Matching Items (4)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

156897-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The water and wastewater industry in the United States is in dire need of renovation due to dwindling infrastructure and requires substantial reinvestment. Design-bid-build (DBB) is the traditional method of project delivery most widely applied in this industry. However, alternative project delivery methods (APDM) are on the rise and touting

The water and wastewater industry in the United States is in dire need of renovation due to dwindling infrastructure and requires substantial reinvestment. Design-bid-build (DBB) is the traditional method of project delivery most widely applied in this industry. However, alternative project delivery methods (APDM) are on the rise and touting the benefits of reduced project schedule and cost. The main purpose of this study is to conduct a qualitative and quantitative performance evaluation to assess the current impact of APDM in the water and wastewater industry. A national survey was conducted targeting completed water and wastewater treatment plant projects. Responses were obtained from 75 utilities and constructors that either completed their projects using DBB, construction manager at risk (CMAR), or design-build (DB). Data analysis revealed that CMAR and DB statistically outperformed DBB in terms of project speed and intensity. Performance metrics such as cost growth, schedule growth, unit cost, factors influencing project delivery method selection, scope changes, warranty and latent defects, and several others are also evaluated. The main contribution of this study was that it was able to show that for the same project cost, water and wastewater treatment plants could be delivered under a faster schedule and with higher quality through the utilization of APDM.
ContributorsFeghaly, Jeffrey (Author) / El Asmar, Mounir (Thesis advisor) / Ariaratnam, Samuel (Thesis advisor) / Bearup, Wylie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
157200-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The built environment is responsible for a significant portion of global waste generation.

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste requires significant landfill areas and costs

billions of dollars. New business models that reduce this waste may prove to be financially

beneficial and generally more sustainable. One such model is referred to as the “Circular

Economy”

The built environment is responsible for a significant portion of global waste generation.

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste requires significant landfill areas and costs

billions of dollars. New business models that reduce this waste may prove to be financially

beneficial and generally more sustainable. One such model is referred to as the “Circular

Economy” (CE), which promotes the efficient use of materials to minimize waste

generation and raw material consumption. CE is achieved by maximizing the life of

materials and components and by reclaiming the typically wasted value at the end of their

life. This thesis identifies the potential opportunities for using CE in the built environment.

It first calculates the magnitude of C&D waste and its main streams, highlights the top

C&D materials based on weight and value using data from various regions, identifies the

top C&D materials’ current recycling and reuse rates, and finally estimates a potential

financial benefit of $3.7 billion from redirecting C&D waste using the CE concept in the

United States.

ContributorsAldaaja, Mohammad (Author) / El Asmar, Mounir (Thesis advisor) / Buch, Rajesh (Committee member) / Kaloush, Kamil (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
134315-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Sustainable Materials Management and Circular Economy are both frameworks for considering the way we interact with the world's resources. Different organizations and institutions across the world have adopted one philosophy or the other. To some, there seems to be little overlap of the two, and to others, they are perceived

Sustainable Materials Management and Circular Economy are both frameworks for considering the way we interact with the world's resources. Different organizations and institutions across the world have adopted one philosophy or the other. To some, there seems to be little overlap of the two, and to others, they are perceived as being interchangeable. This paper evaluates Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) and Circular Economy (CE) individually and in comparison to see how truly different these frameworks are from one another. This comparison is then extended into a theoretical walk-through of an SMM treatment of concrete pavement in contrast with a CE treatment. With concrete being a ubiquitous in the world's buildings and roads, as well as being a major constituent of Construction & Demolition waste generated, its analysis is applicable to a significant portion of the world's material flow. The ultimate test of differentiation between SMM and CE would ask: 1) If SMM principles guided action, would the outcomes be aligned with or at odds with CE principles? and conversely 2) If CE principles guided action, would the outcomes be aligned with or at odds with SMM principles? Using concrete pavement as an example, this paper seeks to determine whether or not Sustainable Materials Management and Circular Economy are simply different roads leading to the same destination.
ContributorsAbdul-Quadir, Anisa (Author) / Kelman, Candice (Thesis director) / Buch, Rajesh (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
158284-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Water utilities across the United States are facing numerous challenges, such as limited funding and increasing project complexity, in constructing and upgrading their aging infrastructure. One innovative method to overcome these challenges is through the use of alternative project delivery methods (APDM), such as construction management at-risk (CMAR) and design-build

Water utilities across the United States are facing numerous challenges, such as limited funding and increasing project complexity, in constructing and upgrading their aging infrastructure. One innovative method to overcome these challenges is through the use of alternative project delivery methods (APDM), such as construction management at-risk (CMAR) and design-build (DB). Previous research has shown that APDM have the potential to deliver higher performing water infrastructure projects when compared to the traditional design-bid-build (DBB) method. However, there is a need to further examine APDM practices and develop tools that may support utilities in the delivery of their APDM water infrastructure projects. This study fills the knowledge gap by conducting several studies that may support public and private utilities in improving the delivery of their APDM water infrastructure projects. First, APDM implementation practices for water infrastructure projects are identified by assessing the state of practice, particularly during project procurement and execution. Second, DB project administration best practices are determined to support utilities seeking to add DB to their organization’s project delivery toolbox. Third, a pioneering web-based project delivery method decision-support tool was developed to aid utilities in selecting the appropriate delivery method for their water project. Finally, project-specific factors and attributes that impact project delivery performance are investigated through exploratory modeling and analysis. The study collected data on 75 completed treatment plant projects, conducted interviews with ten utilities that successfully deliver their water projects using DB, and worked closely with several industry experts through industry workshops and panels. Key findings related to water infrastructure project delivery revealed in this study included: (1) guaranteed maximum price (GMP) is the preferred compensation type for APDM projects; (2) utilities statistically having the lowest comfort level with delivering CMAR projects; (3) qualifications-based procurement is an effective DB project delivery practice; (4) the identification of 13 key project delivery method selection factors; and (5) the three highest predictors that impact unit cost performance are project complexity, project team chemistry and communication, and project size.
ContributorsFeghaly, Jeffrey (Author) / El Asmar, Mounir (Thesis advisor) / Ariaratnam, Samuel (Thesis advisor) / Bearup, Wylie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020