Some things you simply take for granted. The 5-day, 40-hour work week. Typical details in design and construction. The list goes on, but have you taken a second look?
In structural engineering, mechanical design loads for spec-built, life science developments fall into this category. Without specified equipment, floors systems in mechanical rooms are commonly engineered to support 150 psf. This blanket design load is often applied to prospective roof top dunnage frames too. It’s an appropriate assumption in many cases, but excessive in others.
H+O Structural Engineering partnered with a confidential developer to create a 300k GSF life science manufacturing campus.
The objective?
Create a flexible base building design to support the future mechanical equipment demands of preeminent life science organizations and avoid excessive sunken costs which diminish returns without adding value to prospective tenants. The mechanical equipment to support future tenants is undefined, but sure to be expansive considering future operational demands.
If we’re too conservative, the developer will have excessive sunken costs in the base building.
If we’re too complacent, the developer and tenant will waste time and capital upgrading a brand-new building.
Instead of taking the 150psf design load standard for granted, H+O dug in. Our design assumptions significantly impact foundations, columns, metal roof deck and lateral system elements. We took a pragmatic approach to the global structural design, while considering upper-bound column loading conditions to achieve the objective.
The result?
- +/- $6,000 savings per column
- +/- $576k total savings
- No unnecessary sunken costs.
Additional cost savings not calculated amount from avoiding thicker metal roof deck, increased fastening patterns, and increased lateral frame members.
Wait, there’s more.
We also identified a conservative superimposed dead load applied to the roof for future tenant ceilings and MEP support. With the columns prepped for future tenant dunnage frames, we were able to comfortably reduce this design load by 10 psf.
The result?
- Reduce steel roof joist weight by 0.5 psf
- +/- $277,000 additional savings
The cost study by H+O resulted in +/-$853,000 total savings.
If you too want to avoid sunken costs, click “Design a New Project” in the top right of your screen to make informed decisions on your next development with H+O.