Construction Industry Institute®

Constructability
A Primer

Research Summary 3-1

reformatted May 2009
 The purpose of this publication is to make available to industry the results of re-
search conducted by the Construction Industry Institute (CII). The publication does not
necessarily represent the views of all CII member companies, but is offered as a contri-
bution to the industry.

CII was founded in 1983 to improve the cost effectiveness of the nation’s largest
industry. The members, who represent a broad cross-section of owners and contrac-
tors, believe that many of the problems that limit cost effectiveness are common ones,
and that real improvements can be best accomplished in a cooperative environment
with the benefits being shared by the construction industry at large.

Construction Industry Institute®

The University of Texas at Austin
3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316
(512) 232-3000
FAX (512) 499-8101

Not printed with state funds

 Constructability
A Primer

Prepared by
Construction Industry Institute
Constructability Task Force

Publication 3-1
July 1986
© 1986 Construction Industry Institute™.

The University of Texas at Austin.

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost
to internal recipients. CII members are permitted to revise and adapt this work for the
internal use provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed

and no modifications made without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at
http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies. Volume discounts may
be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to
purchase CII products at member prices. Faculty and students at a college or university
may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

First Printing July 1986

Second Printing March 1987
Third Printing April 1990
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. What Is Constructability? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Current Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Indonesian Fertilizer Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Refinery Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Residence Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Jet Engine Overhaul Facility Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bleached Market Pulp Mill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Arctic Oil Production Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Electric Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. How Can You Implement A Constructability Program? . . . . . . . . 13

4. Constructability Concepts File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 PREFACE

Constructability means better projects — lower costs, better productiv-

ity, earlier project completions, and earlier start-ups.

Owners, designers, and builders who belong to the Construction Indus-

try Institute (CII) believe this statement.

This publication is addressed to the executives who really cause things

to happen in industry so that they will be aware of how they too can
benefit from a constructability program — how they can realize the cost
savings which better constructability will produce. Paybacks range up to
fifteen to one.

The message is — “Be sure that construction considerations are incorpo-

rated into every phase of a project — feasibility studies, conceptual plan-
ning, design, procurement, as well as construction.”

1
 1

WHAT IS CONSTRUCTABILITY?

Constructability is the optimum use of construction knowledge and ex-

perience in planning, design, procurement, and field operations to achieve
overall project objectives. Maximum benefits occur when people with
construction knowledge and experience become involved at the very be-
ginning of a project. This is illustrated by the following chart (Figure 1).














 


Figure 1. Ability to Influence Final Cost over Project Life

2
 Constructability is not just:

• determining more efficient methods of construction after mobiliza-

tion of field forces.

• allowing construction to review engineering documents periodically

during the design phase.

• assigning construction personnel to the engineering office during

design.

• a modularization or preassembly program.

Although the above activities are a part of constructability, they are only
that, a part. Only through the effective and timely integration of construc-
tion input into planning and design as well as field operations will the
potential benefits of constructability be achieved.

Industry tends to separate the individual functions involved in capital

projects. Design tends to place emphasis on minimizing its costs. Con-
struction focuses on minimizing field costs. Fine-tuning the individual
parts, however, does not yield the most successful project. Constructability
integrates these parts and is one of the most powerful tools owners can use
on their projects.

3
 2

CURRENT PRACTICES

Projects that emphasize constructability have four common charac-

teristics.

1. Owner and contractor (design and construction) managers are

committed to the cost effectiveness of the whole project. They rec-
ognize the high cost influence of early project decisions.

2. These managers use constructability as a major tool in meeting

project objectives concerning cost and schedule.

3. These managers bring construction aboard early. This means find-

ing the right kind of construction personnel — experienced people
with a full understanding of how a project is planned and built, not
just people who may be available because they are between jobs.

4. Designers are receptive to improving constructability. They think

constructability, request construction input freely, and evaluate that
input objectively.

Six basic constructability concepts are generally applicable to the con-

ceptual planning phase of any project.

1. Constructability programs are made an integral part of project ex-

ecution plans.

2. Project planning actively involves construction knowledge and

experience.

3. Early construction involvement is considered in development of

contracting strategy.

4. Overall project schedules are construction-driven.

5. Basic design approaches consider major construction methods.

6. Site layouts promote efficient construction as well as efficient oper-

ation and maintenance.

4
 Similarly, seven basic concepts are generally applicable to the design
and procurement phases of any project.

1. Design and procurement schedules are construction-driven.

2. Designs are configured to enable efficient construction.

3. Design elements are standardized.

4. Construction efficiency is considered in specification development.

5. Module/preassembly designs are prepared to facilitate fabrication,

transport, and installation.

6. Designs promote construction accessibility of personnel, material,

and equipment.

7. Designs facilitate construction under adverse weather conditions.

The synopses on the following pages illustrate the benefits of constructa-

bility efforts on these projects:

• Fertilizer Plant

• Refinery Expansion

• Residence Community

• Jet Engine Overhaul Facility Restoration

• Bleached Market Pulp Mill

• Arctic Oil Production

• Electric Generating Station

A discussion of how to implement a constructability program follows

these project summaries.

5
Indonesian Fertilizer Plant

A 1,500-ton per day fertilizer complex in Indonesia was completed two

months ahead of schedule. The site’s remote location required special
constructability efforts in order to meet the schedule. Construction involve-
ment in the project began in the proposal phase and included a site survey.
The following are some of the constructability inputs.

• A fast-track construction-driven schedule was developed.

• Temporary facilities including power, onsite bulk material storage

areas, and mess halls were located for easy access to the work area.

• All underground materials were scheduled to arrive onsite for instal-

lation during the dry season.

• Early design of permanent concrete roads, drainage systems, and

area concrete paving permitted their installation in the dry season
and provided the best working area possible during the wet season.

• Anchor bolts were standardized.

• Sections of the reformer furnaces were modularized including tubes

and refractory.

• The prill tower (a concrete structure), 64 feet in diameter and 270

feet tall, was slipformed. The movable interior work platform that
was used to place the wall concrete during the slip-forming was also
used later as a form for the concrete roof of the tower. This work
platform was lowered as an elevator and used as a work deck to
paint the interior tower lining.

Constructability resulted in significant schedule improvement, with ma-

jor savings to the owner and the realization of a $1 million early comple-
tion bonus to the contractor.

6
Refinery Expansion

A major oil company recently completed a refinery expansion under

budget and ahead of schedule in the Gulf Coast area. This was the first
project in which the owner utilized an aggressive constructability program.

The program focused on preassembly techniques which permitted par-

allel field activities. The owner arranged for early assignment of key con-
struction personnel to the engineering office to assist in developing the
strategies to be utilized. Constructability efforts included the following:

• Specifications were reviewed jointly by the owner, designer, and

constructor in order to simplify and standardize designs.

• The project schedule was construction-driven.

• Equipment and vessels were fitted with piping, instrumentation

platforms, and insulation in an adjacent laydown area prior to set-
ting. Major savings resulted from reduced scaffolding, improved
material management, and improved worker productivity.

• Process piperacks were preassembled in 100-foot modules concur-

rent with onsite civil and underground work. Seventeen piperack
modules enabled significant schedule gains.

• Pipe spools were preassembled onsite and adjacent to the work

areas. This resulted in excellent productivity and quality control.

The owner learned many lessons, the most important being that
constructability does pay. This particular refinery expansion project was
completed 14 months early with a 23 percent ($253 million) savings from
the original estimate. Constructability played a significant role in achieving
these benefits.

7
Residence Community

A retirement community of 152 townhomes, a 13-story building with

265 apartments, a 60-bed health care facility, and a 43,000 square foot
central facilities building was constructed on a 40-acre site in San Antonio,
Texas. The contractor and designer worked as a team beginning in the
early conceptual stages of the project on an initial guaranteed maximum
cost basis. The final cost was $500,000 lower than the initial guaranteed
maximum cost estimate.

During design development, the construction team assisted the design

team with cost estimates for alternate designs and made more than 28
separate cost saving suggestions including the following:

• Locate all apartment units in one building instead of in the two sepa-
rate structures originally planned. This reduced the cost of founda-
tions and structures, the exterior walls, the windows and roofing, and
the mechanical and electrical systems.

• Align structural columns at the apartment building to allow for the

use of flying forms. This reduced the cost of concrete formwork and
saved time on the construction schedule.

• Change the health care facility from a two-story to a one-story build-

ing. This eliminated the need for a drilled pier foundation system,
reduced structural system costs, and eliminated the need for an
elevator.

• Use concrete post-tensioned flat slab construction at the apartment

tower instead of structural steel or other types of concrete flooring
systems.

• Use a pre-engineered stair system rather than the built-in-place stairs

originally specified in the plans.

• Use carton forms for pier-supported slab and beams on grade instead
of imported, select fill material.

• Modified the mechanical systems to eliminate long horizontal runs.

The resulting savings reduced project costs by approximately 10 percent

($3.5 million) and enabled the project to be completed on schedule.

8
Jet Engine Overhaul Facility Restoration

A critical 48-acre government building that houses jet engine overhaul

facilities was partially destroyed by a fire in the roof. A $60 million restora-
tion project enabled the replacement of 17 acres of roof and the associated
mechanical and electrical systems in 10 months on schedule and within
budget.

The owner organized an integrated team of design and construction peo-

ple, and used a cost-reimbursable contracting method to permit a fast-track
approach. The following constructability actions resulted:

• The project schedule was construction-driven.

• The contractor and the designer agreed on construction methods,

materials, and techniques. The design reflected the site constraints
and accessibility.

• The structural frame was reconstructed to allow two open alleyways

for cranes that would lift materials and equipment.

• Rubber-tired scooters moved materials and equipment into place on

the roof.

• Helicopter skycranes lifted large, preassembled air-handling units

into place.

This emergency restoration project demonstrates that constructability

can benefit urgent projects as well as more conventional ones.

9
Bleached Market Pulp Mill

A 750-ton per day bleached market pulp mill was constructed in the
northern United States. The construction contractor was onboard early to
conduct an extensive constructability review with the following results:

• Redesigned the roof drainage system, which reduced the number of

drains to almost one third of the original design and resulted in a
savings of $225,000.

• Revised the power house layout, which shortened the 30-inch

steam piping by 65 feet, provided a more constructible system, and
saved $50,000.

• Used the sand that was the site’s natural material through the deep-
est excavations for backfill material, thus eliminating the need for
the graded, washed sand specified for cross-country piping installa-
tion, and saved $750,000 in sand and screening costs.

• Combined the steam generating facilities into a single structure,

which reduced structural, piping, and electrical costs.

• Selected equipment on the basis of installation cost as well as initial

purchase price, which resulted in lower total installed cost.

• Used 90 percent modified Proctor Soil Compaction with lifts of

two feet for backfill in areas that were away from structures and not
under roadways instead of applying the 95 percent 6-inch lifts
specified for the entire site. This gained considerable savings.

This owner committed to early construction involvement by selecting

the constructor before selecting the engineer. The savings resulting from
this constructability program were approximately 6 percent of construction
costs, with a payback of ten to one of the costs of the constructability
program.

10
Arctic Oil Production Facility

The Endicott oil field development project is located in shallow waters of

the Beaufort Sea about 10 miles northeast of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The
Endicott project is of particular interest because it is a marginal field that
has been developed economically only as a result of intensive efforts by
the owner to trim the high costs of arctic construction and drilling.

The need for a constructability program was recognized early, and a

coordinated engineering/construction team was established with each hav-
ing an equal voice in shaping the final project design. This “team ap-
proach” fostered innovation and commonality of purpose. The following
cost-saving actions resulted:
• Use of 4,000-ton jumbo modules that are twice the size and weight
of those previously used at Prudhoe Bay.
• Placing much of the non-rotating equipment outside rather than en-
closing in modules.
• Use of concrete spread footings under modules in lieu of the past
practice of using steel piling embedded in the permafrost.
• Building a 150-person base operations center in Alaska using wood
construction in truckable, container-sized modules. Past practice
dictated steel modular construction shipped on sealift barges.
• Layout of the site to facilitate placement of jumbo modules and to
provide for easy construction access.
• Use of an offshore gravel causeway to support an above-ground
production pipeline rather than a subsea pipeline.
• Use of a hybrid system of gravel bags and concrete blocks for slope
protection.
• Use of sacrificial beaches along portions of the causeway and is-
lands, where risk from storm damage is low.
• Excavation of frozen seawater ice and placement of gravel “in the
dry,” which permitted the completion of the causeway and island
gravel haul in one season, thus avoiding the conflicts and added
costs of a second construction season.
• Developed cantilevered drilling rigs to permit one-time construction
of well pipelines without interfering with later well drilling.

Project costs were reduced from $3.8 billion to $1.4 billion. While the
savings attributable solely to constructability actions are difficult to deter-
mine, it is clear that constructability was a major factor in reducing costs.

11
Electric Generating Station

An electric generating station unit with a capacity of 720,000 kilowatts

went into commercial operation four months ahead of schedule and $200
million under budget.

Starting in the conceptual planning phase, a highly qualified group of

construction personnel participated in pre-construction planning and pro-
vided constructability inputs, such as the following:

• Project construction schedule established engineering required

dates and material delivery dates.

• Plant orientation was revised for better construction access.

• Layout and design of temporary facilities for multiple contractors

avoided double-handling of materials, enabled ready access to work
areas, and provided prefabrication areas adjacent to the work site.

• Special construction studies covered rigging of heavy lifts, construc-

tion equipment access and utilization, sequencing of steel erection,
and major equipment installation and of fsite prefabrication /
modularization .

• Contrac tor work packages were designed to minimize field

interfaces.

• Changes to drawings and specifications were recommended to

shorten the construction schedule and reduce costs.

The benefits attained on this project clearly demonstrate that an effective

constructability program was a major factor in achieving the completion
ahead of schedule and under budget.

12
 3

HOW CAN YOU IMPLEMENT

A CONSTRUCTABILITY PROGRAM?

A constructability program must be specific to the user. Different pro-

grams may emphasize different constructability concepts depending on the
user’s role in a project.

Before developing a program, self-examination is required. Do barriers

or resistance to a constructability program exist? Does the owner have
qualified constructability personnel or will outside resources be required?
What current practices should be incorporated into the program? These are
only a few of the questions to be asked.

An owner may have in-house construction resources, or may hire a con-

sultant to provide constructability input. The owner also may rely on a
design/build contractor, an architect/engineer, a construction manager, or
a construction contractor to provide construction knowledge and exper-
ience. In any of these cases, the contractual relationships must specify the
constructability objectives of the project and the roles of the participants.

While programs and contractual arrangements vary from company to

company, certain critical ingredients must be included in all programs. A
constructability program must:
• clearly communicate senior management’s commitment to con-
structability and generate similar commitment from all project
participants.

• encourage teamwork, creativity, new ideas, and new approaches.

• assign one individual as program director who possesses leadership,

communication skills, and a knowledge of the organization’s
operation.

• start constructability as early as possible.

• emphasize total project integration, not optimization of individual

parts.

• establish a constructability procedure for inclusion in project execu-

tion plans.

• evaluate progress and results.

13
 4

CONSTRUCTABILITY CONCEPTS FILE

The Constructability Concepts File, a forthcoming CII publication, con-

tains elements of a typical constructability program with comprehensive
discussions and examples of the concepts presented in this publication. As
a working tool to implement constructability, it will be continuously up-
dated to include future research results. The publication is scheduled for
release in the summer of 1987.

5
CONCLUSION

Constructability works — frequently with dramatic results.

The projects described in this publication demonstrate that implementa-

tion of a constructability program with early construction involvement
will result in better projects — lower costs, better productivity, and earlier
project completion.

Who can afford to pass up constructability benefits?

14
 REFERENCES

1. O’Connor, J.T., Rusch, S.E., and Schulz, M.J., Constructability Im-

provement During Engineering and Procurement, The University of
Texas at Austin, A Report to The Construction Industry Institute, May
1986.

2. Tatum, C.B., Vanegas, J.A., and Williams, J.M., Constructability Im-

provement During Conceptual Planning, Stanford University, A Report
to The Construction Industry Institute, March 1986.

15
Constructability Task Force Membership
Bill Brooks, Blount
Roy Cline, MK-Ferguson
Dick Corry, Turner
Warren Dean, CRS Sirrine
Gene Ferguson, Houston Lighting & Power
Ken Fonté, Texaco
Bob Jortberg, Lummus Crest, Chairman
Dave Nelson, Sohio Petroleum
Loural Nelson, Department of Defense
Jim O’Connor, University of Texas
Cal Perkins, Bechtel
Steve Reistetter, M. W. Kellogg
Al Roy, Amoco
Bob Tatum, Stanford University
Dick Zimmerman, Shell

Board of Advisors Liaison

Pete Forster, Blount
Bob Maass, Exxon, past liaison

Past Members
Jim Bagley, Shell
Joe Link, Department of Defense
Dave Weber, Union Carbide
Ken Williams, Davy McKee

Editor: Rusty Haggard

16
 Construction Industry Institute
Member Companies
AT&T Resource Management
Aluminum Company of America
Amoco Corporation
Anheuser-Busch Companies
Atlantic Richfield Company
Chevron Corporation
Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc.
Dow Chemical U.S.A
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Exxon Research & Engineering Company
FMC Corporation
General Electric Company
General Motors Corporation
Houston Lighting & Power Company
ICI Americas Inc.
International Business Machines
Corporation
Mobil Research & Development
Corporation
Monsanto Company
Northern States Power Company
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation
PPG Industries, Inc.
Potomac Electric Power Company
The Procter & Gamble Company
Shell Oil Company
Texaco Inc.
U.S. Department of Defense
Union Carbide Corporation
The University of Texas System
Allstates Design & Development
Company, Inc.
Guy F. Atkinson Company of
California
BE&K Construction Company
Bechtel National, Inc.
Belcan Corporation, Inc.
Blount International, Ltd.
Brown & Root, Inc.
John Brown Engineers & Constructors
Incorporated
CRS Sirrine, Inc.
Cherne Contracting Corporation
Davy McKee Corporation
Dravo Constructors, Inc.
ENSERCH Corporation
Fidelity & Deposit Company of
Maryland
Fluor Daniel
Ford, Bacon & Davis Incorporated
Foster Wheeler Corporation
Fru-Con Corporation
GSGSB Architects, Engineers &
Planners
Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc.
Gulf Interstate Engineering Company
Gulf States Inc.
Jones Group, Inc.
The M. W. Kellogg Company
Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc.
Lummus Crest Inc.
Morrison Knudsen Corporation
North Brothers
RUST International Corporation
Santa Fe Braun Inc.
Stearns Catalytic Corporation
Stone & Webster
Turner Construction Company
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
H. B. Zachry Company

Participating Academic Institutions

Arizona State Mississippi State
Auburn New Mexico
California-Berkeley North Carolina State
Carnegie-MelIon Oklahoma State
Cincinnati Oregon State
Clemson Penn State
Colorado Purdue
Colorado State Stanford
Georgia Tech Texas
Illinois Texas A&M
Iowa State Virginia Polytech
Kansas Washington
Maryland Worcester Polytech
Michigan
RS 3-1