.33 10.83Beam Raised Floor 3877.53 111.75 5143.13 414.00 3989.28 5557.13 7.16 14.18Raised Core 2624.71 154.50 4254.82 495.00 2779.21 4749.82 5.41 11.05

Core Comparisons

5.05 5.28 5.337.16

5.41

8.8010.56 10.83

14.18

11.05

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.0016.00

AES Existing My Exsiting Raised Floor Beam RaisedFloor

Raised Core

Valu

e/Sq

. ft


Existing Core Comparisons

5.05 5.28

8.80

10.56

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

AES Existing My Exsiting

Valu

e/Sq

. ft


System Steel Weight/sq.ft Steel Cost/sq.ft Slab Cost Cost without Finish Finish Floor TotalAES Existing 8.80 5.05 5.5 227880 43200 271080My Exsiting 10.56 5.28 5.5 232848 43200 276048Raised Floor 10.83 5.33 3.25 185328 102600 287928Raised Core 11.05 5.41 3.25 187056 43200 230256Beam Raised Floor 13.45 6.77 6 275832 43200 319032

Core Comparisons

8.8010.56 10.83 11.05

5.05 5.28 5.33 5.41

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

AES Existing My Exsiting Raised Floor Raised Core

Valu

e/ S

q. ft

Steel Weight/ sq. ftSteel Cost/ sq. ft

Cost Comparison

271080 276048 287928230256

319032

050000

100000150000200000250000300000350000

AES Existing My Exsiting Raised Floor Raised Core Beam RaisedFloor

Cost

Cost



Appendix C


Cost Model Inputs / Assumptions:

XYZ Building

PA, Pittsburgh

Conventional Distribution: Power Pole with Powered Furniture & Overhead HVAC

Underfloor Distribution: Access Floors for Wiring/Cabling and HVAC

Building Type: Speculative Office Building

General Requirements:Project Gross Square footage 250,000 (ft2) ##

Number of floors 6

Building Type Mid Rise

Floor Plate Area 41667 (ft2)

Core Area % of Total Area 20%

Core Area per floor 3600 (ft2)

Net Floor Plate Area Available for Offices 33333 (ft2)

Total Net Floor Area 200000 (ft2)

% Open Plan Space 100%

Total Open Plan Area 200000 (ft2)

% Private Office Space 0%

Total Private Office Area 0 (ft2)

Building is assumed to be a rectangle:

Floor Plate Width 200 Feet (Net) 200 Feet (Total)

Floor Plate Length 200 Feet (Net) 200 Feet (Total)

Slab to Slab Height Savings 12 (in.)

Column Spacing 30 (ft)

Cost of Column per linear foot 145 ($/LF)

Façade Cost / Type 55 $/ft2

RS Means City Cost Adj. Index (Material) 98.0%

RS Means City Cost Adj. Index (Installation) 109%

Project Location:

Project Name:

Items in "Red" within the white boxed out fields represent assumed user defined values about the design details of your project. For your clarification, place the cursor on each of the fields and "pop-up" windows will provide further details. Since these values are based on industry averages or historical experience they can be changed by you so that they may better reflect the project that you are evaluating.

Shell & Core Build Speed Information

Traditional "Shell & Core" Construction Time 12 months

BTP "Shell & Core" Construction Time Savings

- with Underfloor Wire/Cable/Air 4%

- with Underfloor Wire/Cable Only 0%

Shell & Core Build Cost 50 $/ft2

Labor as a % of Shell & Core Build Cost 20%

Annual Lease Rate 30 $/ft2

Developer's Average Weighted Cost of Capital 7%

Developer's Ownership Term for Building 20 years

Tenant Fit-Out Information

Traditional Tenant Fit-Out Time 2.5 months

BTP Tenant Fit-Out Time Savings

- with Underfloor Wire/Cable/Air 20%

- with Underfloor Wire/Cable Only 10%

Term of Lease 5 years

Annual Tenant Churn Rate 10%

Traditional Demolition Time for Re-Occupancy 2.0 months

Traditional Tenant Fit-Out Time for Re-Occupancy 2.0 months

BTP Demolition Time for Re-Occupancy

- with Underfloor Wire/Cable/Air 1 months

- with Underfloor Wire/Cable Only 1.5 months

BTP Tenant Fit-Out Time for Re-Occupancy

- with Underfloor Wire/Cable/Air 1.0 months

- with Underfloor Wire/Cable Only 1.5 months

Access Floor Requirements:Office Usage (Loading) Medium

Cornerlock Understructure - Finished Floor Height 8 (in.)

Electrical Requirements: Method of distribution (Overhead) Homerun

Method of distribution (Underfloor) Zone Wiring

Workstation Power Requirements (Amps) 42

Wiring Configurations 2+2

Average Homerun Length 200 (ft)

Open Plan Space:Power Pole with Powered Furniture & Overhead HVAC

% of total with Wall Mount Services 60%

Private Office Space:

Non-Powered Furniture & Overhead HVAC

% of total with Wall Mount Services 100%

Cabling Requirements:

Method of distribution (Overhead) Homerun

Method of distribution (Underfloor) Active Zone

Type of Cabling Cat5E

No. of data outlets per workstation 2

No. of voice outlets per workstation 1

Furniture Requirements:Open Plan Space:

Density Requirements - One Workstation per 150 (ft2)

Total Open Plan Area 200,000 (ft2)

Open Plan Area per Floor Plate 33,333 (ft2)

# of System Furniture Workstations per Net Floor Plate 222

Total Number of System Furniture Workstations 1,333

Number of Furniture Clusters (assumes 6-pack) 222

Private Office Space:Density Requirements - One Workstation per 200 (ft2)

Total Private Office Area 0 (ft2)

Private Office Area per Floor Plate 0 (ft2)

Number of Private Offices per Net Floor Plate 0

Total Number of Private Offices 0

Total Number of Workstations 1,333

HVAC Requirements:

Perimeter Depth 12 (ft)

Building Skin Thermal Properties Better

Internal Cooling Loads

- People 0.50 watts/ft2

- Overhead Lights 1.50 watts/ft2

- Small Power 3.0 watts/ft2

Percentage of Interior VAV MIT Terminals 50%

What type of controls will be used? Full DDC Building Automation System

How many interior zones will be separately controlled? 4

How large will the perimeter zones be? Medium

Heat Source: Electric

Cooling Source: Chiller

Air Handler Type: Rooftop AHUChiller Cost: $200 Expressed in $/ton

Air Handling Cost: $0.95 Expressed in $/CFM

Packaged Rooftop Unit Cost: $700 Expressed in $/ton

Air Handling: 350 Expressed in CFM/ton

Load Diversity: 75% Expressed as a percentage

Life Cycle Requirements:

Workstation Churn Rate per Year 44%

% of Churn due to Relocations 90%

% of Churn due to New Adds 10%

Number of workstations relocated: 528

Number of workstations added: 59

HVAC Churn Rate per Year 10.0%

% of Churn due to Relocations 80%

% of Churn due to New Adds 20%

Number of HVAC Relocations: 107

Number of New HVAC Zone Adds: 27

Average Office Worker Costs $52,950

Inflation Rate (%) 3%

Corporate Tax Rate (%) 38%

Productivity Inputs:Employee Productivity Improvement 0.5%

Employee Absenteeism Improvement 1.0

Operational Inputs

Energy Cost ($/ft2 ) $2.25

% of Energy Cost attributed to HVAC 49%

Energy Cost attributed to HVAC ($/ft2) $1.10

HVAC Fan Energy Cost $0.44

HVAC Heat/Cool Cost $0.66

-HVAC Cool (50% of HVAC Heat/Cool) $0.33

% Fan Energy Savings 45%

% HVAC Cooling Savings 15%

Project Name: XYZ Building

Building Type: Speculative Office Building Project Gross Square Footage: 250,000

Project Location: PA, Pittsburgh Number of floors/stories: 6

Conventional Service Distribution Option: Power Pole with Powered Furniture & Overhead HVAC

Underfloor Service Distribution Option: Access Floors for Wiring/Cabling and HVAC

Slab to Slab Height Savings (in.) 12

Developer Cost

First CostsTraditional BTP® $ Difference

ClickTo Link ($ / ft2) ($ / ft2) ($ / ft2)

Construction Cost ComparisonFaçade $13.73 $12.67 $1.06Main Structure - Columns $2.66 $2.45 $0.20Main Structure - Core Area $0.00 $0.08 ($0.08)HVAC $8.86 $7.73 $1.13

Service Distribution PlatformAccess Floor $0.00 $4.75 ($4.75)

Earlier Occupancy (NPV)Earlier Core & Shell Completion Savings $0.00 -$0.37 $0.37Earlier Tenant Occupancy Savings $0.00 -$0.48 $0.48

$25.25 $25.88 -$0.63

First Cost Premium for BTP: -$157,005

Life Cycle Savings (NPV)Ownership term (yrs): 20

Click Cumulative Cost Savings by year ($ / ft 2 )To Link Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Tenant Churn Savings Faster Re-Occupancy $0.34 $0.67 $0.97 $1.25 $1.51

Tenant Churn Savings 1st Year: $86,121

Operational Cost SavingsEnergy Reduction $0.25 $0.50 $0.77 $1.04 $1.32

Operational Cost Savings 1st Year: $62,016

Tax SavingsAccelerated Depreciation $0.56 $1.49 $2.03 $2.34 $2.65

Tax Savings 1st Year: $141,103

Here are the results of your cost model summary. As you review the results, if you have questions on any of the cost comparison values, just click the gold hyperlink button for more details.

Project Name: XYZ Building

Building Type: Speculative Office Building Project Gross Square Footage: 250,000

Project Location: PA, Pittsburgh Number of floors/stories: 6

Conventional Service Distribution Option: Power Pole with Powered Furniture & Overhead HVAC

Underfloor Service Distribution Option: Access Floors for Wiring/Cabling and HVAC

Tenant Cost

First CostsTraditional BTP® $ Difference

ClickTo Link ($ / ft2) ($ / ft2) ($ / ft2)

Fit Out Cost ComparisonCable Management Voice/Data $2.92 $1.65 $1.26Electrical - Horizontal Feeds $2.70 $1.05 $1.65Workstation Electrification $2.68 $0.74 $1.93Ceiling Finish $1.52 $0.86 $0.66Touch-up Spray-On Fireproofing $0.09 $0 $0.09

$7.94 $3.45 $4.49

First Cost Savings for BTP: $1,123,281

Life Cycle Savings

Click Cumulative Cost Savings by year ($ / ft 2 )To Link Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Staff Productivity SavingsAbsenteeism $1.13 $2.29 $3.49 $4.73 $6.00Productivity $1.41 $2.87 $4.36 $5.91 $7.50

$2.54 $5.16 $7.86 $10.63 $13.49

Staff Productivity Savings 1st Year: $635,400

Operational Cost SavingsWorkstation Churn $1.39 $2.83 $4.30 $5.83 $7.39HVAC Churn $0.18 $0.36 $0.55 $0.74 $0.94Accelerated Depreciation ($0.09) ($0.23) ($0.32) ($0.38) ($0.45)

$1.48 $2.96 $4.53 $6.19 $7.89

Operational Savings 1st Year: $304,168

Summary of Savings to Tenant

First Cost Cumulative Cost Savings by year ($ / ft 2 )Savings Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5($ / ft2)

Cheaper to Build $4.49Cheaper to Occupy / Staff $2.54 $5.16 $7.86 $10.63 $13.49Cheaper to Operate $1.48 $2.96 $4.53 $6.19 $7.89

$4.49 $8.51 $12.61 $16.88 $21.31 $25.87

Here are the results of your cost model summary. As you review the results, if you have questions on any of the cost comparison values, just click the gold hyperlink button for more details.

BTP® vs. Traditional Service Distribution - Cost Model Summary

Minimum Construction Cost Premium = -$157,005

Enhance Property Value =

Reduce Construction Costs

25.25

25.88

24.8025.0025.2025.4025.6025.8026.00

Traditional BTP®

Distribution Type

Cost/Sq. Ft.TraditionalBTP®

Enhance Property Value

0.00 0.000.00

0.50

1.00

Traditional BTP®

Distribution Type

Cost/Sq. Ft.TraditionalBTP®

BTP® vs. Traditional Service Distribution - Cost Model Summary

FALSE $0

Fit-Out Cost Savings = $1,123,281

Staff Productivity Savings 1st Year = $635,400

Operational Cost Savings 1st Year = $304,168

Fit-Out Cost Comparison

7.94

3.45

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.00

Traditional BTP®

Distribution Type

Cost/Sq. Ft. TraditionalBTP®

Staff Productivity Savings

$2.54$5.16

$7.86$10.63

$13.49

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

1 2 3 4 5

Years

Cos

t Sav

ings

/Sq.

Ft

.

Operational Cost Savings

$1.48 $2.96 $4.53$6.19

$7.89

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

1 2 3 4 5

Years

Cos

t Sa

ving

s/Sq

. Ft.

Tenant - Break Even Analysis

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

0 1 2 3 4 5

Years

Cos

t Sav

ings

/Sq.

ft.

ALCOA - engr.psu.edu · ALCOA BUSINESS SERVICES CENTER 30 Isabella street Pittsburgh, PA Geoffrey...

Documents

Transcript of ALCOA - engr.psu.edu · ALCOA BUSINESS SERVICES CENTER 30 Isabella street Pittsburgh, PA Geoffrey...