Illinois Association of Highway Engineers The 83rd IAHE ...€¦ · from the “Gold Mine” of...

from the “Gold Mine” of Smaller Transportation Projects

Illinois Association of Highway Engineers The 83rd IAHE Statewide Annual Conference

Rock Island, Illinois

Technical Session PresentationBy Warren Knoles, PE, CVS

September 13, 2019

Mining “VE Gold”…

• Introduction

• Project

• Process

• Results

• Conclusions

Outline

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjg_pa2_qDkAhWxFjQIHewsDmoQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Di%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dimages%26cd%3D%26ved%3D%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.theconf.com%252Fregister%252F2019%252520Conference%252520Program.pdf%26psig%3DAOvVaw0N3mI1U83An3fvZmp93CWw%26ust%3D1566923026502729&psig=AOvVaw0N3mI1U83An3fvZmp93CWw&ust=1566923026502729

• FHWA VE eligibility thresholds doubled in FY 2014

• Reason: align with Moving Ahead for Progress (MAP-21) legislation

Introduction


• Pre-MAP-21 legislation VE thresholds1

• Roadway projects: $25 million• Bridge projects: $20 million

• Post-FY 2014 VE thresholds1

• Roadway project: $50 million• Bridge projects: $40 million

Introduction


• Result2

FY05-14 FY15-17FHWA Metric Avg. (10 yrs.) Avg. (3 yrs.) Change Change %VE studies/ year 330 164 (-) 166 (-) 50%

Approved VEPs/yr. 1151 573 (-) 578 (-) 50%

Approved VE savings/yr. $1.718B $917M (-) $801M (-) 47%

• Annual state-DOT VE savings nearly cut in half

Introduction


• Some states: FHWA-mandated VE studies now very infrequent/rare

• Other states:• Kept the original VE thresholds, or• Select projects with VE potential regardless of size

• One example state: Missouri – MoDOT has continued VE studies on smaller projects

Introduction


• Today’s presentation: example MoDOT VE study3:

• US 54 & BU 54/Rte. W Interchange near Lake Ozark, MO

• Substantial VE savings & performance/value improvement

• Affirms benefit of VE studies on smaller projects

Introduction


How big was the largest gold nugget ever found?

Introduction


• The largest gold nugget ever found4

Introduction

“Welcome Stranger”

DUNOLLY MUSEUM


• The largest gold nugget ever found4

Introduction

Name: the “Welcome Stranger”

Location: Moliagul, Victoria, Australia

Date of discovery: 1869

Weight: 72kg (160 lb)

Today’s value: $3+ Million

Replica of the Welcome Stranger Nugget


Projects > $50 Million

Introduction

“VE Gold” from Larger Projects

Kalgoorlie open-pit mine, Australia*

*Image courtesy of Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines. www.mining.com

FHWA Avg. % savings 5.70% x $50M = $2.85M


http://www.mining.com/

VEGoldMine

VE Gold

Projects < $50 Million

Introduction

Premise of presentation:

“VE gold” can be mined from the “gold mine” of smaller

transportation projectsSmaller

DOT Projects


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwix3KKp9IbfAhXMyoMKHQ-4CSUQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https://www.istockphoto.com/illustrations/gold-mining&psig=AOvVaw2ttHFGIj3lRFBoOMvkjZm-&ust=1544038084086039

http://iplusbit.blogspot.se/2014/09/microsoft-onedrive.html

The Project

Project Location

Lake of the Ozarks

Lake Ozark, MO


The Project

Project Setting

Exist. SignalizedIntersection

Scope: Replace signalized intersection

Purpose & Need:o Reduce congestiono Reduce accidents

Interchange types considered: 12

Selected interchange type:o Hybrido Folded diamondo Diamondo Slip ramp


The Project

Ramp 1

Ramp 3

Ramp 4Ramp 2

BU 54

US 54

Rte. W

Connector RoadUnder US 54

Osage HillsRoad

Compressed Median &

New Bridge

Exist. Signalized Intersection

Baseline Design Concept – Geometric Plan

Osage Hills Golf Course


The Project

Connector Road Profile – Extreme Terrain

Osage Hills Road


The Project

Ramp 1 Profile Ramp 3 Profile

Ramp Profiles – Extreme Terrain


• Traffic

The Project

US 54AADT (2020) 28,155

AADT (2040) 33,035

Peak traffic during tourist season (June-August)


• Cost Estimate

The Project

Construction $11.156 M

Land Acquisition $ 0.996 M

TOTAL $12.152 M


The Process

• Design Stage:

o End of concept design/beginning of preliminary design

oPublic acceptance of baseline concept

• Workshop Scope:

oAnalyze interchange functional/cost components

o Focus on extensive earthwork & drainage east of US 54


The Process

• Workshop Constraints:

o Interchange location: existing signalized intersection

o Interchange type: open to alternative concepts

oProvide full interchange (“look & feel like an interchange”)

oMaintain access to Route W intersection during construction

oMaintain access to existing businesses during construction

oMaintain four lanes of traffic on US 54


The Process

• Workshop Goals & Objectives:

oDevelop 4-5 feasible VE proposals

oReduce project cost by 4-5% ($486K-$607K)


The Process

• Workshop Team:o 8 MoDOT engineers (traffic, geometrics, structures, maintenance, utilities, costs)

o 1 MoDOT geologist (geotechnical)

o 1 FHWA engineer (highway & bridge design, FHWA policies)

o VE facilitator (SAVE-certified)

o Two engineers from another MoDOT district – observers on 2nd day

o TOTAL: 10 + facilitator


The Process

• Performance Criteria Wt. (%)oMainline/ramp operations (LOS) 19o Local traffic operations (LOS) 14oHighway user safety 26o Traffic operations during construction 10o Long-term performance/maintainability 14oGeotechnical stability 5oAccess during construction 12

TOTAL 100

• Paired-pair comparison methodology used for weighting criteria


The Process

• Job Plan – VE methodology5

o Information phase

o Function analysis phase

oCreative phase

o Evaluation phase

oDevelopment phase

oPresentation phase


Process

Value = Function = PerformanceCost Cost

Value Engineering – The Basics


Process

PAVE Workshop objective:

• improve project value by…

• identifying alternative ways to reliably accomplish a function that…

• meet the performance expectations of the owner.



Process

VALUE can be increased by:

• Improving performance of a function at the same cost, or

• Providing equivalent function at a lower cost

• Improving performance of a function and at a lower cost



Process

The value methodology does this.

This case study demonstrates how.



The Process

• Information Phase Pre-workshop project information

package

Pre-workshop site visit

Site visit travel routeand planned stops


The Process

• Information Phase

oProject presentation at workshop

• Baseline concept interchange

• Baseline bridge concept

• Baseline concept phasing plan

• Design team Q&A

Workshop project presentation


The Process


oKey question to design team:

“Why is the median being compressed to provide a single bridge over the proposed Connector Road?”



The Process


oAnswer:

“To provide an EB, first-stage bridge deck wide enough to accommodate 2 lanes in head-to-head operation during construction of the new WB lane and bridge.”

This answer will later lead to a significant value improvement.



The Process


Cost Model – by Cost Item

Cost-Item Distribution

Earthwork & drainage 48%Bridge 21%PCC pavement 17%

TOTAL 86%

Earthwork & Drainage

Bridge

PCC Pavement


The Process


Cost Model – by Cost Location

Cost-Location Distribution

Ramp 3 25%US 54 E 22%Connector Road 20%Ramp 1 16%

TOTAL 83%

Ramp 1 & Ramp 3 = 41%

Ramp 3

US 54 E

Connector Road

Ramp 1


The Process

• Function Analysis PhaseoCost-item value targets from cost model

A PavementsB BridgeC R/W AcquisitionD Drainage/CulvertsE EarthworkF Misc. Items (barrier wall) F Misc. Items (pavement removals)G InterchangeH Intersections

oDefine functions


The Process

• Function Analysis Phaseo Function Definition = Active verb & measurable noun

Bridge & R/W Acquisition Interchange


The Process

Function (Function Analysis System Technique – FAST) DiagrammingDiagramming

Bridge FAST Diagram Team

Interchange FAST Diagram Team


The Process

• Function (FAST) Diagrams


The Process

• Creative Phase

oCreative ideas brainstormed by value target

o First individually, then as a team

o Ideas recorded on flip charts for each value target

Individual brainstorming

Team brainstorming


The Process

• Evaluation Phaseo Team classified ideas using 9-cell matrix

oPotential VE opportunities:• 4 rating = same functionality; decreased cost• 4 rating = increased functionality; same cost• 5 rating = increased functionality; decreased cost

oPotential “practical design” alternatives:• 2- rating = decreased functionality; decreased cost

oPotential internally funded performance increase

• 2+ rating = increased performance; increased cost

9-Cell Matrix Methodology6


The Process

• Evaluation Phaseo Idea rated against each performance

criterion using 1-9 scale. Baseline design rated a “5” for each criterion.

o Top-rated, most-promising ideas selected for further development.

Team evaluation of ideas


The Process

• Development Phaseo Team developed 8 VE proposals

oRecorded on development worksheets• Function addressed• Original and proposed concepts• Cost impacts• Advantages/challenges• Cost calculations• Sketches (where applicable)

Team development of VE proposals


The Process

• Development Phase

oDetermined the value index for each VE proposal write-up as follows:

• Value Index = Performance = Perf. Rating Cost Revised Cost

• Baseline value index = 500/$12.152M = 41.1 (Perf. Pts./$Million)

• Improve value: increase numerator, decrease denominator, or both


The Process


oDetermined the value index (VI) change in per cent for each idea compared to the baseline value index.

o∆ VI % = Idea Value Index (–) BL Value Index x 100BL Value Index

oPrioritized VE proposal write-ups in order of value index %-change.


The Process


o Team developed five packages of individual VE proposals

oValue index computed for each package

• Presentation Phase

oWorkshop summary presented to MoDOT senior officials one week following workshop


Results

• Creative ideas: 42

• VE proposals: 8

• Accepted VE proposals (MoDOT preferred package): 5

• Accepted VE savings: $2.85 million (23% of construction cost)

• Performance change: 606/500 = +21%

• Value impact (VE VI/BL VI): 69.1/44.1 = +68%


Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept

Baseline Design Concept Preferred VE Design Concept


Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept

Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR Access Crossroad

Connect Roadways

How? Why?

Functions addressed:


Results


Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR


Results


Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left

shoulder [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

Functions addressed: Access Crossroad, Connect Roadways


Results



shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR


Results

• Preferred VE Design Concept Summary of VE design concept Ramp 1 - diamond configuration [VE] Ramp 2 - slip ramp [BL] Ramp 3 - compressed diamond/C&G on left

shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

Increase Throughput

Manage Traffic

Alternate Movements

Stop Traffic

Accomm. Free-flow

Slow Traffic

MergeMovements

Functions addressed: BL

VE

How?Why?

Display Directive

Increase Curvature


Results



shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

AccommodateSpeed-change

Separate Traffic

Channelize Traffic

Slow Traffic

IncreaseCurvature

Functions addressed: BL

VE

How? Why?


Results



shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

Functions addressed: BLMaintain

TrafficIncrease

[Bridge] WidthCompress Median

BypassBridge

Re-route TrafficVE

Why?How?


Results



shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

2-lane Bypass RampFunctions addressed: maintain traffic/bypass bridge


Results



shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M] Single-span 100’-long bridges with MSE walls [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

Functions addressed: ▪ BL – Span Embankment▪ VE – Retain Embankment


Results



shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M] Single-span 100’-long bridges with MSE walls [VE] No US 54 super adjustment to 70 mph [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

Functions addressed: ▪ BL – Increase Speed/Increase Super ▪ VE – Functions not in purpose & need


Results



shoulder [VE] Ramp 4 - diamond configuration [BL] Roundabout at R1, R3, Osage Hills Road (OHR) [VE] No TWLTL on Connector Road (CR) [VE] Retain 60’ median/separate EB & WB bridges [VE] Maintain 2 lanes EB via temp. bypass ramp [VE-M] Single-span 100’-long bridges with MSE walls [VE] No US 54 super adjustment to 70 mph [VE]

R1

R4R2

R3

OHR

CR

2-lane Bypass Ramp


Results

Preferred VE Design Concept – Geometric Plan

Potential Future Quarry

Fiber Optic Control Box


Conclusions

Traditional design + VE study = optimum design

TRADITIONAL DESIGN

BaselineDesign Report

PS&E

VE STUDY

AcceptedVE Proposals

OPTIMUM DESIGN

Best Value

Conclusions


Conclusions

• This project demonstrates the potential benefit of conducting VE studies on smaller transportation projects.

• The national-average VE-study yield (in terms of percent of construction cost) for state DOTs during FY 2015-2017 was: 5.70%.


Conclusions

• The average VE-study $savings for a $50 million project (the new FHWA threshold) would be: 5.70% x $50M = $2.85 million.


Conclusions

• The average VE-study $savings for a $50 million project (the new FHWA threshold) would be: 5.70% x $50M = $2.85 million.

• The VE-study $savings for this $12 million project were that same amount: 23.4% x $12.152M = $2.85 million.


Conclusions

• This size VE-study yield is not unique.

• Three other CMT VE studies of similar size with similar savings:

Project Description Agency Proj. Cost VE Savings PercentRte. 210 Widening MoDOT $11 million $1.4 million 12.7%I-435/Rte. 210 Interchange MoDOT $12 million $2.3 million 19.1%US 421 Reconstruction INDOT $11 million $4.9 million 46.2%


Conclusions

• If appropriate selection criteria are used, such as:• Complex geometry• Complex phasing/traffic control• Extreme terrain• Extreme site constraints• Complex structures• Need for retaining walls• Complex drainage, etc.

• Most DOT programs contain a “gold mine” of VE savings that can be “mined” through scaled VE studies conducted on smaller projects.

VEGoldMineSmaller

DOTProjects



Conclusions

• Ten VE studies of similar VE-savings yield wouldstretch DOT program dollars by:

10 VE studies @ $2.85M VE Savings= $28.5 Million, or

2 VE studies @ $40M project x 9.0% = $7.2M VE Savings4 VE studies @ $25M project x 12.0% = $12.0M VE Savings4 VE Studies @ $15M project x 15.5% = $9.3M VE Savings10 VE Studies = $28.5M VE Savings

VEGoldMineSmaller

DOT Projects



• VE studies on smaller transportation projects ($10M-$49M) can stretch DOT program dollars with:

“VE GOLD”

Conclusions

VE Team

VEGoldMineSmaller

DOT Projects

DOT Program Dollars

VE Gold



http://iplusbit.blogspot.se/2014/09/microsoft-onedrive.html

1. “Value Engineering Final Rule,” 2019, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/vefaq.cfm.

2. Johnston, Julie, “Federal-aid Value Engineering Summary Reports,”2018, FHWA, https://fhwa.dot.gov/ve/vereport.cfm.

3. O’Shea, Johnny, 2019, BBC News Online, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-englenc-cornwall-47041314, “Welcome Stranger: World’s Largest Gold Nugget Remembered,”2.

4. Knoles, Warren, 2018, Value Engineering Study Report – US 54 & BU/Route W Interchange, 10.

5. USDOT/FHWA, 1988, NHI Course No. 13405, Value Engineering for Highways, A-10.

6. Adams, Ginger, 2008, Module I Basic Certification Training Workshop Workbook, 125.

References


https://fhwa.dot.gov/ve/vereport

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-englenc-cornwall-47041314

QUESTIONS?

Warren Knoles, PE, CVS

217.725.4567 [email protected]

THANK YOU. Thank You..

Mining “VE Gold”

Questions?VE

GoldMineSmaller

DOT Projects



Illinois Association of Highway Engineers The 83rd IAHE ...€¦ · from the “Gold Mine” of...

Documents

Transcript of Illinois Association of Highway Engineers The 83rd IAHE ...€¦ · from the “Gold Mine” of...