191 National Business Park - Pennsylvania State …...• Fire Protection: NFPA 13 System Design Wet...

191 National Business ParkAnnapolis Junction, Maryland

Kara PrinceArchitectural EngineeringConstruction Management OptionSenior Thesis 2005

Structural System Below Grade: Spread Footings & Column Footings Floors: Metal Floor Decking with a Reinforced

Lightweight Concrete Slab Above Grade: Steel Braced Framing Roofing: Metal Decking with a reinforced Lightweight

Concrete Slab

Kara Prince Construction Management Option http://www.arche.psu.edu/thesis/2005/kep123/

191 National Business Park Annapolis Junction, MD

Project Team Owner: Corporate Development Services General Contractor: Riparius Construction, Inc. Architect: Baker & Associates MEP Engineer: META Engineers Structural Engineer: SK&A Associates

Civil Engineer: Baker & Associates Landscape Architect: Baker & Associates

Building Occupant: Northrop Grumman Corporation

Project Overview Project Size: 101,960 SQ FT Number of Stories: 4 Delivery Method: Design Bid Build Construction Dates: April 2004- July 2005

Architecture Exterior: Precast Panels, Glass Curtain Walls, & Canopies at the Entrances Interior: Two Sections – Left side with more windows and a more compressed

relation; Right side with elongated areas and more glass aspects

Lighting/Electrical System Main switchboard: 3000 A Main distribution panel: 800A, 277/480V, 3φ, 4 Wire Transformers: 30 KVA, 480V; Primary – 120/208V,

Secondary – 3φ, 4 Wire Office Fixtures: 2’x4’ and 2’x2’ Recessed Fluorescent

Mechanical System 5 Rooftop Air Conditioning Units – range of

4500 – 29,000 cfm Fan Powered VAVs – range of 600 -1300 cfm Electric Water Heaters Wet Pipe Sprinkler System

Kara Prince AE Senior Thesis Construction Management 191 National Business Park

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 Acknowledgements 2 Introduction 3 Project Background 4-7 Project Design 4-5 Project Delivery System 5-6 Project Cost Evaluation 6-7 Project Team 8-12 Primary Project Team Members 8 Client Information 9 Contracts 9-11 Contractor Selection 11-12 Staffing Plan 12 Existing Conditions 13-18 Local Conditions 13 Site Layout Plan 14-18 Project Execution 19-20 Project Schedule 19 General Conditions Estimate 19-20 Structural Systems Estimate 20 Construction in Secure Environments 21-29 Executive Summary 21 Introduction 22 Problem Statement and Research Goal 22-23 Survey Results and Analysis 23-28 Literature Review and Analysis 28-29 Conclusion 29 Breadth Analysis I: Elevated Floor Slabs 30-36 Executive Summary 30 Introduction 31-32 Vibration Analysis of the Elevated Floor System 32 Schedule Impacts 33-34 Cost Impacts 34-35 Security: Sound Attenuation of the Elevated Floor System 35 Other Impacts 35-36 Value Engineering 36


Table of Contents (continued)

Conclusion 36

Breadth Analysis II: SCIF 37-44 Executive Summary 37 Introduction 38 Construction Analysis 38-40 Mechanical and Electrical Analysis 40-41 Mechanical Re-design 41-42 Value Engineering 42-43 Conclusion 44 Summary and Conclusions 45 References 46-47 Appendices Appendix A: Schedules Appendix B: Survey Appendix C: Security Terminology

Appendix D: A Concise Guide to Understanding Secure Environments Appendix E: Calculations for Vibration Analysis Appendix F: HAP Results


1

Executive Summary The following thesis focuses on the construction of 191 National Business Park, an existing building in Annapolis Junction, Maryland. The theme of security is evident throughout the analyses of this building. This thesis consists of four main sections. The first section of the report is composed of basic project information. This information includes the building design, project team, construction schedule and estimates, and existing site conditions. This background explains the reason why security is a major issue for this building. First, the location of the building is considered. The building is located in National Business Park, home to the National Security Agency (NSA) and various government contractors. Northrop Grumman Corporation, a government contractor, is the tenant of 191 National Business Park and is proposing Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) to be located in this building. SCIF construction must follow strict security guidelines set forth by the United States government; thus presenting the second reason security is a major concern. The second section researches the effects of security on construction, an issue not widely discussed. Survey results from industry participants and literature reviews help provide a better understanding of this issue. This section and the following sections aided in creating a guide to understanding construction in secure environments. The next section evaluates the elevated floor systems and the security requirements for sound attenuation. The elevated system proved to have vibration issues and therefore a revised system was chosen, confirmed to be acceptable for vibration, and structurally sound. The original and revised floor system was then compared in terms of schedule and cost. Schedule time for both systems were the same, however the cost of the revised system using normal weight concrete proved cheaper. Normal weight concrete provides better quality for a lesser cost in the same amount of time and is therefore a good value engineering suggestion. Sound attenuation was evaluated since a SCIF was proposed to be located underneath the floor system. The 6” thick slab proved to be sufficient to prevent sound attenuation. The last section examines the construction of a SCIF and all of the security requirements that must be met. Since the existing HVAC system did not account for security measures, the system was re-designed. In comparing renovation of the original duct and initially using a secure duct, the secure duct proved a better value engineering suggestion since it was cheaper and did not require alterations.


2

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people for all of their support and assistance throughout the thesis process:

Northrop Grumman Corporation Chip Mitchell George Leap Vincent Frantom John Harvey Bob Raybits

Corporate Development Services Carl Nelson George Marcin

Riparius Construction, Inc. Jerry Bowman Paul Butlak Stephanie Payne

Baker and Associates Brent Camp

S K & A Associates Dicle Firat

Southland Industries Laura Slingerland

Office of Physical Plant at Penn State University Bob Harris

Penn State University John Messner David Riley Michael Horman Linda Hanagan Jonathan Dougherty Kevin Parfitt

AE Peers Jonathan Hill Emily Whitbeck Holly Mawritz

My roomies and AE friends Most importantly: Mom, Dad, and Ryan


3

Introduction

This thesis focuses on 191 National Business Park, an existing building in Annapolis Junction, Maryland. It is situated at the intersection of Technology Drive and National Business Parkway in the National Business Park (NBP). Originally the site existed as a parking lot for the surrounding buildings and only contained asphalt and landscaping. Surrounding the site is a storm water management pond, a wetlands area for preservation, and other buildings. To account for lost parking spots that resulted from the construction of the new building, a parking garage was being built simultaneously on the same site. The analysis of 191 National Business Park begins with the information and data collected during the early construction stages. This includes general project background data, project team details, existing conditions, and project execution. The information provides a general understanding of the building planning and execution. After data collection was complete, the concentration turned to research and analysis of the building itself. National Business Park contains the National Security Agency (NSA) and numerous buildings which house government contractors. Due to the location of 191 National Business Park and its government contractor tenant, Northrop Grumman Corporation, security is a major concern. Therefore, security is the main theme for this thesis and will be discussed in the last three sections of the report before summary and conclusions. In addition to the focus on security, there are two system re-designs, an analysis of schedule and cost impacts, and value engineering. The elevated floor system is analyzed structurally, and reviewed for schedule and cost impacts. The mechanical duct system needs to be re-designed to meet security requirements. Finally, the elevated floor slab systems and planning for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) are value engineered.


4

Project Background Project Design Zoning and Historical Information

National Business Park is located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland and therefore follows all of the zoning codes required by the county. The Business Park began development in the 1980s, with the highest boom of construction in the 1990s. The Park is zoned W-1, which is for Commercial/Industrial buildings. The Park is currently home to NSA and numerous government contractors. Architecture

The exterior of the building is comprised of precast panels similar to the adjacent building, glass curtain walls, and a canopy at the main entrances. At the front entrance, the precast panels extend further outwards, creating a false “wall” and a unique form, differing from the other buildings in the park. The interior of the building is split into two sections, which are divided by the lobby area on each floor. The left side of the building has more windows and a more compressed relation to them. The right side of the building is more elongated with more glass aspects. The architect followed some ideas of feng shui in how the punctures and penetrations of the windows, doors, and stairwells were laid out in the building. Building Envelope

The facade of the building primarily consists of precast panels and glass/aluminum curtain walls. The roof is a concrete slab system with EPDM fully adhered membrane over R 26 rigid insulation. The roofing is rated Fire Class C and has low slope coverings. The windows are insulated vision glass with a total thickness of 1” – ¼” Artic Blue Eclipse pane, ½” air space, and ¼” clear, heat strengthened pane. The aluminum entrance and exit doors have tempered vision glass at a thickness of ¼”. Systems Analysis

• Electrical/Lighting: Main switchboard: 3000 A Main distribution panel: 800A, 277/480V, 3φ, 4 Wire

Transformers: 30 KVA, 480V; Primary – 120/208V, Secondary – 3φ, 4 Wire

Office Fixtures: 2’x4’ and 2’x2’ Recessed Fluorescent

• Mechanical: 5 Rooftop Air Conditioning Units – range of 4500 – 29,000 cfm

Fan Powered VAVs – range of 600 -1300 cfm


5

Electric Water Heaters

• Structural: Below Grade: Spread Footings & Column Footings Floors: Metal Floor Decking with a Reinforced Lightweight Concrete Slab Above Grade: Steel Braced Framing Roofing: Metal Decking with a reinforced Lightweight

Concrete Slab

• Fire Protection: NFPA 13 System Design Wet Pipe Sprinkler System Standpipe System Duct mounted smoke detectors 1-hour smoke barriers 1-hour fire partitions

• Transportation: 3 Hydraulic Elevators – 2 passenger and 1 service

• Telecommunications: T-1 Connection Phone Cable

• Security: The systems used are confidential. Codes Followed

BOCA National Building Code 1993 National Electric Code 1993 BOCA National Mechanical Code 1993 Anne Arundel County Plumbing Code 1993 BOCA National Energy Conservation Code 1993 Maryland Building Code for Handicapped Americans with Disability Act P.L. 101-336 NFPA Life Safety Code 1994

Project Delivery System The delivery system for 191 National Business Park is Design-Bid-Build. At the time of initial design, the building was not a pressed issue for Corporate Development Services. There was no need for an additional building to be constructed right away, and they were already in the process of building another structure in the Business Park. Corporate Development Services felt that it would be most cost effective to go with Design-Bid-Build. Through their own research and past experience, Design-Bid-Build allowed them the most competitive prices while bidding jobs out.


6

From the organizational chart, the type of contract held between all of the players is lump sum. For Corporate Development Services, lump sum was chosen because they had signed a conventional contract with the Architect that included a schedule of values. Since the project was already fully designed prior to bidding out to the contractors, a lump sum contract was chosen with the General Contractor. The Architect is holding lump sum contracts with the Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing and Structural Engineers, and the General Contractor is holding lump sum contracts with the subcontractors, because it was asked to be lump sum in the bid. The lines of key communication show the interaction between the key players in the project. The Owner has set meetings every week with the Architect and General Contractor. The General Contractor has set weekly meetings with the subcontractors. Any changes that are made by the Owner are passed on to the Architect. The Architect will pass the changes onto the engineers for review and the engineers will re-submit them to the Architect for their final approval. Upon the Architect’s approval, the information will be passed on to the General Contractor. The General Contractor will pass the changes to the subcontractors for their review and the subcontractors will re-submit them to the General Contractor. Any cost changes or changes to scope of work will be considered by the General Contractor. This information will be passed on to the Owner and the Architect. Also, the Architect and General Contractor pass on all final submittals to the Owner. Project Cost Evaluation

• Actual Building Cost (Not Including the land costs, sitework, permitting, etc) $10,200,000 $100.04/ sq ft

• Total Project Costs

$19,335,000 $189.63/ sq ft

• Building Systems Cost

Owner would not release this information due to confidentiality.

• Design Costs Total A/E = $500,000

5% of Design Cost of the Building

• Parametric Estimate (Using D4 Cost 2002)

Total Building Costs = $11,645,570


7

The buildings chosen for the estimate were six offices and two development labs. Most of the office buildings had four floors and similar square footages. The two labs were only a couple of stories with similar square footages. The labs were chosen since the building has light testing and therefore requires a higher concentration of Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing.

• R. S. Means – Square Foot Estimate 2004 Assumptions: - Office, 2-4 Story Building, was used although 191 National Business Park is

an Office Building with Light Testing. - 20,000 sq ft per floor was used although it is around 25,000 sq ft per floor,

since the building has light testing and it is not considered in the building type. - The Glass and Metal Curtain Wall Exterior wall was used with a Reinforced

Concrete Frame since there was no option to include precast panels. - Since there are only two elevators considered with 2 floor stops, the additional

two floors and elevator were added. - Since the site is located near Baltimore, and there were no location factors for

Annapolis Junction, 0.91 was used. - Did not include inflation in cost calculation. Table 1 shows the costs taken from RS Means 2004.

Glass and Metal Curtain Wall – Steel Frame

$113/ sq ft

Additional Elevator Stops (2 more floors)

$7600

Additional Elevator with 4 stops $56,125 Location Factor 0.91

Total Cost

$10,542,536 Table 1: Square Foot Estimate using RS Means 2004

• Comparison and Discussion of the Estimate Results and Actual Costs

The total building costs obtained by the D4 Cost Program was around a $1 million difference from the actual building costs. The total project costs were significantly different at around a $7 mil difference since the program did not take into account land costs. The total project costs from the D4 Cost Program did not include fees and interest, which the actual total project cost, does take into account. From the R. S. Means Estimate, the total building cost is around a $342,000 difference from the actual. The R. S. Means estimate did not take into account all of the building systems or interest and permitting fees.


8

Project Team Primary Project Team Members Owner: Corporate Development Services GC: Riparius Construction Architect: Baker & Associates Engineers: META Engineers

SK&A Associates Baker & Associates

Tenant: Northrop Grumman Corporation Table 2 shows the project team and contracts held between the players.

Table 2: Project Team and Contracts

OWNER Corporate Development Services

ARCHITECT Baker & Associates

GC Riparius Construction, Inc.

CIVIL Baker & Associates

MEP Meta Engineers, P. C.

DEMO/SITE WORK American Infrastructure

PRECAST Arban & Carosi, Inc.

STRUCTURAL S. K. & Associates, PA

STRUCTURAL STEEL Strait Steel, Inc.

HVAC Adrian L. Merton, Inc.

ELECTRICAL L. H. Cranston & Sons, Inc.

PLUMBING Page Mechanical Systems, Inc.

FIRE PROTECTION Anne Arundel Fire Protection, Inc.

Lump Sum Lump Sum

Lump Sum

Lump Sum

Key Communication

Lines

FIELD ENGINEER Shanaberger & Lane


9

Client Information

Corporate Development Services (CDS), the development section of Corporate Office Properties Trust, is part of a self-managed real estate investment trust. CDS offers development and project management for construction services. Some of their capabilities include planning, design, permitting proficiency, and leasing. Some of the projects that CDS has been recently involved with outside of National Business Park are Gateway Exchange in Columbia, MD, Brown’s Wharf located on the Baltimore waterfront, and converting a soap factory to an office space in Princeton, NJ. CDS controls over 200 million acres of land with more than 2.5 million square feet of space.

CDS originally had plans to add a building to the lot at National Business

Park in order to develop the Park more. However, an added bonus was due to their past relationship with Northrop Grumman Corporation. Northrop Grumman leases many of CDS’ buildings and they were searching for another building to handle their growth of personnel and projects. CDS wanted to grow as well, and the site construction was partially initiated due to Northrop Grumman’s interest.

CDS holds high expectations for the project. In their selection of a

General Contractor, they examine the contractor’s previous work experience, types of construction they have performed, safety records, references provided, quality and timeliness of previous work, financial records, and the project team assigned to the site. They feel that a successful project is obtained if it reaches its target profitability and if the project team is happy. Budget and schedule are very important but if the project meets the tenant’s expectations and the rate of return is good, then these two factors are not as significant.

CDS focuses a lot on the overall sequencing of the project. This deals

with how each phase is scheduled and how all of the trades are coordinated. The overall sequencing can affect the project team’s happiness if it is not well organized. Also, since Northrop Grumman will be the end user of the building, the overall sequencing is important in terms of getting them into the building on time. Therefore the dates of occupancy on the lease must be accurate. The occupancy of the building will be phased by floor. This period of time will be crucial for both Northrop Grumman and CDS. Contracts Owner-General Contractor Contractual Agreement Corporate Development Services (CDS) holds a lump sum contract with Riparius Construction, Inc. The contract is a modified AIA document with general conditions included. The AIA contract was modified to be in conjuncture with the specifics of the job.


10

AIA contractor contracts typically include information regarding submittals, payment processing, meetings, communication, and changes. From AIA, submittals move from the General Contractor down through their subcontractors. The specifics of Architect and Owner interaction are not stated. It is also not specific in claiming the General Contractor responsible for getting documents to the correct parties. Submittal documents can include shop drawings, product data, certifications, Requests for Information (RFI), and monthly progress reports. For payment, the general contractor submits documents for review and approval. Time frames are provided as to how long a payment must be issued by once the document is given its final approval. The frequency of meetings, dates, and time selections is not specific. Official correspondence is also not set. The General Contractor should act as the liaison if there are questions from the subcontractors. Changes made to the scope of work involved the subcontractors submitting documents for review and approval. Owner-Architect Contractual Agreement Corporate Development Services (CDS) holds a lump sum contract with Baker & Associates. The contract is a standard AIA document with modifications to allow the specifics of the project. AIA architect contracts typically include information regarding communication roles between the Owner and General Contractor, review and approval standards of submittals, and meetings that will be held. An example of approval levels for submittals are documents marked with: “No Acceptions Taken,” “Make Corrections as Noted & Go Ahead,” “Amend & Resubmit,” or “Reject.” General Contractor-Subcontractor Contractual Agreement Riparius Construction, Inc holds lump sum contracts with each of their subcontractors. The contract held is one of Riparius’ standard subcontractor contracts with general conditions. In the contract, the AIA subcontractor document is referenced. The contract includes the following:

• Progress Payments – Payment Applications must be written on AIA Document G-702/703. These applications must be received on or before the 20th of each month or it will not be included in the General Contractor’s application for payment to the Owner for that month. If unsatisfactory progress has been made and the progress has been correctly documented, partial payment of ten percent of billed retainage of the previous month’s work will be provided by the General Contractor. Payments will be held if work is defective, there is a possible filing of lien, the subcontractor fails to make payments, the subcontractor damages another’s work, or the subcontractor is disputing against the General Contractor.

• Termination – The General Contractor may terminate the subcontractor at any time after the subcontractor has stopped work on site.


11

• Mutual Responsibility – The subcontractor will accept the same responsibility as all of the subcontractors on the project in order to facilitate the progress of work.

• Changes in Work – The General Contractor must authorize the change order provided by the subcontractor in order for the change to be official. The contract price must be adjusted along with the change order.

• Inspection and Testing – Subcontractors are required to perform any required inspection and testing at their own expense.

• Meetings – The General Contractor determines meeting time and locations. Key personnel must be in attendance at these meetings.

• Arbitration – Any controversies relating to the subcontractor may be settled by arbitration. Arbitrator(s) decide the final verdict.

• Clean up – Subcontractors shall maintain their areas and keep them orderly at all times.

• Records and documents – Subcontractors shall maintain all records, documents, drawings, instructions, books, etc. from the beginning date of the contract until 3 years after the final payment.

Architect-Engineer Contractual Agreement Baker & Associates holds lump sum with all of their engineers. No further information was provided on these contracts. Note: The contractual agreements held are confidential, however some general information has been provided. Contractor Selection Owner-General Contractor Selection In the selection of a general contractor, Corporate Development Services (CDS) requires the general contractors to fulfill their pre-qualifications or have worked with them previously. Pre-qualifications include previous work experience, types of construction, references, safety records, quality and timeliness of work, financial records, and the project team assigned to the project. CDS send out private bids to four eligible general contractors, all of which were medium sized businesses. Riparius Construction, Inc offered the best price, had performed quality work for CDS previously, and therefore CDS selected them. General Contractor-Subcontractor Selection Riparius Construction, Inc also uses a pre-qualification form in the process of selecting their subcontractors. The pre-qualification form indicates the number of years in business, type of work performed, geographical locations of work, references, bonding, union or non-union information, minority information, and


12

safety procedures. Riparius Construction, Inc sent bids for subcontractor selection to local subcontractors and subcontractors that had worked with the company previously. Once Riparius received the bids back from the subcontractors, they reviewed all of the bids to ensure that they incorporated the full scope of work. After all of the bids could be compared evenly, Riparius chose the lowest price provided by the subcontractors. Staffing Plan In the staffing for 191 National Business Park, Riparius Construction, Inc assigned one project executive, one project manager, one superintendent, and one office manager. Riparius requires that each team member, except the project executive, work at 100% once mobilization occurs. This is mostly due to the fact that it is a small project team. Therefore each team member on the job site will be exclusively involved. These key personnel may not be changed during the construction process without prior approval of the owner’s representative. Table 3 shows the involvement of each of the project members.

Involvement of the Project Team Members Planning Procurement Mobilization Structural Finishes Close-

out Project Executive

Project Manager

Project Superintendent

Office Manager

= Indicates that the team member is highly involved during this stage.

Table 3: Involvement of the Project Team Members


13

Existing Conditions Local Conditions

Corporate Development Services (CDS) owns National Business Park and therefore all of the buildings have been constructed to allow a consistent look in the Park. In other words, all of the buildings have an exterior of precast panels and glass curtain walls. Also, since the buildings are comparable, the construction of the building is similar to the processes faced previously; however, the congested site provides some complication. Although the actual construction site is congested, the existing parking and the adjacent building under construction provide plenty of parking for the construction workers. The ground at the site contained about 4” of asphalt with about a 12” of crushed stone base. Underneath, was a topsoil layer of about 5” thickness. The fill materials extended about 7 feet below the existing site grade. The fill soils consisted primarily of loose to very dense silty sand, loose to medium dense clay sand, and medium stiff to very stiff silty clay. The ground water levels were found to be about 14.1’ below existing grades. The current labor market in Annapolis Junction, MD has been increasing due to the amount of construction that has been going on in the Park and in the surrounding areas. Annapolis Junction is not far away from Baltimore, which is heavily in need of labor. Most of the construction contracts are given to minority labor due to the fact that unions are so heavily utilized. Since recycling is more expensive for the labor to concern them with and it is not required, recycling has not been considered on this site.


14

Site Layout Plan General Site Plan The site is surrounded by roads, a retention pond, a Wetlands buffer line, construction of a parking garage, and existing buildings. Due to these site limitations, the location of the trailer for the General Contractor is on another construction site across the street. The toilets are also located on the construction site across the street. Only one trailer is located on site for the electrical subcontractor and it also serves as tool storage. There are two entrance and exit gates for the construction site. The primary gate is found at the north end of the site. On site, there are two dumpsters, one located next to the building on the north end and one located next to the secondary gate. There are two main staging areas, one at the north end of the building and one alongside the length of the building. During construction, a crane and concrete pumps will be used. There are no material hoists used on this site. Diagram 1 shows the layout for the general site.

191 National Business

Park, Elev. = 163.50’

TrailersParking

Car

ina

Roa

dNBP, Lot 16, 5 Stories

201 NBP, Elev. = 162’

211 NBP, Elev. = 160’

Garage, Elev. = 160.50’

Retention PondGate

Gate

Tool Trailers/Subs

Staging

Staging

Loading Dock

Temp Power

CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN191 National Business Park

Annapolis Junction, MD

Kara PrinceAdvisor: Messner

November 3, 2004

LEGEND

Site Fence

Fire hydrant

Electrical Connection

Water Main

Property Line

Wetlands Buffer Line

Temp Power

N

GENERAL SITE PLAN

National Business Parkway

Technology Drive

Dumpster

Dumpster

Toilets

This area is an asphalt parking

lot for the use by the surrounding

buildings.

Diagram 1: General Site Plan


15

Excavation Excavation of the site began at the north end of site and worked towards the south end of site. All materials excavated were removed from site using trucks. Diagram 2 shows the layout during the excavation phase.


Park, Elev. = 163.50’

TrailersParking

Car

ina

Roa


201 NBP, Elev. = 162’

211 NBP, Elev. = 160’


Retention Pond Gate

Gate

Temp Power




November 3, 2004

LEGEND

Site Fence

Fire hydrant

Property Line


Temp Power

N

EXCAVATION PLAN


Technology Drive

Dumpster

Limits of Excavation

DumpsterSTART

Toilets



buildings.

Truck

Truck

Diagram 2: Excavation Plan

Steel Erection For steel erection, the building was broken into six sections. The first two floors were divided into 3 sections, thus making up Sections 1 through 3. The second two floors were also divided into 3 sections, thus making up Sections 4 through 6. The crane was first positioned outside the building perimeter at Section 1. The crane would erect the steel for that Section of Floor 1 and 2 and then move onto Section 2 and erect steel. The crane moved in this manner around the building and erected each section. Diagram 3 shows the layout during the steel erection phase.


16


Park, Elev. = 163.50’

TrailersParking

Car

ina

Roa


201 NBP, Elev. = 162’

211 NBP, Elev. = 160’


Retention PondGate

Gate

Tool Trailers/Subs

Staging

Staging

Loading Dock

Temp Power




November 3, 2004

LEGENDSite Fence

Fire hydrant

Property Line


Temp Power

N

STEEL ERECTION PLAN


Technology Drive

Dumpster

DumpsterCrane

1

2

3

Toilets



buildings.

Diagram 3: Steel Erection Plan

Concrete Pours For concrete slabs, the same sections of the building that were divided for the steel erection were used for pouring the slabs. The concrete truck would position itself outside the perimeter at Section 1, First Floor and then move onto Section 2, First Floor. When the truck was finished pouring at Section 3, First Floor it would move to Section 1, Second Floor. Thus the concrete would be poured floor by floor in this manner, from bottom to top. Diagram 4 shows the layout during the concrete pour phase.


17


Park, Elev. = 163.50’

TrailersParking

Car

ina

Roa


201 NBP, Elev. = 162’

211 NBP, Elev. = 160’


Retention PondGate

Gate

Tool Trailers/Subs

Staging

Staging

Loading Dock

Temp Power




November 3, 2004

LEGENDSite Fence

Fire hydrant

Property Line


Temp Power

N

CONCRETE POUR PLAN


Technology Drive

Dumpster

DumpsterConcrete

Pump

1

2

3

Toilets



buildings.

Diagram 4: Concrete Pour Plan

Finishes

Finishes were sequenced through the building from Section 1, Fourth Floor and finishing with Section 6, First Floor. The Sections were completed floor by floor, from top to bottom. Within the building, the finishes began at the north end corner of the building and worked through towards the south end of the building where the loading dock is located. Diagram 5 shows the layout during the interior finishes phase.


18


Park, Elev. = 163.50’

TrailersParking

Car

ina

Roa


201 NBP, Elev. = 162’

211 NBP, Elev. = 160’


Retention PondGate

Gate

Tool Trailers/Subs

Staging

Staging

Loading Dock

Temp Power




November 3, 2004

LEGENDSite Fence

Fire hydrant

Property Line


Temp Power

N

FINISHES PLAN


Technology Drive

Dumpster

Dumpster

12

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

Toilets



buildings.

Diagram 5: Finishes Plan

Critique of Layout The site is very narrow and quite congested. Additional site space was not permitted because of the additional parking spaces that would need to be removed from the surrounding buildings. A parking garage is simultaneously being constructed on site. A Wetlands preservation area, retainage pond, and the roadways also limit the size of the site. Considering these factors, the locations and phasing of the construction was planned satisfactorily.


19

Project Execution Project Schedule The dates of base building construction are from April 2004 to February 2005. The project schedule may be viewed in Appendix A. General Conditions Estimate Table 4 illustrates the costs for general conditions.

Code Item Cost Unit Time (Months)

$/Month Total Cost ($)

01-200 Construction Management Fees

2.5% Project 14 18,214.29 255,000

01-200-001 Project Executive - ‘’ 2 10,000 20,000 01-200-002 Project Manager - ‘’ 14 7500 105,000 01-200-003 Project

Superintendent - ‘’ 14 7250 101,500

01-200-004 Project Office Manager

- ‘’ 14 2000 28,000

01-300-100 Permits $105,000 Project 14 7500 105,000

01-300-200 Bonds $5000 Project 14 357.14 5000

01-300-350 Insurance $15,000 Project 14 1071.43 15,000

01-320-200 Scheduling 0.5% Project 14 3642.86 51,000

01-400-500 Safety Inspector $220 Per Wk 14 880 12,320 01-400-600 Safety Signage - Month 14 500 7000 01-400-700 Fall Protection, Guards $20.00 Each 14 12,857.14 180,000

01-500-001 Temp Power - Month 14 52.00 728 01-500-002 Temp Water - Month 14 63.00 882 01-500-003 Temp Toilets - Month 14 200 2800 01-500-004 Temp Lighting - Month 14 16.55 231.70 01-500-005 Temp Heat - Month 4 20.00 100.00

01-520-001 Trailer - Month 14 300 4200 01-520-010 Office Equipment - Month 14 200 2800 01-520-020 Office Supplies - Month 14 92 1288 01-520-030 Telephone - Month 14 225 3150

01-560-020 Temporary Fencing $22 LF 14 1257.14 17,600

01-600-010 Clean up - Month 14 2000 28,000

01-620-020 Dumpsters - Month 14 5000 70,000

Table 4: General Conditions Estimate (RS Means 1999)


20

The total of the General Conditions Estimate is $762,100. This number is based on total project duration of 14 months from site mobilization and $10,200,000 as the total cost of the building. Note: The general conditions could not be disclosed. Costs and items are taken

from R. S. Means and some information that was provided. Structural Systems Estimate

Table 5 shows the summary chart of the detailed systems estimate.

CSI DIVISION DESCRIPTION COST 1 General Requirements $762,100 3 Concrete Footings $160,662.39 Piers/Pedestals $3693.05 Slab on Grade $1,364,709.38 Elevated Slabs $5,702,011.86

5 Metals Columns $380,796.30 Beams & Girders $689,207.31 Metal Decking $606,180.81

TOTAL COST OF DIVISIONS 3 and 5 = $8,907,261.10 TOTAL COST OF ALL DIVISIONS = $9,669,361.10

Table 5: Detailed Estimate of the Elevated Floor System (from RS Means 1999)


21

Construction in Secure Environments Executive Summary Society’s need for security is not a new problem. Over time the United States government has published various items concerning security requirements. Recent events have raised concerns regarding the construction of new buildings and existing buildings regarding their security systems. However there is only limited information available regarding the effects of security on construction. Through a survey and literature reviews, it is possible to understand construction in secure environments. The result of this research acts as a guide to help industry members who work in secure environments. The survey results indicate construction activities that are most affected by secure environments, the unreliability of construction schedules, the decreasing levels of productivity, and strategies that may be implemented to help ease these problems. Literature reviews highlight ways to plan and ensure a secure construction project.


22

Introduction

Since the beginning of time, security has always been a concern. Moats were dug around castles, bunkers were constructed during WWI to protect soldiers, and underground nuclear bomb shelters have been built to protect United States citizens. September 11, 2001, has only heightened America’s awareness of terrorism and increased the need for building security. The Department of Defense (DoD) created a manual entitled “DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings” which addresses issues such as building site planning, structural design of the building, architectural design, electrical design, and mechanical design (2003). Useful implementations of building security plans may include fenced site perimeters, video surveillance, secure doors and windows, inspection stations, and limited access to restricted areas within the building. Countless papers have been written on the subject of security requirements, however, the effects of security on construction is not as widely publicized. Prior to the September 2004 issue of Design-Build DATELINE, few articles were written regarding designing and building in a secure environment. This September 2004 issue had numerous articles regarding security design for a building through risk assessments and technological requirements. While these articles and published documents touch upon security requisites they do not discuss the effects that increased security requirements have on the construction of a building. This depth discusses construction in secure environments and presents information which is hoped will provide a guide for those who work on secure projects within the construction industry. Information for this depth will be based on survey results received from industry members who have been faced with building secure environments. 191 National Business Park is an office building with proposed light testing facilities located on the first floor. The tenant of the building, Northrop Grumman Corporation, is a government contractor who is required to follow government regulations for security. The location of the building is within an industrial park which also houses the National Security Agency (NSA). Northrop Grumman’s use of the building and the location of the building in relation to NSA require security to be managed. The importance of understanding security and construction is necessary for the success of the contractors on this job. Problem Statement and Research Goal

Security creates multiple issues for construction projects. This depth will be limited to the validation of two major concerns. The concerns are schedule unreliability and the decreasing level of production created by security on high profile jobs.

Schedules become unreliable if the building processes are hindered

because of security requirements. For example, a Request for Information (RFI) has been submitted by the contractor to the owner of the building regarding


23

confidential construction details. Due to the security level of the building, the owner may be hesitant as to what information can be provided. The owner may need to consult someone else. Eventually, a response will be provided but it is unlikely it will be within the time frame that the contractor had planned. The RFI has now delayed some aspect of the schedule and the accuracy of the schedule has been jeopardized. When one considers the typical frequency of RFIs on a project, each small delay might turn into a major hindrance in completing the project on time.

The second concern of secure environments is the lessening level of

production, due to time spent processing personnel and materials through security onto a job site. For example, a particular task may not be accomplished timely because the necessary materials have not been delivered or allowed to be delivered to site. The trucks carrying these materials may be outside of the gate being scanned for potential threats. Depending on how many trucks there are and how much material must be removed from the truck in the staging areas, time loss can be significant. The workers waiting on site have not received the materials to do their job; therefore productivity level is lowered. The goal of this research is to present security issues that are faced on a secure job and how the construction industry has responded to those concerns. The verification of schedule unreliability and decreasing levels of production existing due to security are going to be determined through the survey. From experience, a listing of potential problem areas caused by security was created. Research data was collected through a survey and literature reviews. The survey included questions outlining concerns that affected construction, the legitimacy of decreasing productivity levels due to security, the legitimacy of viewing schedules as unreliable documents in secure environments, and strategies that may be implemented on secure jobs. Once results from the survey were received, they were tabulated and analyzed. This analysis provided the basis for understanding secure environments. To view the survey please refer to Appendix B. For a listing of security terminology please refer to Appendix C. Survey Results and Analysis The introduction to the survey explained its purpose and goal to the survey participants. All questions in the survey focused on projects dealing with secure environments only. The first set of questions examined the work experience of each individual taking the survey. Table 6 shows the outcome of these queries.


24

Question Responses Most Frequent

Response Years of Experience in the

Industry Range from 3 years to 27

years

Years of Experience with Secure Environments

Range from less than 1 year to 5 years

Projects Federal Building, Office Building, Laboratory,

Research and Development Center, Data

Center, Hospital

Office Building

Owners Federal, Government Contractor

Federal

Project Delivery Methods Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, Construction

Management

Design-Build

Table 6: Survey Participants Experience This table clearly illustrates that the survey participants have a wide range

of experience in the industry. The response column displays all answers provided but does not indicate the number of repetitions for each response. The most frequent response column provides the most common responses received thus showing commonalities for secure projects.

The second part of the survey considers the effects of security on

construction. The participants were asked to indicate which construction activities were most affected by security requirements on a job. Diagram 6 presents the percentage breakdown of the responses.

Breakdown of Construction Activities Most Affected

by Secure Environments

15%

15%

12.50%12.50%10%

8%

5%5%

5% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Mobilization Material DeliveriesCommunication Worker AvailabilityPreconstruction/Planning EstimatingSubstructure/Superstructure Worker TrainingInterior Finishes ExcavationFoundations Subcontractor PoolSwing Space Availability

Diagram 6: Breakdown of Construction Activities Most Affected by Secure Environments


25

The diagram shows the two activities most affected are mobilization on site and material deliveries to site. One participant added to the listed choices on the survey. They stated that swing space availability was an additional activity to be considered. Out of the thirteen choices listed on the survey, safety training was not considered by the survey participants as an area that was affected by security.

The participants were asked to provide the percent reduction of productivity for the construction activities they felt were most affected. Two participants responded that their overall reduction of productivity ranged from 10% to 50%. All other participants provided percentages based on the activities listed in the survey, however not all activities were addressed. Table 7 presents the productivity reduction percentages.

Construction Activity Range of Percent

Responses Average Percentage

Material Deliveries 10% to 50% 30% Mobilization 5% to10% 9%

Worker Training 0% to10% 5% Communication 0% to 25% 13%

Worker Availability 0% to 33% 18% Preconstruction/Planning 0% to 5% 4%

Interior Finishes 0% to 400%* 57% Staff transitions/Turnover 0% to 30% 15%

Estimating - - Excavation - - Foundation - -

Substructure/Superstructure - - Safety Training - -

Subcontractor Pool Impacts - - Table 7: Percent Reductions of Productivity for Construction Activities Impacted

by Security Requirements *This percentage is restricted to one particular case.

The percentages in the table vary for some of the construction activities.

The variation is explained by the diversity and uniqueness of each project situation faced by the industry members. The variation also reiterated the impact that security has on these activities. The staff transitions/turnovers were an activity that was added to the list of construction activities by one of the survey participants. While it was not considered for the most affected list, the participant had decided to include it under percentage reductions because it was a factor of productivity decrease. Finally, one response to the interior finishes were listed at 400% of a reduction. This percentage refers to one particular case. While that may seem to be an exaggeration, high rates of productivity reduction could have been possible for the interior finishes on that particular job.


26

The participants were also asked to indicate which aspects of the construction activities and security issues were most problematic for the scheduling and arrangement of meetings. Diagram 7 demonstrates the breakdown of these aspects.

Breakdown of Aspects Most Problematic for Scheduling and Meeting

26%

21%16%

16%

10.5%10.5%

Material Deliveries Escorts Badging/De-badgingProcessing onto Site Clearance Forms Worker Availability

Diagram 7: Breakdown of Aspects Most Problematic for Scheduling and

Meetings

The diagram shows that material deliveries are the greatest issue created by secure environments. None of the participants chose processing off site, worker security training, and subcontractor pool impacts which were included as choices on the survey.

In analyzing the reliability of schedules on secure construction jobs, only one responded that security did not delay the schedule of the project. The result of this survey validates the original assumption that the schedule is not a reliable document for construction jobs that require security. The third part of the survey considers the effects of security on the administration of the site. Four responses indicated that security has delayed meetings. The reason for these delays was due to the necessary processing of meeting attendees onto that site. Three respondents indicated that communication was affected by security. Incoming mail was required to be X rayed at a separate facility prior to entering site. Any drawings and descriptions containing sensitive or confidential material could not be disclosed during construction because it required breaking security regulations. Many secure email systems limit the attachment size and/or strip attachments completely from the emails. All of these security measures hinder communication and in turn delay construction.

Five respondents identified that their company tracks productivity throughout the project, across multiple projects, and accounts for productivity


27

percentages in their estimating. Tracking productivity allows the company to have a better understanding of what activities they must focus on because they view it from a broad perspective. Productivity for estimating purposes provides the contractor a better measurement for estimating future projects.

The fourth part of the survey dealt with how companies manage secure

environments. All of the survey participants stated that they address security issues during negotiations, bidding, and coordination meetings of the trades. The participants were asked how they adjusted or improved their schedules to prevent delays. The following list summarizes some of those responses: • Design-Build was chosen as the standard project delivery method after delays

from a Design-Bid-Build project delivery method. Design-Build allowed a more effective team with better communication and more flexibility. Schedule delays were decreased due to this environment.

• Schedule impacts were minimized due to proper planning and good team decision making skills.

• The level of detail in the schedule was much greater than a typical schedule. Deliveries and worker access were accounted for in the schedule. The second issue which the participants were asked to address was how to

prevent decreased worker productivity. The following summarizes the responses given by the survey participants: • Design-Build allowed enough flexibility for changes to improve productivity. • Clear communication was given to the workers advising them of their

mandatory responsibility. One main expectation was that workers were to be on site at starting time.

• Overtime was used when there was a lack of manpower to perform a job. • New improvements in badge reviews have been made for workers who have

lost their badges. The turn around is much quicker and therefore the need for escorts has been minimized.

• Double shifts, 5am to 8pm and 4pm to 10pm (on Monday –Thursday nights), have been used to ensure no loss in productivity.

• All workers were given verbal instructions and written instructions on how to enter the site and get processed. Initially this was a time consuming process, but delay was minimized in the long run through good communication. Finally, and most importantly, the participants were asked what strategies

their company implements to manage security. Their responses are summarized below: • A complete understanding of security requirements by all working at the

jobsite at the jobsite is important. This helps prevent delays and improperly following procedures.

• Coordination between the workers and the security agency helps speed processing. A separate facility created on site just to handle security processing produces efficiencies. Use escorts until security clearances are


28

approved. “High visibility badges” worn by non-secure employees and strict security access prevent admission to highly secure areas.

• Convey detailed expectations and security impacts. • An individual dedicated to security at each necessary location that is required

to follow all of the necessary security requirements spelled forth by the owner. • Develop schedule to include preconstruction, planning, and implementation

for all activities. • An additional person used on site manages all administration duties for

clearance forms that needed to be submitted to security. This lessened the number of personnel who handled these documents.

The responses received, while not numerous, provided a good analysis.

Once examined, the responses helped formulate a good understanding of construction in secure environments. This information may be used by industry members who are or will be working in secure environments and would like to understand the issues involved. Therefore the survey is valid and extremely useful. Note: A total of seven completed surveys were received and analyzed. The information provided was based on the results obtained. Literature Review and Analysis As mentioned in the introduction, there are additional suggestions for handling secure environments other than those provided by the participants of the survey. These suggestions can be found in articles from the September 2004 issue of Design-Build DATELINE. According to “Designing and Building for Security” by Jandura and Campbell, security needs can be evaluated by following these steps: 1.) Develop a vulnerability analysis. A vulnerability analysis includes “cataloging assets (that is, the people and property that are to be protected), characterizing the facility, pairing assets with vulnerabilities, and prioritizing threat mitigation measures.” (2004) 2.) Perform a risk assessment. Risk assessments focus on the possibility and probability “of threats and their potential costs.” (2004) 3.) Define technology requirements. Technology requirements refer to systems that will be used for the building which relate to the vulnerability analysis. 4.) Design the systems. Designing the systems provides an understanding for actual costs and issues relating to the suggested systems. Another aspect to focus on is security system implementations which can be integrated around the site perimeter, building perimeter, and inside the building (2004). In “Design-Build in the Secure Environment,” Biscotte claims that fewer personnel involved with the process will allow a more secure and safer


29

job. Therefore an owner concerned about safety might consider Design-Build as the project delivery method (2004). Smith claims in “Juggling the Demands of Security with Design and Construction Excellence in Public Facilities” that in addition to risk assessments, security costs and document control must be considered. It is far better to have accurate security costs considered in the budget as security always increases costs in a project (2004). Also, each owner should decide how the contractor should manage documents and information. This is important to identify because there are major repercussions for mismanaged documents (2004).

Appendix D provides a concise guide to understanding secure environments based on the results from the survey, the literature reviews, and information from the two breadth analyses. Conclusion Security is not a new issue in construction; however in recent years due to terrorism, security has become a stricter practice. The analysis of security and construction is important because there are many contractors involved with secure construction jobs. Also, each project has its own security requirements depending on the need of the owners or end users. To further investigate this, a survey and literature reviews were utilized. From the analysis of the survey and the literature reviews, a greater understanding of security was created and discussed in this depth. The results received from the survey produced a number of issues which must be considered when constructing in secure environments. The participants in the survey also provided schedule adjustments and improvements that help prevent delay, ideas on how to address lessening worker productivity, and strategies to manage security issues on a job. The survey proved to be a valid document and the results were extremely useful. For the literature review, articles featured in the September 2004 issue of Design-Build DATELINE provided many important tips for planning construction in secure environments. The focus was not solely on construction itself but design and planning as well. It is important for those involved in the construction industry to understand all of the factors that must be considered with security.


30

Breadth Analysis I: Elevated Floor Slabs Executive Summary 191 National Business Park uses an elevated floor slab system composed of metal decking, light weight concrete, and welded wire fabric (WWF) sheets. The thickness of the slab and use of lightweight concrete create concern as it may increase vibration in the floor system. Alternate elevated floor slab systems were designed to prevent vibration and prove structurally sound. The alternate system using normal weight concrete was then used to compare cost, schedule, and value engineering. By means of a construction schedule comparison; no major changes were indicated. However using a Phase/SIPS schedule, the overall construction time frame was reduced significantly by using normal weight concrete. Cost analysis showed that using the alternate floor system would result in lower construction costs. Using the normal weight concrete system over the light weight concrete system was a good value engineering idea because it provided better quality for a lower cost. The breadth evaluated the proposed area underneath the slabs which were to house the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF). These areas require strict sound attenuation for security reasons and the proposed thickness of the slab proved sufficient in order to prevent any transfer of sound through the floor system.


31

Introduction This breadth will focus on the structural system of the elevated floor slabs in the building. The main structure of the building is composed of steel beams, girders, and columns. The planned floor system calls for 6” total slab, 20 gauge metal decking, and 3” of light weight concrete with welded wire fabric (WWF) sheets which are 6”x6” W 2.9 x W 2.9. The WWF sheets sit upon chairs which are located 1” from the top of the slab. The engineers designed the elevated floor slabs to consist of light weight concrete instead of using normal weight concrete. This choice was made as light weight concrete allows a higher fire rating and smaller slab thickness due to its higher resistance to heat. Dicle Firat from SK&A, the structural engineering firm that designed 191 National Business Park, confirmed that in order to achieve a two hour fire rating, the slab thickness for light weight concrete would need to be 3.5”, but for normal weight concrete the slab thickness required would be at least 4.5” thick. Additional slab thickness for the normal weight concrete increases the steel costs because larger member sizes would be required to handle the additional weight (2005). While fire protection played a major role in choosing the light weight concrete slab, the possibility of vibration due to the thinner slab and sound attenuation through the floor was not considered. This breadth addresses the question of vibration and sound attenuation. Vibration and sound attenuation are major issues for this building since Northrop Grumman has proposed testing and Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) areas to be situated on the first floor. Vibration can affect any equipment testing that requires high calibration. Therefore the original design of the lightweight concrete slab must be tested. If vibration levels are unacceptable, a revised floor system must be selected. The revised floor system must also be checked for vibration and structural stability. In addition to considering vibration and structural soundness; the construction schedules and costs need to be examined. The original schedule can be compared with a schedule for the revised floor system. Using a Phase/SIPS schedule, the original schedule can be compared with regard to possible time frame shortening, in order to complete each elevated floor. Cost analysis determines which floor system, original or revised, will be more expensive. Sufficient sound attenuation is required for SCIFs to prevent any sounds or conversations, from being detected outside of the area. Research on the requirements of SCIFs in the area will be assessed and methods to prevent sound attenuation will be provided. For further information, the second breadth analysis will analyze SCIFs.


32

Finally, the original floor system and revised floor system will be analyzed to determine the best value engineering design. The result of value engineering provides the best option for the building in terms of quality, cost, and construction time.

To summarize, the analysis of the elevated floor slab will focus on: structural vibration and stability, security through the prevention of sound transfer, and value engineering of the elevated slabs. All of these issues are important for the use of this building and to ensure the safety of the personnel that will work there. Vibration Analysis of the Elevated Floor System

Vibration analysis begins with a preliminary assessment procedure which considers the type of concrete weight used in the building, the steel frame type, the construction type, and the deck type. Using Hanagan’s preliminary assessment procedure the structural specifications of the building are as follows (2003):

Concrete weight – Light weight Steel Frame type – Rolled beams/girders

Construction type – Composite Deck type – Composite

Using this information, the preliminary assessment of the existing floor slab confirmed that vibration was an issue. Therefore, a revised elevated floor system was necessary to address the issue of vibration. After determining that vibration was an issue, the next step in the process was to check the existing structural design of one section of the decking, one beam, one girder, and one column. The calculations verified that the original design was structurally sound. In order to have acceptable vibration, two possible options were selected from tables in Hanagan’s paper. The first option consisted of a 3” deck, 6” total slab, normal weight concrete, rolled beams/girders, and composite construction and deck type. The second option consisted of a 2” deck, 6.25” total slab, light weight concrete, rolled beams/girders, and composite construction and deck type (2005). Each option was then taken through the same preliminary assessment for vibration and then checked structurally. Both options proved acceptable for vibration and were structurally sound. For the schedule and cost analysis, the first option was chosen to be further analyzed. All calculations performed for the analysis can be found in Appendix E.


33

Schedule Impacts

The construction time using normal weight concrete over light weight concrete for the elevated slab did not vary. Table 8 and Table 9 show the original and revised schedules.

Activity Duration

(days) Start Finish

FRP CIP 2nd Floor Slab & Cure 30 30-Aug-04 08-Oct-04 FRP CIP 3rd Floor Slab & Cure 38 01-Sept-04 22-Oct-04 FRP CIP 4th Floor Slab & Cure 15 20-Sept-04 08-Oct-04

FRP CIP Roof Slab & Cure 11 24-Sept-04 08-Oct-04 TOTAL 94

Table 8: Original Schedule

Activity Duration (days)

Start Finish

FRP CIP 2nd Floor Slab & Cure 30 30-Aug-04 08-Oct-04 FRP CIP 3rd Floor Slab & Cure 38 01-Sept-04 22-Oct-04 FRP CIP 4th Floor Slab & Cure 15 20-Sept-04 08-Oct-04

FRP CIP Roof Slab & Cure 11 24-Sept-04 08-Oct-04 TOTAL 94

Table 9: Revised Schedule

The durations of the original schedule are long. From evaluating the entire schedule, it appeared that the duration of the elevated slabs were coordinated with the precast assembly of the exterior façade. Erection of exterior precast panels were scheduled to begin September 3, 2004 and end October 29, 2004. Regardless the method of construction to be used, the schedule durations remain the same since they take into account the erection of the precast panels.

An additional schedule was created as a comparison to the original and

revised schedules. If there was a need to drive the schedule, the additional schedule would provide a possible way to accelerate the process. A benefit of creating a comparison schedule is to view possible increases in the production and effectiveness of the process for constructing the modified floor system.

Tables 10 and 11 show the Phase/SIPS process of one elevated slab and

the use of Phase/SIPS scheduling to shorten the schedule.


34

Days # Area 1 2 3 4 1 F2 S1 1 2 2 F2 S2 1 2 3 F2 S3 1 2 # SIPS Activity KEY 1 Edge Form F = Floor Chairs S = Section WWF 2 Place Concrete Finish Concrete

Table 10: Phase/SIPS Schedule for One Floor

Activity Duration Start Finish FRP CIP 2nd Floor Slab 9 30-Aug-04 09-Sept-04 FRP CIP 3rd Floor Slab 9 02-Sept-04 14-Sept-04 FRP CIP 4th Floor Slab 9 07-Sept-04 17-Sept-04

FRP CIP Roof Slab 9 10-Sept-04 22-Sept-04 TOTAL 36

ACTUAL TOTAL DURATION 18 Table 11: Comparison Schedule using Phase/SIPS Schedule

From these tables it is clear that by using the Phase/SIPS schedule method, the construction time of the elevated floor slabs would be decreased. The original schedule calls for 94 days and the comparison schedule calls for 18 days. The original schedule considers coordination with the precast erection and contains more buffers than the comparison schedule. Using the Phase/SIPS schedule would be beneficial for this project. A shortened schedule would allow Northrop Grumman to move into the building sooner. From Northrop Grumman’s perspective, having the building completed earlier would help alleviate a lot of the pressure to move programs into the new building and start testing their equipment earlier. Cost Impacts

The estimate for normal weight concrete which includes the concrete, forms, chairs, and welded wire fabric for all of the elevated slabs (2,784,423.65 CY) is $5,702,011. According to RS Means Building Cost Data, the cost of


35

pumping lightweight concrete is an additional $2.75/CY (1999). The originally designed floor system which used lightweight concrete increases the cost of the elevated floor slabs to $7,657,165 producing a considerable cost difference of $1,955,153.

Table 12 illustrates the costs of the original and revised floor systems.

Cost of Original: Lightweight

Cost of Revised: Normal Weight

Difference In Cost

$7,657,000 $5,702,000 $1,955,000 Table 12: Cost Differences of Original and Revised Elevated Floor Slabs

The revised elevated floor slab system with normal weight concrete would provide considerable cost savings and would be more effective than using the lightweight concrete. Security: Sound Attenuation of the Elevated Floor System As stated in the introduction, Northrop Grumman has proposed to locate Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) on the first floor of 191 National Business Park. The Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) requires the frame of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities to meet the Sound Transmission Class (STC) 45 or greater (1994). STC is a rating used to determine the ability of blocking sound. DCID requires that for reinforced concrete construction, the walls, floor, and ceiling must be a minimum of 8” thick (1994). Northrop Grumman, however, constructs its SCIFs using permanent dry wall construction instead of concrete block because it has an immediate response force within their facility. An immediate response force is necessary for permanent drywall construction and follows the guidelines set forth by the DCID (1994). According to the Director of Physical Security at Northrop Grumman, Vincent Frantom, an elevated floor slab consisting of a 6” total slab is ideal and exceeds STC 45 (2005). In this case, where an STC rating must be greater than 45, there are devices and procedures that Northrop Grumman can follow in order to achieve the appropriate STC. These methods include using sound masking devices, structural enhancements with high density building materials, or construction design of a stand-off distance or a perimeter fence. Therefore the 6” normal weight concrete slab is sufficient in order to prevent sound attenuation. If the STC rating for a particular SCIF needs to be higher, there are options to accommodate this. Other Impacts With the selection of an alternative elevated floor system, there are obviously many other concerns that must be considered. Some of these concerns include: fire protection, HVAC units, and plumbing drains. These


36

issues have not been discussed in this breadth but are noted as they are important in the re-design of any structural system. Value Engineering

It is harder to achieve the same level of quality assurance using light weight concrete in place of normal weight concrete. This is, in part, because light weight concrete is much more difficult to place during construction. Using the normal weight concrete floor system over the light weight concrete floor system adds quality to the slab at a lesser cost. Therefore the normal weight concrete floor system is a good value engineering suggestion for this building. Conclusion The analysis of the elevated floor slabs included a vibration evaluation, structural study, schedule impacts, cost impacts, value engineering, and a security study. The vibration evaluation demonstrated that the original design had vibration issues. The original design was then checked and verified to be structurally sound. Two options were chosen and checked for vibration and structural reliability. Both of the options were found valid and the normal weight concrete system was chosen for further analysis. Next, the schedule of the original design and the revised structural design were compared and no difference was found. Using a Phase/SIPS schedule, the possibility of a shortened schedule was illustrated. In the cost impact study, the cost of normal weight concrete was less than the original design and produced a savings of over $1,955,000. In addition to cost savings, normal weight concrete was found to provide better quality than light weight concrete and therefore would be a possible value engineering suggestion. Finally, the security study resulted in finding the thickness of the revised elevated floor slab to be adequate in order to prevent sound attenuation.


37

Breadth Analysis II: SCIF Executive Summary Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) are proposed to be built on the first floor of 191 National Business Park. SCIFs require strict security standards for their construction, mechanical, and electrical designs. The Department of Defense (DoD) has published standards for building secure facilities. To construct a SCIF in the proposed location, the existing mechanical system needs to be re-designed. The existing duct main above the space needed to be replaced with a new duct main which included man bars for security. A return duct was run from the existing return duct into the SCIF room. A z boot was attached to the return duct outside of the SCIF perimeter to reduce sound transfer. Finally, the planning of the mechanical duct was value engineered. It was determined that through better planning small cost savings were possible.


38

Introduction

The Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) describes Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) as either a room or an area in which Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) may be stored, used, discussed, or processed. SCI is any information that is classified by the United States government. Due to SCI’s highly sensitive nature, there are many regulations regarding the level of classification, protection, communication, and destruction of this information (1994). Therefore, any facility which requires SCIF construction to store SCI is required to follow the physical security standards set forth by the United States government.

In the planning of 191 National Business Park, the construction of the base building was decided first. The base building is the shell of the building. Construction on the base building started first because Corporate Development Services, the building owner, had not yet decided if Northrop Grumman was going to lease the building. Shortly after the construction of the base building had started, Northrop Grumman made the decision to lease the building. Northrop Grumman then began to determine the fit out of the interior space. During fit out planning, it was determined that SCIF areas in the building were required. SCIF areas constructed in a controlled building are considered less vulnerable to penetration. Therefore the security requirements of the interior spaces are less demanding. Additional planning was still needed, however, in order to construct these SCIFs. The physical construction, mechanical, and electrical issues needed to be addressed. For this SCIF space, plumbing was not required. Therefore plumbing will not be addressed in this breadth. Mechanical re-design was necessary due to the proposed location of the SCIF. This breadth will include value engineering of the SCIF planning process. Construction Analysis According to the Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID), one common requirement for SCIFs is that all perimeter walls, ceilings, and floors must be permanently constructed and attached to each other (1994). Table 13 presents the physical standards for the doors and windows of SCIFs.


39

General Requirements Types of Materials Doors - Only one primary entrance allowed.

- Exit door may be required. - Doors must be closed at all times unless for emergencies. - Must be plumb in frame and of sufficient strength. - Need automatic door closure, GSA approved combination lock, and access control device. - Hinge pins located exterior of the SCIF will be treated to prevent removal.

- Solid wood core door, min 1 ¾” thick - 16 gauge metal cladding over wood or comp materials, min 1 ¾”. Metal cladding continuous and cover entire front and back. - Metal fire or acoustical protection doors, min 1 ¾” - Joined metal rolling door, min 22 gauge

Windows - Windows which allow visual surveillance must be made opaque or covered with items such as blinds to prevent surveillance. - Windows at ground level will be covered with materials to prevent entry. - Perimeter windows at ground level shall be covered by an Intrusion Detection System.

Table 13: General Construction Requirements for SCIF Doors and Windows (developed from the Director of Central Intelligence Directive, 1994)

Another requirement for SCIFs is that they are constructed to prevent sound attenuation. Northrop Grumman generally constructs SCIFs using double layers of drywall with insulation and 16 gauge metal studs. Northrop Grumman also uses solid wood core doors. For windows, blinds and blast resistant materials cover the opening to prevent entry and visuals. To muffle sound, a device is used to create “white noise” within the SCIF space. White noise is a combination of different frequencies of sound which mask sound. Diagram 8 below shows a model of a typical SCIF construction for Northrop Grumman.

T Y P I C A L S C I F

D o u b l e D r y w a l lM e t a l S t u d s

C e i l i n g

I n s u l a t i o n

Diagram 8: Typical SCIF Model


40

Each sheet of drywall is typically 5/8” thick. The metal studs can range from 1 5/8" to 6". Insulation is also included between the studs and drywall. Mechanical and Electrical Analysis The Director of Central Intelligence Directive has specific provisions recorded for the mechanical and electrical technical requirements of a SCIF. These technical requirements for a SCIFs’ vent, duct, and piping are featured in Table 14.

Physical protection of Vents, Ducts, and Pipes • All vents, ducts, and similar openings in excess of 96 square inches

that enter or pass through SCIF must be protected with either bars, grilles, or commercial metal duct sound baffles that meet appropriate sound attenuation.

• Based on TEMPEST accreditation, it may be required that all vents, ducts, and pipes have a non-conductive section installed at the interior perimeter.

• An access port to allow visual inspection of the protection in the vent or duct should be installed inside the secure perimeter of the SCIF. If the port is installed outside the perimeter of the SCIF, it must be locked.

Table 14: Construction requirements of Vents, Ducts, and Pipes for SCIF (developed from the Director of Central Intelligence Directive, 1994)

In regards to issues relating to the mechanical and electrical aspects of a SCIF; Laura Slingerland, Southland Industries (Mechanical contractors), and John Harvey, Northrop Grumman’s electrical engineering manager, were interviewed to learn more about these construction issues. Laura Slingerland indicated that there are two main issues involved with the mechanical construction of a SCIF. First is sound transfer. Slingerland’s general rule of thumb is that if light can be viewed from one area to another, the possibility of sound transfer is great. With regard to sound transfer, return ducts from the SCIF often use a sound lined z boot to solve this issue. A z boot is a metal duct unit which is shaped like a 3-dimensional letter “z.” The z boot requires a lot of space and therefore the location needs to be coordinated with the other crews before the walls of the SCIF are constructed. An alternate option is to place sound attenuators inside the duct instead of using a z boot (2005). Second is the issue to secure the SCIF to prevent unauthorized entry. The goal is to secure the walls and penetrations of the SCIF so that nothing can pass through this area. Typical penetrations may require man bars to be installed (2005). In the past Northrop Grumman has generally either installed man bars in their ducts or hard walled the ductwork. Diagram 9 shows a z boot and a man bar detail.


41

Diagram 9: Z Boot and Man Bar Detail (Slingerland 2005)

For the electrical requirements of a SCIF, John Harvey stated there are

only a few main concerns that are applicable to all SCIFs. First, panel boards are to be located inside the room. Second, a dielectric is needed for all conduits running through the SCIF. A dielectric is any medium that does not allow the passage of an electric force through it. For a SCIF that requires less than 100 kVa, a UPS and a transformer is required to change the voltage. UPS stands for an uninterruptible power source. A UPS will continue providing power to the SCIF if the primary source of power goes out (2005). Mechanical Re-design A major issue resulting from fit out of the interiors, once base building construction has already been completed, is the additional costs that will be incurred due to changes in the building systems. For construction of a SCIF, the mechanical system is greatly impacted. The existing system needs to be removed in the area where the SCIF will be built, re-designed, manufactured, fitted with man bars (where the duct opening is greater than 96 square inches) and acoustical considerations, and then the modified duct installed. Additionally, a return duct will need to be manufactured to run from the existing return duct located centrally in the building. Therefore it is important to look at the re-design of the mechanical system where Northrop Grumman proposes to locate the SCIF. Diagram 10 shows a portion of the existing mechanical design for HVAC on the first floor. The SCIF area was proposed to be located between lines 7 and 8 and just below the top horizontal line. DIAGRAM 10 IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED ONLINE FOR SECURITY REASONS.

Using the Hourly Analysis Program (HAP) Version 4.20a, only 1443 CFM is needed for the air flow in the SCIF (2004). Appendix F contains the results from the Hourly Analysis Program. For this breadth, the number has been rounded and it has been assumed that the room needs 1445 CFM. According to the


42

existing mechanical schedule, which is based on an open floor plan, a max of 2200 CFM is given off by the two fan powered VAV boxes in the designated SCIF area. The existing air flow and calculated air flow requirements indicate a 755 CFM difference. Therefore changes in the VAV boxes were made. The VAV box providing 900 CFM will remain and the VAV box supplying 1300 CFM will be removed. A VAV box giving off 545 CFM will then be installed in the SCIF room. The additional 755 CFM will be added to another area in the open space by installing a VAV box elsewhere.

The size of the return duct was determined using The Trane Company’s Ductulator (1996) to be 20x14. The 20x14 return duct was to be run from the existing return duct to enter the SCIF space near the door. A z boot was installed directly outside the perimeter of the SCIF to prevent sound transfer. Value Engineering The existing HVAC system does not meet the necessary requirements for mechanical security. The system was not well planned resulting in additional costs. As explained in the mechanical re-design section, the existing system must be removed and reinstalled with duct providing the appropriate security measures. Table 15 shows the costs associated with upgrading the existing system versus installing a secure system prior to construction.


43

Cost for HVAC: Renovating Existing versus Installing Secure HVAC Initially Renovation of Original System Initially Installing Secure System

Steps: • Existing duct and VAV boxes must be removed • New duct manufactured and

installed – including reducers, sound lining, and man bars

• 900 CFM VAV box installed • 545 CFM VAV box manufactured

and installed • 755 CFM VAV box manufactured

and installed

Steps: • Duct manufactured and installed

– including reducers, sound lining, and man bars

• 900 CFM VAV box manufactured and installed



Costs: • Removal of existing supply duct-

$500 • Removal of VAV box - $340 • Supply Duct Manufactured -

$1000 • Return Duct Manufactured -

$1700 • Man bars - $560 • 545 CFM VAV box - $550 • 755 CFM VAV box - $650 • Installation of supply duct - $480 • Installation of return duct - $630 • Installation of VAV boxes - $480 • Supply diffusers - $60 • Return diffusers - $40 • Z boot - $510

Costs: • Supply Duct Manufactured -

$1000 • Return Duct Manufactured -

$1700 • Man bars - $560 • 900 CFM VAV box - $700 • 545 CFM VAV box - $550 • 755 CFM VAV box - $650 • Installation of supply duct - $480 • Installation of return duct - $630 • Installation of VAV boxes - $480 • Supply diffusers - $60 • Return diffusers - $40 • Z boot - $510

Total Cost: $7500 Total Cost: $7360 Cost Difference: $140

Table 15: Cost for HVAC: Renovating Existing versus Installing Secure HVAC Installing

(Costs developed with the help of Bob Harris, 2005 and Laura Slingerland,2005.)

This table does not include the costs associated with planning and renovating the original space versus initially planning the original space with security systems. Taking this into consideration; installing the secure system at the start would be much less expensive. Therefore using the secure system initially provides another valid value engineering suggestion for 191 National Business Park.


44

Conclusion Through research on SCIFs, the standards for construction, mechanical design, and electrical design were determined. Following the United States government standards the mechanical system of the SCIF was re-designed in order to meet the security requirements. Re-designing the mechanical system also illustrates the importance of proper planning which can reduce costs associated with unnecessary rework. Planning for a secure duct initially resulted in cost savings and provided a good value engineering proposal.


45

Summary and Conclusions

The analysis of 191 National Business Park has provided a greater understanding of security and how it relates to construction. The need for security in this building originates from its site location near the National Security Agency (NSA) and Northrop Grumman’s proposed use of secure facilities in the building.

Research has presented great insight into understanding construction in

secure environments. The survey results offered information regarding the construction activities most affected by security, percent reduction in productivity, unreliability of construction schedules, and strategies to control secure environments. Literature reviews have also shown strategies for understanding security and the designs of the structures.

The building systems such as the elevated floor slab systems and

mechanical duct units were further analyzed and re-designed to meet structural and mechanical codes, as well as meet security needs for the building. A 6” thick normal weight concrete floor slab met acceptable vibration requirements and cost less than a light weight concrete slab. The 6” slab also required the same amount of time to place, and was a good value engineering suggestion. If the schedule needed to be driven, the Phase/SIPS schedule created could allow a large reduction in time.

The mechanical duct system above the proposed area for the SCIF

needed to be renovated. The existing system did not account for the security requirements that were set forth by the United States government. The process of planning the construction of the SCIF was value engineered. It was determined that if the SCIF had been planned prior to base building construction, it would have cost less than to renovate the existing duct. Prior to the re-design the general construction, mechanical, and electrical requirements of a SCIF were researched The final result of the thesis research was a concise guide to understanding construction in secure environments. This guide aids those in industry who deal with security.


46

References

Biscotte, Michael. “Design-Build in the Secure Environment.” Design- Build DATELINE. September 2004: 25-27.

Bob Harris. Personal Interview. 30 March 2005. Dicle Firat. Personal Interview. 15 March 2005. Hanagan, Linda M. "Floor Vibration Serviceability: Tips and Tools for Negotiating a Successful Design." Proceedings of the North American Steel Construction Conference, Baltimore, MD, February 2-5, 2003, AISC, 18. Jandura, Kenneth J and David R. Campbell. “Designing and Building for Security.” Design-Build DATELINE. September 2004: 14-18. John Harvey. Personal Interview. 22 March 2005. Laura Slingerland. Personal Interview. 22 March 2005. Smith, Steven C. “Juggling the Demands of Security with Design and Construction Excellence in Public Facilities.” Design-Build DATELINE. September 2004: 32-38. United States. Director of Central Intelligence Directive. Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information. United States, July 1994. Facilities. United States. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings. United States, October 2003. Vincent Frantom. Personal Interview. 16 March 2005. _________. D4 Cost V6 Program. Tampa: Technologies, Inc., 2002. _________. Ductulator. United States: The Trane Company. American Standard Inc., 1996. _________. Hourly Analysis Program Version 4.20a. United States: Carrier Corporation, 2004.


47

References (continued) _________. Manual of Steel Construction Load and Resistance Factor Design. United States: American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc, 2001. _________. RS Means Building Construction Cost Data. Massachusetts: R.S. Means Co., 1999. _________. RS Means Square Foot Costs. Massachusetts: R.S. Means Co., 2004.


Appendices

Appendix A: Schedules Appendix B: Survey Appendix C: Security Terminology Appendix D: A Concise Guide to Understanding Secure Environments Appendix E: Calculations for Vibration Analysis Appendix F: HAP Results


Appendix A: Schedules


Appendix B: Survey

Two main issues created by security on high profile jobs are unreliability and the decreasing level of production. The goal of this study is to create a comprehensive guide to understanding the issues of security that might be faced during a construction job. With your help, a better understanding of the processes in security may be possible. Please answer all of the questions provided. This survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. Part 1: Background Information

1. Name:

1. Name of Company and Position within Company:

2. Do you personally hold a security clearance?

Yes No

3. Number of Construction Projects with Security:

3. Years of Experience in the Construction Industry:

3. Years of Experience with high level security jobs:

4. Roles held in Jobs with Security (Please check all that apply.):

Project Executive (PX)

Project Manager (PM)

Superintendent (S)

Project Engineer (PE)

Foreman (F)

Other, please specify:

5. Types of Owners that Required Security (Please check all that apply.):

Federal Government

State Government

Local Government

Government Contractor


6. Project Delivery Methods Experienced for Secure Environments (Please check all that apply.):

Design-Bid-Build

Design-Build

Construction Management


7. Types of Projects that Required Security (Please check all that apply.):

Office Building

Laboratory

Research and Development

Data Center

Conference Center

Commercial Building

Educational Facility

Hospital


8. Number of Jobs which Required Security Clearance - Top Secret:

8. Number of Jobs which Required Security Clearance - Secret:

8. Number of Jobs which Required Security Clearance - Interim:

8. Number of Jobs which Required Security Clearance - Classified:

8. Number of Jobs which Required Security Clearance - Other:

9. Please list the 5 most current jobs in which security is/was an issue and the security level of the project.

10. Have you experienced projects in which security issues have increased the project schedule due to delayed costs?

Yes No

Part 2: Effects of Security on Construction

11. Please check the types of construction activities most affected by secure environments:

Preconstruction/Planning

Estimating

Mobilization

Excavation

Foundations

Substructure/Superstructure

Interior Finishes

Material Deliveries

Safety Training

Worker Training

Communication

Worker Availability

Contractor Pool Impacts


11. Please list any general activities most affected by secure environments that are not listed above:

11. Of those activities listed, what percent reduction of productivity is there?

12. What aspects of security are most problematic for scheduling and meetings? (Please check all that apply.)

Badging/De-badging

Processing onto Site

Processing off Site

Escorts (to meetings, areas, etc.)

Clearance Forms

Worker Security Training

Deliveries of Materials

Worker Availability

Contractor Pool Impacts


Part 3: Effects of Security on Administration

13. What is your typical meeting schedule (days of the week, location, length)?

14. Has security processing ever delayed meetings?

Yes No

14. If yes, please explain further:

15. Has security affected communication in terms of faxes, emails, and letters?

Yes No

15. If yes, please explain further:

16. Do you track productivity throughout the project?

Yes No

16. Do you track productivity across multiple projects?

Yes No

16. Does your company account for productivity percentages in your estimating?

Yes No

Part 4: Strategies for Managing Secure Environments

17. In general, what strategies does your company implement to manage security issues?

18. Were security issues addressed during coordination meetings of the trades?

Yes No

18. Were security issues addressed early in negotiations and bidding?

Yes No

19. How were schedule adjustments/improvements made to prevent delay?

20. How was worker productivity addressed to prevent delay? (For example, 4-10 shifts.)


Appendix C: Security Terminology

Glossary of Security Terminology

Badging/De-badging Badging is a process in which visitors to the site receive an identification badge from the guard in order to enter the site. The badge must be worn in an area that is visible. Badging differs depending on the level of security and can include anything from handing in formal identification, walking through metal detectors, and signing forms. De-badging is simply the process of returning the badge in order to exit the site.

Classified Material Information that requires protection to prevent

disclosure. Clearance Form In order for personnel to enter certain classified

areas, forms must be completed, submitted, and approved. Once approved, the person receives their clearance for the requested area and will be cleared to enter for a decided time frame. A typical clearance form requires the personnel’s date of birth, country of origin, social security number, and place of residence.

Escort For classified areas, personnel without a clearance to

enter the area are typically required to have an escort. The personnel is required to stay with the escort at all times until they leave the area.

Levels of Classification For security purposes, documents are ranked

depending on their level of sensitivity. The levels of classification include: top secret, secret, and confidential. Top secret is the highest level of classification and confidential is the lowest level. Unclassified materials do not require personnel to hold a security clearance in order to view or handle it.

Man Bar Bars that are installed inside HVAC duct to prevent

any person from crawling through the unit. Typically man bars are made of steel.

Processing onto Site/Processing off Site

For trucks and personnel entering and exiting a secure site, there are usually rules and regulations that must be followed. This may include paperwork, badging, and security scans.

Security Clearance A consent that is granted to personnel to handle classified information. Personnel must undergo a security background check in order to receive consent. A personnel’s security clearance is granted depending on the level required. To view the levels, refer to the definition of “levels of classification.”

Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)

Information that is considered classified and must be contained to prevent usage by non-authorized personnel. Only authorized personnel are allowed to discuss and handle SCI material.

Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF)

A room or area that must be constructed according to the Director of Central Intelligence Directive’s requirements. These areas are necessary for containment of classified material. Any non-authorized personnel entering a SCIF must be escorted in the SCIF at all times.

Sound Attenuator A material which reduces the amount of sound which

travels from the source to another location. These are typically found lined in HVAC units.

Sound Masking Device Any device which conceals speech or any sound. Sound Transmission Class (STC)

A rating that is given to materials and refers to the loss of sound from one side of the material to the other. SCIF STC ratings are typically STC 45 or better.

White Noise Noise which consists of all different frequencies.

Machines which give off white noise are available. These machines can help SCIFs achieve the required STC rating by making sounds within the SCIF unintelligible.

Worker Security Training

Every worker on secure site are typically required to go through a formal training process regarding security concerns that might be faced and how to handle them. The type of training varies but can include watching a security video that entails the owner’s requirements.

Z Boot A piece of HVAC duct that has the shape of a three

dimensional letter “z.” This helps prevent direct sound transfer and direct visual into the space.


Appendix D: A Concise Guide to Understanding Secure Environments

A CONCISE GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING SECURE ENVIRONMENTS

This guide is based on the research conducted for my thesis. The focus of this guide is on the aspects of construction in secure environments.

Things to consider before you start... 1.) Evaluate the design and security needs of the project. What type of facility/building is it? What are the weaknesses in the design of the building? What is the outcome of the security risk assessment? What threat mitigations were decided upon? 2.) Evaluate the security implementation plans. What security requirements exist for the site perimeter? What security requirements exist for the building perimeter? What security requirements exist for the inside of the building? 3.) Consider document control requirements. Who can view/handle the drawings, specifications, and other documents? How many people will be involved in the process? What are the repercussions for mismanaging documentation? 4.) Consider the personnel who will be working on the job. Who holds a security clearance? What subcontractors can be chosen for the bidding process? What is the worker availability for that area? How is worker training going to be handled? Some security requirements for the site that you may be faced with...

Escorts

Badging/De-badging Clearance Forms

Documentation Regulations Processing onto Site for Personnel, Equipment, Materials, and Information

Security Impacts on Construction Activities... The following is a list of construction activities most affected by secure environments (from greatest to least):

Mobilization* Material Deliveries*

Communication* Preconstruction*

Estimating Substructure/Superstructure

Worker Training* Interior Finishes*

Excavation Foundations

Swing Space Availability for Staging Areas Worker availability*, staff transitions/turnovers*, and subcontractor pools also have great impacts on construction activities due to security requirements.

*These activities have shown reduction in productivity due to secure environments. Security Impacts on Communication... 1.) Meetings Processing of attendees onto site can be time consuming. 2.) Mail X ray processing at a separate facility might be necessary. 3.) Email Attachment size may be limited or attachments may be stripped. 4.) Information Certain details might not be disclosed due to its sensitive nature. Security Impacts on Schedule... Unless the schedule is well detailed, the schedule is not a reliable document.

Interior Construction Security Requirements...

The following should be considered for secure spaces within your building: - Sound Attenuation and STC Ratings

- Prevention of visuals into spaces - Physical Construction Requirements

- Mechanical and Electrical Requirements - Entrance and Exit Requirements

Some requirements for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF):

- STC rating of at least 45 - Window blinds (or similar material) and entry proofing

- Walls, floor, and ceilings must be attached and permanent - Man bars in duct larger than 96 square inches

- Dielectric devices for conduits entering SCIF spaces - Security devices on doors including combination locks and automatic closures

Suggestions from industry on how to... Improve or Adjust Schedules to Prevent Delay: + Properly plan the project and chose a team that will make good decisions. + Create your schedule with high levels of detail. + Use Design-Build as the project delivery method. Retain productivity levels: + Provide clear verbal and written communication to the workers. + Use overtime or double shifts. + Use Design-Build as the project delivery method. Manage security on the job: + Have a complete and thorough understanding of all security requirements. + Coordinate the workers and security agency to speed processing. + Create a separate facility to only handle security. + Dedicate one person solely to security. + Convey detailed expectations and explain security impacts to the workers. + Develop a highly detailed schedule that includes all tasks from planning to punch lists.


Appendix E: Calculations for Vibration Analysis


Structural Analysis Calculations: Vibration on Elevated Floor Slabs

Note: All calculations were made using the references of Linda Hanagan and the Manual of Steel Construction. Preliminary Assessment (using existing floor slabs) 1. Define Design Class. Concrete Weight – Light weight

Steel Frame Type – Rolled Beams/Girders Construction Type – Composite Deck Type – Composite Therefore, Class 4 is to be used.

2. Select C1.

Deck thickness = 3” Total Slab thickness = 6” Therefore, C1 = 0.449

3. Select C2 and solve for acceptability.

C2 = 0.120 C1 + C2 = 0.449 + 0.120 = 0.569 > 0.5 Therefore, the elevated floor slab is unacceptable for vibration.

Check Original Design Check Deck.

3” Deck, 6” Total Slab, Light weight Concrete Assume regular office area. Max live load provided in drawings = 95 PSF Using the Vulcraft Manual, Clear Span (10’-6”) and Deck (20 Gauge):

• 103 PSF max superimposed live load [√ ok] • 43 PSF weight of deck


Check Beam. wd = 43 PSF wl = 95 PSF 1.2 (43) + 1.6 (95) = 203.6 PSF 203.6 (10.5’) = 2137.8 PLF Load on beam = 2.1378 KLF Mu = (wl2)/8 = (2.1378 x 352)/8 = 327.4‘ k Vu = (wl)/2 = (2.1378 x 35)/2 = 37.4 k Using W 18 x 40 from drawings, εQn = 0.8 x fy x As = 0.8 x 50 x 11.8 = 472 k Solve for b. b = l/4 = 8.75’ b = 10.5 due to spacing Therefore, b = 8.75’ = 105” Solve for a. a = εQn / (0.85 x fc x b) = 472 k/ ( 0.85 X 3.5 x 105) = 1.5” Solve for y2.

y2 = 6 – (a/2) = 6 – (1.5/2) = 5.25” Assume y1 = 0. Φ Mn = 550’ k ≥ Mu = 327.4’ k [√ ok] Check Girder. P1 = P2 = wl/2 = (2.1378 x 30)/ 2 = 32.1 k M = 32.1 x 10 = 321’ k [√ ok] Using a W24x55 will work because max M = 506’k from LRFD. Check Column. Using W 12x72 and L=15’ Ag = 21.1 in^2, ry = 3.04”, rx= 5.32” from LRFD Assume ends are pinned and column is braced at mid height for y-y axis. klx/rx = [1.0 (15’ x 12”/FT)]/ 5.32 = 33.8 kly/ry = [1.0 (15’/2 x 12”/FT)]/3.04 = 29.6 klx/rx > kly/ry therefore buckles about x-x λc = (kl /r x π)( √(Fy/E)) = (33.8/ π) (√(50 ksi/29,000 ksi)) = 0.447 Since λc < 1.5, ΦcPn = Φc x Fcr x Ag = (0.85)(0.658 ^(0.4472))(50)(21.1) = 824.8 k ΦcPn = 694 k from LRFD, therefore it buckles about x-x axis ΦcPn = 824.8 k [√ ok]


Re-Design of the Elevated Slab Option 1: Concrete Weight – Normal Weight Steel Frame Type – Rolled Beams/Girders Construction Type – Composite Deck Type – Composite Therefore, Class 3. C1 = 0.343 C2 = 0.102 C1 + C2 ≤ 0.5 Therefore, this is acceptable for vibration. Check Deck.

3” Deck, 6” Total Slab, Normal Weight Concrete Assume regular office area. Max live load provided in drawings = 95 PSF Using the Vulcraft Manual, Clear Span (10’-6”) and Deck (20 Gauge):


Check Beam. wd = 57 PSF wl = 95 PSF 1.2 (57) + 1.6 (95) = 220.4 PSF 220.4 (10.5’) = 2314.2 PLF Load on beam = 2.3142 KLF Mu = (wl2)/8 = (2.3142 x 352)/8 = 354.4‘ k Vu = (wl)/2 = (2.3142 x 35)/2 = 40.5’k Using W 18 x 40 from drawings, εQn = 0.8 x fy x As = 0.8 x 50 x 11.8 = 472 k Solve for b. b = l/4 = 8.75’ b = 10.5 due to spacing Therefore, b = 8.75’ = 105” Solve for a. a = εQn / (0.85 x fc x b) = 472 k/ ( 0.85 X 3.5 x 105) = 1.5” Solve for y2.

y2 = 6 – (a/2) = 6 – (1.5/2) = 5.25” Assume y1 = 0. Φ Mn = 550’ k ≥ Mu = 354.4’ k [√ ok]


Check Girder. P1 = P2 = wl/2 = (2.3142 x 30)/ 2 = 40.5 k M = 40.5 x 10 = 405’ k [√ ok] Using a W24x55 will work because max M = 506’k from LRFD. Check Column. Using W 12x72 and L=15’ Ag = 21.1 in^2, ry = 3.04”, rx= 5.32” from LRFD Assume ends are pinned and column is braced at mid height for y-y axis. klx/rx = [1.0 (15’ x 12”/FT)]/ 5.32 = 33.8 kly/ry = [1.0 (15’/2 x 12”/FT)]/3.04 = 29.6 klx/rx > kly/ry therefore buckles about x-x λc = (kl /r x π)( √(Fy/E)) = (33.8/ π) (√(50 ksi/29,000 ksi)) = 0.447 Since λc < 1.5, ΦcPn = Φc x Fcr x Ag = (0.85)(0.658 ^(0.4472))(50)(21.1) = 824.8 k ΦcPn = 694 k from LRFD, therefore it buckles about x-x axis ΦcPn = 824.8 k [√ ok] Option 2: Concrete Weight – Light Weight Steel Frame Type – Rolled Beams/Girders Construction Type – Composite Deck Type – Composite Therefore, Class 4. C1 = 0.367 C2 = 0.120 C1 + C2 ≤ 0.5 Therefore, this is acceptable for vibration. Check Deck.

2” Deck, 6.25” Total Slab, Light weight Concrete Assume regular office area. Max live load provided in drawings = 95 PSF Using the Vulcraft Manual, Clear Span (10’-6”) and Deck (20 Gauge):



Check Beam. wd = 51 PSF wl = 95 PSF 1.2 (51) + 1.6 (95) = 213.2 PSF 213.2 (10.5’) = 2238.6 PLF Load on beam = 2.2386 KLF Mu = (wl2)/8 = (2.2386 x 352)/8 = 342.8‘ k Vu = (wl)/2 = (2.2386 x 35)/2 = 39.2 k Using W 18 x 40 from drawings, εQn = 0.8 x fy x As = 0.8 x 50 x 11.8 = 472 k Solve for b. b = l/4 = 8.75’ b = 10.5 due to spacing Therefore, b = 8.75’ = 105” Solve for a. a = εQn / (0.85 x fc x b) = 472 k/ ( 0.85 X 3.5 x 105) = 1.5” Solve for y2.

y2 = 6 – (a/2) = 6 – (1.5/2) = 5.25” Assume y1 = 0. Φ Mn = 550’ k ≥ Mu = 342.8’ k [√ ok] Check Girder. P1 = P2 = wl/2 = (2.2386 x 30)/ 2 = 39.2 k M = 39.2 x 10 = 392’ k [√ ok] Using a W24x55 will work because max M = 506’k from LRFD. Check Column. Using W 12x72 and L=15’ Ag = 21.1 in^2, ry = 3.04”, rx= 5.32” from LRFD Assume ends are pinned and column is braced at mid height for y-y axis. klx/rx = [1.0 (15’ x 12”/FT)]/ 5.32 = 33.8 kly/ry = [1.0 (15’/2 x 12”/FT)]/3.04 = 29.6 klx/rx > kly/ry therefore buckles about x-x λc = (kl /r x π)( √(Fy/E)) = (33.8/ π) (√(50 ksi/29,000 ksi)) = 0.447 Since λc < 1.5, ΦcPn = Φc x Fcr x Ag = (0.85)(0.658 ^(0.4472))(50)(21.1) = 824.8 k ΦcPn = 694 k from LRFD, therefore it buckles about x-x axis ΦcPn = 824.8 k [√ ok]


Appendix F: HAP Results

191 National Business Park - Pennsylvania State …...• Fire Protection: NFPA 13 System Design Wet...

Documents

Transcript of 191 National Business Park - Pennsylvania State …...• Fire Protection: NFPA 13 System Design Wet...