Project Overview
This case study focuses on how I identified an access conflict in a wall-panel fabrication plan, evaluated alternatives and coordinated a revised approach across engineering and operations teams.
Capabilities Demonstrated
[1]
Identifying execution risks by checking design plans against access, delivery and sequencing constraints.
[2]
Evaluating technical alternatives against structural requirements, schedule constraints and downstream scope changes.
[3]
Managing design changes by tracing their effects across interfaces and coordinating revisions before handoff.
[4]
Assessing how fabrication changes affect load transfer, support locations and structural connections.
PROJECT CONTEXT
Project
The company I worked for was responsible for delivering a 148,000-square-foot manufacturing facility, and the project's current phase involved translating client requirements into a full scope proposal package for approval. Should the approval process be successful, the company's construction division would then take over to build the facility.
Personal Scope
I was tasked with decomposing a subset of the client requirements and coordinating across teams to ensure the completion of finalized structural and architectural plans for my scopes, as well as identifying and negotiating with relevant subcontractors. My scopes included thermal, HVAC and electrical and power distribution. The scope that this project entry focuses on is structural which included the facility’s wall panels.
PART I
Original Plan and Access Conflict
This section explains how I reviewed the inherited wall-panel plan and identified a conflict between onsite fabrication and the access needed for other project work.
1.1 The Original Plan
Upon my arrival at the company, I inherited a structural design for the project that was already in progress. This design included a preliminary specification for the facility’s wall panels that relied on onsite fabrication and erection where the panels would be cast horizontally on a prepared surface and lifted into position for installation.
In order to understand the problem that eventually arose I will focus specifically on the left face of the building.
For this face, the plan was for the panels to be cast on the access road shown in the position labelled as A in Figure 1.1 below. This meant that the road would be occupied during fabrication and therefore needed to be closed for general public access during this period.
Five affected wall panels
Flat casting position
Figure 1.1: Original Road-Casting Plan (A)
1.2 Identifying the Access Conflict
As I worked to finalize the structural plans with the engineering team and begin coordinating with relevant contractors on the wall panel buildout, I used my risk register to surface an issue with the inherited fabrication and installation plan, which can be seen below.
Figure 1.2: Risk Register
Upon researching best practices for this method of fabrication, I discovered that it was common to fabricate wall panels over a road and close it to public use, but it became apparent that the team had not considered a unique access conflict for this site.
Unlike similar projects, this one was scheduled for a winter buildout which meant site shipments needed to be front-loaded to ensure the necessary materials were onsite ahead of schedule. This was necessary so installation and erection scopes could be completed in parallel before adverse weather conditions would render the onsite equipment and teams inoperable.
Further, this road was also the only usable route for several priority shipments, which were scheduled to arrive during the planned road closure.
I documented the conflict in the risk register and used it to define two requirements for the revised plan:
Table 1.1: Revised Wall-Panel Plan Requirements
PART II
Developing the Revised Approach
This section explains how I evaluated alternative casting locations and fabrication methods, recommended precast and coordinated the affected interfaces before construction handoff.
2.1 Evaluating Casting Locations
I first assessed whether the panels could be cast elsewhere on site while retaining the planned fabrication method. Below, I have shown two alternate placements for the fabrication footprint.
Five affected wall panels
Flat casting position
Figure 2.1: Exterior Casting Alternative (B)
Option B (Figure 2.1) could be ruled out immediately because a neighboring facility occupied the space needed to fabricate the panels. I assumed that the team I had inherited the plans from had recognized this obvious conflict, which is why they had planned to cast the panels over the road.
Five affected wall panels
Flat casting position
Figure 2.2: Interior Casting Alternative (C)
Option C (Figure 2.2) was immediately appealing and represented a common method for this type of fabrication, where the panels are cast inside the building. However, it was ruled out because the aforementioned weather delays required the foundation and wall panels to be built at the same time. Inclement weather can disrupt concrete curing, so we could not wait for the foundation to be completed before casting the wall panels over it.
2.2 Comparing Fabrication Methods
With alternate casting locations ruled out, I evaluated fabrication methods that moved panel production off site. I compared offsite precast with insulated metal panels, considering site access, parallel progress and compatibility with the retained structure and enclosure. Delivery, lifting and coordination requirements would also inform my downstream recommendation.
I have included a decision matrix below to display the variables I was interested in while considering these alternatives:
Table 2.1: Wall Panel Alternatives Decision Matrix
I compared what the offsite alternatives would change across the rest of the project. Both precast and insulated metal panels would allow panel production to proceed alongside site work. The distinction was that the five original panels also supported structural loads, so the replacement needed to preserve that function or transfer it to another system.
Insulated metal panels offered lighter handling and potential cost advantages. However, using them here would require separate loadbearing framing, adding design, procurement and erection work before the wall assembly could be completed. I considered that broader scope alongside the potential savings and the need to keep the other structural work moving.
Precast could retain the concrete loadbearing wall approach while moving casting and curing off site. It still required revised connection details, factory production timing and heavy-panel transport. Delivery and crane access also needed planning, but those activities could be scheduled around other shipments instead of occupying the road throughout fabrication.
I recommended offsite precast fabrication for the five affected panels while retaining onsite tilt-up elsewhere. This addressed the access conflict, allowed panel production to progress alongside foundation work and steel staging and kept the change focused on the affected wall section. The deciding factor was preserving the wall’s structural function without introducing a separate loadbearing frame.
2.3 Coordinating the Interface Changes
Changing the five panels to offsite precast also required updates to their interfaces with the retained steel and adjacent tilt-up panels. I coordinated the revised loads, support locations and attachment details with engineering, then traced the changes through the connected design and installation requirements.
I have included the reference example in Figure 2.3 to illustrate what I was thinking through during those revisions. It shows the kinds of interfaces I needed to examine and how a change to one component could require updates elsewhere in the package.
Figure 2.3: Panel-to-Steel Interface Example
Figure 2.3 shows an example of a precast panel-to-steel interface. It uses cast-in inserts and slotted brackets on the panel side, whereas a common tilt-up detail uses a steel attachment welded to an embedded plate. That changes the connection details that must align across the panel and steel packages: insert spacing, bracket geometry, bolt locations and clearance for movement. A precast detail therefore could not simply be substituted without checking it against the retained steel.
For my revisions, I needed to identify those differences from the inherited plan and communicate the affected interfaces for engineering review. That meant coordinating the attachment details, load transfer and installation access across both scopes before handoff.
2.4 Outcome
I carried the precast recommendation through the affected interface updates and into the package for construction handoff. The revised approach retained onsite tilt-up for the rest of the facility while moving fabrication of the five affected panels off site.
This removed the need to reserve the access road or interior work area for casting, allowing panel production to be planned alongside foundation work and steel staging. Identifying the conflict during planning gave the team an executable approach before construction began.
Anderson Todd
Engineering Portfolio