Perspectives, Cases, and Commentary

spyfleaUrban and Civil

Nov 25, 2013 (3 years and 4 months ago)

68 views

The Value of Civil Engineering Research

to Building Design & Construction Practitioners


Perspectives, Cases, and Commentary


Robert K. Tener, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE

Executive Director, Charles Pankow Foundation

Claremont, California










TOP TEN CPF ISSUES, 2009


㈰㄰


Research grants
-

no funding capability for new
awards

Two approved grant awards on hold + new Research Need Statements
a
r
r
i
v
i
n
g


Research program strategies going forward: weak
consensus re directions


Design Management initiative


must advance


5th Board member selection


must advance


Need to constrain 2009 expenditures; economize
operating costs


CJP Legacy Project
--

must maintain progress


Disseminate & diffuse 7 new research products: need
a plan


Advisory Council roles going forward: how add value
to CPF program of work?


Non
-
research grantmaking


how much to expend
2009?


CJP assets remain: little progress, storage draining
$1,075/mo.


+

OPPORTUNITIES AT HAND, SUMMER 2009

Seek new, interim source(s) of research co
-
funding

Press forward with Design Management project

Develop strategic research focus by formally identifying our
“Customers”

i.e.,
whom do we intend

CPF products to serve?

and how can we best communicate with them?

Formulate CPF research directions for 2010
-

2011 & out:

what about BIM? DBIA? ACI?

retain “Two Goal Strategy” through ______ ?

Capitalize on
proven

Allies; focus on collaborating with them
(i.e., hunker down)

Assess diffusion of research products & their impacts with
CPF “Customer” sets

Decide about Foundation Source & feasible successor admin
resources


PURPOSES TODAY


Illustrate current research programs
that are delivering high value products
to building design & construction project
teams



Characterize why they work well



Commentary for CE academics


CONTEXT


Building design & construction sector

of U.S.

construction

industry


Viewpoint: Delivering needed new knowledge from

applied R&D


Current view (2006


2010 +)


Three case institutions:




Construction Industry Institute (CII)




Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI)




Charles Pankow Foundation (CPF)

THE CONTINUUM OF INNOVATION


Product/

Component/

System
Develop
-

ment

Proofs/

Pilots/

Approvals

Users
Adopt/

Commercia
l Utilization

Applied
Research

Users
Adopt/

Commercial
Utilization

Operations

& Mainten
-
ance

CPF’s

Focus

Dissemin
-
ation &
Diffusion

Basic
Research

The Six Key Factors That

Drive
High
-
Value

Applied R&D



Need
-
based research


“Industry Champion” as user/driver


Industry stakeholders co
-
funding ($$$ + in
-
kind)


Robust practitioner / P.I. collaboration


Deliverables


useful @ Day 1 (“codifiable”)


Proactive dissemination & diffusion




Knowledge creation through CII research to define best practices,
breakthroughs, and industry norms.


Knowledge dissemination through CII research publications,
implementation guides, educational materials, workshops, and
conferences.


Knowledge management, organization, and assessment of relevance of
the 450
-
plus CII documents and publications.


Knowledge assessment of the impact of CII practices through the
benchmarking and metrics program.

CII: A Leader in the Construction Industry

Through these
knowledge processes
, CII enhances the business
effectiveness, sustainability, and global competitiveness of CII
members and lifting the construction industry.




CII OVERVIEW

(Appreciation to Wayne Crew, Director, CII)




1983 Origin:
Industry Needs

(CICE Study)


First to bring research to engineering
-
construction world


CII philosophy: Results/Performance Oriented


Safety + Costs + Schedule + Quality


High level of knowledge transfer to industry




Benchmarking & Metrics measure results



Member
-

based programs (114 industry members today)


Heavy industrial construction = historic core


$35,000 ~ $40,000 annual member firm dues


“Building Sector Community of Practice” = recent, growing

CII OVERVIEW

(cont’d)


Owner / contractor member balance & influence


High

member involvement in R&D work


as the

“customer”


23 universities involved in current research (43

total since 1983)


Widely disseminated research products


*See CII “Product Library:” 450+ products


Dissemination: conferences, web, educational, etc.


www.construction
-
institute.org

Value of CII Best Practices
-

Budget (Contractors)

Note: Average Budget =58 Million, submitted after 2002 (n=81)

Better

Value of CII Best Practices


Schedule (Contractors)

Note: Average Planned Duration=109 weeks, submitted after 2002 (n=81)

Better

Safety Performance


TRIR Trend

5.90
6.30
14.30
14.20
13.00
12.20
11.80
9.90
9.50
8.80
8.60
8.30
7.90
13.10
10.60
7.10
6.80
6.40
0.58
0.88
7.19
6.12
5.32
4.31
3.44
3.00
2.66
2.30
1.60
1.59
1.67
1.03
1.02
1.23
1.16
0.72
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
325
413
477
497
527
613
644
770
518
765
995
936
1,117
1,073
1,129
1,195
1,333
1,297
Year and Work Hours (MM)

Total Recordable Incidence Rate
Industry*
CII
*OSHA Construction Division, NAICS 236-238, SIC 15-17 Reflects OSHA Reporting Change


> 10 Times Safer

CII / CPF CO
-
FUNDED CURRENT RESEARCH

1. University of Colorado
-
Boulder: “Enhancing and
Expanding Innovation in the Construction Industry”


P.I.: Paul Chinowsky; Industry Champion: CII Advisory

Committee (10 firms)


$235,000; completes late 2009


2. Penn State: “Project Execution Planning for BIM”


P.I.: John Messner; Industry Champions = Victor Sanvido

(Southland Ind.) & Deke Smith (bSa)


$282,000; completes 2010

PCI R&D COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

(Appreciation to Doug Sutton, Chair, PCI R&D Committee)



PCI: unique, hybrid trade/professional association; 55
-
year history


Precast/pre
-
stress producers, suppliers, professionals


Members’ voluntary participation resources most ongoing activities


Small, dedicated professional staff coordinates projects


Goal: to benefit entire construction industry


N.B.:

When
precast concrete

chosen by building design &
construction team


HIGH potential for value
-
adding
innovating

on
project!


www.pci.org


CHARACTERIZE PCI R&D PROGRAM & PROJECTS


PCI Members believe in importance of ongoing
knowledge development & transfer to practice


Emphasis on the “D” end of the R&D spectrum


Producer members always looking for ROI from
research


Far
-
sighted R&D projects not precluded


Continually evolving, strong relationships among
academics (institutions, DH’s, PI’s) & practitioners

CHARACTERIZE PCI R&D PROGRAM
(cont’d)


Robust linkages
, precast producer / design
professional / academic


essential




Every research project


active, engaged Advisory Cmte



Comprising producer, professional, supplier, and academic

members, passionate to advance the topic



Advisory Committees report regularly to R&D Committee,

which reports to the PCI Board of Directors


PCI’s direct funding leverages additional funding and/or
in
-
kind participation by producers, suppliers, non
-
profit
organizations, government agencies, etc.




*The
rule

for PCI R&D Committee projects


PCI PROGRAM METRICS


PCI R&D Committee currently sponsoring or co
-
sponsoring 20+
research projects.


Annual PCI R&D funding >$600,000/year in recent years


Typical co
-
funding from external sources ~5:1


Ongoing partnerships with Lehigh/ATLSS and Univ. Illinois/

MAE Centers


R&D Committee: 17 academics, 15 design prof’s, 11 precast

producer prof’s/rep’s, + 5 others.


Typical meeting attendance (2X / year): ~ 30 academics, 15
design prof’s, 15 producer/engineers, + 10 others

PCI DISSEMINATION & DIFFUSION


Publication of research results required as a

deliverable


Especially in PCI Journal; + PCI Design

Handbook; PCI Standard Design Practice


Follow
-
up diffusion activities in many cases

(e.g. codification, etc.) under PCI TAC

CPF/PCI CO
-
FUNDED RESEARCH

Five projects; total CPF awards = $1,178,000; + >$1,564,000 co
-
funding


1.

Univ. of Arizona:

“Design Procedure for Precast Diaphragm System for High Seismic Zones”


P.I.: Robert Fleischman, Industry Champion = PCI R&D (Tom D’Arcy et.al.)


$410,000 CPF + >$1,300,000 by others; completes mid
-
2009

2.

Georgia Tech

(through NIBS): “Building Information Modeling for Architectural Precast Concrete”


P.I.: Chuck Eastman; Industry Champion = Earle Kennett, Vice
-
Pres., NIBS


$158,000 CPF + $41,000 by others; completed 2008

3.
Univ. of Notre Dame
: “Hybrid Precast Wall Systems for Seismic Regions”


P.I.: Gino Kurama; Industry Champions = PCI R&D Committee (Walter Korkosz, CEG)


$165,000 CPF + $75,000 by others; completes 2010

4.
Georgia Tech
: “National BIM Standard for Precast Concrete”


P.I.: Chuck Eastman; Industry Champions: Mike LaNier, PCI R&D


$340,000 CPF + $29,000 by others

5.
Univ. of Nebraska


Lincoln

: “Shallow Hollow Core Floor System”


Co
-
P.I.’s: Maher Tadros & George Morcous; Industry Champion = Mark Lafferty, PCI R&D


$105,000 CPF + $119,000 by others

CHARLES PANKOW FOUNDATION





Mission


The Charles Pankow Foundation exists to
advance innovations in building design and
construction, so as to provide the public with
buildings of improved quality, efficiency, and
value.

CPF DEFINED


Private, independent, non
-
profit, public benefit,
philanthropic foundation


Exclusively for scientific, educational, other
charitable purposes


501(c)3 organization under IRS code


All research products must be “in the public
domain”


Charles J. Pankow, 1920
-

2004


Purdue BSCE 1947; Hon. Doctorate 1983


Design
-
Builder, 1950’s


lifetime


Founded Charles Pankow Builders 1963


Consummate innovator:
concrete forming (patents); pre
-
casting; hybrid
moment
-
frame; project automation; Concrete Construction HB chapters


Leader in ACI, ASCE, DBIA, SEAOC, others


Honors & Awards; NAE 1997 & others


Instilled his firm’s culture: “Find a better way”


Advocated greater R & D investments in building industry


Formed Foundation to carry out his vision

RESEARCH PROGRAM FOCUS


Deliver innovative products, components, & systems to
meet
defined needs
for better buildings


Research products provide
immediate, practical
benefit
to building design & construction teams


Involve a committed
industry champion

in each project


Apply CPF funding to leverage
co
-
funding


Provide research products that can be capitalized on
through
integrated project delivery

CPF GOAL AREAS = 2

RESEARCH AREA 1: Structures

Goal: Improve the quality, efficiency and value of large buildings by
advancing codifiable innovations in structural components and
systems.


RESEARCH AREA 2: Project Teams: Tools & Practices


Goal: Improve the performance of building design & construction
teams by advancing integration, collaboration, communication,
and efficiency through innovative new tools and technologies, and
new means and methods for project team practices.


2006
-
09 RESEARCH GRANTMAKING


22 research grant awards:



*
16
to
universities, 6
to
non
-
profit research orgns



* 13 in structures; 9 in project teams



* of 13 structural projects, 10


high seismic zones


$4.3 million in grant awards; typical grant $150
-
300K


Industry Champion

involved on every project


Final Reports posted:
www.spur.org/pankowreports


Details of each grant:
www.pankowfoundation.org


KEYS TO EARLY CPF PROGRESS

1.
Our CPF Advisory Council


Rebekah Gladson,

DBIA


Victor Sanvido
, Southland Industries


Tom Gunkel,

M.A. Mortenson

Ron Skaggs,

HKS Inc.


Ron Klemencic,

MKA Assoc’s

Charles Thornton
,
Thornton
-
Tomasetti


Patrick MacLeamy,

HOK


Hans VanWinkle,

CII Dir.
-
Emeritus


Jeffrey Russell,

Univ. Wisc.

Tom Verti,

Pankow


Joe Sanders,

Pankow



+ Incoming Class:

Steve Baldridge, Glenn Bell, Greg Gidez



2. Industry Champions: the concept & the people

3. Our Research Focus (mantra: “red zone to end zone”)

4. “Research Need Statement” as basis

5. Alliances with: PCI, CII, ATC, DBIA, NIBS, ACI




(N.B.: NO ASCE Institute… )


INDUSTRY CHAMPIONS & P.I.’S, ILLUSTRATED


DSDM Diaphragm Panels: R Fleischman


Tom D’Arcy + PCI R&D


Metal Shear Panels: B Stojadinovic


Steve

Tipping, S.E.


Reinforced Concrete Link Beams: J Wallace


Ron Klemencic


Dual
-
plate Composite Core Walls: Kreger+Bowman

Ron Klemencic


Thin Shear Walls in High Seismic Zones: J Restrepo


Bob

Englekirk


Perf. Based Seismic G/L’s for Tall Bldgs: J Moehle/PEER


Ron

Hamburger et. al.


Hybrid Precast Wall Systems, Seismic Regions: Y Kurama

Walt

Korkosz, PCI


Improved Concrete Tolerance Mgmt:

C Milberg



䕬摯渠呩灰楮朠☠



ACI 117



OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEPT. HEADS


Ally faculty with (an) industry institution(s): professional, trade


e.g. CII, PCI, DBIA, ATC, ACI, AGC, etc.
(bldgs)


Dept Advisory Committees:



*
Recruit practitioners who are innovators & research advocates



*

Get their input
re

real needs for applied, practice
-
oriented R&D


Mentor junior faculty: Engage them with practitioners


Bring
innovator

CE practitioners into classrooms

A Commentary


Basic

science

research

is

important,

but

practice

oriented

research

is

of

at

least

equal

importance
.

Current

metrics

for

promotion

and

advancement

of

engineering

faculty

are

definitely

tilted

in

favor

of

“pure”

research

that

i s

di sconnected

from

marketplace

implications
.

Some

institutions

even

go

so

far

as

to

weight

research

funding

according

t o

i ts

“pure

sci ence”

character
.

Academi c

r esear cher s

shoul d

be

encour aged,

not

di scouraged,

from

conducti ng

research

on

practice
-
oriented

problems
.




WRAP

Discussion?


* * * * *


Robert K. Tener,

P.E., Ph.D., F.ASCE


Executive Director, Charles Pankow Foundation


223 West Foothill Blvd., 2
nd

Floor


Claremont, California 91711


909/624
-
1800


rktener@pankowfoundation.org

HURDLES & OBSTACLES

Why is applied R&D to advance innovation in building design &
construction so sparse?


1. Lack of research funding from institutional entities


2. Lack of practitioner demand for R&D within industry


complex set of root
causes, including



Owners
: little interest in technical solutions, just concentrate on “The Deal”

and
minimizing up
-
front costs



Contracting community
: more focused on managing risk than pursuing creative
new thinking



Highly competitive industry
: constrains levels of excess profits that could allow
a builder to make strategic investments in innovation



Building codes
: overly prescriptive, with hugely cumbersome code change
processes



Litigious society
: punishes any performance outside of tested norms



Uneducated consumers
: occupants of buildings don’t know what might be
possible, so don’t know what to ask for



Financing entities
: design/build tried and true building systems or else no
financing



HURDLES & OBSTACLES
(cont’d)

Why is applied R&D to advance innovation in building design & construction
so sparse?


3. The inertia of the status
-
quo, which for our industry is exemplified by the motto: “If
it’s not broke, don’t fix it!”

4. Project teams’ behavior characterized by



Schedules & budgets are too tight to take a chance on something new


Lack of resources including staff time


Lack of a strategy for innovation within firm


Owners do not recognize the value

5. Just the tip of the iceberg / analysis . . . .


* * * * *