Baltimore, Maryland
Tyler Swartzwelder
Construction Management
Spring 2007
Presentation Outline
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Project Overview
•Location and Site – Canton Crossing Campus (Southeast Baltimore City)
•Occupancy & function types– 17-story tenant fit-out building
•Restaurant, Small Business, Commercial, and Residential
•Size – 519,401 ft2
•Tenant floors roughly 30,000 ft2
•Schedule - 12/20/04 – 5/31/06 (18 months)
•Total Project Cost - $ 51,525,571
•Project Delivery Method – CM @ Risk w/ GMP
Presentation Outline
Baltimore’s Inner Harbor
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
View of Inner Harbor from the top of
Canton Crossing Tower
Project Overview
•Location and Site – Canton Crossing Campus (Southeast Baltimore City)
•Occupancy & function types– 17-story tenant fit-out building
•Restaurant, Small Business, Commercial, and Residential
•Size – 519,401 ft2
•Tenant floors roughly 30,000 ft2
•Schedule - 12/20/04 – 5/31/06 (18 months)
•Total Project Cost - $ 51,525,571
•Project Delivery Method – CM @ Risk w/ GMP
Presentation Outline
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
Project Overview (cont’d)
Project Team
•Owner/Developer – Hale Properties
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Architect/Engineers – WBCM, LLC.
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
•Construction Manager – Gilbane Building Company
Presentation Outline
Project Overview (cont’d)
•Existing Site Conditions – Previously an Exxon Terminal
Contaminated Soil Issues
•Foundation – Precast Concrete Piles w/ Cast-In-Place Pile Caps
•Structure – Composite Steel Framing
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Project Overview (cont’d)
•Building Envelope – Architectural Precast Panels
•Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Developer - Hale Properties
Tower 1st of 14+ buildings to be built
Technical Analysis 1
Tower as an Independent System
•Problem
•Central Plant designed to power the Tower and additional future buildings
•Future building’s schedule unknown, therefore the equipment is
oversized
•Goal of Analysis
•Eliminate the $8.9 million Central Plant and redesign the tower as an
independent system
Presentation Outline
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Technical Analysis 1
Tower as an Independent System
•Problem
•Central Plant designed to power the Tower and additional future buildings
•Future building’s schedule unknown, therefore the equipment is
oversized
•Goal of Analysis
•Eliminate the $8.9 million Central Plant and redesign the tower as an
independent system
Presentation Outline
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED®
Technical Analysis 1
Analysis Techniques
•Resize mechanical equipment – Boilers, Chillers, Pumps
•Relocate electrical equipment to Tower
•Design basement level in Tower
•Compare original costs to the redesign costs
Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Technical Analysis 1
Tower as an Independent System
•Problem
•Central Plant designed to power the Tower and additional future buildings
•Future building’s schedule unknown, therefore the equipment is
oversized
•Goal of Analysis
•Eliminate the $8.9 million Central Plant and redesign the tower as an
independent system
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 1
Mechanical Equipment Analysis Results
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED®
Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Equipment Cost Comparisons of Stand Alone System
Equipment Added
Quantity
Unit Cost
Boiler - 3000 MBH, 100 HP
3
36,000
Chiller - 350 Ton, Centrifigal
3
140,000
Chilled Water Pumps - 460 GPM
3
3,200
Heated Water Pumps - 300 GPM
3
2,500
Condesner Water Pumps - 550 GPM
3
4,350
TOTAL ADDED COST
Cost
108,000
420,000
9,600
7,500
13,050
$558,150
Equipment Eliminated
Quantity
Unit Cost
Boiler - 15,000 MBH, 475 HP
1
100,000
Chiller - 2500 Ton, Centrifial
1
700,000
Chilled Water Pumps - 3500 GPM
3
4,200
Heated Water Pumps - 1030 GPM
3
10,000
Condesner Water Pumps - 4160 GPM
3
11,500
TOTAL ELIMINATED COST
TOTAL SAVINGS
Cost
100,000
700,000
12,600
30,000
34,500
$877,100
$318,950
Technical Analysis 1
Tower as an Independent System
•Problem
•Central Plant designed to power the Tower and additional future buildings
•Future building’s schedule unknown, therefore the equipment is
oversized
•Goal of Analysis
•Eliminate the $8.9 million Central Plant and redesign the tower as an
independent system
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 1
Excavation & Structural Analysis Results
•Project Overview
•Floor Plan of basement – Footprint of Tower (sq.ft.)=Footprint of Plant (sq.ft.)
•Technical Analyses
•Excavation – Removal of 36,000 tons of contaminated soils
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
•Structure – Designed as a retaining wall at rest, fixed at both ends
•Height – 20’ ceilings
•Walls – 20” cast-in-place concrete
•Footer – 6’ x 16” thick
Technical Analysis 1
Tower as an Independent System
•Problem
•Central Plant designed to power the Tower and additional future buildings
•Future building’s schedule unknown, therefore the equipment is
oversized
•Goal of Analysis
•Eliminate the $8.9 million Central Plant and redesign the tower as an
independent system
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 1
Analysis Results
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
Overall Cost Comparison for Tower as a Stand Alone System
Added Costs
Category
Excavation/Remediation of Soils
Structure of Basement
Mechanical - New Chiller
Mechanical - New Boiler
Mechanical - New Pumps
Additional Mechanical Contract from CP
Electrical from CP Contract
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Description
36,000 tons @ $30/ton
30,000 s.f. @ $92/s.f.
(3) 350 Ton Centrifigal Chillers
(3) 3000 MBH, 100 HP Boilers
Heated, Chilled, & Condeser Water Pumps
Addt'l Equipment & Contract from CP
Value from Equipment @ CP
TOTALS
Cost
$1,080,000
$2,750,000
$420,000
$108,000
$30,150
$400,000
$350,000
$5,138,150
Subtracted Costs
Category
CP Contract minus the Equipment Removed
Description
CP contract minus $877,100 for equipment
TOTALS
Cost
$8,022,900
$8,022,900
Total Savings for Stand Alone System
$2,884,750
Technical Analysis 1
Tower as an Independent System
•Problem
•Central Plant designed to power the Tower and additional future buildings
•Future building’s schedule unknown, therefore the equipment is
oversized
•Goal of Analysis
•Eliminate the $8.9 million Central Plant and redesign the tower as an
independent system
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 1
Recommendations
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
•Benefits of Eliminating Central Plant
•Tower’s opening does not depend on outside sources
•If financial issues arise, up front costs are not wasted
•Relieves financial pressure of fast-paced development
•Benefits of Keeping Original Design
•If development schedule remains on track, up front cost is reasonable and
district system is beneficial
•Not required to excavate contaminated soils for basement
Technical Analysis 2
Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Problem
•Original design of piles were difficult to drive to engineered depth
•Goal of Analysis
•Redesign the foundation system as cast-in-place concrete caissons
•Similar system successfully implemented at Central Plant
Presentation Outline
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Technical Analysis 2
Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Problem
•Original design of piles were difficult to drive to engineered depth
•Goal of Analysis
•Redesign the foundation system as cast-in-place concrete caissons
•Similar system successfully implemented at Central Plant
Presentation Outline
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Technical Analysis 2
Analysis Techniques
•Calculate the loads in the Tower (dead, live, wind, etc.)
•Design caissons at depths ranging from 50’-90’ and get capacities of each
•Compare the caissons’ capacities to the loads needed from each column
•Compare the cost and schedule of the original design to the redesign
Technical Analysis 2
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 2
Analysis Results
Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Problem
•Original design of piles were difficult to drive to engineered depth
•Goal of Analysis
•Redesign the foundation system as cast-in-place concrete caissons
•Similar system successfully implemented at Central Plant
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Example of spreadsheet used to calculate caisson capacities
Diameter (in) Diameter (ft)
36
3
42
3.5
48
4
54
4.5
60
5
66
5.5
72
6
78
6.5
84
7
90
7.5
96
8
102
8.5
108
9
114
9.5
120
10
126
10.5
132
11
138
11.5
Kips
212
289
377
477
589
713
848
995
1155
1325
1508
1702
1909
2126
2356
2598
2851
3116
Sizing Index @ 80' Depth
S A @ 80' Skin Friction Added KIPS Total w/ SF
768
1229
-671
-459
899
1438
-462
-173
1030
1649
-251
126
1163
1860
-40
438
1296
2073
173
763
1430
2288
388
1100
1565
2503
603
1451
1700
2720
820
1815
1836
2938
1038
2193
1973
3157
1257
2583
2111
3378
1478
2986
2250
3600
1700
3402
2389
3823
1923
3831
2529
4047
2147
4273
2670
4273
2373
4729
2812
4499
2599
5197
2955
4727
2827
5678
3098
4957
3057
6173
SW
48
65
85
108
134
162
192
226
262
300
342
386
433
482
534
589
646
706
Capacity (kips)
-411
-108
211
546
896
1262
1644
2041
2454
2883
3328
3788
4264
4755
5263
5786
6325
6879
Technical Analysis 2
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 2
Schedule Comparisons
Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Problem
•Original design of piles were difficult to drive to engineered depth
•Goal of Analysis
•Redesign the foundation system as cast-in-place concrete caissons
•Similar system successfully implemented at Central Plant
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
•Actual Rates based off of numbers from Tower for piles and Central
Plant for the caissons
•Central Plant and Tower have nearly exact soil conditions, location,
site logistics, etc.
•Schedule Reduction – 1 month
Technical Analysis 2
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 2
Cost Comparisons
Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Problem
•Original design of piles were difficult to drive to engineered depth
•Goal of Analysis
•Redesign the foundation system as cast-in-place concrete caissons
•Similar system successfully implemented at Central Plant
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Technical Analysis 2
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 2
Recommendations
Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Problem
•Original design of piles were difficult to drive to engineered depth
•Goal of Analysis
•Redesign the foundation system as cast-in-place concrete caissons
•Similar system successfully implemented at Central Plant
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
•For any future buildings being built on Canton Crossing Campus…
•Use cast-in-place concrete caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Benefits in cost for Tower – $500,000
Presentation Outline
LEED® Guide for Developers
•Problem
•Project Overview
•Many developers are not familiar enough with LEED® to implement it
•Canton Crossing Campus -14+ buildings being built with none being
LEED®
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Goal of Research
•Develop a guide for four different types of developers that can be used as a
tool at the start of development
•Determine where Penn State stands versus the other universities researched
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
LEED®
Presentation Outline
Guide for Developers
•Problem
•Many developers are not familiar enough with LEED® to implement it
•Canton Crossing Campus -14+ buildings being built with none being LEED®
•Goal of Research
•Develop a guide for four different types of developers that can be used as a
tool at the start of development
•Determine where Penn State stands versus the other universities researched
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
LEED® Guide for Developers
Analysis Techniques
•Select four types of developers
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Analyze ten projects from each type of developer
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Compare the developers LEED® scores against one another
•LEED®
Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
•Develop a guide for LEED® points for each developer
LEED® Guide for Developers
•Types of Developers
•Core and Shell – **LEED® CS
•Build – Lease/Sell
•Own/Occupy
•Higher Education
•Project Selection
•Varied in location, size, and use
•Average LEED® score of each developer within 4 points
•Average LEED® award - Silver
LEED® Guide for Developers
LEED® Guide for Developers
LEED® Guide for Developers
•Analysis of
LEED®
Scores – Break into
LEED®
LEED® Guide for Developers
Sample Percentage Calculation
categories
LEED-CS V1.0(Pilot)/2.0 Points
•Add up how many projects scored each
LEED®
point out of the ten
•Calculate a percentage of the total possible points in that category
•This will be the basis of the research
•Value to compare the different developers
•Value used to create the Developer Guides
Harbor Side
Office Center
Silver
Prereq 1
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 4.3
Credit 4.4
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6.1
Credit 6.2
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
Credit 9
Sustainable Sites
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Site Selection
Development Density & Community Connectivity
Brownfield Redevelopement
Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access
Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
Alternative Transportation: Low-Emitting & Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity
Site Development: Protect of Restore Habitat
Site Development: Maximize Open Space
Stormwater Design: Quantity Control
Stormwater Design: Quality Control
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Heat Island Effect, Roof
Light Pollution Reduction
Tenant Design & Construction Guidelines
X
X
Waterfront
Technology
Center @
Camden
Gold
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
420
Deleware
Drive
Totals
Silver
X
X
X
X
X
X
160
10
9
5
6
8
6
7
7
1
2
8
6
6
10
4
9
94
90%
50%
60%
80%
60%
70%
70%
10%
20%
80%
60%
60%
100%
40%
90%
59%
•94 Points Earned – out of 10 projects there were 94 LEED® points earned in this category
•160 Total Possible – if all 10 projects earned all the points possible in this category
•Research Projects Percentage – 94/160 = 59% for Sustainable Sites category
LEED® Guide for Developers
LEED® Guide for Developers
Sample Percentage Calculation
•Innovation & Design Processes – Higher Education Lowest
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
160
10
9
5
6
8
6
7
7
1
2
8
6
6
10
4
9
94
90%
50%
60%
80%
60%
70%
70%
10%
20%
80%
60%
60%
100%
40%
90%
59%
•94 Points Earned – out of 10 projects there were 94 LEED® points earned in this category
•160 Total Possible – if all 10 projects earned all the points possible in this category
100%
80%
Build-Lease/Sell
Own/Occupy
Core-Shell
Higher Education
60%
40%
20%
0%
•Research Projects Percentage – 94/160 = 59% for Sustainable Sites category
LEED Category
Innovation &
Design
Processes
•Indoor Environmental Quality – Core and Shell Highest
X
X
Indoor
Environmental
Quality
•Energy & Atmosphere – Own/Occupy Highest
Prereq 1
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 4.3
Credit 4.4
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6.1
Credit 6.2
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
Credit 9
Silver
Materials &
Resources
•Sustainable Sites – Higher Education Lowest
Silver
Sustainable Sites
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Site Selection
Development Density & Community Connectivity
Brownfield Redevelopement
Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access
Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
Alternative Transportation: Low-Emitting & Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity
Site Development: Protect of Restore Habitat
Site Development: Maximize Open Space
Stormwater Design: Quantity Control
Stormwater Design: Quality Control
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Heat Island Effect, Roof
Light Pollution Reduction
Tenant Design & Construction Guidelines
LEED Developers
Totals
Energy &
Atmosphere
•Interesting Results
420
Deleware
Drive
Sustainable
Sites
LEED-CS V1.0(Pilot)/2.0 Points
Waterfront
Technology
Center @
Camden
Gold
% Earned of Total Possible Points
•Comparison of Developers’ Percentages
Harbor Side
Office Center
Comparisons of Developer Percentages
Water
Efficiency
LEED® Guide for Developers
LEED® Guide for Developers
LEED® Guide for Developers
Sample Penn State Percentage Calculation
•Penn State University vs. Other Researched Universities
•Penn State OPP’s LEED® point checklist
•Mandatory Compliance, Significant Effort, Minimal Effort
•Value to compare Penn State vs. Researched universities
•Calculate a percentage that Penn State will earn out of the total
possible, just like what was done for the research portion
Prereq 1
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 4.3
Credit 4.4
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6.1
Credit 6.2
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY VS. OTHER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES LEED POINT ANALYSIS
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY
OTHER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
LEED-NC V2.1 Points (Higher Education)
Sustainable Sites
Total Possible Points = 30
Total Possible Points = 150
2
10
Erosion & Sedimentation Control
0
10
100%
Site Selection
0
1
10%
Development Density
0
1
10%
Brownfield Redevelopment
0
6
60%
Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access
1
8
80%
Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
0
2
20%
Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Vehicles
0
2
20%
Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity and Carpooling
0
2
20%
Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Open Space
1
9
90%
Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint
2
6
60%
Stormwater Management, Rate and Quantity
1
3
30%
Stormwater Management, Treatment
0
4
40%
Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof
1
4
40%
Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof
0
3
30%
Light Pollution Reduction
8
27%
71
47%
• 8 Points Earned – 8 points total from adding 0’s, 1’s, & 2’s
•Total Possible Points for Penn State in a category would be a “2”
for every point in the category
•30 Total Possible – if all 15 LEED® points earned a 2 from Penn State
•Penn State Percentage – 8/30 = 27% for Sustainable Sites category
LEED® Guide for Developers
LEED® Guide for Developers
Sample Penn State Percentage Calculation
Other Universities
40%
Penn State University
20%
LEED Category
&
De
sig
n
Pr
oc
es
se
s
ua
lity
en
ta
lQ
In
no
va
t io
n
En
vir
on
m
Re
so
ur
ce
s
In
do
or
at
er
ia
ls
&
At
M
• Penn State Percentage – 8/30 = 27% for Sustainable Sites category
&
•30 Total Possible – if all 15 LEED® points earned a 2 from Penn State
ci
• 8 Points Earned – 8 points total from adding 0’s, 1’s, & 2’s
m
os
ph
er
e
en
cy
0%
En
er
gy
- Silver
60%
ffi
•Penn State’s Average
LEED® Award
80%
W
at
er
E
•Remaining Categories Penn State shows an advantage
100%
Si
te
s
•Penn State’s Master Plan, not project specific
Penn State vs. Other Universities
Su
st
ai
na
bl
e
•Sustainable Sites & Water Efficiency
Prereq 1
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 4.3
Credit 4.4
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6.1
Credit 6.2
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY VS. OTHER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES LEED POINT ANALYSIS
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY
OTHER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
LEED-NC V2.1 Points (Higher Education)
Sustainable Sites
Total Possible Points = 30
Total Possible Points = 150
2
10
Erosion & Sedimentation Control
0
10
100%
Site Selection
0
1
10%
Development Density
0
1
10%
Brownfield Redevelopment
0
6
60%
Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access
1
8
80%
Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
0
2
20%
Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Vehicles
0
2
20%
Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity and Carpooling
0
2
20%
Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Open Space
1
9
90%
Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint
2
6
60%
Stormwater Management, Rate and Quantity
1
3
30%
Stormwater Management, Treatment
0
4
40%
Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof
1
4
40%
Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof
0
3
30%
Light Pollution Reduction
8
27%
71
47%
% Earned of Possible Points
•Penn State University vs. Other Researched Universities
•Interesting Results
LEED® Guide for Developers
LEED® Guide for Developers
LEED® Guide for Developers
•Developing LEED Guides
•Compile percentages for each point of LEED checklist
•Use similar design as Penn State OPP
•Mandatory Compliance – 75-100%
•Significant Effort – 50-74%
•Adequate Effort – 25-49%
•Minimal Effort – 0-24%
Prereq 1
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 4.3
Credit 4.4
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6.1
Credit 6.2
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
Credit 9
Credit 1.1
Credit 1.2
Credit 2
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Prereq 1
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6
LEED Guide for Core and Shell Developers
Guide Data
LEED-CS V1.0(Pilot)/2.0 Points
% of Research Projects
Compliance Effort
Sustainable Sites
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
100%
Mandatory Compliance
Site Selection
90%
Mandatory Compliance
Development Density & Community Connectivity
50%
Significant Effort
Brownfield Redevelopement
60%
Significant Effort
Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access
80%
Mandatory Compliance
60%
Significant Effort
Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
70%
Significant Effort
Alternative Transportation: Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
70%
Significant Effort
Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity
10%
Minimal Effort
Site Development: Protect of Restore Habitat
20%
Minimal Effort
Site Development: Maximize Open Space
80%
Mandatory Compliance
Stormwater Design: Quantity Control
60%
Significant Effort
Stormwater Design: Quality Control
60%
Significant Effort
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
100%
Mandatory Compliance
Heat Island Effect, Roof
40%
Adequate Effort
Light Pollution Reduction
90%
Mandatory Compliance
Tenant Design & Construction Guidelines
Water Efficiency
Mandatory Compliance
Water Efficient Landscaping: Reduce by 50%
100%
Mandatory Compliance
Water Efficient Landscaping: No Potable Use or No Irrigation
80%
Minimal Effort
Innovative Wastewater Technologies
20%
Mandatory Compliance
Water Use Reduction: 20% Reduction
100%
Mandatory Compliance
Water Use Reduction: 30% Reduction
90%
Energy & Atmosphere
100%
Mandatory Compliance
Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems
100%
Mandatory Compliance
Minimum Energy Performance
100%
Mandatory Compliance
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Adequate Effort
Optimize Energy Performance
29% of Credit 1
10.5% New Buildings or 3.5% Existing Building Renovations
14% New Buildings or 7% Existing Building Renovations
17.5% New Buildings or 10.5% Existing Building Renovations
21% New Buildings or 14% Existing Building Renovations
24.5% New Buildings or 17.5% Existing Building Renovations
28% New Buildings or 21% Existing Building Renovations
31.5% New Buildings or 24.5% Existing Building Renovations
35% New Buildings or 28% Existing Building Renovations
Minimal Effort
On-Site Renewable Energy
0%
Minimal Effort
Enhanced Commissioning
20%
Significant Effort
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
50%
Significant Effort
Measurement & Verification - Base Building
60%
Adequate Effort
Measurement & Verification - Tenant Sub-metering
30%
Minimal Effort
Green Power
0%
LEED® Guide for Developers
Prereq 1
Credit 1.1
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
Credit 3
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6
Prereq 1
Prereq 2
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 4.3
Credit 4.4
Credit 5
Credit 6.1
Credit 6.2
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8.1
Credit 8.2
Credit 1.1
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
Credit 2
Materials & Resources
Storage & Collection of Recyclables
Building Reuse: Maintain 25% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof
Building Reuse: Maintain 50% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof
Building Reuse: Maintain 75% of Interior Non-Structural Elements
Construction Waste Management: Divert 50% from Disposal
Construction Waste Management: Divert 75% from Disposal
Materials Reuse: 1%
Recycled Content: 10% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer)
Recycled Content: 20% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer)
Regional Materials: 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Reg.
Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Reg.
Certified Wood
Indoor Environmental Quality
Minimum IAQ Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring
Increased Ventilation
Construction IAQ Management Plan: During Construction
Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives & Sealants
Low-Emitting Materials: Paints & Coatings
Low-Emitting Materials: Carpet Systems
Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products
Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control
Controllability of Systems: Perimeter
Controllability of Systems: Non-Perimeter
Thermal Comfort: Comply with ASHRAE 55-1992
Thermal Comfort: Permanent Monitoring System
Daylight & Views: Daylight 75% of Spaces
Daylight & Views: Views for 90% of Spaces
Innovation & Design Process
Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title
Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title
Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title
Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title
®
LEED Accredited Professional
100%
20%
20%
70%
70%
20%
100%
100%
100%
80%
0%
20%
Mandatory Compliance
Minimal Effort
Minimal Effort
Significant Effort
Significant Effort
Minimal Effort
Mandatory Compliance
Mandatory Compliance
Mandatory Compliance
Mandatory Compliance
Minimal Effort
Minimal Effort
100%
100%
70%
50%
70%
90%
90%
70%
40%
60%
30%
30%
80%
70%
80%
90%
Mandatory Compliance
Mandatory Compliance
Significant Effort
Significant Effort
Significant Effort
Mandatory Compliance
Mandatory Compliance
Significant Effort
Adequate Effort
Significant Effort
Adequate Effort
Adequate Effort
Mandatory Compliance
Significant Effort
Mandatory Compliance
Mandatory Compliance
80%
80%
90%
70%
100%
Mandatory Compliance
Mandatory Compliance
Mandatory Compliance
Significant Effort
Mandatory Compliance
Acknowledgements
Penn State AE Faculty
Dr. David Riley – Construction Management
Dr. Michael Horman – Construction Management
Dr. John Messner – Construction Management
Professor Kevin Parfitt – Structural
Dr. Walter Schneider III – Structural
Industry Contacts
Mr. Paul Schwarzenburg – Gilbane Building Company
Mr. Luis Menjivar – Gilbane Building Company
Ms. Erin Sharkey – Gilbane Building Company
Mr. Mark Luria – Gilbane Building Company
Ms. Nicole Hazy – Michael Baker Corporation
Mr. Stephen McLaughlin – Arium Architects
Mr. Mike Prinkey – Penn State University OPP
Fellow AE Students
Mr. Erik Shearer – Mechanical Option
Mr. Andrew Rhodes – Mechanical Option
Mr. Chris Ankeny – Electrical Option
Most importantly my family and my fiancée Ashleigh Harbaugh for
helping me through all of the hard work and trying times!
QUESTIONS ???
Technical Analysis 2
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 2
Analysis Results
Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Problem
•Original design of piles were difficult to drive to engineered depth
•Goal of Analysis
•Redesign the foundation system as cast-in-place concrete caissons
•Similar system successfully implemented at Central Plant
Example of spreadsheet used to calculate building loads
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
Caisson Redesign Calculations
Column Floor (ft^2)
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A.2-1.8
A.8-1.2
E.2-5.8
E.8-5.2
A.2-5.2
A.8-5.8
E.2-1.2
E.8-1.8
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
5,168
11,560
11,560
6,800
5,032
5,032
5,032
5,032
2,788
2,176
2,176
2,788
5,168
18,476
16,256
18,324
Roof
(ft^2)
DL-bsmt
(psf)
DL-floor
(psf)
DL-roof
(psf)
Total Dead
(lbs)
LL-bsmt
(psf)
LL-floor
(psf)
LL-roof
(psf)
Total Live
(lbs)
160
480
480
160
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
356,336
800,120
800,120
467,600
343,064
343,064
343,064
343,064
190,076
148,352
148,352
190,076
356,336
1,274,328
1,139,677
1,280,666
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
552,000
1,238,400
1,238,400
724,800
532,800
532,800
532,800
532,800
295,200
230,400
230,400
295,200
552,000
1,973,922
1,758,904
1,977,868
160
588
1,256
1,256
WL
(psf)
600
600
WL
(lbs)
Non-WL
(lbs)
Final Load
(kips)
1,310,803
2,941,584
2,941,584
1,720,800
1,264,157
1,264,157
1,264,157
1,264,157
700,411
546,662
546,662
700,411
1,310,803
4,687,470
1,311
2,942
2,942
1,721
1,264
1,264
1,264
1,264
700
547
547
700
1,311
4,687
3,127
3,516
3,127,476
3,515,627
Sample Load Calculations
A-2 (Non-wind loaded column) = 1.2(D) + 1.6(L)
B-3(Wind loaded column) = 1.6(W) + 1.2(D) + 1.0(L)
Caisson Size
(Colors from
Depth Charts)
D = 66"
D = 90"
D = 90"
D = 84"
D = 66"
D = 66"
D = 66"
D = 66"
D = 60"
D = 60"
D = 60"
D = 60"
D = 66"
D = 114"
D = 90"
D = 96"
Technical Analysis 2
Presentation Outline
Technical Analysis 2
Analysis Results
Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•Problem
•Original design of piles were difficult to drive to engineered depth
•Goal of Analysis
•Redesign the foundation system as cast-in-place concrete caissons
•Similar system successfully implemented at Central Plant
•Project Overview
•Technical Analyses
Sample Caisson Calculations
•Compression – πr2 (30 ksf)
•Skin Friction – 1.6 (Surface Area)
•Technical Analysis 1 – Tower as Independent System
•Technical Analysis 2 – Caissons vs. Precast Piles
•LEED® Guide for Developers
•Acknowledgements
•Questions/Comments
•Self Weight – πr2 (Depth) (85 pcf)
•Final Capacity = Compression + Skin Friction + Self Weight – 1900 kips Uplift