Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Final Report Presentation
Raymond Scott Pell, Jr.
April 16th, 2014
Advisor: Dr. Robert Leicht
Construction Management Option
Central Ohio Elementary School
Undisclosed Location, Ohio
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Project Background
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
The Building
Built: Original Building – 1874
Multiple Renovations
Occupancy: K-5 Grade School
Location: Urban Neighborhood
Closed: 2010 (due to fire damage)
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
The Project
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
The Team
Size: 28,000 sqft (Renovation) + 18,000 sqft (Addition)
Designer: Hardlines Design Company
Number of Stories: 3 Stories + Unoccupied Attic
Project Manager: Smoot Elford Resources
Construction Cost: $9.07 Million
General Contractor: Miles McClellan Construction Co.
Total Project Cost: $11.2 Million
Construction Start: August 13, 2014
Construction End: January 23, 2015
Project Delivery Method: Single Prime w/ CM Advisor
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis #1:
Third-Party Photo
Documentation
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
September 12, 2013
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
October 16, 2013
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
November 20, 2013
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
December 18, 2013
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
January 9, 2014
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
January 9, 2014
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Background:
• Multivista Systems, LLC providing service
• Milestone photography
• Progression photography
• Web-based software
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Case Study:
• Newly Constructed Ohio-based Children’s Hospital
• ADA handrails in patient bathrooms detached from wall
• Destructive testing found proper support was absent
• 400 bathrooms needed tested
• Referenced MEP Exact-Built® photos
• Only 42 bathrooms needed fixed
• Saved almost $210,000 and 3400 hours
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Case Study:
• Newly Constructed Ohio-based Children’s Hospital
• ADA handrails in patient bathrooms detached from wall
• Destructive testing found proper support was absent
• 400 bathrooms needed tested
• Referenced MEP Exact-Built® photos
• Only 42 bathrooms needed fixed
• Saved almost $210,000 and 3400 hours
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Case Study:
• Newly Constructed Ohio-based Children’s Hospital
Cost without Photo Documentation
• ADA handrails in patient bathrooms detached from wall
Activity
Time
Labor Material
Total
• Destructive testing found proper support was absent
Supervision
1
$84
$0
$84
• 400 bathrooms needed tested
Destructive Testing
2
$76
$0
$76
Repair
6
$376
$27
$403
Total
9
$536
$27
$563
• Referenced MEP Exact-Built® photos
• Only 42 bathrooms needed fixed
• Saved almost $210,000 and 3400 hours
Total cost for 400 bathrooms
$225,200
Introduction
Project Background
Case Study:
• Newly Constructed Ohio-based Children’s Hospital
• ADA handrails in patient bathrooms detached from wall
• Destructive testing found proper support was absent
• 400 bathrooms needed tested
• Referenced MEP Exact-Built® photos
• Only 42 bathrooms needed fixed
• Saved almost $210,000 and 3400 hours
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Case Study:
• Newly Constructed Ohio-based Children’s Hospital
• ADA handrails in patient bathrooms detached from wall
• Destructive testing found proper support was absent
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Cost without Photo Documentation
Activity
Time
Labor Material
Supervision Cost with Photo
1 Documentation
$84
$0
Activity
Destructive
Testing Time 2 Labor
$76 Material
$0
Supervision
Repair
Demolition
Total
Total
$84
Total$76
0.5
6
1
9
$42
$376
$19
$536
$0
$27
$0
$27
• Referenced MEP Exact-Built® photos
Repair
4.5
Total cost for 400 bathrooms
Total
6
$282
$22 $225,200
$304
$22
$365
• Only 42 bathrooms needed fixed
Total Cost for 42 Bathrooms
• 400 bathrooms needed tested
• Saved almost $210,000 and 3400 hours
$343
$42
$403
$19
$563
$15,330
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
• ADA handrails in patient bathrooms detached from wall
Activity
Supervision
Demolition
• Destructive testing found proper support was absent
Repair
• 400 bathrooms needed tested
Total
• Referenced MEP Exact-Built® photos
• Only 42 bathrooms needed fixed
• Saved almost $210,000 and 3400 hours
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Time
Labor Material
Conclusion
Cost without Photo Documentation
Cost with Photo Documentation
Case Study:
• Newly Constructed Ohio-based Children’s Hospital
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Activity
Total
Time
Labor Material
Total
0.5
$42
$0
$42
Supervision
1
$84
$0
$84
1
$19
$0
$19
Destructive Testing
2
$76
$0
$76
4.5
$282
$22
$304
Repair
6
$376
$27
$403
6
$343
$22
$365
Total
9
$536
$27
$563
Total Cost for 42 Bathrooms
$15,330
$225,200
-$15,330
$209,900
Total cost for 400 bathrooms
3600 hrs
-252 hrs
3348 hrs
$225,200
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Advantages:
Conclusion
Disadvantages:
• Relieves site superintendent of responsibility
• Additional cost
• Photos are immediately available and organized
• Doesn’t guarantee photographs of everything
• Simple to use
• Requires willingness to learn and use
• Potential increase in productivity
• Reduces litigation
• “Green” alternative to printed drawings and photos
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis #2:
Use of Steel Deck and
Cast-in-Place Concrete
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Original Design:
• 8” precast hollow core concrete planks
• Steel W-shape beams anchored to existing masonry walls
• 3” concrete top coating
• Welded wire mesh reinforcement
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Problem Identification:
• Precast concrete planks require accurate dimensions
• Measurements for “Connector” section proved difficult
• Potential need to move anchor points for steel beams
• Limited access to area
• Changes require re-order of planks
• Limited flexibility for other trades
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Alternate Design:
• Composite steel deck
• Cast-in-place concrete
• 3½” total thickness
• 2” thickness above steel deck
• Welded wire mesh reinforcement
• Steel W-shape girders anchored to masonry walls
• Steel W-shape joists
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
System Comparison:
Labor: 1 additional day
Cost: additional $16,564
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Advantages:
System Comparison:
Labor: 1 additional day
Cost: additional $16,564
• No accessibility issues
• Onsite adjustability
• Inaccurate measurements
• Compromised anchor points
• Last minute changes
• Can conform to MEP requirements
• No lead time
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Structural Breadth:
Design of Steel Deck/Cast-inPlace Flooring System
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Design Procedure:
• Identify the joist spacing
• Choose the steel deck and concrete thickness
• Calculate the dead and live loads
• Calculate the shear, moment and moment of inertia
• Choose the beams
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Design Procedure:
• Identify the joist spacing
• Choose the steel deck and concrete thickness
• Calculate the dead and live loads
• Calculate the shear, moment and moment of inertia
• Choose the beams
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Design Procedure:
• Identify the joist spacing
• Choose the steel deck and concrete thickness
• Calculate the dead and live loads
• Calculate the shear, moment and moment of inertia
• Choose the beams
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒆 = 𝟑𝟑 𝒍𝒃
𝒇𝒕𝟐
Conclusion
𝑺𝒕𝒆𝒆𝒍 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒌 = 𝟏. 𝟕𝟖 𝒍𝒃
𝒇𝒕𝟐
𝑴𝒊𝒔𝒄. = 𝟏𝟎 𝒍𝒃
𝒇𝒕𝟐
𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅𝑱𝒐𝒊𝒔𝒕 = 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒆 + 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒌 + 𝑴𝒊𝒔𝒄 = 𝟑𝟑 + 𝟏. 𝟕𝟖 + 𝟏𝟎 = 𝟒𝟒. 𝟖 ≈ 𝟒𝟓 𝒍𝒃
𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅𝑮𝒊𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓 = 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒆 + 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒌 + 𝑴𝒊𝒔𝒄. +𝑱𝒐𝒊𝒔𝒕 ≈ 𝟒𝟓 𝒍𝒃
𝑳𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃
𝒇𝒕𝟐
+ 𝑱𝒐𝒊𝒔𝒕
𝒇𝒕𝟐
𝑾𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 = 𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅𝑱𝒐𝒊𝒔𝒕 × 𝑻𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝑾𝒊𝒅𝒕𝒉 = 𝟒𝟓 × 𝟑. 𝟐𝟓 = 𝟏𝟒𝟔. 𝟐𝟓 𝒍𝒃 𝒇𝒕
𝑾𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝑳𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 × 𝑻𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝑾𝒊𝒅𝒕𝒉 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 × 𝟑. 𝟐𝟓 = 𝟑𝟐𝟓 𝒍𝒃 𝒇𝒕
𝒇𝒕𝟐
Introduction
Project Background
Design Procedure:
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
𝑽𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 =
𝑾𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎
(𝟏𝟒𝟔. 𝟐𝟓)(𝟏𝟕)
=
= 𝟏. 𝟐𝟒 𝒌𝒊𝒑𝒔
𝟐(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌) 𝟐(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝑽𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 =
𝑾𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎
(𝟑𝟐𝟓)(𝟏𝟕)
=
= 𝟐. 𝟕𝟔 𝒌𝒊𝒑𝒔
𝟐(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌) 𝟐(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝑽𝒖 = 𝟏. 𝟐𝑽𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 + 𝟏. 𝟔𝑽𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟐 𝟏. 𝟐𝟒 + 𝟏. 𝟔 𝟐. 𝟕𝟔 = 𝟓. 𝟗𝟏𝒌 ∙ 𝒇𝒕
• Identify the joist spacing
• Choose the steel deck and concrete thickness
• Calculate the dead and live loads
• Calculate the shear, moment and moment of inertia
• Choose the beams
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
(𝟏𝟒𝟔. 𝟐𝟓 𝒍𝒃 𝒇𝒕)(𝟏𝟕𝒇𝒕)𝟐
𝑾𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎
=
=
= 𝟓. 𝟐𝟖 𝒌 ∙ 𝒇𝒕
𝟖(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝟖(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝟐
𝑴𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅
𝑴𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆
𝒍𝒃 )(𝟏𝟕𝒇𝒕)𝟐
𝑾𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎𝟐 (𝟑𝟐𝟓
𝒇𝒕
=
=
= 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟒 𝒌 ∙ 𝒇𝒕
𝟖(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝟖(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝑴𝒖 = 𝟏. 𝟐𝑴𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 + 𝟏. 𝟔𝑴𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟐 𝟓. 𝟐𝟖 + 𝟏. 𝟔 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟒 = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟏𝟐𝒌 ∙ 𝒇𝒕
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒆 = 𝟑𝟑 𝒍𝒃
𝒇𝒕𝟐
Conclusion
𝑺𝒕𝒆𝒆𝒍 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒌 = 𝟏. 𝟕𝟖 𝒍𝒃
𝒇𝒕𝟐
𝑴𝒊𝒔𝒄. = 𝟏𝟎 𝒍𝒃
𝒇𝒕𝟐
𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅𝑱𝒐𝒊𝒔𝒕 = 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒆 + 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒌 + 𝑴𝒊𝒔𝒄 = 𝟑𝟑 + 𝟏. 𝟕𝟖 + 𝟏𝟎 = 𝟒𝟒. 𝟖 ≈ 𝟒𝟓 𝒍𝒃
𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅𝑮𝒊𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓 = 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒆 + 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒌 + 𝑴𝒊𝒔𝒄. +𝑱𝒐𝒊𝒔𝒕 ≈ 𝟒𝟓 𝒍𝒃
𝑳𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃
𝒇𝒕𝟐
+ 𝑱𝒐𝒊𝒔𝒕
𝒇𝒕𝟐
𝑾𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 = 𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅𝑱𝒐𝒊𝒔𝒕 × 𝑻𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝑾𝒊𝒅𝒕𝒉 = 𝟒𝟓 × 𝟑. 𝟐𝟓 = 𝟏𝟒𝟔. 𝟐𝟓 𝒍𝒃 𝒇𝒕
𝑾𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝑳𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 × 𝑻𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝑾𝒊𝒅𝒕𝒉 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 × 𝟑. 𝟐𝟓 = 𝟑𝟐𝟓 𝒍𝒃 𝒇𝒕
𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎 (𝟏𝟐 𝒊𝒏 𝒇𝒕) 𝟏𝟕(𝟏𝟐)
∆𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘 =
=
= 𝟎. 𝟓𝟕𝒊𝒏.
𝟑𝟔𝟎
𝟑𝟔𝟎
𝟓𝑾𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝟒 (𝟏𝟐 𝒊𝒏 𝒇𝒕)𝟒
𝑰=
𝟑𝟖𝟒(𝟐𝟗, 𝟎𝟎𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎)(∆
)(𝟏𝟐 𝒊𝒏
𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘
𝒇𝒕
𝟓(𝟑𝟐𝟓)(𝟏𝟕)𝟒 (𝟏𝟐)𝟒
=
= 𝟑𝟕. 𝟏𝟕𝒊𝒏𝟒
) 𝟑𝟖𝟒(𝟐𝟗, 𝟎𝟎𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎)(𝟎. 𝟓𝟕)(𝟏𝟐)
𝒇𝒕𝟐
Introduction
Project Background
Design Procedure:
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
𝑽𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 =
𝑾𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎
(𝟏𝟒𝟔. 𝟐𝟓)(𝟏𝟕)
=
= 𝟏. 𝟐𝟒 𝒌𝒊𝒑𝒔
𝟐(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌) 𝟐(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝑽𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 =
𝑾𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎
(𝟑𝟐𝟓)(𝟏𝟕)
=
= 𝟐. 𝟕𝟔 𝒌𝒊𝒑𝒔
𝟐(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌) 𝟐(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝑽𝒖 = 𝟏. 𝟐𝑽𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 + 𝟏. 𝟔𝑽𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟐 𝟏. 𝟐𝟒 + 𝟏. 𝟔 𝟐. 𝟕𝟔 = 𝟓. 𝟗𝟏𝒌 ∙ 𝒇𝒕
• Identify the joist spacing
• Choose the steel deck and concrete thickness
• Calculate the dead and live loads
• Calculate the shear, moment and moment of inertia
• Choose the beams
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
𝑴𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅
𝑴𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆
𝒍𝒃 )(𝟏𝟕𝒇𝒕)𝟐
𝑾𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝟐 (𝟏𝟒𝟔. 𝟐𝟓
𝒇𝒕
=
=
= 𝟓. 𝟐𝟖 𝒌 ∙ 𝒇𝒕
𝟖(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝟖(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝒍𝒃 )(𝟏𝟕𝒇𝒕)𝟐
𝑾𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎𝟐 (𝟑𝟐𝟓
𝒇𝒕
=
=
= 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟒 𝒌 ∙ 𝒇𝒕
𝟖(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝟖(𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃 𝒌)
𝑴𝒖 = 𝟏. 𝟐𝑴𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒅 + 𝟏. 𝟔𝑴𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟐 𝟓. 𝟐𝟖 + 𝟏. 𝟔 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟒 = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟏𝟐𝒌 ∙ 𝒇𝒕
𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎 (𝟏𝟐 𝒊𝒏 𝒇𝒕) 𝟏𝟕(𝟏𝟐)
∆𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘 =
=
= 𝟎. 𝟓𝟕𝒊𝒏.
𝟑𝟔𝟎
𝟑𝟔𝟎
𝟓𝑾𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑳𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝟒 (𝟏𝟐 𝒊𝒏 𝒇𝒕)𝟒
𝑰=
𝟑𝟖𝟒(𝟐𝟗, 𝟎𝟎𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎)(∆
)(𝟏𝟐 𝒊𝒏
𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘
𝒇𝒕
𝟓(𝟑𝟐𝟓)(𝟏𝟕)𝟒 (𝟏𝟐)𝟒
=
= 𝟑𝟕. 𝟏𝟕𝒊𝒏𝟒
) 𝟑𝟖𝟒(𝟐𝟗, 𝟎𝟎𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎)(𝟎. 𝟓𝟕)(𝟏𝟐)
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Design Procedure:
• Identify the joist spacing
• Choose the steel deck and concrete thickness
• Calculate the dead and live loads
• Calculate the shear, moment and moment of inertia
• Choose the beams
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis #3:
Use of PEX Tubing for
Domestic Plumbing System
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Problem Identification:
Original Design:
Alternate Design:
• Copper is expensive
• Copper pipe – sizes 3” to ½”
• Soldering joints is labor intensive
• Soldered joints
• High risk of theft
• Cross-linked polyethylene tubing (PEX) – 2” to ½”
(larger pipes to remain copper)
• Cold, hot and hot water return lines
• Clamped joints
• Trunk and branch layout
• No 90° elbows in ½”, ¾” or 1” pipe
• Cold, hot and hot water return lines
• Trunk and branch layout
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Advantages:
• Less Expensive (50%)
• Fewer Fittings
• Faster Install (67%)
• No “dry fit” joints
• No Open Flames
• Corrosion resistant
Disadvantages:
• Special equipment
• Not bacteriostatic
• Learning curve
• Not UV resistant
• Unknown longevity
• Not fireproof
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Total Costs
Category
Pipe
90º
Tee
Insulation
Totals
Materials
PEX
Labor
$7,305.51
$1,290.80
$6,818.93
$417.50
$14,124.44
$1,708.30
$1,032.10
$654.55
$7,305.00
$15,832.74
$7,305.00
$38,970.48
Mat.+Labor
Materials
$10,172.20
$975.71
Copper
Labor
Mat.+Labor
$9,352.69
$12,157.68
$19,524.89
$13,133.39
$664.18
$2,890.53
$12,595.00
$32,658.28
$12,595.00
$77,911.56
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Plumbing Breadth:
Compare Friction Loss in PEX
System to that in Copper
System
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Procedure:
• Determine design velocity – 4ft/s
• Calculate flow
• Calculate friction loss
• Calculate total equivalent length
• Calculate total friction loss
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Procedure:
• Determine design velocity – 4ft/s
• Calculate flow
• Calculate friction loss
• Calculate total equivalent length
• Calculate total friction loss
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
𝒗𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚
𝟒
𝒇𝒕
𝒇𝒕
𝟐
𝒔 × 𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒂 𝒇𝒕 × 𝟕. 𝟒𝟖
Conclusion
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒇𝒕𝟑
× 𝟔𝟎 𝒔 𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘(
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒎𝒊𝒏)
𝟏𝒇𝒕𝟐
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒔
×
𝟑.
𝟎𝟗𝒊𝒏
×
×
𝟕.
𝟒𝟖
×
𝟔𝟎
=
𝟑𝟖.
𝟓𝟑
𝒔
𝒎𝒊𝒏
𝒎𝒊𝒏
𝒇𝒕𝟑
𝟏𝟒𝟒𝒊𝒏𝟐
𝟐
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Procedure:
• Determine design velocity – 4ft/s
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
𝒗𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚
𝟒
𝒇𝒕
𝒇𝒕
𝟐
𝒔 × 𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒂 𝒇𝒕 × 𝟕. 𝟒𝟖
Conclusion
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒇𝒕𝟑
× 𝟔𝟎 𝒔 𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘(
• Calculate friction loss
• Calculate total friction loss
𝒎𝒊𝒏)
𝟏𝒇𝒕𝟐
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒔
×
𝟑.
𝟎𝟗𝒊𝒏
×
×
𝟕.
𝟒𝟖
×
𝟔𝟎
=
𝟑𝟖.
𝟓𝟑
𝒔
𝒎𝒊𝒏
𝒎𝒊𝒏
𝒇𝒕𝟑
𝟏𝟒𝟒𝒊𝒏𝟐
𝟐
• Calculate flow
• Calculate total equivalent length
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝑷=
𝟒.𝟓𝟐×𝑸𝟏.𝟖𝟓
𝑪𝟏.𝟖𝟓 ×𝒅𝟒.𝟖𝟕
(Hazen-Williams formula)
𝟒. 𝟓𝟐 × 𝟑𝟖. 𝟓𝟑𝟏.𝟖𝟓
𝒑𝒔𝒊
𝑷=
=
𝟎.
𝟎𝟏𝟔𝟗
𝒇𝒕
𝟏𝟑𝟎𝟏.𝟖𝟓 × 𝟏. 𝟗𝟖𝟓𝟒.𝟖𝟕
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Procedure:
• Determine design velocity – 4ft/s
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
𝒗𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚
𝟒
𝒇𝒕
𝒇𝒕
𝟐
𝒔 × 𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒂 𝒇𝒕 × 𝟕. 𝟒𝟖
Conclusion
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒇𝒕𝟑
× 𝟔𝟎 𝒔 𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘(
• Calculate friction loss
• Calculate total friction loss
𝒎𝒊𝒏)
𝟏𝒇𝒕𝟐
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝒔
×
𝟑.
𝟎𝟗𝒊𝒏
×
×
𝟕.
𝟒𝟖
×
𝟔𝟎
=
𝟑𝟖.
𝟓𝟑
𝒔
𝒎𝒊𝒏
𝒎𝒊𝒏
𝒇𝒕𝟑
𝟏𝟒𝟒𝒊𝒏𝟐
𝟐
• Calculate flow
• Calculate total equivalent length
𝒈𝒂𝒍
𝑷=
𝟒.𝟓𝟐×𝑸𝟏.𝟖𝟓
𝑪𝟏.𝟖𝟓 ×𝒅𝟒.𝟖𝟕
(Hazen-Williams formula)
𝟒. 𝟓𝟐 × 𝟑𝟖. 𝟓𝟑𝟏.𝟖𝟓
𝒑𝒔𝒊
𝑷=
=
𝟎.
𝟎𝟏𝟔𝟗
𝒇𝒕
𝟏𝟑𝟎𝟏.𝟖𝟓 × 𝟏. 𝟗𝟖𝟓𝟒.𝟖𝟕
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Procedure:
• Determine design velocity – 4ft/s
• Calculate flow
• Calculate friction loss
• Calculate total equivalent length
• Calculate total friction loss
24.45 psi
-23.24 psi
1.21 psi
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Conclusion
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis #1: 3rd-Party Photo Documentation
• $0.20 - $0.60 / sqft
• Reliable
• Organized and accessible photos
• Reduces litigation
• Increases productivity
• “Green”
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis #1: 3rd-Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis #2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
• $0.20 - $0.60 / sqft
• No accessibility issues
• Reliable
• Flexibility during installation
• Organized and accessible photos
• Easy coordination of penetrations
• Reduces litigation
• No lead time
• Increases productivity
• “Green”
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis #1: 3rd-Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis #2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Analysis #3: PEX Domestic Water System
• $0.20 - $0.60 / sqft
• No accessibility issues
• 50% savings in material cost
• Reliable
• Flexibility during installation
• 67% savings in installation time
• Organized and accessible photos
• Easy coordination of penetrations
• Fewer fittings = fewer leaks
• Reduces litigation
• No lead time
• No corrosion
• Increases productivity
• “Green”
Conclusion
• Low risk of theft
Introduction
Project Background
Analysis 1: 3rd Party Photo Documentation
Analysis 2: Cast-in-Place Concrete Floors
Academic Acknowledgements:
Robert Leicht
Kevin Parfitt
Moses Ling
Stephen Treado
Industry Acknowledgements:
Peggy Murphy - SERS
Matt Allen - SERS
Joe Studer - SERS
Randy Johnson - Multivista
Matt Rolfe - Multivista
Gary Runyan - Zurn
Dalton Deeter – Deeter Plumbing & Heating
Shashi Savla – Kabil Associates
Raymond Roy - Uponor
Matthew Barrett – W.G. Tomko
Gregory Costa - McKamish
Questions?
Analysis 3: PEX Domestic Water System
Conclusion