THE KATZEN ARTS CENTER - Pennsylvania State University Post... · The Katzen Arts Center will...

THE KATZEN ARTS CENTER

WASHINGTON, DC

Jessica Potkovick Construction Management Option Professor Michael Horman The Katzen Arts Center

Table of Contents

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………2 Project Delivery System………………………………………………………………………….3 Organizational Chart……………………………………………………………………….5 Project Schedule Summary………………………………………………………………………6 Project Schedule……………………………………………………………………………9 Building Systems Summary…………………………………………………………………….10 Project Cost Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………11 Site Plan of Existing Conditions (Summary)…………………………………………………. 15 Site Plans………………………………………………………………………………….17 Local Conditions………………………………………………………………………………...21 Client Information………………………………………………………………………………25 Appendices:

Appendix A: Vicinity Map Appendix B: Boring Plan Appendix C: R.S. Means Square Foot Information Appendix D: D4 Cost Backup

2

Jessica Potkovick Construction Management Option Professor Michael Horman The Katzen Arts Center Washington, DC October 4, 2004 Existing Construction Conditions Executive Summary: The Katzen Arts Center will function as an academic building, performance center, and art gallery in addition to being the new gateway and focal point of American University. American University elected to use a CM at Risk project delivery method with a Cost plus Fee contract. The Construction Manager’s early involvement and construction knowledge allow for schedule, budget, and constructability issues to be resolved prior to construction start. This delivery method also provides a smooth transition into the purchasing and construction phase. The project schedule is designed around the building size and components. Multiple activities can occur at the same time within different components and on separate levels because of the large building footprint. Results of the building cost estimation indicate that this building is not ordinary. The high level of quality and “extra” features such as the cascading water feature, sculpture garden, plaza, etc. increase the building cost. The project site evolves with each phase of construction and allows multiple trades to work within close quarters of one another. Understanding the project location, site, and building design has allowed the construction team to currently meet the Owner’s needs.


3

Project Delivery System American University selected Holder Construction Company to manage the construction of The Katzen Arts Center using the “Construction Manager at Risk” approach. This approach has a major advantage over others as it allows for a team environment and early Construction Manager influence on the project. With the team environment the Construction Manager gets involved early in the schematic design phase and assists and guides the Owner on how to achieve their final product without going over budget. In the early schematic and design development phases the construction manager can assist the Owner with their construction knowledge and design support. This support includes schedule, budgetary, and constructability advice. This initial support given by the Construction Manager allows for a smoother progression into the purchasing and construction phases. Early involvement benefits the purchasing phase due to the Construction Manager’s large knowledge base of the project and understanding of scope detail and possible unforeseen conditions. In addition, the construction phase requires less effort because the Construction Manager has had the opportunity to work out constructability issues as they arose during the design phase preventing them from coming up in the field. Eliminating field issues prior to construction prevents change orders and in return requires less documentation control by the field staff. This allows the project team to focus on the overall outcome of the project as opposed to field engineering issues. Overall, the CM at Risk approach is beneficial because it allows the Construction Manager to become involved when strategic project decisions are implemented. It also allows them to analyze the design for a constructability issues and offer solutions to keep the Owner within his budgetary limits. With the knowledge the Construction Manager has of the project and the majority of the issues resolved, bidding and construction can occur with fewer questions and constructabilility problems leading to a smoother construction schedule, less changes to the contract, and an overall better outcome. Contracts and Delivery System Risk Holder’s contract with American University is the Standard AIA Document A131 or the Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Construction Manager where the Construction Manager is also the Constructor, and where the basis of payment is the cost of work plus fee and there is no guarantee of cost. With this contract Holder will receive a guaranteed fee on top of the overall project cost.


4

Project Delivery System (cont.)

This contract document also works with a GMP contract, however there are many differences. With a GMP the contract price is fixed and cannot be evaluated by the Owner. In addition, with a GMP the fee is not known by the Owner. With the cost of work plus fee, a control estimate is kept current for periodic review by the Owner and the fee is known. Omissions in the contract by the Contraction Manager are part of the risk with a GMP contract. In the case of an omission or error the Construction Manager may have to cover the cost. This is where risk is involved; if the project is managed well there is an opportunity to receive a higher fee; if not cost incurred will be taken out of the fee. The fee received for a cost plus fee is less than that of a GMP, but there is less risk because it is guaranteed. Another area of risk with the CM at Risk delivery method is in dealing with the subcontractors. As dictated by the Owner contract, all subcontracts are to be lump sum. Holder held a competitive bid for subcontractors that were pre-approved by American University. Once the bids were received from the subcontractors, they were evaluated and the lowest competitive bid was selected for each trade. Holder signed contracts with each of the subcontractors and then used the contract values to create a control estimate for the project. There is risk involved if one of the subcontractors defaults later in the project. Holder has already selected the lowest bid and used that amount to create the estimate. If the next bid is relatively higher than the original subcontractor who defaulted, Holder will have to account for that additional cost. Evaluation The delivery system selected by American University was a wise choice in my opinion. Hiring a Construction Manager allows American University the benefit of having a team of construction-minded people constantly evaluating the project from start to completion. By hiring Holder Construction Company early they reduce the number of constructability issues encountered later in the project and are able to assist American University in keeping within the schedule and budgetary limits that have been set for the project.

Key Contacts:

Holder Construction Company: David Hyde – Project Manager [email protected]

American University: Jerry Gager [email protected] Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architects & Engineers Eric Peterson – Project Architect

(202) 471-5000

5

Project Organizational Chart The Katzen Arts Center

Holder Construction Company(Construction Manager)

Einhorn Yaffee Prescott(Architect/Engineer)

Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc.

(Landscaping/Irrigation)

Rugo & Carosi, LLC (Stone Cladding)

Shapiro and Duncan(Mechanical)

Miller and Long Concrete Construction

(Cast in Place Concrete)

Goldin & Stafford (Demolition/Earthwork/Asbestos

Abatement/Site Utilities)

Primo Electric (Electrical)

Chesapeake Sprinkler Company(Fire Protection)

Alpha Corporation(Civil Consultant)

Fisher Dachs Associates(Theatre Consultant)

Cagley & Associates(Structural Consultant)

Miller, Bean, & Paganell, Inc.(AV & Acoustic Consultant)

Claude R. Engel(Lighting Consultant)

Schnabel(Geotechnical Consultants)

EDAW, Inc.(Landscaping Consultant)

Gordon Contractors, Inc.(Roofing/Waterproofing)

Parkinson Construction Co. (Masonry)

Vienna Glass Company(Glass & Glazing)

Milestone Tarant, LLC (Structural Steel & Misc. Steel)

C.J. Coakley (Drywall/Acoustical Wall Panels)

CM @ Risk with Standard AIA Document 131 (Cost

of Work Plus Fee)

Lump Sum Bid

Unknown

Unknown

American University(Owner)


6

Project Schedule Summary Demolition Prior to the start of construction at The Katzen Arts Center, the existing buildings on site had to be demolished. The site consisted of a two-story building with a basement and associated annex, and a pool house that was used by the Corps of Engineers until it was given to American University in the 1950’s. Upon receiving the site, the University turned it into a recreation center. Asbestos was found during site discovery and had to be removed by HazMat, a specialty contractor, who was sent in to do the abatement before the site was razed. Sitework Sitework mobilized in May of 2003 when preparation for excavation began. The water table was located at EL 375.5 to EL 378, which is approximately 28 feet above the lowest floor level at EL 350. Prior to excavation a dewatering system had to be installed. Dewatering was laid out and wells were drilled and capped. Following dewatering layout, the building footprint was laid out for excavation. The excavation was supported by sheeting and shoring. H-piles were driven in 8’-0” on center and after every 5’-0” of excavation lagging boards were installed. Later tiebacks were drilled back 60’-0” and grouted into the wall. Excavation began at “component” or Zone C (Refer to the Illustration 1) and progressed west towards Zone A. Excavation was postponed in Zone D because the adjacent residential property could not be disturbed by tiebacks. The field team was faced with the challenge of keeping on schedule and finding some way to support the excavation in Zone D without disturbing the residential property. They came up with an innovative solution to excavate through Zone A and postpone Zone D until the structure in Zones C, B, and A was completed. Once the structure in all three zones (A, B, and C) was under way, they excavated Zone D and braced the shoring on the existing structure. By constructing a portion of the structure they were able to use the building to support the excavation and prevent any disturbance to the adjacent property. Illustration 1: Building Components


7

Project Schedule Summary (cont.) Structure Construction of the structure was completed by zone and by floor level. There are three levels of underground parking and three above ground “functional” levels. The levels are divided into vertical zones A, B, C, and D going from north to south, respectively. Parking Level 3 (P3) is on grade and continues through Zones A and B. P2 is on grade in Zone C, and Zone D consists of deep foundations (caissons) and no underground parking. The drilled caissons range from 3’-0” to 4’-6” in diameter and typical footing sizes from 5’-6”x5’-6”x25” to 6’-6”x6’-6”x31”. Slab on grade is 5” with 6x6 W2.0xW2.0 and no more than 5,000 SF of concrete can be poured in one day due to hourly restriction on site use.

Foundations, cast-in–place columns, and cast-in-place exterior walls began in Zone C, Parking Level 2 once excavation was complete and supported in Zone C. Once Zone C, P2 was completed, they continued up from P1 to the roof and began construction in Zone B, P3. Again, once the first level of columns and exterior walls were in place in Zone B, P3 work continued up and construction began on Zone A, P3 and so on. As stated above, work did not begin on Zone D until the structure in Zones A, B, and C was completed. To create this masterpiece of cast-in-place concrete much care was taken. A large amount of the exterior concrete is to remain exposed and the finished product needs to show as little surface defects as possible. No more than 24” of concrete could be poured in a vertical layer and no layer was allowed to set prior to the next being placed. Plywood forms were used and coated with a release agent so that there is was no struggle when removing the formwork. Enclosure The skin will follow the same construction schedule as the structure; moving from Zones C, B, A, and lastly D. The skin will progress from ground level up, and hoists will be used as needed. This generally means installing the masonry and then limestone and precast. In addition, the roofing is completed along with the installation of skylights and glass. Multiple roofing systems are being installed at the project, such as hot fluid applied roofing, sheet metal roofing, and a green roof system. The green roofing system consists of applying hot fluid-applied, rubberized asphalt to the roof, a combination of root barrier and membrane protection sheet, drainage and moisture protection board over the root barrier and membrane protection, and lastly a filter mat and soil. Interior Interior work will begin shortly after the skin begins. The overhead electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems will be installed first followed installation of MEP equipment, interior partitions, and finishes.


8

Project Schedule Summary (cont.)

Completion Zone C should be complete by the end of this year, zone B in February 2005, and zones A and D in the spring. To complete the project multiple crews are working in multiple zones and floors simultaneously. The project will be complete in Spring of 2005. Evaluation The construction procedure makes sense for the project because of the large footprint area (670’-0” x 120’-0”). Once one phase of the project, such as excavation, structure, etc. is completed in one zone they progress with the next phase. It is not logical to complete the entire excavation phase and then move on towards structure when the area is large enough to accommodate multiple trades.

The Katzen Arts CenterActivity ID

Activity Name Start Finish Schedule %Complete

A1000 Preconstruction-Design/Budget 22-Feb-02 15-Jul-03 100%A1020 Site Preparation/Demolition 06-May-02 21-Nov-02 100%A1030 Trade Procurement 10-Sep-02 15-Oct-03 100%A1040 Permits 18-Nov-02 21-Oct-03 100%A1010 Mobilization 01-May-03 01-May-03 100%A1050 Sitework 01-May-03 01-Feb-05 81.05%A1060 Power 13-May-03 22-Nov-04 91%A1070 Structure - Area C 15-Dec-03 16-Jun-04 100%A1080 Structure - Area B 22-Jan-04 11-Jun-04 100%A1110 Exterior - Area C 15-Mar-04 03-Sep-04 100%A1090 Structure - Area A 22-Mar-04 14-Oct-04 93.96%A1240 Interior - Area C Parking 15-Apr-04 29-Dec-04 65.95%A1120 Exterior - Area B 03-May-04 20-Aug-04 100%A1230 Interior - Area C 18-May-04 19-Jan-05 55.93%A1250 Interior - Area B Parking 19-May-04 01-Feb-05 52.97%A1220 Interior - Area B 14-Jun-04 15-Feb-05 45.2%A1260 Interior- Area A Parking 14-Jun-04 17-Dec-04 59.26%A1130 Exterior - Area A 21-Jun-04 29-Sep-04 100%A1200 Interior - Area A 05-Aug-04 18-Mar-05 25.93%A1160 Commissioning 31-Aug-04 18-Feb-05 19.35%A1100 Structure - Area D 13-Sep-04 01-Dec-04 25.86%A1140 Exterior - Area D 10-Nov-04 15-Dec-04 0%A1210 Interior - Area D 10-Nov-04 13-Apr-05 0%A1150 Performance - Tech. Installation 20-Dec-04 06-May-05 0%A1170 Close-Out 14-Jan-05 24-Mar-05 0%A1190 Substantial Completion 16-Mar-05 16-Mar-05 0%A1180 Final Completion 24-Mar-05 24-Mar-05 0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q12002 2003 2004 2005 2006 07

Preconstruction-Design/BudgetSite Preparation/Demolition

Trade ProcurementPermits

MobilizationSitework

PowerStructure - Area CStructure - Area B

Exterior - Area CStructure - Area A

Interior - Area C ParkingExterior - Area B

Interior - Area CInterior - Area B ParkingInterior - Area B

Interior- Area A ParkingExterior - Area A

Interior - Area ACommissioning

Structure - Area DExterior - Area D

Interior - Area DPerformance - Tech. Installation

Close-OutSubstantial CompletionFinal Completion

Remaining WorkCritical Remaining WorkMilestone

© Primavera Systems, Inc. Page 1 of 1


10

Building Systems Summary Demolition:

Asbestos Abatement Cassell Building – Two-Story Metal Building and Basement Annex – Metal Building Pool House and Swimming Pool Asphalt and Concrete Walks Shed and Fuel Tank

Cast in Place Concrete:

Plywood Formwork (For both a Smooth and Rough Finish) Placed by Pump and by Bucket

Precast Concrete (Exterior Veneer):

Cast in Midland, Virginia (1 to 1-1/2 hours away from the site) Cranes: (1) Liebherr 316 EC-H

(2) Pecco SK 200 Crane Locations: E27/D28, E13/D14, and E6/D7 (Refer to Structural Phase Site Plan)

Electrical System:

Switchboard: 3000A, 480-277V, 3Ø Transformer: 75kVA, 480-120/208V, 3Ø Panels: (1) 480/277V, 3Ø, 4W

(1) 120/208V, 3Ø, 4W Mechanical System:

Central Plant on P1 distributes out to Zones A, B, and C Location: Parking Level 1 and the Third Floor VAV System Fire Suppression: Dry-Pipe System (Parking Levels)

Wet-Pipe System (Academic and Performance Wings) Pre-Action Sprinkler System (Gallery Wing)

Masonry:

Ground Face CMU on North Wall Support of Excavation:

Sheeting and Shoring (Temporary System) TieBacks Dewatering System


11

Project Cost Evaluation * Note: Actual building costs are disclosed. Evaluation is based key components of the building. Overall Building Cost: $40.6 million Square Foot Cost: $123/SF R.S. Means Evaluation The Square Foot Estimate (R.S. Means, 2004) did not have an educational facility with three levels of underground parking, educational studios/classrooms, performance center, and gallery. Due to the fact that the building is multi-use I elected to find of the unit cost of an Underground Parking Garage and a 2-3 Story, College Classroom. Garage, Underground Parking Model: 2 Story Building 10’-0” Story Height 100,000 SF of Floor Area R.S. Means Square Foot Cost: $47.69/SF R.S. Means Overall Cost: $9,538,000 College, Classroom, 2-3 Story Model: 2 Story Building 12’-0” Story Height 50,000 SF of Floor Area R.S. Means Square Foot Cost: $106.07/SF R.S. Means Overall Cost: $ 13,787,800 R.S. Means Total (Underground Parking and College Classroom): $23,325,800 Difference: $17,274,200 Evaluation For the parking garage, my total square feet were greater than what was provided on the chart, so the highest was selected. This was a conservative approach because the greater the square feet the lower the unit cost. I adjusted the unit cost by adding an additional story and multiplying by the location factor (0.95). I am assuming that the above results fell in low based the required demolition, excavation support and dewatering that was required due to the soil conditions, and layout costs incurred because of the 47 arcs/radii in the design.


12

Project Cost Evaluation (cont.) In order to get the 130,000 SF for the College Classroom I interpolated on the chart to find my unit cost. Next, I adjusted the story height from 12’-0” to 14’-0” and multiplied by the location factor (0.95). Again, the resulting cost was quite low. The college classroom differs greatly in use and materials than the Katzen Arts Center. The Center is cast-in-place concrete, where as this facility was based on exterior walls of decorative concrete block and a steel frame with load-bearing walls. The unconventional cast-in-place concrete shape, specialty studios, performance center, green roof system, statue garden, water feature, and French veneer limestone may account for the difference.


13

Project Cost Evaluation (cont.)

D4 Cost Evaluation Using the D4Cost Estimating software I evaluated the database of existing projects and selected six projects to “SmartAverage”. My criterion for selecting projects was structure, type of project, and technology level. Due to the fact that The Katzen Arts center has multiple functions I selected a range of building types. The first project I selected was the Chester Street Parking Structure because it is a cast-in-place parking deck with some levels underground. The next two I selected were the KSU Visual Arts Classroom and Office and University Art building. The KSU Visual Arts building is a state of the art educational facility and consists of 3 components: a high-bay studio component, classroom component, and a dynamic circulation spine. The building structure was also cast-in-place concrete. The University Art Building was designed by Frank Gehry and includes classrooms, offices, studios, and an exhibition gallery. Although the structure was not concrete, I selected it due to the industrial architecture. The last three projects were factored in for the performance component of The Katzen Arts Center. The final results were adjusted for location and size; they are recorded in Table 1 as follows: D4 Project Cost: $37.7 million D4 Square Foot Cost: $114/SF Difference: $2.9 million Table 1: D4 Cost Estimate

Estimate of Probable Cost: D4Cost Division No. Division Percent Amount

0 Bidding Requirements 1.09 $410,089 1 General Requirements 7.59 $2,858,650 2 Site Work 7.69 $2,896,371 3 Concrete 19.17 $7,223,749 4 Masonry 6.17 $2,324,702 5 Metals 11.38 $4,288,885 6 Wood & Plastics 1.90 $714,272 7 Thermal & Moisture Protection 3.37 $1,268,583 8 Doors & Windows 5.44 $2,048,259 9 Finishes 7.27 $2,738,338 10 Specialties 0.59 $223,687 11 Equipment 3.65 $1,375,688 12 Furnishings 0.92 $347,514 13 Special Construction 0.00 $0 14 Conveying Systems 0.98 $368,934 15 Mechanical 13.98 $5,268,719 16 Electrical 8.81 $3,320,176

Total Building Cost: 100.00% $37,676,616


14

Project Cost Evaluation (cont.)

Evaluation The D4Cost Estimate came in at $2.9 million or 7.14% lower than the Overall Construction Cost. Without cost information it is difficult to evaluate where the difference is. However, zero percent of the building costs was associated with Special Construction in the D4Cost estimate, where as the project actually includes an Analog/Addressable Fire Alarm System with voice notification. In addition, Division 3 looks light considering that the building (330,000 SF) is made almost entirely of cast-in-place concrete.


15

Site Plan of Existing Conditions

The footprint of The Katzen Arts Center is approximately 670’ x 120’. The overall project site is 323,666 SF. It is on the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Nebraska Ave, near Ward Circle. To the northeast is a University Building: Nebraska Hall and to the north there is residential property. General Site Plan The General Site Plan shows the building orientation within its surroundings and the property limits and limits of construction as defined by the site fence. On the opposite side of Massachusetts Avenue, across from component C or the gallery area, is Kay Lot. Kay Lot is where Holder Construction’s field and conference trailers are located. Also in Kay Lot are the electrical and mechanical subcontractor’s trailers. To the east of Kay lot and across Wards Circle is a University owned parking lot where subcontractors are required to park. One hundred eighty spots have been reserved for use by the subcontractors. Holder Construction employees and the mechanical and electrical subcontractors park in Kay Lot next to their trailers The site access road surrounds the perimeter of the building. When necessary, flag men are used so that the road can be traveled in two directions. Main access gates are located on the south end of the site near the new entrance to the parking deck. Separate pedestrian travel does not exist; the site fence acts as a boundary to keep pedestrians out. Pedestrian are to use the sidewalks located on the roadways as they normally would. Existing utilities are depicted and run mostly along the perimeter of Massachusetts Avenue and 45th Street. Excavation Phase Excavation begins at component C and moves towards component A; component D is the last area to be excavated. An excavation ramp was located on the north side of the building. All excavated soils were removed from the site using the established access roads; the trucks exited at Nebraska or Massachusetts Avenue. Project fill was taken from excavation at area D and moved directly to locations where it was required. Structural Phase The structure also began at component C and moved towards component A, finishing with component D. Three cranes were set up along the south side of the building and concrete trucks pumped concrete from the southeast corner, parking garage entrance, and west side of the building near component D. Rebar was staged around the building.


16

Site Plan of Existing Conditions (cont.)

Enclosure Phase The enclosure follows the same path as the excavation and structure. Three hoists were used to raise people and materials vertically up the building. The concrete masonry units, precast panels, and limestone veneer was staged around the building. Finish Phase Finish materials are stored by the subcontractors or kept in temporary offices located in the parking garage. Materials are brought into the building using the parking garage entrance or loading dock.


21

Local Conditions

Market Conditions In Washington D.C. there is a constant flood of construction making the market for building exceptional. The Concrete International Journal describes Washington DC as “recession proof” due to the number of businesses with interests related to the government that are located there. Although, not all buildings in Washington DC are concrete, it is the preferred method of construction. In 1899 a height restriction was enacted by Congress stating that no private structure can extend higher than the monument or capital building. Again in 1910 a bill was passed limiting the height of buildings in the business district to 130 ft. These height restrictions make concrete the material of choice in order to optimize floor area. Existing Site Conditions The site is located on the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Nebraska Ave. in Northwest Washington, D.C. Previously, the site was occupied by an indoor swimming pool, a two-story metal building, and one-story masonry block building. At that point in time the existing grades were EL 397 at the south part of the site and EL 385 at the north. The east portion of the site was an access and parking area at EL 396 – EL 398. Refer to Appendix A: Vicinity Map for a visual of where the project is located in Washington, D.C. Boring Samples and Soil Classification Subsurface conditions were evaluated by using existing soil information from borings drilled in 1990 for the Washington College of Law on campus. In January of 2002 two additional borings were drilled. Boring locations can be found in Appendix B: Boring Plan. Boring Samples B-16 and B-17 are the two most recent samples. Test borings were completed using a 2-1/4 inch hollow stem auger. Standard penetration test were performed with a split sampling spoon driven with a 140 lb hammer, falling 30 inches. An initial six inches were penetrated to make sure the soil being tested is undisturbed and then the number of blows to get down 12 inches was recorded to determine in-place density of cohesionless soils. After the samples were recovered they were visually classified. Table 2 summarizes the boring sample results.


22

Local Conditions (cont.)

Table 2: Boring Sample Results

Boring Number

Boring Elevation

Boring Refusal Depth

Boring Refusal Elevation

(ft.) (ft.) (ft.)

Estimated Elevation where rock excavation methods

will be required

B-1 386 68.5 317.5 N/A B-2 389 50.0 339.0 N/A B-3 394 50.0 344.0 N/A

B-4R 385 37.0 348.0 N/A B-5 396 54.0 342.0 N/A B-6 395 48.5 346.5 350

B-7R 388 33.0 355.0 353 B-8 397 50.0 347.0 341 B-9 395 57.0 338.0 347 B-10 395 51.0 344.0 352 B-11 395 53.5 341.5 345 B-12 395 55.0 340.0 346 B-13 395 50.0 345.0 355 B-14 386 43.5 342.5 355 B-15 388 37.0 351.0 348 B-16 395 44.0 351.0 351 B-17 395 48.0 347.0 355

Soils encountered on site during test borings are classified as follows: Stratum A:

• Brown sandy silt sand FILL, silty sand FILL, clayey sand FILL, will asphalt, concrete, quartz, and gravel

• Below ground surface and pavement to 2.0 to 12.5 feet depth Stratum B:

• Brown clayey SAND (SC) and poorly graded SAND with clay and gravel (SC-SC) • Below pavement and Stratum A to 6.0 to 20.0 feet depth

Stratum C: • Brown and reddish brown sandy LEAN CLAY (CL ) and LEAN CLAY (CL), with sand;

stiff consistency • Below the ground surface and Stratum B to 3.5 to 17.0 feet depth


23

Local Conditions (cont.)

Stratum D:

• Yellowish brown, brown, and grayish white silty SAND (SM) and sandy SILT (ML), with lean clay layer; loose to compact density

• Below Strata A, B, and C to 13.0 to 34.0 feet depth Stratum E:

• Brown and gray silty SAND (SM), sandy SILT (ML) and LEAN CLAY (CL), with sand and quartz; loose to very compact density

• Below ground surface and Strata A, C, and D to 5.0 to 49.5 feet depth Stratum F:

• Grayish white and yellowish brown DISINTEGRATED ROCK; very compact density • Below Strata D and E to 38.1 to 59.7 feet depth

Ground water was encountered at EL 375.5 to EL 378. EL 378 is 28 feet above the lowest

floor level at EL 350. Engineer Recommendations Spread Footings Stratum F material is expected at the lowest excavation elevation and it is recommended that all spread footings bear on this. It was also recommended that spread footings located in less compact soils be lowered to the disintegrated rock. The bearing capacity of the soils below EL 350 and above EL 360 is 20,000 psf and 10,000 psf, respectively. Caissons Caissons can be designed for a bearing capacity of 35 tsf and should be at least 30” in diameter to provide adequate room for pumping of ground water. Floor Slabs Lower floor slabs should be supported on firm, natural soils of Stratum E or Stratum F. All soft soils near the slab should be removed prior to placement of underfloor gravel. The underfloor gravel should be a minimum of 6” in thickness and shall act as a moisture barrier. In addition, a permeable membrane should be placed on top of the gravel to prevent water from escaping the concrete when poured. Due to the location of groundwater it is recommended that a subdrainage system be installed below the slab. The subdrainage system should consist of 4” diameter corrugate polyethylene tubing that is placed at least 14 inches below the final floor grade. The pipe should be surrounded by 6” of filter material and wrapped in filter fabric to prevent infiltration by fines. Interior subdrainage lines should be placed at 75’ on center and exterior lines should be placed around the exterior walls.


24

Local Conditions (cont.) Earthwork All excavated soils with the exception of Stratum C are suitable backfill material. Stratum F is acceptable as long as it is broken down into pieces that are less than 4” in size. Excavation Support Using a sloped excavation is not feasible due to the size restrictions of the site. A sheeting system of H beams, wood lagging, and tiebacks should be used. Soldier beams should penetrate to refusal or 5’ below the lowest excavation level. Dewatering Well points should be installed along with sump pits and pumping due to the height of the water table and type of groundwater (perched and with sand/clay laminations.) The water level should be lowered 2 feet below subgrades and the wells should be located directly outside the exterior limits.


25

Client Information

“At the Heart of the Campus…”

American University is located in the hub of Washington, DC. The main goal of The Katzen Arts Center is to build a facility that reflects the campus’ art program. Currently the universities performance and academic spaces are located throughout campus and this is their opportunity to consolidate the different components into one. In addition, the Katzen Arts Center will be the new gateway to campus, a piece of art in its own and the “heart” of campus. The south side of the building facing Massachusetts Avenue will open up to visitors and the art on the inside, will be reflected out. The University’s mission is to make this the new focal point of campus and it is reflected in the design. The two large rotundas, sculpture garden, cascading water feature, amongst other features are sure to attract the student, faculty, and community. Client Information American University would like the project delivered at or under cost, on time, and of the quality that the design intends; all are equally important factors. The building will be complete on March 24, 2005 so there is a schedule push to finish the project before the Summer/Fall semester. Although, no occupancy dates have been scheduled. One sequencing issue that was of concern to the owner was the excavation support of zone D, but as described above, this was resolved with an innovative solution from the design team. Quality is very important because this building is going to make a statement about the campus and will be used by both students and the public alike. The University is collecting private donations for construction and they are also selling room naming opportunities. The building therefore needs to reflect every dime. Overall, the keys to a successful project are having a safe project site, coming in at or below cost, but of equal or greater quality, and schedule for occupancy next spring.


Appendix A: Vicinity Map


Appendix B: Boring Plan

THE KATZEN ARTS CENTER - Pennsylvania State University Post... · The Katzen Arts Center will...

Documents

Transcript of THE KATZEN ARTS CENTER - Pennsylvania State University Post... · The Katzen Arts Center will...