Rfp09498 p2 pres_t05

2
ENGINEERING TEAM
PROJECT MANAGER: Alice Madjani
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER: Eric Hulme
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Matt Murray
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER: Mike Broyles
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Ryan Laughlin
Introduction Facility Drainag Structura ConstructioLEEDAcces

Presentation Overview
 Baseball Facility
 Soccer Facility
 Site Layout
 Drainage
 Site Access
 Structural Aspects
 LEED Credentials
 Construction and Cost
3Introduction Facility Drainag Structura ConstructioLEEDAcces

Time for a New Facility
 Other Big Ten Facilities
 Current Purdue Facility

The Facility
 1,800 Permanent
Seats
 2 Green Spaces
 State of the art Press
Box
 High Definition
 Grass Berme Seating
 Home & Away
Lockers
 Indoor Batting Cages
 Unique Architecture

Soccer Facility
 Continue using the eastern
field for competition
 Option of using the west field
for a future men’s team
 Expanded Seating
 Support Facilities
 Concessions Stand
 Restrooms
 Locker Room
 H.D. Lighting
 Opportunities to share
facilities

Facility Location

Drainage and Grading
 Storm Water Management Overview
 Stream running through the center of the site
 Detention Basin on the west end of the site
 Drainage system for the baseball field
 Grading Summary
 Buildings are elevated 1-2 ft to prevent infiltration during
heavy storms.
 The stream is the low point of the site, allowing the site
to drain to it.

Stream Design
 Trapezoidal Channel
 Designed for 100-year, 12 hour duration rain event
 4:1 side slopes for stability
 Lined with cobbles to prevent erosion
 Side slopes lined with native grasses
 Prevent erosion
 Remove sediment (TSS) and nutrients from runoff
 3 connected sections
 Connector from east drainage basin to the site
 East Channel (about 1/2 of developed site drainage)
 West Channel (all of developed site drainage)

Stream Dimensions
 Connector from east drainage
basin
 Depth: 3 ft
 Bottom Width: 2 ft
 Top Width: 10 ft
 East Channel
 Depth: 4 ft
 West Channel
 Depth: 4 ft

Stream Layout

Steam Cross Section

Detention Basin Design
 Design storm: 100-year, 12 hr duration rain
event
 Required Storage Volume: 16.64 acre-ft
 Design Characteristics
 Overflow weir: 45 ft wide x 1 ft high
 4 outflow pipes
 2 – 12” diameter pipes at invert elevation of 670.1
ft
 2 – 15” diameter pipes at invert elevation of 672.2
ft
 Depth of 8 feet and bottom elevation of 667.4
ft
 Top elevation of 675.4 ft 13Introduction Facility Drainag Structura ConstructioLEEDAcces

Baseball Field Drainage
 Hydraway 2000 drainage system
 Geotextile drainage mat
 12” wide x 1” thick
 Strong, able to withstand heavy loading
 Placed every 20 feet
 Drain to a central drainage pipe
 Installation
 After field is graded appropriately
 Smaller trencher creates a 6” wide x 12” deep
 Backfill with granular fill to promote drainage

Baseball Field Drainage
Layout
• Blue Lines = Hydraway 2000
Mats
• Pink Line = Central Drainage
Collector
Source: Hydraway website

Pavement Systems
Surface Asphalt
Binder Asphalt
Type #53
Sub-base
1 ½ inch
4 ½ inch
8 inch
Surface Asphalt
Binder Asphalt
Type #53
Sub-base
1 ½ inch
3 inch
8 inch
Concrete
Type #53
Sub-base
6 inch
8 inch
Pervious
Concrete
Sand
Type #53
Sub-base
9 inch
2 inch
9 inch
Introduction Facility Drainag Structura ConstructioLEEDAcces 16

Pedestrian Access
17
Upper Pedestrian Corridor
Lower Pedestrian Corridor
Central Pathway
Eastern Pathway
Western Pathway
Bike Path
Extension

Site Access: Existing Traffic Volumes
LOS ANALYSIS
 McCormick & Cherry (AWSC)
 A.M. Peak Hour:
 LOS E
 41 sec Delay
 McCormick & Tennis Center
(TWSC)
 A.M. Peak Hour:
 LOS B
 15 sec Delay
 P.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS F
• 330 sec Delay
– P.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS C
• 18 sec Delay

Site Access: 2010 Background
Volumes
LOS ANALYSIS
 McCormick & Cherry (AWSC)
 A.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS F
• 95 sec Delay
 McCormick & Tennis Center
(TWSC)
 A.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS C
• 16 sec Delay
 P.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS F
• 492 sec Delay
 P.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS C
• 20 sec Delay

Site Access: 2010 Total Volumes
LOS ANALYSIS
 McCormick & Cherry (RDBT)
 A.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS C
• 18 sec Delay
 McCormick & Tennis Center (TWSC)
 A.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS C
• 17 sec Delay
 McCormick & Perimeter Pkwy (TWSC)
 A.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS A
• 0 sec Delay
 P.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS C
• 19 sec Delay
 P.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS C
• 21 sec Delay
 P.M. Peak Hour:
• LOS A
• 0 sec Delay

Traffic Maintenance Plan
 Construction Access
 Baseball Stadium: Proposed AlignmentPerimeter Parkway
 Soccer Stadium: Existing gravel access north of Tennis
parking Lot
 McCormick Road Improvements
 Long-Term Stationary Work Zone
 Work Zone Type
 Intermittent Closure (off-peak hours only)
 Use of shoulder
 Construction Phasing
 Reconstruction by Halves (sides)
 Work Zone Speed limit: 40 mph
 As prescribed by INDOT Design Manual, Part VII - Work Zone Traffic Control

 Live Load
 60.0 psf for stadium seating
 50.0 psf for rooms
 20.0 psf roof live load
 0.54 psf live load reduction factor
 Seismic Load
 60 kip base shear
 Lateral Loads
 First Story = 17.4 kip
 Second Story = 21.0 kip
 Third Story = 21.6 kip
 Dead Load
 63.0 psf roof load
 74.0 psf for other floors
 Wind Load
 10.7 psf lateral load
 13.4 psf uplift
 Environmental Load
 22.0 psf snow load
 11.9 psf ice load
Structural Design: Loads

 SAP2000 Analysis
 Placing columns & beams
 Model of main stadium
structure
 Application of loads
 Computer analysis
 Approximate Analysis
 Axial forces in columns of the
critical section
 Portal method for lateral load
Structural Design: Stadium Frame
Analysis

Structural Design:Sizing Stadium Component
First Floor Column
Sizes
First Floor Beam Sizes

Structural Design:Sizing Stadium
Components
 4” concrete
decking
 18K5 joists
spaced at 5’ for
third story
 12K3 joists
spaced at 5’ for
lower stories
Additional
Structural
Components
:

Structural Design: Concrete Stadium
Seating
 Seating
Structure:
 Reinforced
Concrete
 Beams, Girders,
Columns
 Masonry on
Backstop

Seating
 Design: Isolate
Beams, Girders,
and Columns
 Assume no
moment Transfer
 Reduction to a
determinate
structure
 Load Path for
Structure
Beams
 24 ft span
 Simply supported
 2.5 ft wide
 PCI Design Handbook
Load
Path

 29.5 ft span
 Simply supported
 Apply distributed beam
loads
 Neglect compression
 Flexure controls
Seating
 Design: Isolate
beams, Girders,
and Columns
 Assume no
moment Transfer
 Reduction to a
determinate
structure
Girders

 No moments – No
interaction diagrams
 Tributary area of
girders for total loads
 Detail the section –
Check strength
 Design: Isolate
beams, Girders,
and Columns
 Assume no
moment Transfer
 Reduction to a
determinate
structure
Columns
Seating

 Complicated
Moment Resistant
Frame
 Truss  remove
indeterminacy
 Consider tributary
area
 Apply joint loads
 Joint analysis 
member forces
 Check Stresses
Reality
Model
Structural Design: Awning Support
Structure
Support Section

Foundation Design
 Soil Capacity
 Gross soil bearing capacity of
6,400 psf
 2,000 psf net allowable
bearing pressure used in
design
 Shallow Foundations
 Combined Footings
 3 columns per footing
 Eleven 5-ft x 35-ft reinforced
concrete footings
 Design Considerations
 Soil bearing capacity
 Immediate settlement
 Consolidation settlement

L.E.E.D.
 LEED Certification and Benefits
 CE 498 Ratings
32
LEED Rating Points
Certified 14-17
Silver 18-20
Gold 21-27
Platinum 28-37

L.E.E.D
 LEED Reviews
 Reviewer 1: 12 points - not certified
 Reviewer 2: 17 points - LEED Certified
 LEED re-submittals
 Requesting Silver certification
 Submitted documents (22 points)
 Sustainable Site Credits: 10
 Water Efficiency Credits: 4
 Materials and Resources Credits: 6
 Innovation & Design Process Credits: 2
 Gold Certification Potential

Project Controls
 Project Organization/communication
 Design-Build firm advantages
 Site Management
 Lines of communication

Quality, Materials and Safety
 Quality
 ZEAL’s Quality Control and Quality Assurance Manual
 Monitoring of all products, materials, and work
 Inspections
 Material
 Building : Steel framing, reinforced concrete, masonry
 Parking lot: Pervious concrete
 Access road: Asphalt pavement
 Safety
 ZEAL’s Safety Manager
 Subcontractor’s safety requirements

Cost Estimate
 Price Proposal
 Schedule of values
 Request for payment due the 1st of every month and payment
received by the 15th of the next month
 5% retainage on all payments
36
PRICE PROPOSAL
Basic Facility Proposal Price $6,458,182
Optional Facilities Proposal Price $3,160,805
Parking and Transportation Facility Proposal price $3,545,865
Total Project Price Proposal $13,164,853

Cost Estimate
 Basic Facility
37
CSI division Total Cost
Direct cost
Division 3 - Concrete $433,181
Division 4 - Masonry $180,063
Division 5 -Metals $483,996
Division 7 -Thermal & Moisture protection $62,603
Division 8 - Openings $28,930
Division 9 - Finishes $308,803
Division 10 - Specialties $41,392
Division 11 - Equipments $133,642
Division 31 - Earthwork $213,827
Division 32 - Exterior Improvement $828,657
Division 33 - Utilities $1,993,004
Total Direct Cost $4,708,098
Indirect Cost
Fees $1,155,338
Insurance $245,002
Allowance $1,131,676
Total indirect Cost $2,532,016
Total Facility cost (89.2% reduction factor) $6,458,182

Cost Estimate
 Parking and Transportation Facility
38
CSI division Total Cost
Direct cost
Division 31 - Earthwork $144,271.58
Division 32 - Exterior Improvement $2,320,927.91
Division 33 - Utilities $275,384.21
Total Direct Cost $2,740,583.70
Indirect Cost
Fees $426,129
Insurance $143,881
Allowance $664,592

Cost Estimate
 Optional Facility
39
Direct cost Total Cost
Soccer $664,047
Seat expansion $105,000
Other Roadways and parking facility $1,666,245
Total Direct cost $2,435,292
Indirect Cost
Fees $389,800
Insurance $127,853
Allowance $590,558

Project Schedule
 Project duration: 462 days; ~ 20 months
 Design schedule
 Conceptual Design: Jan 13,09 –May 5, 09
 Final Design: May 1, 09 – Aug 12, 09
 Construction schedule
 Site preparation and mobilization: Aug 3, 09
 Construction starts: Aug 17, 09
 Scheduled completion date: Oct 20, 2010
 Latest construction completion date : Nov 30, 2010

Construction Scheduling

Summary
42
 Purdue’s need
 Baseball Facility
 Soccer Facility
 Drainage
 Site Access
 Structural Aspects
 LEED Credentials
 Construction and Cost

References
 Ashley, Erin. "Using Pervious Concrete to achieve LEED credits." 2008.
Pervious Concrete Pavement. 02 February 2009
<http://www.perviouspavement.org/benefits_LEEDcredit.htm>.
 B4UBUILD. A Sample Residential Construction Schedule. 1998 - 2008. 19
February 2009 <http://www.b4ubuild.com/resources/schedule/6kproj.shtml>.
 CE 498 - CE Design Project. January 2009. 02 February 2009
<https://engineering.purdue.edu/Courses/CE498>.
 Corporation, The Schneider. "Storm Water Analysis." 2007.
 Google. Google Earth. West Lafayette, February 2009.
 Hydraway Drainage Systems. “Hydraway 2000.” 2007.
<http://www.hydraway.net/hydraway_2000.php>
 HNTB. Purdue University - Athletic Facilities Master Plan. Conceptual
master plan. Indianapolis: HNTB, 2007.
 J&M Equipment Specialist & Salvage Recovery. 2008. 2 February 2009
<jmequipmentspecialist.com/id7.html>.
 Michigan, University of. Michigan Go Blue. February 2009. February 2009
<http://www.mgoblue.com/facilities/article.aspx?id=28646#>.
44

References cont’d
 Microsoft. Live Search Maps. February 2009. February 2009
<http://maps.live.com/>.
 Office of the University Architect. "Consultant's Handbook." 2006. Office of
University Architect. 20 January 2009
<http://www.purdue.edu/architect/resources/handbook/index.html>.
 Qualite. Design Soccer. 2008. 12 February 2009
<http://www.qualite.com/DesignSoccer.html>.
 RS Means. Building Construction Cost Data. Kingston, MA: R.S. Means
Company, 2009.
 The Schneider Corporation. "Report of Geotechnical Engineering Study."
2008.
 The Schneider Corporation. "Storm Water Analysis." 2007.
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Viewing Wetland with Google Earth (Plug-in
for Google Earth)." July 2008.
 U.S. Green Building Council. New Construction Version 2.2 Reference
Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council, 2006.
 US Green Building Council. 2009. 20 January 2009 <http://www.usgbc.org/>.
45

Rfp09498 p2 pres_t05

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

En vedette

En vedette (13)

Similaire à Rfp09498 p2 pres_t05

Similaire à Rfp09498 p2 pres_t05 (20)

Rfp09498 p2 pres_t05

Notes de l'éditeur