Proposal Revision 1

January 15, 2014

Original Proposal

December 16, 2013

Analysis 1 | Foundation Walls

With the extensive support of excavation (SOE) that The Office Building entails, many complications may arise.  One area of concern is with the installation of the foundation walls for the first three levels of parking.  Originally these walls were design to utilize cast-in-place concrete.  The trouble with this design is the complex formwork.  The whales in the SOE are anchored into each pile, which were driven seven and a half feet apart.  Each anchor point would require formwork to surround it and the formed hole would need to be grouted in later. 
This analysis will investigate the impact substituting the cast-in-place foundation wall with shotcrete has on both the scheduled duration and the cost of the foundation walls.

Analysis 2 | Neighboring Foundation Support Wall

With The Office Building having three levels of underground parking, the need arose for supporting the neighboring foundation.  The original design for this support was a wall formed by secant piles.  This is an intricate process of drilling and pouring female piles and coming back a few days later to drill and pour the male piles; one that requires much back and forth positioning of the drilling rig.  This constant repositioning of the drilling rig caused unforeseen schedule delays.  The second analysis will compare the duration of this process with one required for a slurry wall.

Analysis 3 | Prefabricated Induced Schedule Acceleration

Early on in the project, the raise permit, which allowed for the demolition of the previous structure, was delayed by five months which pushed the entire schedule back.  Throughout the project, many changes were introduced to accelerate the schedule.  The purpose of the third analysis is to assess the acceleration of the schedule with the use of prefabricated drywall corners.  These components would eliminate the work time involved in taping, sanding, and finishing all corners of drywall comprised walls.

Analysis 4 | Value Engineering

With cost being of such high importance to the owner, value engineering was a critical task for the project team.  The unexpected costs associated with the unforeseen obstructions during excavation demanded another look at value engineering.  The fourth analysis looks at three separate items for value engineering.  The first being the substitution of busway for much of the copper wiring.  The next item involves replacing the domestic water copper plumbing with PEX piping.  Lastly, the steel sprinkler pipe will be replaced by cpvc pipe, a less expensive alternative. 

Structural Breadth

The Shotcrete comprised foundation walls, as detailed in Analysis 1, provide an opportunity to apply research and analysis outside of construction management areas.  To study the structural aspect of this system, load calculations will be calculated.  To properly calculate these values, knowledge from both AE 308, AE 404, and CE 397A will be used along with the notes from the classes.  These calculations will help to show whether the volume and strength of the CIP concrete can be applied to Shotcrete while carrying the same loads.  Any change in either volume or strength will affect the cost of the process which will show in the first analysis.  If any additional reinforcement is required, the change in both cost and time will be added to the price and time subtracted by the lack of formwork. 

Electrical Breadth

Analysis 4 looks at replacing the larger horizontally run copper wiring with aluminum wiring or busway in order to save money for the owner.  In order to truly replace one system with another, the load will be determined from the existing system, and both the aluminum wiring and aluminum busway will be sized accordingly.  Notes and knowledge learned from AE 311 will be used along with consultations with industry professionals to ensure an efficient system.  The new design will also comply with the National Electrical Code (NEC).