Statewide Capital Master Plan“Conducting an Infrastructure Audit”
October 10, 2006
Facilities & Infrastructure Assessment
W O O L P E R T Woolpert, Inc.
• Full Service Planning, Engineering, Architecture and Technology Related Services Firm
• Focused in 4 Markets– Higher Education– State/Local Government– Federal Government– Private
• 750 Employees Nationally– 300+ in Ohio (Cincinnati, Columbus & Dayton)
• Experience On Over 100 University/College Campuses– 80%+ are State Supported– Over 25 Two & Four Year Campuses in Ohio– Reputation in Campus Planning
W O O L P E R T Woolpert University ExperienceWoolpert University Experience • Ambassador Baptist College • Auburn University • Ball State University • Bennedict College • Bennett College • Berea College • Bowling Green State University • Butler University • Central State University • College of William and Mary • Cornell University • Davidson College • Denison University • Depauw University • Duke University • Earlham College • Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University • Faulkner State Community College • Gaston College • Georgetown University • Illinois State University • Indiana State University • Indiana University • Johnson C. Smith University • Kent State University-Ashtabula • Kent State University-Geauga • Kent State University-Salem • Lander University • Lenoir-Rhyne College • Longwood College • Loyola College • Marian College • Marietta College • Marshall University • Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Medical College of Ohio • Miami University-Hamilton • Miami University-Oxford • Michigan State University • Norfolk State University • North Carolina Central University • North Carolina State University • Northern Kentucky University • Oberlin College • Ohio Dominican College
• Ohio State University-Columbus • Ohio State University-Mansfield • Ohio State University-Marion • Ohio State University-Newark • Ohio University-Athens • Ohio University-Chillicothe • Old Dominion University • Penn State University • Presbyterian College • Purdue University • Queens University • Shawnee State College • Shippensburg University • Sinclair Community College • South Carolina State University • Southern Illinois University • Southwestern Illinois College • Spring Hill College • St. Louis University • University of Alabama • University of Cincinnati • University of Dayton • University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign • University of Iowa • University of Kentucky • University of Louisville • University of Maryland • University of Missouri-Columbia • University of Missouri-Rolla • University of Montevallo • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill • University of North Carolina at Charlotte • University of Northern Iowa • University of Pittsburgh • University of Rochester • University of South Alabama • University of Texas at Dallas • University of Virginia • Vincennes University • Virginia Institute of Marine Science • Wabash College • Washington University • West Virginia University • Western Carolina University • Winston-Salem State University • Winthrop College
Wright State University
W O O L P E R T Infrastructure Experience
• Experience Through Hundreds of Infrastructure Planning & Design Projects
• National Experience Based in Ohio– Energy Utilities Planning– Water Utilities Planning– Comprehensive Land Use Planning– Geospatial Planning
Utility Master Planning and Design
Ener
gy A
udits
and
Surv
eys
Hydr
aulic
Ana
lysis
– Dist
ribut
ion
Syst
ems
Ther
mal
Analy
sis –
Heat
ing/
Cool
ing
Heat
ing/
Cool
ing
Load
Ana
lysis
Ener
gy S
imul
atio
n
Powe
r Sys
tem
Doc
umen
tatio
n
Shor
t Circ
uit A
nalys
is
Econ
omic
Analy
sis –
Life
Cyc
le Co
stin
g
Chille
d W
ater
Mas
ter P
lans
Heat
ing
Mast
er P
lans
Elec
tric P
ower
Mas
ter P
lans
Co-G
ener
atio
n Ma
ster
Plan
s
Stor
m W
ater
Mas
ter P
lans
Pota
ble W
ater
Mas
ter P
lans
Dist
ribut
ion
Pipi
ng D
esig
n –
Dire
ct B
urial
/Tun
nelin
g
Build
ing
Inte
rface
Des
ign
Pum
ping
Sys
tem
Des
ign
Utilit
y Sys
tem
s Con
trol D
esig
n
Cons
truct
ion
Adm
inist
ratio
n
Auburn University – Alabama
Ball State University – Indiana
University of Cincinnati – Ohio
Clemson University – South Carolina
Cornell University – New York
Denison University – Ohio
Duke University – North Carolina
Earlham College – Ohio
Indiana State University – Indiana
Indiana University – Indiana
University of Iowa – Iowa
University of Kentucky – Kentucky
University of Montevallo – Alabama
Ohio State University – Ohio
University of Pittsburgh – Pennsylvania
Purdue University – Indiana
University of Rochester – New York
Texas Tech University – Texas
Wabash College – Indiana
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Chilled Water Systems Specialized Experience
Engi
neer
ing
Stud
ies
Chille
d W
ater
Gen
erat
ion
Hydr
aulic
Ana
lysis
– Dist
ribut
ion
Syst
ems
Dire
ct B
urial
Pip
ing
Abov
egro
und
Pipi
ng
Build
ing
Pipi
ng
Prim
ary/S
econ
dary
Pum
ping
Sy
stem
s
Build
ing
Inte
rface
Mod
ifica
tions
Build
ing
HVAC
Mod
ifica
tions
Chille
d W
ater
Sys
tem
– Ce
ntra
l Co
ntro
l
Build
ing
(HVA
C) C
ontro
l
Auburn University – Alabama
Ball State University – Indiana
University of Cincinnati – Ohio
Clemson University – South Carolina
Denison University – Ohio
Duke University – North Carolina
Indiana University – Indiana
University of Iowa – Iowa
Ohio State University – Ohio
Ohio University – Ohio
University of Pittsburgh - Pennsylvania
Purdue University – Indiana
University of Rochester – New York
Texas Tech University – Texas
Wabash College – Indiana
IBM – New York, Vermont
Kennedy Space Center – Florida
Lexmark International
Naval Research Lab
Rolls Royce
Central Heating Systems Master Planning
Evalu
atio
n of
Exis
ting
Cond
ition
s
Ener
gy A
udit/
Surv
ey
Heat
ing
Load
Ana
lysis
Ther
mal
Analy
sis o
f Dist
ribut
ion
Syst
em
Stre
ss A
nalys
is of
Dist
ribut
ion
Syst
em
Hydr
aulic
Ana
lysis
of D
istrib
utio
n Sy
stem
Ener
gy S
imul
atio
n (M
odeli
ng)
Alte
rnat
ives A
nalys
is
Cent
ral v
s. De
cent
ral A
nalys
is
Econ
omic
Analy
sis w
ith L
ife
Cycle
Cos
ting
Mast
er P
lan R
epor
t (25
-Yea
r)
Deve
lopm
ent o
f Sys
tem
Map
s
Auburn University – Alabama
Ball State University – Indiana
Berea College – Kentucky
Clemson University – South Carolina
Duke University – North Carolina
Indiana State University – Indiana
Indiana University – Indiana
University of Iowa – Iowa
University of Montevallo – Alabama
Ohio State University – Ohio
University of Pittsburgh – Pennsylvania
Wabash College – Indiana
Alcoa – Indiana
Anacostia Naval Station – Washington, DC
DCSC – Ohio
GE – Ohio
Great Lakes NTC – Illinois
IBM – New York, Vermont, Virginia
Kennedy Space Center – Florida
Portsmouth GDP – Ohio
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base – Ohio
W O O L P E R T The Ohio State University
• 4 Step Infrastructure Master Planning Process– Data Gathering, Capacity Analysis, Capital
Improvement Master Plan and GIS Integration
• Scope of Infrastructure Assessment & Planning– Storm & Sanitary Sewers– Domestic Hot & Cold Water– Chilled Water– Steam, Condensate Return & Hot Water– Natural Gas– Electric Power– Campus Data & Communication – Utility Tunnels & Roadways– Exterior Lighting & Emergency Phones– Campus Green Space
W O O L P E R T Challenges of Infrastructure Planning
• Historically, Infrastructure Has Been Secondary• Infrastructure Assessments Are Different• Broad Spectrum of Campus Types• Wide Ranges of Complexity, Condition &
Documentation • Who Owns the Infrastructure?• Equitable Process for All
W O O L P E R T What Are Your Expectations?
• Funding Level to Sustain Current Level of Service? – Minimum Funding Level
• Funding Level to Sustain Growth?– 5 years? 10 years? 25 years?
• Consider Energy Options?– Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Coal Gas, etc.
W O O L P E R TApproaches for Minimum Funding Level
• Mathematical
• Full Physical Inspection
• Statistical
W O O L P E R T Mathematical
• Pro’s– Least Expensive– Least Impact to the Institution– Quickest Process
• Con’s– Least Accurate– Least Defensible– Uses Age as the Only Indicator of Condition
W O O L P E R T Full Physical Inspection
• Pro’s– Most Accurate– Most Defensible
• Con’s– Most Expensive, Not Cost Effective– Most Disruptive– Longest Duration
W O O L P E R T Statistical Approach
• Pro’s– Statistically Accurate– More Defensible than Mathematical– Not Highly Disruptive– Modest Schedule– Best Value
• Con’s– Less Defensible than Physical– Some Level of Disruption– Modest Schedule
W O O L P E R T Most Rudimentary
• Requires a utilities asset inventory• Basic data needed:
– Extent of the asset (eg. 1,200 lineal feet of 7 ft. dia. steam tunnel)
– Date put into service– Anticipated useful life
• An economic model will provide:– Replacement cost– Current value– Annual maintenance budget for asset