Sense of Place

1
Advanced Technology Solar Telescope
Systems-Level Design Review
for Site Infrastructure and Support
Facilities January 17, 2006 Jeff Barr
2
Site Building Review in the Past Year
Each with a unique focus
Design reviews by the ATST team during tailoring
of the support facilities to the selected
Haleakala site Basis of Estimate review by NSF
Most grueling ATST Team review for building/site
layout and building orientation Public
presentation and review on Maui for EIS Scoping
Meetings Most emotional Site Selection Impact
design review Review by the Environmental
Engineering team of the 30 level design for
the EIS process Systems-Level Design Review
Most comprehensive
12/04 to 2/05 3/05 5/05 6/05 8/05 10/05
Today
3
Comments from Site Selection Impact Review
Summary of Comments from the Site Impact Review
Meeting - Aug. 11-12, 05 1) Effect on building
orientation, wind flow, and building design if we
go to the alternate Reber site was questioned.
We need a flow analysis of that site too.
Functional building differences would probably be
minimum. 2) At both sites, consider a cut fill
strategy for providing a level base for the
facility as opposed to the primarily cut
approach.  This could result in less removal of
material than the 2500 or 5000 c.y shown.
Disposal of the soil on site will probably be
southwest of Faulkes. Thats also the only
likely large construction staging/storage area.
3) Configuration of utility/ventilation tunnel
was much discussed. Safety and personnel access
issues -- confined space considerations -- maybe
put utilities in a separate accessible trench and
use tunnel for just air -- even just air flow
will force tunnel to be larger than shown
inlets and outlets for air poorly defined needs
more work. 4) Geotechnical Ground penetrating
radar was done for Gemini north, may make sense
for us should refine dynamic shear numbers
somehow otherwise test results look encouraging
and assumed design reasonable. 5)
Utilities Electric power MECO power stability
is generally good. Maybe talk to Air Force about
connecting to their back-up power (seems unlikely
to be sanctioned). Exhaust from generators can
cause mirror coating degradation Water --
Expensive to transport up. Gemini pays
0.12/gal. Strategies for rainwater capture are
sensible. Something less than 100 capture from
surfaces should be used for calculation. Water
for dust control will be a contractor issue.
Capacity of existing water cistern at Mees is
64,100 gal. Waste water Small treatment plant
looks like the best option. Effluent maybe to an
absorption well. Biggest problem will probably
be removing/remediating existing cesspool used
for Mees. Grounding Requirements and initial
soil resistivity tests look problematic.
Consider using outflow from septic treatment
plant to keep grounding conductors wet. Explore
whether bentonite clay or coke breeze may be
allowed as conductivity enhancement. Lowest
potential point is liable to be the
pier/enclosure foundations.
4
Summary of Comments from the Site Impact Review
Meeting - Aug. 11-12, 05 (cont.) 6) The utility
building might need to be up to 50 bigger. 
Partly because the indicated layout looks overly
tight and partly to allow some of the other
equipment, such as the compressor, UPSs etc., in
there as well. 7) Ways to possibly reduce the
width of the required concrete apron around the
base of the enclosure were discussed.  The most
promising one involves some kind of ventilated
wall (10 ft. high) as vertical heat shield,
which would change the look of the enclosure base
somewhat. This may be good (less ground
coverage) or bad (a wider looking enclosure base)
form the EIS standpoint. 8) Noise of dome
rotating is probably a manageable problem.
Tracking speed will be very slow and dome can be
parked at its start-up azimuth position to
eliminate slewing noise in the morning. 9)
Indigenous flying bugs (gnats) raised as a
potential cleanliness issue. No ready solutions
offered. 10) Interface of platform lift to
enclosure shaft is still an issue. Lift-up roof
helps to provide some cover, but exposed sides
and significant gap to enclosure are potential
problems. Best solution looks to be a very
secure, weather-tight cover for M1 that can be
installed before it goes outside. 11) Hazardous
waste disposal from mirror coating, mostly
stripping cleaning effluent, was discussed.
Gemini uses a process completion methodology to
minimize the amount of liquid that has to be
captured and treated as hazardous material.
Keeping quantities low (less than 220 lbs./month)
is key to keeping costs down and minimizing EPA
oversight regulation. This will be an issue
for ATST whether we coat at home or at the Air
Force. Stripping/cleaning mirror then
transporting outside to Air Force was considered
somewhat impractical. 12) Having no public
visitor access to the facility was questioned
from a policy and PR standpoint, but recognized
as a significant advantage from a practicality
and building safety standpoint. 13) Possible use
of Mees building and expansion of the shop was
received as a generally good idea. We need to
follow-up in the form of an MOU with IfA to
verify theyre on board with this and the other
shared uses of Mees 14) Space requirements shown
for Remote Ops Building may be unrealistically
low. All personnel required for full operation
do not seem to be accounted for.
5
The Review Materials (for today)
Primary Definition Documents- Schematic Design
Drawings- Design Requirements Document
(SPEC-0032) Site Conditions Safety- Conditions
for Working at the Site (SPEC-0030)- Safety
Health Requirements (SPEC-0031) Supplementary
Reference Documents- Life Safety Code
Assessment (TN-0046)- Building Orientation Study
(TN-0031)- M1 Coating Handling Scenarios
(TN-0037)- Soils Investigation Report- HO Long
Range Development Plan (on IfA web site)-
Acoustical Evaluation of Mech. Equip. Bldg.
(TN-0038) - Manufacturer info, standard
construction contracts
The basis of most of todays presentation the
starting point foran AE contract Drafts of
contractual requirements on these issues. Will
be briefedby Chuck GessnerUseful to
understandhow we got to thisdesign. Other
material incorporated
6
General Site Description
Proposed ATST
7
Airport (5 hrs to LAX) Commercial
Center(1 hr 20 min to HO) Concrete plants(1
hr 45 min to HO)Highways 37 377 (20
miles)Haleakala Highway (well-maintained paved
road - 25 mi)Haleakala Observatory
ATRCNew IfA Base
(45 min to HO)
Waiakoa LabIfA Base facility
Site Accessibility
8
A.F. MSSC GEODSS
FAA DOE
A.F. AEOS
Utilities Neutron Mon.
FAALowSite
Mees
Solar-C
Reber Circle
Broadcast Antennae(private)
MAGNUM
PS-1
ATST at Mees Site
ATST at Mees Site -Aerial View from East
9
Park VisitorCenter
Red Hill
ATST at Mees Site
MAGNUM
A.F. AEOS
A.F. MSSC
Reber
PS-1
A.F. GEODSS
ZodiacalLight
Airglow
Solar-C
Cosmic RayNeutronMonitor
Utilities
Mees
A.F. Utilities
FAASite
SLR-2000site
FaulkesTelescope
ATST at Mees Site - Aerial View from Southwest
10
Alternate Site(Reber Circle)
Two possible sites for ATST are identified in the
Long Range Development Plan
http//www.ifa.hawaii.edu/haleakala/LRDP/
Primary Proposed Site(near Existing Mees
Observatory)
ATST test tower
The LRDP also specifies design and construction
practices for Haleakala Observatory.
Mees
2 Potential ATST Sites
11

• Higher ground
• Possibly somewhat superior seeing to Mees
  site
• Probably good bearing
• More visible from below
• - Tight topography
• Obscuration of AEOS others
• Near archeol. sites

2 Potential ATST Sites
ATST atReber Site
Current designwork effectivelyassumesthis site
AF access road
Air Force AEOS
Existing Nighttime Telescopes
utility

• Seeing quality much more substantiated
• Larger natural platform
• Less visible from below
• Convenient use of existing Mees facility
• - Very near petrel burrows
• Bearing conditions uncertain

ATST at Mees Site
main road
Existing Mees Solar Observatory
utility
Cistern
12
Site Development

• EIS status mitigations
• Overall Layout of ATST Utilized Areas
• Utility Infrastructure
• Excavation Placement of Removed Soil
• Mees Reber Site Layouts and Working Space

13
soft design freeze
hard design freeze
Analytical Site WorkSurveys, StudiesConsultation
s
Draft EIS
Environmental Permitting Schedule
Final EIS
Record of Decision
DLNR Board Vote
Conservation District Use Permit
14
Major EIS Issues So far Identified

• Height Visibility Not much we can offer
  to mitigate. Reinforce the need for the height
  the white
• Noise Disruptive to Spiritual Uses of Haleakala
  Petrel Health Have studied the problem
  and ways to abate looks manageable
• Petrel Burrow Proximity Nesting Season
  Restrictions Met with Parks Dept. USFW
  biologists to discuss mutual solutions
  Burrows locations GPS plotted - No adjustment of
  ATST location required Extensive
  monitoring program to allow wider construction
  window
• Utility Construction Infrastructure shown
  in Schematic Drawings Ground enhancement
  w/ recycled water or foreign substance
  Storm water run-off and absorption
  Placement of excavated soil re-creation of a
  hill as a mitigation
• Historical/Cultural mitigation TBD probably
  based on precedent
• Other - FAA issues with transmission
  interference, weather tower...

Letter to the Editor, Maui News, last Friday
How can we stand by and see one of our most
valuable treasures increasingly desecrated by an
insensitive, materialistic mind-set? How much
tainted, institutional money and blind scientific
ambition is worth selling out Madame Peles
shrine? When is enough, enough?
15
Ahu (prayer platform)
Allow access for public ceremonial use during
construction and operation. Probably the most
sensitive area for disruptive noise. Morning
(sunrise) Ahu very close to primary site.
16
Acoustical Evaluation of Utility Building
http//atst.nso.edu/library/docs/TN-0038.pdf
17
Closest potential proximity of ATST construction
Thermal ground shield moved back 5m
Parks Dept Biologist probing a burrow
Approximately 30 in vicinity of ATST
Nesting activities from February to October
Petrel Burrow Locations
18
Other Biological Cultural Issues
Archeological Sites are to be protected
SilverswordNEPA Threatened Species Germinates
in disturbed soilNone found yet at ATST sites
The Air Force totally redesigned their proposed
new coating facility to avoid 3 plants.
NHPA Historic Place (entire Haleakala Area)
Spiritual practices are conducted at Haleakala.
Rocks and soil at Haleakala are believed to be
the mortal remains of the goddess Pele.
Excavation may uncover bones or other
archeologically significant features.
19
Overall Site Plan (sheet 2)
ElectricSubstation
Air ForceFacilities
SecondaryReber CircleSite
Archaeologicalfeatures
PrimaryMeesSite
Property lines
petrel burrows
Ahu
20
Road reopened for construction access
Archaeological featuresto be protected as
required
Staging Area Plan (sht. 2)
21
Construction Logistical Planning
Off Site - Shipment of construction materials
will be scheduled for arrival at the port in
Kahului with minimal lead time to limit the need
for long term storage.- IfA property in Waiakoa
will be used for temporary storage of materials
and equipment that are not immediately needed for
the construction work in progress. The
availability of additional nearby material
storage area may be investigated with the
National Park or other land owners. - The
majority of the required concrete will be
delivered from one of two commercial plants in
the Puunene area. Only small quantities of
concrete for grouting or anchorage will be mixed
on site.- Delivery of all materials to the site
will be scheduled to minimize potentially
hazardous conflicts with tourist traffic on the
Haleakala Highway.- To minimize highway traffic
and the need for on-site vehicle
parking,carpooling for construction workers from
a convenient upcountry location will be enforced.
On Site - The majority of on-site construction
staging, storage and temporary facilities will be
in the identified main staging area (approx. 1
acre) southwest of the Faulkes Telescope.- There
will be no fencing of the construction site or
contractors storage areas. Site safety and
security of materials will be accomplished by
other means.- A large construction crane will be
required for an extended duration. Safe
accessible staging area will be necessary in
close proximity to either site. Crane will be
lowered at night when not in use.- Existing
roads will continue to be in use for ongoing
observatory operations. Any barricading of roads
will be temporary (less than a day) and will be
prearranged with other road users.- Some
temporary widening of roads may be done to allow
through-traffic during construction.- The access
road from north of Mees down to the main staging
area will be reopened for use during
construction. This will require removal of rock
and soil that has been placed at the entrance to
the road as a surface water diverter. The
diverter will be reconstructed after ATST
construction is complete.
22
Utility Site Plan (sht. 3)
23
Electrical Service Main power diagram
Main Power Transformer (MECO)
Local Power Generator
Transfer Switch
1000 kW TOTAL ATST demand
250 kW
Loads on Generator Power (during main power
outages)
Loads on Main Power

• Building Loads
• Thermal Equipment
• Lifting Devices
• Instrument Utilities
• Enclosure
• TMA
• Active Optics
• Control Equipment
• Instruments

• Emergency Shut-Down
• Rotational Drives
• Shutter Drives
• Lighting

UPS
Loads on UPS Power

• Active Optics
• Control Equipment
• Instruments

24
Anticipated ATST Electrical Loads - Lights
general use outlets ------------------------------
-- 50 kW- Chiller, pumps and air-handling
units --------------------- 160- Fans for
cooling lower enclosure --------------------------
230- Lifting devices -------------------------
---------------------- 160- Instrument
Utilities ----------------------------------------
-- 50- Enclosure mechanisms
-------------------------------------- 80-
Telescope Mount hydrostatic bearings
----------------- 90- Computer control
hardware ---------------------------------
15- Instruments rotating platform
---------------------------- 60- Mirror
mechanisms thermal control --------------------
15- Mirror coating facility
--------------------------------------- 50

TOTAL 960 kW Estimated
reserve capacity of existing main H.O. power
service lines is 1900 kW. - Identified other
future power demands at Haleakala Observatory
Pan-STARRS (PS-1), currently being installed
------- 400 kW Total of 4 Pan-STARRS
telescopes ------------------- ? Air
Force Mirror Coating Facility --------------------
-- 680 kW (per pending EA) Proposed TLRS
------------------------------------------- 120
kW Future FAA requirements
------------------------------- ? -
Interactions are ongoing with the Maui Electric
Company (MECO). They are working towards
incorporating ATST and other future HO needs into
their overall systems planning process. -
Economizing strategies such as ice storage to
reduce peak-hour power consumption and premium
efficient equipment are being explored as part of
ongoing ATST design work. (see AMEL Report in SDR
material)
Electrical ServiceDemand Capacity
25
Electrical Grounding
Possible Grounding Solutions
Best methods to date(experience from Gemini,
SOAR, WIYN others) - Grid of heavy, cadwelded
copper cable under slabs pier - A
continuous ring of copper cable in trench
around structures - Create a lowest potential
point with a set of chemically enhanced
grounding rods. Enhancement with foreign
substances at HO is restricted to inert
materials that could be completely removed
when ATST is decommissioned. - Rods and/or
cable set in bentonite clay or coke breeze -
Keep rods and/or cable wet - Use a star pattern
grounding system, and generally good practices
to avoid loops and potential
Site Conditions
Data on resistivity from IGE Report
Very high values
4,000,000ohm/cmaverage
Soils are dry neutral, avg. pH 6.9
(non-corrosive)
Potential for lightning is high.Safe discharge
capacity of grounding system must be high
robust. Target values for max resistance to
ground will be very low (lt5 ohms)
Like All Observatories
26
Data Communications
Data connectivity to from Mainland (Tucson) to
Hawaii is fair (112 KB/sec). - Unless
connectivity is made through the Maui High
Performance Computing Center. - Current
communications connections (shown below) would be
adequate for transmitting data/status to the
US partners. traceroute, 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets node name delay percent1
summit48-1 0.46 ms 0 2 gateway
0.67 ms 1 3 Dillon-NOAO-ARIZONA.Telcom.Arizo
na.EDU 2.76 ms 3 4 jessie.telcom.arizona.
edu 2.50 ms 2 5 128.196.24.167 2.46
ms 2 6 virgil.telcom.arizona.edu 2.51
ms 2 7 192.80.43.22 20.99 ms 20 8
sttlng-dnvrng.abilene.ucaid.edu 54.26 ms 51
9 uhm-abilene-sccnoc3pos.uhnet.net 97.12 ms
9210 128.171.64.178 97.60 ms 9211
166.122.9.14 105.34 ms 10012
132.160.97.194 106.34 ms 10113
www1.mhpcc.edu 105.68 ms 100
Getting to Hawaii is the hard part
Network delay goes from 2 to 92 between Tucson
and Manoa. The inter-island delay is only 8.
Hawaiian Telecom provides telephone lines (copper
fiber) to HO. For Data IfA currently has a DS3
microwave link, Air Force has an OC3C fiber
link. On-site connection point routing for ATST
data phone lines will require definition for
EIS
27
Waste Water Treatment
Treatment Plant will be - A small commercial
plant (1000 gal/day or less) as manufactured
by Jet Inc. or equal.- Utilizes aeration and
biologically accelerated treatment to achieve
effluent standards (BOD, TSS, and pH levels)
acceptable for discharge directly to ground
http//www.jetcorp.com - Local distributor
(Oahu) Design Engineers, Inc.- Permitting
procedure being investigated as part of EIS
process
Primary (Mees) Site - Early in the construction
process the existing cesspool will be removed
and the area will be remediated as required. -
A new joint-use treatment plant will be
provided for the Mees ATST facilities.- The
plant will be underground in the same general
vicinity as the previous cesspool. Alternate
(Reber) Site - A new treatment plant sufficient
to serve the required ATST capacity will be
provided. The plant would be underground near
the Support Operations building. At either
site - Permitting for the installation of the
plant will be per State Department of Health
requirements and Maui County procedures- If
special permitting can be secured, effluent
distributed to seepage pits at the electrical
grounding rods to enhance their conductivity.-
If this is not permissible, effluent will be
discharged to a single seepage pit similar to the
Air Force facility at HO.
Similar plant at SOAR Observatory (Chile)
Ecojet treatment plant (420
gals/day)
28
Site Preparation Leveling
Interiordemo
Remove pavement grounding grid
Mees
Removeseptictank
Remove section of walk road
RemoveAir-glowLab
Remove antennae equipment
Reber Circle(remove)
Relocate auxiliarybuildings
RemoveTest Tower
Remove rock building
RemoveMAGNUM?
5,000 c.y. to level sitealternate
2,500 c.y. to level siteprimary
29
Telescope Pier Foundation 80 ft.
diameter x 5 ft. deep. 930
cu.yd.Caissons 3 ft. diameter x 20 ft. deep x
24 caissons. 130 cu.yd.Enclosure
Foundation ring-shaped footing 6 ft. wide x 3
ft. deep 180 cu.yd.Building Foundations 18
column pads 6 ft. sq. x 3 ft. deep...............
......... 70 cu.yd.
600 ft. of linear footings 3 ft. x 2
ft. deep...................130 cu.yd.Utility
Tunnel 12 ft. wide x 10 ft. deep x 160 ft.
long.710 cu.yd.

TOTAL 2,150
cu.yd.Total Excavation at Primary (Mees) Site
2500 cu.yd. 2150 cu.yd. 4650 cu.yd.Total
Excavation at Alternate (Reber) Site 5000 cu.yd.
2150 cu.yd. 7150 cu.yd.
Excavation Requirements for Foundations
Potential Cut Fill Reduction not included in EIS
Excavation Methodologies - Creation of level
platform and excavation for structural
foundations will be done using a bulldozer,
back-hoe, trencher and other standard heavy
excavation equipment.- Holes for caissons will
be drilled using a truck mounted auger or other
drilling equipment.- A hydraulic hammer mounted
on a back-hoe or manually operated jackhammers
will be used to break up large rock as
required.- No explosive blasting methods will be
used.- All material excavated from the site will
be utilized for fill material at the building
site or will be trucked to a designated soil
placement area on Haleakala and placed in a
culturally acceptable manner.- All excavation
activities will take place under the observation
of a Cultural Monitor.- All other construction
practices defined in the Haleakala Observatory
Long Range Development Plan will be observed.
30
Storm Water Drainage, Water Catchment, Soil
Placement Plan (sht. 4)
31
Soil Placement Area A 36,500 sq.ft. x 4
ft average height5,400 cu.yd. maximum(open
site area southwest of the Faulkes Telescope)-
Prior to utilizing this area for staging, the
material removed in the initial site leveling and
structural excavation for ATST would be deposited
here in a maximum thickness of about 6 ft. at the
east end tapering down to level with the existing
site at the west end near the FAA facility.-
This new fill would be kept clear of the concrete
drainage swale at the north side which follows
the existing road. The embankment of the fill
material along the north edge would stabilized
with rocks and would be sloped at an angle that
will not result in erosion into the swale.- The
slope of the new fill on the south side would
allow continued vehicle traffic onto this area
along the western end of the south side access
road. Soil Placement Area B sloped hill
13,400 sq.ft. at base x 24 ft high3,970 cu.yd.
maximum(existing Reber circle area alternate
site for ATST)- If the ATST facility is located
the primary site, this alternate site may be
available for placement of excavated material.-
Soil would be placed so as to restore the puu
(hill) that previously existed at this location
before the construction of the Reber circle
experiment. The shape of the hill would be
determined as much as possible from historical
photographs and geological records, and would
extend the contours of the existing adjacent
slopes for a natural effect.- The remains of the
concrete Reber circle ring and the rock building
at the northeast end of the site would be
removed. The Air Glow Lab building, the MAGNUM
Telescope, and the Kolekole survey monument to
the south of the site would remain clear of the
filled area.
Soil Placement
32
Stormwater Drainage, Water Catchment (sht. 4)
33
Domestic Water Supply
Domestic water for ATST will be primarily from
catchment of rain- Catchment surface areas roof
dome - 10,000 sq.ft., concrete apron - 8,000
sq.ft. 3,000 sq.ft.- Assuming 25 of rain per
year, and 75 catchment efficiency, rain captured
on new ATST structures will provide 150,000
gallons per year. Existing Mees roof catchment
area is 4000 sq.ft. for estimated 62,000
gallons/year. - Based on typical observatory
water usage, ATST will use an estimated 120,000
gals/year. - Rainwater will be collected in
gutters and piped/pumped to existing 64,100
gallon Mees cistern. Cistern can be expanded
or augmented if necessary, but this is not
anticipated. - Treatment of cistern water will
be only as minimally required to maintain
basic potability standards. - Water for
human consumption will be supplied from
bottles. - During ATST operation additional
domestic water, if needed, will be trucked
in. - No fire sprinkler system for ATST is
anticipated to be necessary. - Cistern water
will not be used for construction.
Contractors will truck in water for concrete
curing, dust control, etc.
Catchment of Rain on Existing Mees Facility Roof
34
Mees Site Plan (sht. 5)
35
Reber Circle Site Plan (sht. 6)
36
Crane Diagram
Radius (feet)
Boom Angle
Rating (lbs)
BoomHeight
Terex 165 ton (120 mt) Lattice Boom, Hydraulic,
Crawler Crane - Available on Oahu -
Truck-mounted models with outriggers are
bigger at base - Rough terrain models are
similar in ,size, reach capacity
37
Conditions for Working at the Site
Safety, Health Environmental Requirements
(See Chuck Gessner Presentation)
38
Building Design Walk-Through

• Space Requirements
• Primary Design Factors
• Layout of Spaces
• Plans, Sections Elevations

39
Design Drivers
Established in Construction Proposal adjusted w/
review Proximity to Coudé Lab very
advantageous Minimal office indirect support
provisions May be deleted or morphed into
different use Designing around this is a major
shape driver Evolved as a separate building
based on site factors Took the place of a 600
sq.ft. shop space in the new building
40
Building Orientation Study
Wind Roses for Haleakala
Northeasterly 1m/sec wind
Hours of excellent seeing
41
Building Layout Plan (sht. 7)
78 ft.
42
Ground Level Plan (sht. 10)
43
Mezzanine Level Plan (sht. 11)
44
Coudé Level Plan (sht. 12)
45
Utility Level Plan (sht. 14)
46
Building Section (sht. 15)
47
Sections (sht. 16)
48
South Elevation (sht. 17)
49
West Elevation (sht. 18)
North Elevation
50
Reber circle Site
General Facility Layout (at Mees Site)
telescope
Platform lift
catwalk
utility
Support Operations Building
Bump-out for mirrorcoating facility
apron
coude
mezz
UtilityBuilding
base
Service/ Parking
Mees
51
Life Safety Code Assessment

• Applicability of Codes
• Occupancy Class
• Type of Construction
• Fire-rated Assemblies
• Occupant Load Egress
• Structural Design Loads
• Other Requirements

52
Applicability of Codes

• International Building Code (IBC) 2000 used as
  the basis for schematic design.
• Maui County currently uses 1997 UBC - expected
  to adopt 2003 IBC soon.
• Due to status of HO as ceded State land no
  municipal authority has jurisdiction.
• A/E contract will require design per most
  recent IBC and related codes.
• Only the most essential aspects of code
  compliance are addressed here.
• SO building enclosure are a contiguous
  structure - considered one building.

Occupancy Class

• Main Occupancy Classification of the SO
  building Group B (business) Includes
  Laboratories - testing and research
• Utility Building (likely) and/or Mechanical
  Equip Room (less likely) may be considered a
  hazardous occupancy H-2 or H-3 Fire
  separation or sprinklers may be required.

53
Area Limitation Type of Construction
Some ambiguity in Construction Type requirement -
observatory building spaces dont fit into
typical code definitions. Type I-A Strictest
interpretation 6-story building, 140 ft. high,
41,000 sq.ft. Type II-B assumed for schematic
design Reasonably arrived at by considering the
dome to be machinery rather than building and
reducing the designation of some floors to
mezzanine or access platform status
Allows exposed (non-fire protected)
structural steel other elements,
which is typical for observatories
Most lenient entire enclosure exempt This may
make overall IBC applicability unclear
54
Fire-Rated Assemblies

• Main stair in enclosure, elevator, platform
  lift require 2-hour rated enclosure
• Other shafts stair in SO building, LU/LA lift
  upper level stair require 1-hour enclosure

• Other fire-rated assemblies may be necessary at
  hazardous occupancy areas

Occupant Load Egress

• Pertinent sq.ft.-per-occupant factors for
  determination of occupant load exit capacity

• Some discretion required to characterize the
  spaces in the enclosure. (see table on next page)
• No spaces require 2 exits due to number of
  occupants except potential hazardous areas.
• Above-ground levels require 2 ways of egress
• All exit doors require min 32 clear width.
• Minimum width for all stairs 36,possibly 44
  min. for main stair in enclosure
• Elevator is a code requirement
• Sprinklers not required due to exit distances

55
Ways out of the building
Based on normal observatory operations individual
space totals are conservatively high total for
building very high. Further refinement in
classification of spaces may be in order
Occupant Load Egress
56
Structural Design Loads

• The IBC defines no specific floor live load
  factors for observatory or laboratory use.
• 100 psf (high-end for office use) generally
  assumed throughout
• Special load cases will dictate design in many
  areas.
• Haleakala will be considered a special wind
  region with design based on historic high speed
  of at least 120 mph
• IBC defines 105 mph for all of Hawaii
• IBC defined seismic forces for Maui are
  comparatively moderate
• For lateral force design of building elements,
  wind will predominate over seismic forces.

• Roof loading will assume appropriate minimal
  snow loading and service loads 30 psf live load
  assumed for schematic design.

57
Other Code Requirements

• Codes adopted by policy will be those in force
  locally for better consistency with other
  facilities and familiarity to contractors and
  authorities.
• International Mechanical Plumbing Codes
  contemporary with applicable IBC
• National Electric Code
• Applicable regulations of the local Fire
  Marshall
• Some codes will have legal authority regardless
  of State land status
• State Department of Health requirements
• Utility company standards
• Hawaii OSHA
• EPA requirements for hazardous waste and other
  regs.
• Accessibility (applicable to all primary work
  areas of the facility)
• Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
• Americans with Disabilities Accessibility
  Guidelines
• Elevator Lift Codes
• ASME A17.1 - Safety Code for Elevators
  Escalator
• Trade Organization Standards and Manufacturers
  Specifications
• American Concrete Institute
• American Institute of Steel Construction

58
Building Technical Systems

• Foundation
• Structural
• Mechanical (Utility Building Tunnels)
• Lifts Cranes
• Shop in Mees Building

59
Foundation at SO Building Enclosure Pier (sht.
8)
60
Foundation at Enclosure Pier
Plan(sht. 8)
Section (sht. 15)
61
Foundation at Utility Building Tunnel (sht. 8)
62
Geotechnical Investigation
Boring4
N/S Line
Ground water found in this boring only
E/W Line
Island Geotechnical Engineering Report - 6
borings with lab testing of samples -Soil/rock
composition RQD vary widely - 2,500 psf on
upper gravel/sand - 6,000 psf on hard basalt
rock - 100,000 psf end-bearing caisson -
Significant initial settlement predicted -
Spectral Analysis of Shear Waves - Poissons
Ratio .35 near surface, .25 at 20 ft. -
Shear Modulus lt10 KSI near surface,
20 to 290 KSI lower -
Damping Ratio .04 near surface, .02 at 20 ft.
depth
layout lines for SASW resistance testing
63
Structural Framing Plan (sht. 9)
64
Wall/Roof Section (sht. 16)
65
Utility Building Mees Shop Mods. Plan (sht. 19)
66
Existing shop to be expanded into adjacent
generator space and remodeled for joint use by
IfA and ATST
Future use of telescope and instrument related
spaces to be determined
Possible higher roof over expanded shop space
Office, dorm, and other support spaces to
potentially be available for joint IfA and ATST
use
Front area to be excavated for tunnel expanded
paved service/parking area
Section of rock wall to be removed to allow
access between buildings
Potential Use of Existing Mees Building
67
Potential Use of Existing Mees Building
roof is an exposed span deck system
Existing Shop Possibly expand raise roof
Exist Generatorremove to expand shop
68
Cranes
Dimensions of available standard cranes
incorporated into plans and sections 20-ton
Bridge crane in receiving area 5-ton monorail
cranes assumed in instrument lab possibly in
shop
69
Elevator LU/LA Lift
Standard Hydraulic Personnel Elevator- 3500 lb
capacity,- 5-3x 7-8,- 4-stop, 40
vertical travel- All building related uses
Approx. scalefor both plans 0 1
3-0
LU/LA Lift(Limited Use/Limited Application)-
Hybrid between wheelchair lift regular
building elevator- 1400 lbs capacity, 42x 54
cab- 3-stop, 24 vertical travel- Provides
required personnel access to a primary work
area - Also carts, dewars, tools, small
instruments, etc.
70
Platform Lift

• 20 ton capacity, Non-personnel rated,-
  4-stop, 65 vertical travel, 19x 19, - Use
  as work platform at Coudé, Utility Catwalk
  levels- Semi-COTS (vertical reciprocating
  conveyor)

Example of a Pflow lift thatraises a section of
driveway
Re National Solar Observatory, Haleakala,
HI Pflow Industries proposes to supply a
vertical reciprocating conveyor per the
following specifications Model F
Series Configuration 4 - Post Capacity 40,0
00 lbs. Vertical Travel 70 6 Clear Levels
4 Speed Approx. 20 fpm Useable
Carriage 19 W x 19 L Controls
Momentary Contact Gates See Gate
Section Enclosures Shaft-way by
others Operating Voltage 460/3/60 Application
Shaft-way Pit/Ramp None
4 motor drives
Price for equipment described 365,000.00 Net
71
Platform Lift Transporting M1
domeprofile
Platform Liftraises roofof shaft
fabric shroud orother deployableweather
protection
M1 lowered frommountto cartbelow
coverinstalled
bow irons guardrailings
Roll-up door in dome shutter
tracks or defined path for rolling cart
LIFTSHAFT
steel coverplate over gap
72
Mirror Coating Facility
See Gary Poczulp presentation
73
M1 Assembly Cart
74
M1 Lifting Rig
75
(No Transcript)
76
(No Transcript)
77
(No Transcript)
78
Mirror Stripping, Cleaning Recoating Materials
Description The following three chemicals are
most commonly used for stripping and cleaning
large mirrors prior to recoating. Each of these
is dissolved in approximately 10 liters (2.5 gal)
of distilled water to provide the necessary
solutions Chemical A (also locally known as
Green River) 2.72 kilograms (6 pounds)
hydrochloric acid (HCl, 37) reagent grade. 227
grams (0.5 pounds) cupric sulfate (CuSO4 5H2O)
reagent grade. Chemical B 2 cups (dry measure)
potassium hydroxide (KOH) reagent grade
pellets. Chemical C 3.2 kilograms (7 pounds)
nitric acid (HNO3, 70) reagent
grade. Approximately 2 to 3 lbs. of calcium
carbonate is also used as an abrasive scrub
during the stripping and cleaning process. A
supply of absolute pure reagent grade ethyl
alcohol in 1 pint bottles is used for the final
buffing of the surface. Storage Handling The
materials required for stripping and cleaning the
mirrors will be stored in the manufacturers
containers and will be kept in a secure area.
They will generally not be kept on site, but will
be brought up when the primary mirror is to be
stripped and recoated, approximately every two
years. The stripping and cleaning process will
result in a series of effluents with varying
disposal requirements. All effluents will be
captured in a sink trench system built into the
floor of the coating area. From there the liquid
will flow through a double-containment pipe
system to a set of underground polypropylene
tanks. The water and light detergent (Orvis soap
or equal) collected in the tanks from the initial
pre-wash will be tested to insure compliance with
non-hazardous standards and then will be pumped
to the seepage pit(s) of the domestic water
treatment system.
79
Mirror Stripping, Cleaning Recoating Materials

• The effluent from the remainder of the stripping
  and cleaning process (using chemicals A, B C
  above) will be tested on site to determine its pH
  and other hazardous criteria, will be pumped into
  appropriate transportation containers, and will
  be disposed of off site by a licensed hazardous
  material disposal contractor. The total effluent
  quantity generated each time the primary mirror
  is stripped and cleaned is expected to be less
  than 1000 gallons. The solid waste material from
  the process, approximately three 5-gallon pails
  of chemical soaked Kimwipes, will also be
  disposed of by the licensed contractor. The
  disposal of all materials will comply with all
  applicable requirements of the EPA and the State
  of Hawaii Hazardous Waste Branch.
• Mirror Recoating
• Following stripping and cleaning, the optical
  surfaces of the mirrors will be recoated with a
  reflective material. This recoating is typically
  accomplished via evaporation or sputtering inside
  of a coating chamber. Only a very small quantity
  (less than 2 oz.) of coating material is used for
  even a large mirror such as the 4.2 m ATST
  primary. Materials to be used for coatings are as
  follows Aluminum - Baseline coating of 4.2 m
  (13-9) primary and 65 cm (26) secondary, to be
  stripped and recoated on site at HO.
• Silver
• Silicon nitride
• Nickel chromium
• Materials required for coating of smaller feed
  optics. Current project baseline is for these
  mirrors to be sent off site for stripping and
  recoating.
• Storage Handling The small quantities of very
  pure solid material that are required for
  recoating will be stored in a secure location.
  They present no hazards in handling and require
  no special containers. The coating process
  itself takes place within a sealed chamber and
  results in no hazardous waste or discharge to the
  environment.

80
Building Functional Design

• Functional Layout of coudé level revise or
  refine?
• Use mechanical space in SO building as shop?
• Use some Mees space for equipment?
• Additional instrument space or other use at
  mirror coating area?
• Additional mezzanine level north of platform
  lift?
• Elevator door on east side at any level other
  than Utility?
• Ground level access sufficient?
• Refine arrangement of double stairs lift in
  enclosure?
• Anticipated use of Utility level? Provide
  hatch to above?
• Worth some complication to keep main stair
  inside enclosure?
• Any minimal provision for visitors?
• Masterplan for any addition, or future
  build-out?

81
Meth Lab
Solar Physics Lab
82
Solar Instrument (IBIS)
83
Solar Physics Labs
84
Coudé Level Floor Plan (sht. 12)
85
Coudé Level Ceiling Plan (sht. 13)
86
Mezzanine Level Plan (sht. 11)
87
Ground Level Space Layout (sht. 7)
88
Comparative Sizes of Support Spaces
ATST Schematic Design
Gemini (north) 8m
InstrumentLab
plant room generator/elec.spaces
UtilityBuilding
ControlRoom
ControlRoom
Computer
InstrumentLab
special labs
B-65/66Lab
Mech. Equip. Rm.
Comp.
All spaces shown at the same scale
Control Rm.
B-60Mech.
InstrumentLab
Comp.
Mech.Equip.
ControlRoom
Mech. Utility Area
ControlRoom
Comp.
Tucson
Dunn Solar Telescope
SOAR 4.2m Telescope
89
Schedules (sht. 20)
90
Schedules (sht. 20)
91
Programmatics

• Schedule
• Cost
• Contracting Strategies
• Risks
• Future Work

92
Site Facility Schedule
93
Cost Estimate
Summary
Detail
94
Cost Estimate
Detail (cont)
95
Adjustment after Basis of Estimate Review

• Basic building cost factor increased from
  383/sq.ft. to 450/sq.ft. w/ contingency of
  20, 540/sq.ft. allowed for building
  construction
• 6-site estimating methodology finally
  terminated with no regrets!
• Cost increases from height increase
  incorporated
• Relatively minor adjustments (all upward) on
  handling facility equipment

Cost Estimate Comparisons

• Gemini North - 10,810K (in 95) / 21,050
  sq.ft. 499/sq.ft. - adjustments x 1.38
  for inflation to 2005, x .8 for M.K difficulty
  factor 552/sq.ft.
• Air Force (AEOS) - 526/sq.ft. in 98 x 1.3
  for inflation 683/sq.ft. - According to
  A.F. personnel high costs due to fast track
  construction and cumbersome Corps of
  Engineers management
• IfA Advanced Technology Research Center in
  Pukalani - Recently contracted 370/sq.ft.
  - Includes upward adjustment of 20 due to slow
  action on bid
• Air Force Coating Facility at Haleakala ???

96
Contracting Strategies

• Design-Bid-Build - Time-honored,
  well-established relationships - Design by
  A/E Competitive Bid Construction by General
  Contractor - Contract Administration
  responsibilities of A/E are adjustable -
  Firm cost commitment (by GC) happens after design
  is complete
• Design-Build - Becoming more common and
  well understood (A.F. MCF by this method) -
  Contract with General Contractor who hires A/E to
  design - Single-point responsibility GC
  has more value engineering opportunity -
  Can result in lowest-cost, pragmatic, not always
  optimal solutions - Firm cost commitment
  early for ATST probably based on Schematics
• Construction Manager-Constructor (CM at Risk)
  - New on the scene last 10 years or so.
  AURA and/or NSF may be leery - Hire A/E and
  CM (usually a big contractor) at beginning of
  design - Responsibilities are divided
  Construction expertise informs design -
  Firm cost commitment (Guaranteed Maximum Price)
  at an early stage - Making GMP hold-up, and
  insuring competitive pricing of large work
  packages can be tricky

97
Contracting Strategies
98
(No Transcript)
99
(No Transcript)
100
(No Transcript)
101
(No Transcript)
102
(No Transcript)
103
(No Transcript)
104
(No Transcript)
105
(No Transcript)
106
Risk Areas Mitigations

• Negative decision or prohibitively expensive
  mitigations result from the EIS process.
• Extremely competent EIS team contracted- Give
  them definitive and timely information about the
  nature of the project- Timely ATST, NSO, IfA,
  NSF presence for community interactions
• High construction cost necessitates major
  de-scope of support facilities.
• Continue to update estimate with the most
  applicable data available- Consider a
  contracting strategy that includes hard cost
  quotes early on
• Lack of coordination with Air Force results in
  redundant, inefficient or inadequate provision
  for mirror coating.
• Stay in touch with A.F., their contractors
  coating chamber vendor- Include flexibility in
  our plans to expand or contract capabilities
  appropriately
• Lack of information on specific utility and
  maintenance requirements for instruments results
  in inadequate provisions.
• Keep pushing instrument developing partners for
  specific requirements- Wherever possible
  affordable provide over capacity of space,
  utilities, etc.

107
Incorporate revisions from this reviewFreeze
design February 14, 2006 Highest priority is to
provide the EIS contracting team everything they
need Continue to refine interior technical
design of the building in keeping with enclosure,
telescope instrument development Initiate
foundationdesign contract Initiate contractfor
A/E services
Next 4 weeks Next 10 months During the Next
Year ASAP in about1 year
Future Work