n 1994, four teamsarchitectural, structural, mechanical, and

electrical-studied a large commercial office headquarters facility1

consisting of the following:
800,000 square feet 3 basement levels of parking
3 levels of shops 1 mezzanine level for a restaurant
2 17-story office towers
Principal study constraint: Maintain the architectural image of the building.
On the final implementation, approximately $10,000,000, or 15% of the initial
cost, was saved. In addition, $350,00O/year in follow-on savings resulted in increased
utilization of space, and reduced costs for operations and maintenance.

Cue S t d y E h n B The items listed below and shown in this case study have been excerpted from an
actual VE report. (The Table of Contents on page 177 is one of the excerpts
and refers to some documents not listed here or shown in the section.)
Descdptia page
Table of Contencs (from original study report) 177
Executive Summary 178
Construction Cost Summary 182
Cost/Worth Model 183
Function Analysis Worksheet 184
Summary of Results 187
Summary of Potential Cost Savings from VE Proposals 189
Selected Value Engineering Recommendations
Stop Elevators at Upper Ground Floor (No. A-4) 193
Use Precast Hollow-Core Plank Floor Construction (No. S-3) 197
Modify Thermal Energy Storage (TES)Design (No. M-2a) 199
Reconfigure Electrical Distribution (No. E-1) 202
'Acknowledgment is made to the National Company for Cooperative
Insurance/(NCCI), with special thanks to Sulliman S. A1 Medeiheem, Project
Manager of Cooperative Real Estate Investment Company, and Basem Al Shihabi,
Principal Designer of Omarania &Associates. Their input was critical to the
success of this study.

Case Study One Corporate m c e Building

 VALUE ENGINEEIUNG REPORT
Corporate Office Building
Table of Contents

SECTION DESCRIPTION

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

ES-l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WTRODUCTION
General
The Design Team
The Value Engineering Team
Executive Briefing
VE Study Agenda

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General
Scope
Architectural
Structural
Elevators & Escalators
Mechanical HVAC
Mechanical Plumbing
Fire Protection
Electrical
Cost

VALUE ENGMEERING ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

General
VE Job Plan
Economic Factors
Function Analysis Worksheets
CreativeIEvaluation Worksheets

SUMUARY OF RESULTS
General
Value Engineering Recommendations

. -. *.*&~of~mth;;~;Pfrbmrlh>&a
.... .,.. :.. - . ,:
, , 1 .: .,, , Vpf;
:-.-... . ~ ~ ? . . 2
.: .;; .,*z*t- :;.;iw~
;.,.
. .
.', ~ ~. ~ t ~ : *
. : .
;s.
'
.;
.
. .. ,
. Sekcted zxerpts' appenr in this case .study. '
. . . .

Case Study One Corporate Office Bu~ld~ng ,, 3 - 2 %, *,

 Value Engineering Report

Corporate Office Building

Executive Summary
This document is a report of a value engineering (VE) workshop conducted in 1994 at the request
of a real estate investment company.

This commercial office headquarters facility consisted of approximately 800,000 square feet of
space with three basement levels of parking, three levels of shops, a mezzanine level for a
restaurant, and two 17-story office towers. The design was at the Design Development Phase
(60%) stage; the estimated construction cost was approximately $71,000,000. A principal
constraint of the project study was to maintain the architectural image of the building.

Four teams conducted the study: Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, and Electrical. Team
members were drawn from the offices of the VE consultant, the designer, and the owner.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The teams generated 130 ideas to improve the value of the project. From these ideas, 50
proposals (including alternates) were written, recommending initial cost savings of $1 4.5
million. If all these proposals were implemented, they would result in an additional annual
savings in facility operations and maintenance of $500,00O/year.

In addition, this report includes 30 design suggestions for overall project enhancement that were
documented for consideration during continuing development of the design.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Following is a summary of the major recommendations made during the workshop. The
Summary of Results in this report contains detailed proposals for each recommendation.

ARCHITECTURAL

Sixteen proposals were generated with the constraint that no major architectural feature or
concept would be touched. The major areas isolated were as follows:

Stop elevators at the upper ground floor, add hydraulic elevators for-the basement, and
stop one bank of elevators on each tower at the 16th floor. This would result in $1.33

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 million in savings and improve elevator service over the present scheme, which is
marginal.

Delete escalators and stairs on the north side up to newly proposed office areas. About
$750,000 would be saved, since traffic flow and separation of traffic negated the value of
escalator service.

Note: Significant savings in maintenance and operm'on would also be realizedfrom

implementing the above items.

Use less expensive, yet adequate penthouse walls and interior wall modifications
($500,000).

Relocate and delete one set of outside stairs to the basement not required by code
($130,000).

Use a lower category of finish material that will still meet owner requirements, to bring
costs closer to budget ($800,000).

- Since the net to gross space could be improved, reduce proposed lobby space on each
floor. By changing space to useable (rentable), a large increase in revenue of $70,00Wyear
was forecasted.

STRUCTURAL

Nine basic and optional structural proposals were developed. The major items were as follows:

Consider precast hollow-core floor planks for either or both basement and tower floors
(savings: up to $1.44 million).

Delete 4th and 5th basement levels used for storage tanks and relocate tanks and spaces
(savings: up to $530,000).

Modify floor slab design using two-way slab and beam (savings: up to $800,000 but not in
addition to using precast).

MECHANICAL

Seventeen basic and optional mechanical proposals were developed. The major items were as
follows:

Eliminate 2nd-level penthouse by relocating water tanks at roof and in conjunction with
deletion of 4th- and 5th-level basement (savings: up to $1,000,000).

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 - Modify thermal energy storage (TES) systems by relocating tanks at basement levels 1-3
and relocating pump rooms to level 1 basement (savings: $450,000 in initial cost and
$54,00O/year). Project value would also be improved significantly by increasing rentable
space with this relocation.

Note: A detailed economic analysis was conducted on deleting the TES system. The
results indicated that although the lije cycle costs of the TES system were estimated as less
expensive, the order of magnitude was disappointing. Therefore, the team focused on
modifiring the proposed design to optimize usage.

- Increase coverage of variable air volume (VAV) boxes. Present coverage of 270 S.F. per
box appears too costly and should be reviewed in light of potential savings of $370,000
plus maintenance savings of $25,00O/year.

Use light troffers for distribution in lieu of linear diffusers, which would result in a more
flexible ceiling system for tenant layout and save $265,000.

There were three additional suggestions that were rather controversial but should be reviewed for
project value improvement:

Delete metering and use proportional charges to tenants.

0 0
Use ASHRAE inside temperature design criteria of 78 F for summer and 68 F for winter.
Consider "shelling" space to reduce capital expenditures, postponing fitup cost until tenant
desires are known or leasing the space is certain.

ELECTRICAL

Nine electrical proposals were developed. The major ideas were as follows:

Reconfigure electrical distribution using a high voltage bus to the penthouse and
relocating transformers to the various floors ($1.73 million in potential savings).

In conjunction with the above proposal, reconfigure HVAC electrical distribution using
380V equipment rather than 240V equipment. Also, use demand and load factors usual for
similar buildings ($1.3 million in savings).

Reduce loads on emergency power by using diesel-driven fire pumps, backup

battery-operated emergency lighting fixtures, and reducing the number of emergency
receptacles. Decrease the number of generators from two each per tower at 900 KVA to
one per tower. The generator will be sized at approximately 1,000 KVA to meet power
company requirements (savings: $650,000).

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 Make a number of lighting changes: Delete emphasis lighting for inside of exterior wall in
office areas where control is questionable, change from use of parabolic to less expensive,
satisfactory office fixtures, and selected system reconfiguration (savings: up to $350,000
in initial costs and $20,0001year in annual costs).

COST

During the initial phase of the workshop, the A-E estimate was reviewed by the VE team and a
number of cost questions were generated. The VE team and A-E representative sat down and
agreed to a new baseline estimate of $70,634,000 for the building. The only point in question was
the area of the building; approximately 35,000 S.F. of extra gross area was calculated by the VE
team. It was deemed by the A-E team not to be of significance at this phase of design.

CONCLUSION

All of the above recommendations and design suggestions are contained in the Summary of
Results of this report.

In summary, about 50 ideas, if implemented, would mean savings of up to $12.5 million.

Normally, it is unlikely that all ideas will be accepted. However, the results of this workshop
should prove to not only reduce initial cost but to favorably influence follow-on costs of
ownership in the range of $265,000 per yeat.

We appreciate the splendid cooperation of the designer and owner, in particular, the president of
the design firm,for their participation in this workshop. Without their cooperation and input, the
potential to improve the value of this project would not have been as significant.

Note: At the final presentation the owner directed the designer to make all the changes
immediately. Only those in which choices were indicated were leftopen tofuture selection.

Case Study Une Corporate Office Building

Construction Cost Summary
Corporate m c e Building
60% Design Stage

TOTAL COST Sub System

IP6lt$~tSTfMl I
-w.-
--
--
Rmonm
MI UPA 40.0% m7i 1.857.S49 ZBI
-
012 MPA
P aUBcTRucW(IL l.77Z.W o?1aamar* MPA
m?-E+.vlllm BCF 525.413 7.18 3,772,885 47l
m3-m BWA
W WPZR~TRLICTLIRE U U ~ ml~momammm UFA UO.9l3 710 4.060889 SO7
mZ RodCaanmm 6aF 400% 1859 1.5271112 $.a

w R~~ORCLWUIIC ~I,W&IIS ~1 --
MS(UCnhdbr

M2UbDomLYlkdm
FLT

WA
X M
311868
BJ81
n.ts
a m
s ?is 8bn
2,237.127
tzta
m
,
0 1 - l~mpl a m 8~ ~0.m IZIU I MDM $25
m *TElmclmurow wm,4a n51Pnamr PSM
mn*(or- TFA 318m 3azs B ~ U M 4ZDT
OBS- OSF

1Zg(m (81- m 8(0 ICIP 1pss.w 1,s

~2 HVK TON 1.w am= 8 m . m 1 w
~ m h k t h AP 181.W6 20) 22m.e~ 2.83
w ~ ~ s h k . k a LS sts -7 stz.5~ am
KVA 8.W QOaO 4.WW 5R9

09l&-mg."~~LW KVA 1W 237.M U8.W 053

WlgJudlhpLPmv" OSF 7mOm 5 07 3=1,(M L82

4

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 CostMlorth Model RoJect:
Localon:
Corparate O(Aar Bulldlng

Value Engineering Study Phase of Design:

-
804(
Dm:

Total NOTES:
70.BJ*OUI Bldg, Type:
68,745,815 Area: (SIX) W1.534
I Area: (SW) M 801.534
I I
12- Sitework Building-Total

Structural
J-xG

122 Slte
Improvement

123 Site UtIlmeS

124 MT-site Work

FUNCTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
PROJECT: Corporate Onrce Bulldlng
LOCATION: BASIC NNCTIOIQ: OfflCgg

FUrmON

-
COMPONENT
(VERB-NOUN)
B Basic Function S = SecondaryFunction -
WORTH
RS RequiredSecondary Function
COSTIWORTH COMMENTS

121 Site Preparabn 0 0.00

122 Sie Improvement 1,329,974 1,300.000 1.02 No comment

123 Site Wlties 0 0.00

124 offsite Work 0 0.00

TOTAL 1329,674 1,300,000 1.02

STRUCTURAL

01 Foundation Supportload B 1,857,949 1,390,517 1.19 Relocate4th & 5th level

tanks.
B 3,772,695 3,000,000 1.26 ~elocate
4th & 5th level
tanks.

03 SupersWre Support load and house B 5,388,481 4 300,000 1.25 Consider hollow precast
staff planks for fbor and
masonry core walls.
Delete outaide stairs.

TOTAL 10,619,126 8,690417 1.24

ARCHITECTURAL

04 Wail Closure Enclose space B 11,956,119 10,500,000 1.14 Combine triangular

buildings.

05 Roofing Protect building RS 1,000234 695.259 1.44 Reduce skylights.

Reduce planters 8
granite.

06 Interior Construction Finish and beautify B 9,663,400 9.137.685 1.06 Re-evaluate flnlshes.
Re-evaluate door
selection.

07 Conveying System Transport people B 7,413,333 5.500,OOO 1.35 Reduce basement stops;
use hydraulics. Reduce
escalators.

TOTAL 30,033,087 25,832,944 1.16

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 FUNCTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
LOCATION: BASIC FUNCTION: Omces

COMPONENT ,,wNCnON, KIND COST WORTH COST1WORTH COMMENTS

ERE-NOUN
B = Basic Function S =Secondary Function RS = Required Secondary Function
MECHANICAL

081 Plumbing Service building B 1,086,867 1,086.789 1.OO

082 HVAC Condition space B 8,365,037 7,548,523 1.1 1 Reduce AHU's

Reduce VAV boxes
Simplify diffusers
Simplify lobby supplies
Delete NC of garage litt
lobbies

083 Fire Protection Protect building & 2,266,631 2,266.543 1.OO

People

084 Special Mechanical Controi system 612,534 496,613 1.23

TOTAL lf 331,068 11,398,468 1.08

ELECTRICAL

091 Sewice & Dist. Distribute power B 4.800.000 1.787.808 2.68 Extend 13.8 KV system
through building.
Locate transformers in
basement.
Delete bus ducts.

092 Emergency & UPS Backup power 426.667 357,000 0.12 Reduce generator
capacity; use diesel
backup pumps.

093 Lighting & Power tight space B 3.861.401 3,376,971 1.14 Reduce lighting lixtures.
Reduce cable sizes.

094 Special Eleclrical Support systems 3.71 2,012 3,422,550 1.09 Reduce telephone risers.
Reduce exchanoe caoacitv.
Optimize floor outleis. '
TOTAL lZ800.081 8,944,329 1.43

111 Fixed & Mov. Equ~p.Support building 56 1.036 560.974 1.OO

112 Furnishing Provide services 16.000 0 0.00 Re-evaluale furnishings.

113 Special Const. 880,000 439.999 2.00 Re-evaluate special

construction.
TOTAL 1,457.036 1,000,974 1.46

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

FUNCTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
PROJECT: Corporate Otfica Bulldlng
LOCATION: BASIC FUNCTION: Offiws

COMWNENT FUNCTlON KIND COST WORTH COST1WORTH COMMENTS

(VERBNOUN)
B = Basic Fundia, S =Secondary Function R e = Requid Secondary Function
GENERAL

MobllizaUonExp. 0 0.00

Site Overheads 1,8M,677 1,574,000 1.1 8 Reduce percentage.

Demobilizetlon 0 0110

on. Exp. a Prom 0 om

TOTAL ias3,sn rm4ooo 1-18

OVERALL TOTAL 70,634,049 58,741,230 1.20

Case S d y One Corporate Ofhce Building

 VALUE ENGINEEMNG REPORT

Corporate Office Building

Section 4 - Summary of Results
GENERAL

This section of the report summarizes the results and recommendations for the study. Ideas that
were developed are submitted here as recommendations for acceptance.

When reviewing the results of the VE study, it is important to review each part of a recommen-
dation based on its own merits. Often, there is a tendency to disregard a recommendation
because of concern about one portion of it. When reviewing this report, consider the areas within
a recommendation that are acceptable, and apply those parts to the final design.

VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

The VE teams developed 45 proposals for change, representing $14.5 million in potential initial
cost savings and $19.4 million in life cycle (PW) cost savings that represents follow-on annual
savings of $500,00O/year. Not included in this total are two optional mechanical proposals
("Shell construction" and "Delete TES system"). The proposal to delete the TES system was
dropped. The shell space is presented for consideration, as well as four alternate structural
proposals. In addition, 30 ideas are provided as Design Suggestions that clarify design, improve
design, or affect cost. For clarity, proposals have been separated into p u p s as shown below:

Recommendation
Category No. of Proposals Initial Savings Life Cycle Savings

Architectural
Structural
Mechanical
Electrical

TOTAL 45 14,649,727 19,430,617

Savings Summary
(All Costs in U.S. Dollars)

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

Cost is a primary basis on which to compare alternate designs. To assure continuity of cost
among the recommendations proposed by the VE team, we have used the project cost estimate
developed by the VE team in cooperation with the A/E as the basis of cost. Where this was not
possible, the VE team used R.S. Means cost data, adjusted for local conditions for comparative
purposes, and data provided by Saudi Projacs estimators.

All life cycle costs were based on the economic factors listed in Section 3 of this report. Where
appropriate, the impact of energy costs and replacement costs, and the effect on operations and
maintenance, are shown within each recommendation.

A summary of potential cost savings for each VE recommendation follows.

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 SUMMARY OF
POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM VE PROPOSALS

INITIAL LIFE CYCLE

PROPOSAL SAVgJGS SAVINC3
ARCHITECTURAL

A-3 Relocate basement stairs. 139,630 139,630

A-4 Stop elevators at upper ground floor. 1,058,017

A-9 Delete escalators & stairs. 741,350

A-13 Delete terrace planters. 13,160 13,160

A-14 Delete one bank of elevators at floors 7-18. 232,275 232,275

A-15 Plant level curtain wall glazing and

interior modifications. 556,800

A-16 Change roof of bridges. 8,000 8.000

A-17 Change granite at prayer roof. 7,500

A-18 Reduce lobby for 2-tenant floors. 71,400

A-19 Delete skylights over stairs 5 & 6. 2,800 2,800

A-20 Redesign cove at triangular offices. 32,270

A-27 Increase granite wall at triangle offices. 466,670

A-32 Modify granite usage between towers. 607,400 607,400

A-34 Revise floor paving at colonnade. 46,825 46,825

A-35 Delete tents at second floor. 41,100 102,130

A-36 Eliminate 4th & 5th level and relocate spaces. See S-3

ARCHITECTURALTOTAL

Cae Study One Corporate Office Building

 INITIAL LIFE CYCLE
S SAVINGS

STRUCTURAL

5-3 Full hollow-core plank floor construction. 1,441,600 1,441,600

S-4 Delete 4th & 5th basement levels. 535,200 535,200

S-6 In core areas use 20 cm masonry for cross 129,350

walls in lieu of CIP for top 30 m of walls.

S-9 Use steel stairs in lieu of CIP. 121,350 121,350

S-10 Reduce basement wall thickness from 30 cm

to 20 cm at first level. 20,720

STRUCTURAL TOTAL $2?248,220 $2,248,220

Optional Ideas
S-la Use two-way beam and slab design for all
structural floors in lieu of rib slab and
beam design. 849,600

S-1b Similar to S-la above, but exclude basement

parking floors. 643,730

S-2 Use precast prestressed concrete hollow-core

planks spanning between CIP beams for
basement levels 1 and 2. 349,100

S-7 Similar to S-6 but also use masonry for

E-W core walls on grid lines 8.5 and 11.5.
S-7 can be used only if S-1 is used. 10,100

Note: Optional ideas are not included in totals. The combination of ideas totaled above is
recommended as it provides the maximum savings. The other optional ideas may be used only in
one of the following two combinations:

Care Study One Corporate Office Building

 INITIAL LIFE CYCLE
?RoPosAL SAVINGS SAVINGS

MECHANICAL

M-1 Simplify air conditioning

in core of basement level.

M-2a Modify TES design. 454.700

M-3 Simplify air conditioning

in wre of basement level 5.

M-5 Delete air conditioning

in car park lift lobbies.

M-8 Revise air conditioning at east entrance of

ground and mezzanine. 6,200

M-9 Revise air conditioning

at wmmon spaces of ground and mezzanine. 1,050

M-16 Simplify stair pressurization with 2 small

wall-mounted propeller fans. 9,550

M-22 Revise air conditioning

at common spaces of 1st floor.

M-23 Simplify air distribution in lift lobbies. 8,750

M-26 -Increasecoverage of VAV boxes. 382,400

M-29 Modify HVAC for 3-tenant suites. 39,600

M-30 Modiiy office supply air device. 260,800

M-36 Delete level 2 penthouse. 1,077,300

M-38 Use ASHRAE recommended criteria.* 1,141,300

M-39 Delete BTU metering. 200,000

MECHANICAL TOTAL $3,672,580

* Needs further review by client.

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 INITIAL LIFE CYCLE
PROPOSAL SAVINGS SAVINGS
Optional Ideas

M-2 Delete TES system. Dropped

Bid alternate option.

M-24 Shell construction

Note: Optional ideas are not included in totals.

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 INITIAL LIFE CYCLE
PROPOSAL SAVINGS SAVINGS

ELECTRICAL

E-1 Reconfigure electrical distribution. 1,735,000

E-4 Reconfigure HVAC system electric. 1,324,130

E-7 Reconfigure lighting systems. 133,630

E-18 Reconfigure emergency power. 653,730

E-29 Reconfigure telephone exchange & system. 336,000

E 3 5 Delete lobby cove lighting in rental tower. 16,370

E-37 Replace parabolic lighting fixtures in offices. 166,700

E-38a Delete glazing cove lighting. 249,800

E-39 Reconfigure electrical connections for

for VAV boxes. 88,370

ELECTRICAL TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Stop elevators at upper ground floor

ORIGINAL DESIGN

In each tower, six elevators serve the 3rd basement level for garage parking. These same
elevators serve podium shopping and the 18-story office towers.

PROPOSED DESIGN

Stop ofice tower elevators at the upper ground floor. Add two 2,500-pound hydraulic elevators
in the basement at each tower, one on each side of the end of each elevator bank, to serve garage
parking only between basement level 3 and the upper ground floor.

DISCUSSION
Attached to this proposal is an elevator consultant's report (not included in this case study),
which indicates that the present design does not meet minimum requirements for good elevator
service. The proposed separation of elevator function improves service to office tower users and
to car park and shop users. It improves privacy for office tower use, because shoppers cannot go
past the upper ground-floor level as they might do in the original design.

This proposal improves handicap accessibility in the basement by ensuring that all elevators
serving the basement levels will be accessible, which is not the case in the present design.
Space savings is gained on basement levels 1 through 3. The space saved is approximately 100
square meters per floor. The space currently occupied by the elevators on the lower ground floor
becomes the elevator pit for the towers. This proposal also eliminates service to B4 and B5
levels (three stops). However, it is unsafe to combine people and water tanks in these lower
levels. It is assumed that these functions will be relocated elsewhere, as suggested in other
proposals. As a result of this proposal, the space saved herein could be used for the relocated
small dormitory, water storage, engineering office, and other support functions. Maintenance on
elevator landing openings will be reduced. This is estimated to be worth $300 per opening per
year.

Life Cycle Cost Summary Capital Replacement Annual O&M

Original 1,558,017 0 16,800

Proposed 499,295 0 6,130
Savings 1,058,722 0 10,670
TOTAL LIFE CYCLE SAVINGS: $1,159,257

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Stop elevators at upper ground floor

Proposed Elevators at Upper Ground Floor

M e t e this wall lo p M d e
Typbl proposd garage

)
space behvean e h b n at
eIevatm. (Roveme cide al
basement for mechanical
north lower)
plplns.

South Tower
DRW FD A-IS

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

COST WORKSHEET RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Stop elevators at upper ground floor

ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL

ORIGINAL DESIGN

Tower elevators (UG to B3)

Tower elevators (B4B5)
Shaft walls
(27 1m x 20m high per shaft)
Lobby finishes
Lobby doors
Lobby services

Total

PROPOSED DESIGN

Tower elevators LO 3 19,325 57,975

Basement hydraulics LO 20 17,330 346,600
Garage elevator shaft walls mz 960 74 71,040
Tower shaft walls m2 320 74 23,680

Total %US499,295

SAVINGS %US1,058,722

Case St& One Corporate Ofhce Building

 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Use precast hollow-core plank floor construction

ORIGINAL DESIGN

The typical floor construction for all floors above level 1 basement is cast-in-place (CIP)
concrete ribislab spanning between CIP concrete beams. A 7 cm topping slab is placed over the
floor.

PROPOSED DESIGN

Use precast, prestressed concrete hollow-core planks. The construction is proposed in all floor
areas where riblslab design is presently shown. The precast planks will be 25 cm thick, with 7
cm topping slab. The topping is also provided in the original design. The hollow-core planks
would span 10 m (9 m clear span) between CIP concrete beams running in N-S direction.

DISCUSSION

The proposed design generates significant savings in construction cost and time.

A new 21-story hotel is being designed locally using hollow-core planks. We have also
conferred with the director of the local precast plant regarding the use and availability of precast
hollow-core planks. In addition, a specialist in the use of structural precast products highly
recommends the use of hollow-core plank as both economical and available.

LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY Capital Replacement Annual O&M

Original
Proposed
Savings

TOTAL LIFE CYCLE

(PW) SAVINGS:

Life Cycle Cost Savings

(in U.S. dollars)

Case Study One Corporate Ofhce Building

COST WORKSHEET RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Use precast hollow-core plank floor construction

ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL

ORIGINAL DESIGN

CIP &/slab

Total

PROPOSED DESIGN

Hollow-core plank

Total

SAVINGS $I ,441,800

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION No. M-2a
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Modify Thermal Energy Storage (TES) design

ORIGIN& DESIGN
Present design calls for a thermal energy storage system (TES) consisting of four 690 m3tanks
attached to two 214-ton chillers. The chillers run at approximately 100% during off-peak hours
and store energy that is used (cold water) for peak periods and for emergency usage.

PROPOSED DESIGN

The VE team proposes to eliminate the 4th & 5th basement levels and relocate the pump room to
basement level 1. This proposal can be implemented only if the elevators are stopped at the
ground floor. See No. A-4. The mat slab must be dropped 2 meters and provisions made for a lift
room under the elevators that stop at the upper ground level. Also, only one riser per tower is
proposed for the new TES system.

DISCUSSION

This alternate will require approximately $124,000 of tank construction and a reduced rental
impact because of relocation of the pump rooms from the 1st floor to the basement.

Tank area involved = 7 m x 36 m x 3 floors = 756 m2

Rental cost lost per yr. = $30,15O/tank area x 2 tank area = $60,30O/yr.

This proposal now shows an improved return on investment of 48.4% over the original design of
21.3%.

Note: This proposal must be evaluated for tank depth of 10.6 m vs. 12.0 m ideal, relocation of
TES pump rooms, and use of one riser per tower.

The original costs are included M-2.

LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY CAPITAL REPLACEMENT ANNUAL O&M

Original 2,466,700 0 237,860
Proposed 2,012,030 0 182,660
Savings 454,670 0 55,200
LIFE CYCLE 0SAVINGS %US 975,000

Life Cycle Cost Savings

(in U.S. dollars)

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

LIFE CYCLE COST WORKSHEET VE RECOMMENDATION NO. N-2a

PROJECT: Corporate Headquarters Building

ITEM: Modify TES System

Discount rate: 10% Economic Life: 30 years

(All costs in $US x 1,000)

ORIGINAL PROPOSEI)
actor Est. Costs PW Costs Est. Costs PW Costs
INITIAL COSTS
Chillers
Other costs
TES equipment
Tank cost 48i5
Tank support
Transfer beam
Elev walls 1-3
Pump rm mods
Extra tank cost
Other savings
Total Initial Cost

REPLACEMENT COSTS
20 years
Total Replacement Costs

ANNUAL COSTS
energy
maintenance
value - rental
Tots1 Annual Costs 0

TOTAL PW COSTS
LIFE CYCLE PRESENT
WORTH SAVINGS
REWRN ON INITIAL
INVESTMENT

Case Study Ow Corporate Office Building

 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION VE Rec. No. M-2a
Project: Corporate Headquarters Building
Item: Modify TES design

I TES TANKS

-PROPOGED
PUMP RoDM

Elevation top ground floor (upper) = 2.950 m

Proposed elevation top of tanks 0.0 m - water level - 2.3 m
-
Proposed elevation bottom of bottom tanks 12.9 m
Volume of tanks = 6.5 m x 10.6 m x 23.4 m x (2 sides) = 3,224 m3
Required volume = 690 x 4 = 2,760 m3
Note:
Tank depth of 10.6 is marginal - if not satisfactory, additional tank depth will be required.

Case Study One Corporate Ofhce Building

VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Reconfigure electrical distribution

ORIGINAL DESIGN
Existing system uses 13.8 KV feeder from the local power company room connected to owner's
13.8 KV switchgear with four 2000 KVA transformers to step voltage down to 220V. Each
transformer is connected to a main switchboard (MSB) for HVAC loads and general power.
From each MSB, a set of bus ducts distributes load to building floor panels and distribution
boards. Basement boards are connected by cables and each transformer is considered a separate
unit and cannot support another in case of failure. General power MSBs are connected through
automatic transfer switches (ATS) to separate emergency generators for each tower and no bus
coupling exists between towers for emergency use.

The bus duct system set consists of two 2500 Amp. connected to each MSB for general power,
four 4000 Amp. connected to HVAC MSBs, and a 3000 Amp. connected from each MSB for
general power to each emergency switchboard. Every panel is metered, a total of 418 panels.
All lighting panels have 48 poles. The load assumed for future shop spaces results in having
some 70 mm2 cable. No demand or diversity factor was used for riser design. The main circuit
breaker (MCB) for each MSB is 5000 Amp., which is a rare size, and it is connected by a
specially manufactured 5000 Amp. bus duct.
PROPOSED DESIGN
Delete the bus duct system. Relocate transformers on building floors. Reduce the size of
equipment by using 380V for HVAC, using more than 2 imnsformers for general power
distribution with 220V secondary. Connect all transformers by a looped 13.8 KV cable. Loop can
be achieved across the 17th floor bridge. Transformers should be as follows:

2 ea. 2000 KVA for HVAC located at roof plant rooms

1 ea. 1000 KVA for emergency power
2 ea. 500 KVA for floors basement 5 through floor 2 at 220V
2 ea. 300 KVA at 6th floors
2 ea. 300 KVA at 14th floors at 220V
2 ea. 300 KVA for elevators at 380V

Use 3 x 150 rnm213.8 KV cable for the loop. Reconfigure 13.8 KV switchgear to include 1
incoming and 2 outgoing for the looped 13.8 KV cable.

LIFE CYCLE ANNUAL

COST SUMMARY CAPITAL REPLACEMENT 0&M
Original $US 2,515,380 0 $US 25,154
Proposed $US 781,041 0 $US 7,810
Savings %US1,734,339 0 $US 17,360
LIFE CYCLE (PW) SAVINGS $US 1,897,974

Life Cycle Cost Savings (in U.S. dollars)

Case Study One Corporate Gffice Building

 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION No. E-1
PROJECT: Corporate Ofice Building
ITEM: Reconfigure electrical distribution

PROPOSED DESIGN (continued)

Refer to attached sketch for additional details of the proposed system. Use cables in conduits
from transformer board to each panel. Reconfigure all panels for anticipated loads and the
required number of poles.

DISCUSSION

The system as designed is very expensive, without any flexibility to transfer power from one
tower to the other. Use of bus duct requires much more maintenance cost than does cable. The
proposed system achieves both flexibility and lower initial cost.

This proposal requires space for the transformers on the recommended floors. With 2 plant
rooms in each tower on each floor, this can be accomplished without extra cost except for a shaft
for the high voltage cables. Transformers located at floors will also improve system
performance.

The proposed system should use standard materials to maximize competition and eliminate the
use of specialized manufacturers for designed equipment. This proposal minimizes the use of
expensive draw-out circuit breakers.

Annual maintenance and operation costs are estimated to be 1% of initial cost.

Case S t d y One Corporate Office Building

VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION VE Rw.NO.E-I
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Reconfigure electrical distribution

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION VE Rec. No. E-1
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Reconfigure electrical distribution

NORTH TOWER ptoposed Root Distriion SOUTH TOWER

Alternative 1

Case Study One Corporate Ofhce Building

COST WORKSHEET Recommendation No. E-1
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Reconfigure electrical distribution

I'
j
'b

Proposed Floor.Distribution : NA4

t
I
I
8
1
I
t
!
8
i
#
I
I
,II
I
I
1
8
I
I
I
8
8
I
I
,I 1

I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I

*II
v
I

11.R2Ptzr
D A Y m

w
Oown to BASEMENT L M L 1

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 COST WORKSHEET Recommendation No. E-
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Reconfigure electrical distribution

C o s t O r O ~ ~

End Box 2000 Am

Case Study One Carporate Gflice Building

COST WORKSHEET Recommendation No. E-1
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Reconfigure electrical distribution

Case Study One Corporate Office Building

 COST WORKSHEET Recommendation No. E-1
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Reconfigure electrical distribution
- - -

Coat of Ploposcd Design

Care Study Gni Corporate Office B u ~ l d m ~

- * < - A
COST WORKSHEET Recommendation No.E-1
PROJECT: Corporate Office Building
ITEM: Reconfigure electrical distribution

Case S d y One Corporate Office Building